IRS E-Services Outage Postponed…Again

August 16th, 2017

Back in June the IRS was going to do a major update of their E-Services (what tax professionals, software developers, and return transmitters use to access IRS computer systems). That update was postponed. Last month the IRS announced that the update would happen beginning tomorrow (August 17th). This morning, the IRS postponed it again; no new date was announced. The notice is reproduced below.

The IRS today announced that a planned outage of all e-Services tools and applications has been postponed. The extended delay will allow for some additional improvements to take place in the final product.

When a new date is set, we will issue a follow up Quick Alert. Until further notice, all e-Services tools and applications are available to registered users, except for AIR users. The Affordable Care Act Information Return (AIR) participants will be unable to submit new or change existing Transmitter Control Code applications until this platform upgrade takes place.

The planned outage, when it occurs, will allow for the e-Services suite of tools to be transferred to a new digital platform. The new platform will conclude a years-long effort to upgrade the technology for e-Services tools.

Did I Prepare 5% of the Tax Returns with Bitcoin in 2015?

August 13th, 2017

The IRS is attempting to force Coinbase to disgorge a list of its customers who have traded Bitcoins. Back in March, an IRS agent, as part of attempting to enforce its summons against Coinbase, stated that there were only 802 individuals who reported Bitcoin transactions on Form 8949. The IRS searched and that’s what they supposedly found after looking at over 120 million returns filed for 2015.

My records show that I filed 40 returns in 2015 with Bitcoin transactions. According to the IRS that means I prepared 5% of all returns with Bitcoin transactions on them for tax year 2015!

Let’s be honest: There were more than 802 individuals who had Bitcoin transactions in 2015. This is why I expect (in the long run) the IRS’s summons against Coinbase will be successful.

This also may say something about tax professionals (and not a good thing). Now, it is true that my clientele happens to be more likely to skew towards individuals owning cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. Still, am I one of the few tax professionals to ask clients about cryptocurrency transactions?

It’s actually far more likely that most tax professionals have a Sergeant Schultz moment with Bitcoins: Since there’s no paperwork, there’s nothing to report. That’s not how it works: Income is taxable (or not) regardless of whether or not you receive paperwork. For example, if you do consulting work for someone and get paid $800 but you don’t receive a Form 1099-MISC noting the income, you must report that $800. Individuals who self-prepare returns likely have the same issue: No paperwork, no reporting.

Cryptocurrency is fertile ground for the IRS, and sooner or later the IRS is going to get this information and conduct audits on it. If you are trading Bitcoins or other cryptocurrencies, you need to report them on your tax return. And if you’re a tax professional, you need to ask clients about this.

Vacation

July 30th, 2017

It’s time for my annual vacation. If something earth-shattering in the tax world happens while I’m relaxing, I’ll take time out to post on it. Otherwise, enjoy the fine bloggers listed in the blogroll on the right.

I’ll be back on Tuesday, August 8th.

Here’s a Step-by-Step Manual of How to Go to Prison for Taxes

July 30th, 2017

Do note that I absolutely, positively, do not recommend you follow the procedures done below. But if you want to go to ClubFed for a tax crime, it’s a superb illustration.

You start a home health care business. (The business could be in anything, but I’ll use the actual example.) Your business grows and you hire employees. You correctly withhold employment taxes from your employees. So far, all is well.

You then keep the employment taxes you withhold rather than remitting them to the IRS. You do this not for one month, nor two, but for years. As I’ve said before and will doubtless say again, this scheme has as close to a zero percent chance of success. The problem is that sooner or later an employee will note the withholding on his tax returns, and the IRS will investigate why they don’t have the money. In any case, that was only the first thing done wrong.

Next, after the IRS starts snooping around you can change the business’s name and have nominees start running the business. That will deter the IRS, right? A helpful hint: This won’t deter the IRS. That was the second error.

Meanwhile, let’s not admit that the business is making money, and not report the income on your personal tax return. That will show the IRS! It will, in one sense: It will help cement an indictment for tax evasion. After all, three strikes and you’re out.

This is what was done by Dinorah Stoll-Weaver of St. Joseph, Missouri. She pleaded guilty to failing to pay over employee payroll taxes to the IRS. Given that the criminal tax loss from this scheme (it ran twelve years) is $1,459,727, a trip to ClubFed is likely in her future.

The 2017 Real Winners at the World Series of Poker (London Calling, Again)

July 23rd, 2017

The main event of the World Series of Poker has completed: 7,221 ponied up $10,000 to enter. The final nine players began competing on Thursday; last night the winner was crowned. How much of his winnings does he get to keep? And why are four of the nine very, very happy that their court system considers poker to be a complete game of chance?

One note: I do need to point out that many of the players in the tournament were “backed.” Poker tournaments have a high variance (luck factor). Thus, many tournament players sell portions of their action to investors to lower their risk. It is quite likely that most (if not all) of the winners were backed and will, in the end, only enjoy a portion of their winnings. I ignore backing in this analysis. Now, on to the winners.

Congratulations to Scott Blumstein of Morristown, New Jersey for winning poker’s biggest prize of $8,150,000. Mr. Blumstein came into the final table with the overwhelming chip lead and never relinquished it. Mr. Blumstein ended a long head-up battle when a deuce was the last community card and his Ace-deuce beat his opponent’s Ace-eight. A professional gambler, he’ll lose 47.11% of his winnings to federal and New Jersey tax ($3,839,429). Even though he had the largest winnings, he does not face the top tax burden among the nine (his is the second highest).

Dan Ott of Altoona, Pennsylvania (near Pittsburgh) finished in second place. Mr. Ott started the final table in fifth place, and worked his way into second place and a prize (before taxes of) $4,700,000. His state tax burden is the lowest among Americans (Pennsylvania’s state income tax is a flat 3.07%), but as a professional gambler he must also pay Altoona’s Earned Income Tax of 1.60%. Overall, Mr. Ott will pay an estimated $2,099,806 in tax (44.68%) to obtain after-tax winnings of $2,600,194. Indeed, Mr. Ott almost falls to fourth place based on after-tax results.

Finishing third and winning $3,500,000 was Benjamin Pollak. Mr. Pollak, originally from Paris, France, moved to London. Why would a Frenchman move from beautiful Paris to London? In a word, taxes. As a European Union resident, he could move to any other E.U. country and fall under their tax system. The US-United Kingdom Tax Treaty exempts gambling winnings from withholding. Additionally, poker winnings are completely tax-free in the United Kingdom (a court case a few years ago cemented this for now), so Mr. Pollak gets to enjoy all of his $3,500,000 of winnings.

But let’s assume that Mr. Pollak had remained living in Paris. On the positive side, the US-France Tax Treaty exempts gambling winnings from withholding. On the negative side, France is anything but a low-tax country. I cannot be certain of the taxes for 2017; the actual tax rates are voted in towards year-end so I’ve used the 2016 tax rates for my analysis. However, I doubt 2017 rates will vary significantly from last year. At an income of €152,260, the marginal tax rate is 45% (the highest in France). There’s also a surtax of 3% at an income of €250,000 or more (and this rises to 4% at €500,000 or more). Mr. Pollak would owe about 48% of his winnings in tax. No wonder London was calling for him!

You may be wondering why American professional poker players don’t hop a 747 and move to London. First, Americans owe tax on their worldwide income, so an American residing in London would still owe tax on his World Series of Poker winnings. Second, while Europeans currently can relocate to the United Kingdom per the European Union, Americans cannot.

(One thing that is very unclear today is how long Frenchmen will be able to lower their tax by moving to England. With the passage of Brexit last year sometime in the near future the United Kingdom won’t be part of the European Union; the tax benefits of residing in the United Kingdom for French poker players will vanish. But I digress….)

The individual who had the most fun at the final table was clearly John Hesp of Bridlington, England. Mr. Hesp, a grandfather of seven and the oldest competitor (he’s 64), is decidedly not a professional poker player. Indeed, his prior tournament experience was playing in £10 (about $13) tournaments at his local casino in Hull; here, he was competing in a $10,000 (about £7,695) tournament! Mr. Hesp was clearly having the time of his life; the $2,600,000 he won will make this trip to Las Vegas a great memory. Even better, he gets to keep all the money.

Antonie Saout of Morlaix, France finished fifth and won $2,000,000 before taxes. Mr. Saout also lives in London (in fact, he shares an apartment with Mr. Pollak) so he, too, benefits from the United Kingdom’s great treatment of poker players. His after-tax winnings are his pre-tax winnings of $2,000,000. Had Mr. Saout remained a resident of France he would have owed about 48% of his winnings to the France Tax Agency. This was the second time Mr. Saout made the final table of the WSOP main event: He finished in third place in 2009.

Bryan Piccioli of San Diego ended up in sixth place and won $1,675,000 before taxes. Mr. Piccioli is a professional poker player and faces the highest percentage tax burden among the final nine: an estimated $489,328 to federal tax and $201,695 to California income tax (a total tax burden of $791,023, or 47.23%). Based on after-tax winnings, Mr. Piccioli finished in eighth place.

Damian Salas of Buenos Aires, Argentina finished seventh. Mr. Salas is a former attorney who is now a professional poker player. He earned $1,425,000 for his efforts. Argentinians love gambling and gambling winnings are not subject to income tax in Argentina. (Casinos in Argentina do pay significant taxes.) However, the United States and Argentina do not have a tax treaty; thus, Mr. Salas will lose 30% of his winnings to the Internal Revenue Service.

In eighth place was Jack Sinclair of London; he received $1,200,000 in winnings. Like the others residing in the United Kingdom he gets to keep all of his winnings. In one sense Mr. Sinclair was the biggest winner despite finishing eighth. Based on after-tax winnings of $1,200,000 Mr. Sinclair finished sixth. It’s always nice when your after-tax income is the same as your pre-tax income.

Ben Lamb, a professional poker player from here in Las Vegas, finished in ninth place. This was Mr. Lamb’s second time finishing in the top nine of the main event (he finished third in 2011). Mr. Lamb loses an estimated $408,483 (40.85%) to federal income tax. As a resident of the Silver State Mr. Lamb doesn’t have to worry about state income tax on his winnings.

Here’s a table summarizing the tax bite:

Amount won at Final Table $26,250,000
Tax to IRS $6,390,860
Tax to New Jersey Division of Taxation $754,196
Tax to Franchise Tax Board (California) $201,695
Tax To Pennsylvania Department of Revenue $144,290
Tax to Altoona Earned Income Tax $75,200
Total Tax $7,566,241

That’s a total tax bite of 28.82%. That’s fairly low for the main event because four of the winners face no taxation at all.

Here’s a second table with the winners sorted by their estimated take-home winnings:

Winner Before-Tax Prize After-Tax Prize
1. Scott Blumstein $8,150,000 $4,310,571
3. Benjamin Pollak $3,500,000 $3,500,000
2. Dan Ott $4,700,000 $2,600,194
4. John Hesp $2,600,000 $2,600,000
5. Antoine Saout $2,000,000 $2,000,000
8. Jack Sinclair $1,200,000 $1,200,000
7. Damian Salas $1,425,000 $997,500
6. Bryan Piccioli $1,675,000 $791,023
9. Ben Lamb $1,000,000 $597,517
Totals $26,250,000 $18,683,759

As noted previously, Bryan Piccioli finished in sixth place but based on after-tax winnings he ends up in eighth place. While taxes may be the price of civilization, the price in the United States is high.

This was an off-year for the IRS. The IRS’s total of $6,390,860 didn’t match the first place prize of $8,150,000. Still, it did exceed the first place winner’s after-tax prize of $4,310,571. That’s because we all know that the house (the IRS) always wins.

“I Ain’t Got It, So You Can’t Get It” Doesn’t Generally Apply to the IRS

July 15th, 2017

Ain’t never gave nothin to me
But everytime I turn around
Cats got they hands out wantin something from me
I ain’t go it so you can’t get it…

So goes part of the lyrics of “X Gon’ Give It To Ya” by DMX. The IRS and the Department of Justice allege that these lyrics by Earl Simmons (aka DMX) were taken literally by him. Mr. Simmons is accused of engaging in a multi-year scheme to conceal millions of dollars of income from the IRS to not pay $1.7 million in taxes.

Mr. Simmons is accused of not paying his income taxes from 2000 through 2005 of $1.7 Million. That’s his first problem. His second problem was apparently not filing his 2010 through 2015 tax returns. The Department of Justice is accusing him of earning $2.3 million during that period; it would be hard not to have some tax liability with that amount of income.

The third problem was what he supposedly did to avoid taxes. From the DOJ press release:

Instead, [SIMMONS] orchestrated a scheme to evade payment of his outstanding tax liabilities, largely by maintaining a cash lifestyle, avoiding the use of a personal bank account, and using the bank accounts of nominees, including his business managers, to pay personal expenses. For example, SIMMONS received hundreds of thousands of dollars of royalty income from his music recordings. SIMMONS caused that income to be deposited into the bank accounts of his managers, who then disbursed it to him in cash or used it to pay his personal expenses. SIMMONS also participated in the “Celebrity Couples Therapy” television show in 2011 and 2012 and was paid $125,000 for his participation. When taxes were withheld from the check for the first installment of that fee by the producer, SIMMONS refused to tape the remainder of the television show until the check was reissued without withholding taxes.

SIMMONS took other steps to conceal his income from the IRS and others, including by filing a false affidavit in U.S. Bankruptcy Court that listed his income as “unknown” for 2011 and 2012, and as $10,000 for 2013. In fact, SIMMONS received hundreds of thousands of dollars of income in each of those years.

Mr. Simmons faces 14 counts of tax evasion, obstructions, and failing to file tax returns. He faces a maximum of 44 years at ClubFed. He’s been released on bond of $500,000 pending his trial. I’ll point out something I have many times in the past: If you’re a celebrity, it pays to just pay your taxes.

The IRS Gives Good Suggestions on Handling an IRS Notice

July 15th, 2017

Earlier this week the IRS sent out “Tips on How to Handle an IRS Letter or Notice:”

Tips on How to Handle an IRS Letter or Notice

The IRS mails millions of letters every year to taxpayers for a variety of reasons. Keep the following suggestions in mind on how to best handle a letter or notice from the IRS:

1. Do not panic. Simply responding will take care of most IRS letters and notices.

2. Do not ignore the letter. Most IRS notices are about federal tax returns or tax accounts. Each notice deals with a specific issue and includes specific instructions on what to do. Read the letter carefully; some notices or letters require a response by a specific date.

3. Respond timely. A notice may likely be about changes to a taxpayer’s account, taxes owed or a payment request. Sometimes a notice may ask for more information about a specific issue or item on a tax return. A timely response could minimize additional interest and penalty charges.

4. If a notice indicates a changed or corrected tax return, review the information and compare it with your original return. If the taxpayer agrees, they should note the corrections on their copy of the tax return for their records. There is usually no need to reply to a notice unless specifically instructed to do so, or to make a payment.

5. Taxpayers must respond to a notice they do not agree with. They should mail a letter explaining why they disagree to the address on the contact stub at the bottom of the notice. Include information and documents for the IRS to consider and allow at least 30 days for a response.

6. There is no need to call the IRS or make an appointment at a taxpayer assistance center for most notices. If a call seems necessary, use the phone number in the upper right-hand corner of the notice. Be sure to have a copy of the related tax return and notice when calling.

7. Always keep copies of any notices received with tax records.

8. The IRS and its authorized private collection agency will send letters and notices by mail. The IRS will not demand payment a certain way, such as prepaid debit or credit card. Taxpayers have several payment options for taxes owed.

The IRS here gives good advice. Do not ignore IRS (or state) tax notices, and respond timely. One thing the IRS doesn’t mention is that if you need more time, you can ask for an extension in the deadline. And remember, the IRS will never demand you pay using any specific way.

If you use a tax professional, send him or her a coy of the notice (all pages of the notice). Do not wait until the deadline to send a copy of the notice to the tax professional. He or she can evaluate what you need to do (if anything) with the notice).

Helping the Las Vegas Economy Isn’t a Good Excuse for Not Paying Employment Taxes

July 9th, 2017

I’m a resident of Las Vegas, so things that help the local economy are generally good. Of course, I have a bias: A good Nevada economy will help keep taxes down. Richard Tatum, Jr. of Houston helped the Las Vegas economy so I suppose I should be thankful for him. The Internal Revenue Service and the US Department of Justice have a different view.

Mr. Tatum owned an industrial staffing business. It was a large business, with about a thousand individuals working for it both internally and at other businesses. Between March 2008 and the end of 2012 the business withheld $12 million in payroll taxes. And there were $6 million of social security and Medicare taxes (the employer’s share) during the same period. However, those funds didn’t make it to the IRS. The good news is that some if helped my local economy: “[Tatum] used the money for his personal benefit, including making payments on his ranch and traveling to Las Vegas, Hawaii and France. Tatum admitted that he caused a tax loss of more than $18 million.”

As I’ve said in the past many times, if you want to go to ClubFed one of the easiest ways is to withhold trust fund (employment) taxes and not remit them. Mr. Tatum will have three years at ClubFed to think things over after pleading guilty to one count of failing to pay over employment taxes; he’ll also have to make restitution of $18,298,604. As usual, it’s a lot easier to simply pay your taxes in the first place….

Truth In Advertising Isn’t Always a Good Idea

July 2nd, 2017

There are laws mandating that advertisements be accurate. Sometimes, though, you can get in trouble for being ‘truthful.’ Michael Raymond Martinez of Fullerton, California did himself no favors by his advertisements.

Mr. Martinez was a tax professional in Fullerton (Orange County), and he advertised, “The Largest Refund…Guaranteed!!!” And he did give his clients very large refunds. It’s how Mr. Martinez operated that was the cause of trouble. Mr. Martinez met with his clients, picked up their documents, received his payment, and then prepared their returns. Nothing out of the ordinary with that.

However, he didn’t have his clients review the returns. So how could clients sign the returns if they hadn’t reviewed them? That was definitely an issue. Of course, given that Mr. Martinez invented false deductions and expenses for his clients (all of which lowered their tax liability), he likely did get his clients “The Largest Refund[s].” Illegal, of course.

Unfortunately, the IRS caught on to the scheme. Indeed, that was inevitable from the start. Sooner or later a client would look at the transcript of his return and see moving expenses when they hadn’t moved, education deductions when they weren’t in college, or phony itemized deductions and wonder what was going on. Given the tax loss to the IRS was $1,155,006, this was going to get some attention. There was one other matter: Mr. Martinez didn’t bother to report his income from preparing those returns for 2011 and 2012; oops.

Mr. Martinez was sentenced last week to 21 months at ClubFed. He’ll also have to make restitution of $205,465 to the IRS.

Boston Bruins 2, IRS 0

June 26th, 2017

Bruins Logo

The United States Tax Court today looked at whether pregame road meals for a National Hockey League (NHL) team are “meals and entertainment” expense (which would be deductible at 50% of cost) or a “de minimis fringe” and deductible at 100% of cost. As you might be able to guess from the title of the post, the Bruins shutout the IRS today.

First, if you’re interested in some of all of the background work that must be done for hockey, the opinion is a must-read. For example, I did not know that the road team in hockey does not receive any of the ticket revenue for regular season games. But I digress….

The IRS allowed pregame home meals but did not allow pregame road meals as a de minimis fringe; the IRS claimed that road (away) meals were a meal and entertainment expense. Of course, the meals must also be business-related but both the IRS and the Bruins agreed on that. As you might imagine, diet matters to NHL players:

Each away city hotel prepares pregame meals (i.e., breakfast, lunch, or brunch) and snacks that meet the players’ specific nutritional guidelines to ensure optimal performance for the upcoming game and throughout the remainder of the season. The Bruins contract in advance with each away city hotel for the provision of pregame meals and snacks, and the food is made available to all traveling hockey employees. The Bruins initiate the meal contracting process by providing a custom meal menu to the prospective away city hotel requesting specific types and quantities of food. The Bruins tend to keep food options consistent at each away city hotel to avoid players’ having gastric problems during the game. The Bruins always order the same quantity of food to feed all traveling hockey employees.

The de minimis fringe exception first requires that the eating facility be available to all, and not discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees. NHL teams bring a lot more than just the players on a road trip:

During the years in issue the Bruins traveled to away games with various personnel, which typically included: between 20 and 24 players, the head coach, assistant coaches, medical personnel, athletic trainers, equipment managers, communications personnel, travel logistics managers, public relations/media personnel, and other employees (traveling hockey employees). During the years in issue the Bruins’ traveling hockey employees traveled to every away game.

The Bruins easily passed this first hurdle because the food was provided to all. The major issue was whether these were a de minimis fringe benefit:

Employee meals provided in a nondiscriminatory manner constitute a de minimis fringe under section 132(e) if: (1) the eating facility is owned or leased by the employer; (2) the facility is operated by the employer; (3) the facility is located on or near the business premises of the employer; (4) the meals furnished at the facility are provided during, or immediately before or after, the employee’s workday; and (5) the annual revenue derived from the facility normally equals or exceeds the direct operating costs of the facility (the revenue/operating cost test).

The Bruins lease hotel facilities; that would make it appear that they would pass the first test. “The evidence establishes that the Bruins contract with away city hotels for the right to “use and occupy” meal rooms to conduct team business, and therefore these agreements are substantively leases.” And given that they contract with the hotel to provide the food, they meet the operating test.

It appears (from the opinion) that the IRS vigorously opposed the idea that the Bruins passed the “facility is located near the business premises of the employer” test. But the Court disagreed.

First and foremost, the nature of the Bruins’ business requires the team to travel to various arenas across the United States and Canada, and it is not feasible for the Bruins to be a viable NHL franchise without participating in hockey games outside of Boston. The NHL constitution and bylaws obligate each NHL team to play both home and away games during the regular season and, if the team qualifies, postseason games. Not only does the NHL require teams to participate in away games, but it also requires visiting teams to arrive in an away city at least six hours before the away game commences. The CBA imposes an additional requirement that visiting NHL teams travel to the away city the day before game day, if travel by airplane is greater than 150 minutes. Furthermore, if an NHL team fails to participate in an away game it must forfeit the game, lose playoff points, incur financial penalties imposed by the NHL, and indemnify the home team for loss of revenue and other expenses. Therefore, an integral part of the Bruins’ professional hockey business involves traveling throughout the United States and Canada to play away games as dictated by the NHL schedule. The job of the Bruins’ team includes playing one-half of their regular season games away from their hometown arena, and the financial health of the NHL franchise–not to mention the NHL itself–would be adversely affected if teams refused to play away games.

The Court ruled that staying in away city hotels was essential for the Bruins, and it’s clear that it would be impossible for the Bruins to do all this in Boston. “The evidence at trial also establishes that the Bruins could not perform all these activities at the opponent’s arena because of limited access and insufficient space and facilities.” Thus, the Court held that the road hotels were part of the Bruins’ business premises.

The IRS disagreed:

[T]he traveling hockey employees’ activities at away city hotels are insignificant because: (1) the activities at away city hotels are qualitatively less important than playing in the actual hockey game and (2) the Bruins spend quantitatively less time at each away city hotel than they do at the team’s Boston facilities.

The Court, though, thought that the IRS was offsides on these arguments.

Without the preparatory activities that occur at away city hotels the Bruins’ performance during games would likely be adversely affected. Furthermore, respondent provides no precedent to support the argument that business premises are limited to the location where the most qualitatively significant business activity occurs…Although the Bruins do spend quantitatively less time at each individual away city hotel than they do in Boston, this goes to the unique nature of a professional hockey team that is required to play one-half of its games away from home. It is therefore illogical for respondent to ignore the nature of the Bruins’ business and the NHL and analyze the amount of time spent at each away city hotel in isolation.

The Bruins also passed the revenue/operating cost test. “Meals are excludable to recipient employees under section 119 if they are (1) furnished for the convenience of the employer and (2) furnished on the business premises of the employer.” And the Court agreed with the Bruins here:

The evidence establishes that the pregame meals at away city hotels are provided to the Bruins’ traveling hockey employees for substantial noncompensatory business reasons. The Bruins provide pregame meals to traveling hockey employees at away city hotels first and foremost for nutritional and performance reasons…Providing meals to traveling hockey employees at away city hotels enables the Bruins to effectively manage a hectic schedule by minimizing unproductive time (e.g., finding and obtaining appropriate meals from restaurants in each city) and maximizing time dedicated to activities that help achieve the organization’s goal of winning hockey games. Petitioners have provided credible evidence establishing the business reasons for furnishing pregame meals to traveling hockey employees at away city hotels, and we will not second-guess their business judgment.

The IRS conceded the last part of the test (that the meals were furnished during, before, or after the workday). Thus, it was a shutout: Bruins 2, IRS 0 (the petitioners, the owners of the Bruins, were challenging an IRS audit covering two tax years).

Other professional sports teams may be filing amended returns (if they had only been taking half of the cost of meals) because it’s hard to imagine that the requirements for, say, a traveling NFL or NBA team aren’t similar to those of an NHL team. This is a full decision of the Tax Court, so it is precedential.

Case: Jacobs v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. No. 24