Easter approaches.  On that day our church grounds might be overrun with youngsters scampering to gather eggs into the varied baskets, baggage, and different containers they create (or we give them in the event that they want).  They don’t have to fret about what sort of container they use to gather their eggs.  The sweet will style simply as candy.

You’ll be able to consider enterprise entities as being like Easter baskets.  They’re containers taxpayers use to gather their revenue.  However in contrast to the blissful youngsters, taxpayers should take care of their alternative of container.  That alternative can have an effect on the quantity of revenue collected.  And it will probably go away a bitter style when the basket chosen shouldn’t be the right type.  In in the present day’s Lesson, we find out how a taxpayer’s alternative of enterprise containers impacts their capacity to take deductions, and even impacts their capacity to litigate in Tax Court docket.

In Biggest Widespread Issue v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2023-39 (Mar. 23, 2023) (Decide Kerrigan), the person taxpayer selected to gather revenue by means of a C company and that alternative affected the deductibility of the person’s dwelling workplace bills.  In Techtron Holding, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2023-29 (Mar. 9, 2023) (Decide Vasquez), the person taxpayers collected revenue by means of ever-changing, a number of baskets of varied sorts of enterprise entities.  When the IRS audited and located deficiencies in one of many entities, the Tax Court docket determined it had no jurisdiction over that entity’s petition as a result of the entity not existed on the time the petition was filed.  Particulars under the fold.

We often consider dwelling workplace deductions as one thing particular person taxpayers take and that these deductions are ruled by the foundations in Evil §280A, together with the requirement that the house within the dwelling be “solely used regularly—(A) because the principal administrative center for any commerce or enterprise of the taxpayer….”  That’s as a result of the whole thrust of §280A—just like surrounding statutes—is to handle conditions of combined private and enterprise use.  Part 280A regulates conditions the place private use of a residence is combined with enterprise use.  It applies when particular person taxpayers select to gather their revenue as sole proprietorships or by means of S Corps.

Right here, nonetheless, Mr. Fyfe selected to run his enterprise by means of a C corp.  As Decide Kerrigan explains, a C company shouldn’t be restricted by §280A.  The company taxpayer may take a deduction if it rented out house in Mr. Fyfe’s dwelling and the rental funds match the §162 necessities of being peculiar and mandatory for the carrying on of the C corp.’s commerce or enterprise.  The taxpayer must be cautious, nonetheless, to determine the rental.

Mr. Fyfe was not cautious.  He didn’t totally take into account the results of his alternative of a C corp. basket to gather revenue. As Decide Kerrigan notes: “there isn’t any proof within the document indicating that there was any such rental settlement. Additional, there isn’t any proof that petitioner expended any of its fund in sustaining the alleged dwelling workplace.”  Op. at 3 (emphasis added).

There have been comparable issues with different facets of this case.  For instance, Biggest Widespread Issue tried to take depreciation deduction for 3 automobiles, however couldn’t show possession of the automobiles.  They have been seemingly owned by Mr. Fyfe and never the C corp. which is why Decide Kerrigan finds that “Petitioner didn’t present supporting paperwork to indicate the acquisition costs of the automobiles and paperwork supporting its possession of the automobiles.” Op. at 5. (emphasis added).

I’m certain many people have had purchasers like Mr. Fyfe, purchasers who don’t totally perceive the significance of the basket use to gather revenue, complicated themselves with the entity they’ve created.  However not all baskets are equal.  Which basket a taxpayer makes use of impacts the taxpayer’s taxable revenue.

Details and Lesson in Techtron Holdings: IRS Can Situation NOD to Useless Company However It Can not File A Tax Court docket Petition
The tax yr at concern right here is 2000.  Wowsa!  That’s outdated!  You will notice why shortly.  The taxpayer was a C company, Techtron Holdings, Inc (THI).  The underlying people have been Alvin Trenk and his son Steven Trenk who have been majority shareholders and principal officers (CEO and President).  That they had created a number of company baskets to gather revenue from numerous actions.  Amongst their entities have been Diatronics, Inc., Thermatech, In., Physicians Healthcare of American, Inc., Pizza Piazza, Inc., and Pizza Piazza of NY, Inc. Op. at 2, not 2.

THI well timed filed a consolidated return for 2000, naming itself because the mum or dad company for the “Techtron Holding, Inc. and Subsidiaries (FKA Techron, Inc.)” consolidated group, and itemizing all these entities as a part of the consolidated group.  Baskets inside baskets.

Shortly after THI filed its 2000 return, the Trenks engaged in a bunch of restructuring, creating new baskets and dropping out outdated ones.  Decide Vasquez explains it intimately.  The top outcome was that THI merged into an organization referred to as Techtron which then merged into an organization referred to as Gold Crown Insurance coverage, Ltd., a British Virgin Islands company.  When the merger was full in December 2001, it was Gold Grown that was left standing.  THI had ceased to exist.

The IRS chosen the 2000 THI return for examination in 2004.  In 2015 the Examination division proposed deficiencies and a fraud penalty.  A part of the explanation it took so lengthy was apparently six years of litigation over a summons issued to Steven.  The IRS wished information that Steven thought have been protected by attorney-client privilege.  The IRS invoked the crime/fraud exception and the District Court docket agreed.  Trenk appealed and in U.S. v. Trenk, 385 F. App’x 254 (3d Cir. 2010), the Circuit remanded the case to permit Trenk a listening to on crime/fraud exception.  However in 2011 Trenk waived the listening to.

So in 2015 THI went to Workplace of Appeals.  Finally, in 2017, Appeals issued  an NOD.  It asserted each a deficiency and a fraud penalty.  The IRS ultimately dropped the fraud penalty.

The 2017 NOD was addressed each to THI and to Gold Crown, on the identical tackle.  However solely THI’s EIN was listed, and the accompanying Type 5278 (“Assertion—Revenue Tax Modifications”) and Type 886-A (“Clarification of Gadgets”) had solely THI’s identify and EIN.

THI well timed petitioned the Tax Court docket.  Finally, each the Court docket and the events realized they wanted to handle the impact of THI’s lifeless company standing.  Each THI and the federal government argued that the Tax Court docket lacked jurisdiction to redetermine the deficiency proposed within the NOD.  As is common in Tax Court docket nonetheless, both sides’s jurisdictional arguments would have drastically completely different penalties.

THI argued that as a result of it was a lifeless company in 2017, the NOD was invalid.  If that was proper, then there can be no proposed deficiency for the Tax Court docket to redetermine and, therefore, no legal responsibility to be assessed.  The impact of dismissal can be to nullify the NOD, forcing the IRS to start out over, assuming the evaluation statute of limitations permitted it to take action.

Decide Vasquez rejects THI’s argument.  He factors out that §6212(b)(1) explicitly says that an NOD correctly mailed to the taxpayer’s final identified tackle “shall be ample for functions of…this chapter even when such taxpayer is deceased, or is below a authorized incapacity, or, within the case of an organization, has terminated its existence.”  So, sure indeedy, the IRS can concern an NOD to a lifeless particular person or a lifeless company….so long as it sends the NOD to the final identified tackle.

Part 6212(b)(1), nonetheless, additionally permits one other particular person to let the IRS know that it’s the fiduciary of the taxpayer the IRS needs to proceed towards.  If that fiduciary provides discover below §6903, then the IRS must concern the NOD to the fiduciary for the NOD to be legitimate.

THI tried to argue that the successor company, Gold Crown, was its fiduciary.  So the NOD was invalid as a result of it was not despatched to Gold Crown however solely to THI.  In rejecting that argument Decide Vasquez assumes that the NOD was solely despatched to THI.  However he nonetheless rejects that argument, mentioning the distinction between a successor in curiosity and a fiduciary.  Since Gold Crown was the previous and never the latter, no separate NOD was required.  Reasonably, getting into THI’s footwear, Gold Crown was the one that ought to have filed the petition in 2017:  “Petitioner acknowledges that Gold Crown is the successor in curiosity to petitioner and is accountable for the potential tax liabilities at concern on this case below Delaware legislation. A petition filed by a surviving company for redetermination of a deficiency decided towards a merged company is inside our jurisdiction the place the surviving company is primarily chargeable for the money owed of the merged company below relevant state legislation. [citations omitted] Neither celebration disputes that Gold Crown may have petitioned this Court docket in lieu of petitioner.”  Op. at 11, not 12.

So the NOD was legitimate.  Now it was the IRS’s flip.

The IRS argued that as a result of THI was a lifeless company in 2017, it had no capability to litigate in Tax Court docket.  A lifeless company can’t file a sound petition.  If that was true, then the impact of dismissal can be to nullify the petition, permitting the IRS to evaluate the proposed deficiency.

Decide Vasquez accepts the IRS argument.  Typically, an organization will need to have had the capability to have interaction in litigation on the time it information its petition.  See e.g. Timbron Holdings Company v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2019-31 (company not allowed to ratify petition when it didn’t have capability at time of submitting even when it later regained capability below state legislation). For extra particulars, see Lesson From The Tax Court docket: Firms In The Bardo, TaxProf Weblog (Jan. 30, 2023).

THI argued that the Court docket ought to deal with the petition as having been certainly filed by Gold Crown due to a string of circumstances the place the Tax Court docket has permitted such substitution pursuant to Tax Court docket Rule 60(a), to right an error as to the right celebration.

Decide Vasquez explains that yeah, substitution can occur, however solely when the Court docket is satisfied that the celebration in search of substitution has proven that it supposed to file the petition equivalent to, for instance, by ratifying the petition incorrectly filed.  Right here, he factors out, Gold Crown was doing the alternative.  It was refusing to both file an amended petition or ratify the petition filed.  Why?  Effectively, as finest I can inform, Gold Crown thought that by doing so it might lose its capacity to argue the invalidity of the NOD.  It provided to ratify the petition if Decide Vasquez rejected its argument concerning the NOD’s invalidity.  If I received that proper, I do not perceive it.  That’s, I do not see why Gold Crown couldn’t have filed a petition and argued that the NOD was invalid.  Taxpayer try this on a regular basis.  I welcome feedback on that.

Lastly, THI argued that Tax Court docket Rule 63 ought to allow Gold Crown to now be substituted as the right celebration for THI.  Decide Vasquez rejects that concept as effectively, writing that Rule 63  substitutions apply solely “the place a case has been correctly filed on this Court docket by a correct celebration petitioner and a change happens such because the demise of the petitioner.” Op. at 12-13.

Backside Line: The people right here have been utilizing the company THI basket to gather their revenue in 2000.  In doing their fancy basket-shuffling in 2001 they weren’t cautious to ensure that the entity submitting the Tax Court docket petition in 2017 had the right capability to file.  They used a basket they’d discarded. 

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

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2023/04/lesson-from-the-tax-court-attend-carefully-to-your-entity-baskets.html