Decisions – Self Steeling

Thanks for sharing!
Image source: wpclipart.com

Image source: wpclipart.com

Steel yourself for a bit of truth: The internal revenue code occasionally uses phrases that are not defined anywhere in the code itself. For example, under the Self-Employment Contributions Act of 1954 (SECA), as the owner of an unincorporated business, you’re required to pay social security and Medicare taxes. These taxes are assessed on your “net earnings from self-employment.” That phrase is defined in code section 1402 as “the gross income derived by an individual from any trade or business carried on by such individual, less the deductions allowed by this subtitle which are attributable to such trade or business…”

If you’re now wondering about the definition of “trade or business,” that term, according to the tax court, is used in at least 800 subsections of the internal revenue code, but is never defined.

In T.C. Memo. 2016-56 (Ryther), the court turned to an eight-part test to help make the determination of whether a taxpayer’s income was a trade or business for purposes of assessing self-employment tax.

The taxpayer was the owner of a steel fabrication business that was liquidated in bankruptcy in 2004. From 1997 to 2004, the business had generated a quantity of scrap steel left over from the fabrication of steel beams. The scrap pieces, some of which were 40 feet long and weighed hundreds of pounds, were abandoned by the bankruptcy trustee and taken over by the taxpayer.

From 2004 through 2010, the taxpayer sold scrap steel once or twice a month, to at least five different scrap wholesalers, in sales that totaled over $317,000. In 2012, the taxpayer filed tax returns for those seven years and reported the sales as miscellaneous income.

In 2013, the IRS determined that the sales were attributable to a trade or business and subject to self-employment taxes.

The taxpayer disagreed.

Here are the eight factors the court considered in reaching a decision.

1. Frequency and regularity of sales.

The taxpayer didn’t do anything to create the scrap. His efforts were limited solely to liquidating it. Despite relative ease in finding customers and the little to no effort required to make the scrap salable, his sales were sporadic. He sold scrap at most on 24 days a year, and only once per day.

2. Substantiality of sales.

His sales totaled over $300,000 over seven years. This amount was substantial to the taxpayer and comprised 100% of his net income.

3. Length of time the property was held.

The taxpayer sold the scrap over the course of seven years. The scrap required no maintenance and next to no marketing: Scrap has a published market price, and the taxpayer easily sold it, and could have sold it the day he got it.

4.Segregation of property from business property.

The taxpayer had a single big pile of scrap, not collections of business scrap and personal scrap that he commingled.

5. Purpose of acquisition.

The parties stipulated that the taxpayer’s company abandoned the scrap, that the taxpayer researched scrap wholesalers, and that he starting selling the scrap in 2004. Perhaps he decided to take possession of the scrap only after he learned there was a market for it, which would indicate that he acquired it for resale. Or perhaps he immediately took possession of it, and figured that maybe someday it could be useful, which would indicate that he intended to hold on to it. There aren’t enough facts to determine when and why the taxpayer acquired the scrap.

6. Sales and advertising effort.

The taxpayer spent nothing to sell the scrap, and didn’t advertise the metal or do anything else to make it more salable. The market for scrap has established prices, and one can sell by simply picking up the phone and arranging delivery. No other advertising would be ordinary.

7. Time and effort spent on sales.

The taxpayer was active in selling the scrap. He researched scrap wholesalers and contacted them to arrange sales. The amount of time he spent on these activities is unclear. It doesn’t appear that buyers came to the taxpayer in the way customers come to a store to browse.

8. How the proceeds of the sales were used.

The taxpayer didn’t use the proceeds to buy more scrap. He slowly liquidated the large pile of scrap to pay everyday expenses.

WHAT WOULD YOU DECIDE?

Make your selection, then hover your mouse
over the link beneath “The Court’s Decision”

For the or for the

THE COURT’S DECISION

For a full explanation, hover your mouse over the link

***

Note: Taxing Lessons provides a summarized version of sometimes lengthy court decisions. The full case may include facts and issues not presented here. Please use the link provided in the post to read the entire case.

This information should not be considered legal, investment or tax advice. Taxing Lessons and Top Drawer Ink Corp. do not provide legal, investment or tax advice. Always consult your legal, investment and/or tax advisor regarding your personal situation.

***

Other posts you might enjoy

Decisions — Canine silence Image source: wpclipart.com   In the Arthur Conan Doyle short story, Silver Blaze, fictional detective Sherlock Holmes solved the case by inferring intent from silence—the significance of a dog who didn't bark. In a tax court case this week (149 T.C. No. 2, Gregory), internal revenue ...
Decisions — Fireproofing the pension Image source: openclipart.org   Are a firefighter's benefits a taxable pension or workers compensation? Generally, amounts received under workmen's compensation acts aren't included in income (internal revenue code section 104(a)(1)). However, under income tax regulation 1.104-1(b), t...
Decisions — Eat, drink, deduct Image source: Theodoor Rombouts , via Wikimedia Commons  Even if you don't eat like a hockey player, you may be interested in the tax court's take on the rules limiting deductions for meals. Under current tax law, meal and entertainment expenses are not deductible unless the expenses are...
Decisions — Like father, like son Image source: wpclipart.com   According to the old proverb, children tend to have traits similar to their parents, and tend to do what their parents have done. Does that hold true for tax purposes? In a recent bench opinion (Tagal), the taxpayer held the same position as his father ha...
Right answer!
Sorry, wrong answer :(

For the Taxpayer.

1. Frequency and regularity of sales. We find this factor favors the taxpayer. That he decided to sell the scrap slowly over time instead of in one lump doesn’t make the sales a business.

2. Substantiality of sales. Because the taxpayer’s sales were “sporadic” and generated large profits with little effort, we find that although the sales were substantial, this factor doesn’t favor the IRS. It’s neutral.

3. Length of time the property was held. In this market, one would expect a short holding period if the taxpayer was holding it primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. On the facts of this case, a holding period of seven years persuades us that the taxpayer wasn’t holding his scrap for sale in the ordinary course of business.

4.Segregation of property from business property. This factor is neutral.

5. Purpose of acquisition. This factor is neutral. There simply aren’t enough facts to determine when and why the taxpayer acquired the scrap.

6. Sales and advertising effort. We find that this factor also neither favors nor disfavors the taxpayer.

7. Time and effort spent on sales. We find this factor to be neutral.

8. How the proceeds of the sales were used. This factor greatly favors the taxpayer.

Decision: We find that the scrap wasn’t property primarily held for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business because the sales weren’t part of a trade or business. We therefore also find that the income the taxpayer realized from selling the scrap isn’t net earnings from self-employment under section 1402(a)(3)(C). As this is the only income in question, we conclude the taxpayer isn’t liable for self-employment tax.

Posted in Taxing Lessons From Court Decisions Tagged with: , , , ,