Final week’s Lesson appeared on the inherent unreliability of third-party data returns.  Taxpayers must hold good information to refute these errors.  This week’s Lesson continues that theme: retaining good information will help keep away from a financial institution deposits evaluation.  When the IRS is pressured to reconstruct earnings utilizing the financial institution deposits technique, it places taxpayers within the onerous place of getting to show why each financial institution deposit ought to not be counted as gross earnings for that 12 months.

A pair of opinions issued by Decide Buch on the identical day offers us a lesson on the sad penalties to taxpayers when their poor record-keeping leads the IRS to make use of a financial institution deposits technique to reconstruct earnings.  In each Kevin B. Cheam and Julie Lim v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2023-23 (Feb. 27, 2023), and Lundy Nath and Tanya Nath, T.C. Memo. 2023-22 (Feb. 27, 2023), the taxpayers’ failure to maintain enough books and information pressured the IRS to conduct a financial institution deposits evaluation, thus placing the burden on the taxpayers to indicate which financial institution deposits represented one thing aside from gross earnings.  In neither case might the taxpayers present the Court docket nontaxable sources of earnings for the deposits the IRS asserted have been unreported earnings.  And their record-keeping failures additionally harm them within the traditional manner on the deduction aspect as properly.  Particulars under the fold.

Background:  What Triggers an IRS Financial institution Deposits Analyais
Part 61 gives—considerably circuitously—that gross earnings consists of all earnings from no matter supply derived.  When the IRS is inquiring about earnings objects—particularly earnings from Schedule C companies akin to grocery shops and building firms—the IRS will typically need to study the taxpayer’s enterprise information to assessment earnings objects.

However it’s as much as the taxpayer to really have enterprise information.  As Treas. Reg. 1.6001-1(a) places it:  taxpayers should “hold such everlasting books of account or information, together with inventories, as are ample to ascertain the quantity of gross earnings, deductions, credit, or different issues required to be proven by such particular person in any return of such tax or data.”

Extra importantly, as a sensible matter, Income Brokers (RA’s) and different IRS workers are directed to start out their examination of earnings objects by wanting on the taxpayer’s personal information, as a part of a sequence of what the IRM calls “minimal earnings probes.”  See IRM 4.10.4.3.3.  Certain, a part of these minimal earnings probes includes taking a look at financial institution information, however solely to reconcile these with the taxpayers personal enterprise information.  IRM 4.10.4.3.7.  Put one other manner, the RA will first try to search out direct proof of earnings and expenditures utilizing the taxpayer’s information as the essential supply of data.

However some taxpayers haven’t any information that straight observe earnings and bills, or have actually awful information that virtually scream “don’t belief us!”  In these conditions, RA’s are approved to carry out what are known as oblique strategies to find out unreported earnings. IRM 4.10.4.6.2.1.  The RA can select from various oblique strategies, listed in IRM 4.10.6.  A kind of oblique strategies is the financial institution deposits technique.  The IRM says RAs can use a financial institution deposits technique when, amongst different issues, “the taxpayer’s books and information are unreliable, unavailable, withheld, or incomplete,” and “the taxpayer makes periodic deposits of funds into checking account(s) which look like generated from an income-producing exercise.”  IRM 4.10.4.6.4.2.

The Tax Court docket has lengthy held that financial institution deposits analyses could be a official instrument to establish unreported earnings.  Decide Buch cites to Clayton v. Commissioner, 102 T.C 632 (1994).  Be aware, nonetheless, when the taxpayer does have enough information, information that have been used to arrange their tax returns the Tax Court docket shouldn’t be fairly so prepared to simply accept a financial institution deposits evaluation.  See e.g. Westby v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-179 (2004) (rejecting “simplistic financial institution deposits analyses” in gentle of contemporaneous handwritten ledgers and financial institution statements taxpayer supplied to her return preparer to arrange return).

So ya gotta have one thing to rebut a financial institution deposits evaluation.  Let’s check out two units of taxpayers who, considerably surprisingly, failed to trace thousands and thousands of {dollars} of deposits.

Info and Classes From Cheam
Within the Cheam/Lim case the years at concern have been 2013-2016.  The taxpayers operated Lions Grocery store in Stockton California.  They well timed filed returns for these years.  Importantly, the return for 2016 was ready by a unique return preparer than the returns for 2013-2015.  Annually they reported a complete tax due, primarily based on the next data within the returns (rounded):

You’d suppose that taxpayers who function a grocery retailer with that quantity of gross receipts would have good information!  You’d suppose incorrect.  When the IRS audited, the taxpayers “failed to offer books and information ample to substantiate their reported earnings and bills.  Due to that failure, the Commissioner computed their taxable earnings by a financial institution deposits evaluation.” Op. at 3.  The IRS ultimately issued three NODs: one for 2013, one for 2014-2015 and one for 2016.

The NODs dinged the taxpayers for some $2 million of unreported gross receipts annually.  Additionally, as a result of the taxpayers didn’t substantiate their bills, the NODs disallowed all prices of products offered and all Schedule C deductions.  Ouch.

The taxpayers well timed petitioned the Tax Court docket in response to every of the NODs, submitting petitions in 2017, 2018 and 2020.  Of their petitions the taxpayers claimed that the IRS didn’t give them sufficient time to assemble the related information they usually asserted they really had supporting information.  Nonetheless, as Decide Buch notes: “Though greater than 5 years lapsed between the submitting of Mr. Cheam and Ms. Lim’s first Petition and the trial of those instances, they supplied little…documentary assist for his or her positions.” Op. at 4.

That meant the financial institution deposits have been prima facie proof of earnings.  Throughout the course of the Tax Court docket proceedings the taxpayers have been capable of persuade the IRS to cut back annually’s unreported earnings quantity by about half, leaving them with solely about $1 million in unreported earnings.  However notice that is gross receipts.  And the IRS had not permitted any accounting for value of products offered.  In entrance of Decide Buch, they have been capable of do some higher as a result of they put up one witness, their 2016 return preparer, who confirmed his work in making ready the 2016 return together with his calculation of value of products offered for that 12 months.

It’s fairly well-known that grocery shops generally function on fairly skinny revenue margins.  They make their revenue by quantity of gross sales.  So to say that the taxpayers right here had zero value of products offered is wildly unrealistic.  That’s the place Decide Buch utilized the Cohan rule.  For the way that rule applies, see Lesson From The Tax Court docket: The Construction Of Substantiation Necessities, TaxProf Weblog (June 1, 2021).  Right here, Decide Buch relied on the testimony and work of the 2016 return preparer.  He determined the return preparer’s spreadsheet was dependable total, although “it comprises apparent errors.”  Op. at 6.  After fixing these, and accounting for the unreported earnings the taxpayers have been unable to refute, the spreadsheet confirmed a 31.4% value of fine offered for 2016, Decide Buch allowed that proportion for the opposite years as properly, thus additional decreasing the quantity of unreported earnings.

On the deduction aspect, the IRS denied virtually all deductions.  However the IRS can do this.  If the taxpayer fails to substantiate claimed deductions, the IRS could make a blanket disallowance of all deductions.  That simply leaves the burden the place it began: on the taxpayer to show which deductions must be allowed.  See e.g. Roberts v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 834, 836 (1974)(“Whereas the petitioner might need been entitled to some or all the deductions claimed by him, he refused to furnish the Commissioner with any information or different proof to show his proper to any of such deductions. Due to such refusal on his half, the petitioner is in no place to problem the reasonableness of the Commissioner’s dedication, nor complain of the procedural or evidentiary penalties ensuing therefrom.”).

Right here, “past the quantities the Commissioner conceded for Schedule C … Mr. Cheam and Ms. Lim failed to ascertain their bills.”  Op at 8.  Yep, that’s the traditional manner dangerous record-keeping will chew you.

Info and Lesson in Nath
Like Mr. Cheam and Ms. Lim, Mr. and Ms. Nath well timed filed returns for the years at concern (2014 and 2016) and on every return reported tax due, mainly from Mr. Nath’s Schedule C enterprise earnings.  He characterised is enterprise as “consulting.”

And Like Mr. Cheam and Ms. Lim, “the Naths failed to supply books and information from which to find out their earnings and bills, so the Commissioner computed their earnings utilizing a financial institution deposits evaluation. By means of the financial institution deposits evaluation, the Commissioner uncovered unreported deposits, most of which have been wire transfers from Cambodia.” Op. at 2.  The financial institution deposits evaluation confirmed two notably massive deposits in annually that weren’t mirrored on their returns as earnings: a $1.5 million wire switch from a Cambodian financial institution  in 2014 and a $450,000 wire switch from a Cambodian financial institution in 2016.

The IRS issued NODs for each years and the Nath’s petitioned Tax Court docket in 2018 and 2019.  The instances have been consolidated and, “after repeated continuances,” Op. at 3, Decide Buch tried the instances in October 2022.

The one rationalization that the taxpayers gave for why the $1.5 million deposit in 2014 was not earnings was that the switch represented disbursement of a mortgage from the Cambodian building firm Mr. Nath owned along side his dad again Cambodia.  Or possibly it represented advances of future wage.  Or possibly it was a little bit of each.  The issue was that Mr. Nath had no information.  Nicely, he DID produce two funky paperwork that presupposed to be loans (one in 2014 and one in 2016).  Each was signed by each himself as borrower and himself as lender (on behalf of the corporate he owned together with his dad). Op. at 6. Decide Buch gently characterised these information as “unreliable.”  Not solely was Mr. Nath on each side of the transaction, but additionally Decide Buch notes that the paperwork didn’t “point out when Mr. Nath executed them.”

Mr. Nath’s testimony was no extra dependable than the mortgage paperwork.  For instance, he testified that he made month-to-month repayments of those “loans.”  However that contradicted the purported mortgage doc provisions which supplied for a single reimbursement on December 31, 2024.  Additional, Mr. Nath “didn’t present any paperwork evidencing these [re]funds.” Op. at 4.

Backside Line: We have a tendency to consider record-keeping as essential for substantiating claimed deductions.  As we speak’s lesson reminds us of why record-keeping can be essential for establishing the right quantity of earnings.  In each instances the taxpayer’s information right here was so poor that it triggered an IRS financial institution deposits evaluation, on account of which the taxpayers have been pressured to clarify away some very massive deposits.  They might not do this.  Perhaps not all of the deposits actually represented earnings, however that is the presumption in a financial institution deposits evaluation and taxpayers with out information are in no place to beat that presumption.

Bryan Camp is the George H. Mahon Professor of Legislation at Texas Tech College College of Legislation. He invitations readers to return every Monday (or Tuesday if Monday is a federal vacation) for one more Lesson From The Tax Court docket.

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2023/03/lesson-from-the-tax-court-another-reason-to-keep-good-records.html