Category Archives: Health Savings Accounts

UBIT? You Bet!

Questions:

I think the answer to my question. Does Arkansas charge tax on UBIT and UDFI?

in the book 2009 Multistate Guide to Regulation and Taxation of Nonprofits By Steven D. Simpson. Which is found in full online through google books at:

https://books.google.com/books?id=KE5dVpNcWkwC&pg=SA3-PA9&lpg=SA3-PA9&dq=Section+512+of+the+Internal+Revenue+Code+arkansas&source=bl&ots=YFNc-ZE7U0&sig=PpYxNwFJEhq5fd920ha18OXLFkw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ItEKVdmUOcSwggSMiIOoBQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Section%20512%20of%20the%20Internal%20Revenue%20Code%20arkansas&f=false

It says that Arkansas does not have IRS code sections 501-529, but that it does tax unrelated business income on income attributable to Arkansas. Since UDFI is Section 514 I assume that there is no state income tax on UDFI. I also believe that attributable to Arkansas means the source of the income is physically inside the state.

This book seems to be a source of answers on UDFI and UBIT for all 50 states or at least a starting place.

I still have the following 3 questions from yesterday in a more simplified form:

 

1) If you pay UDFI on the sale of a depreciated rental property do you also recapture depreciation at a 25% rate?

 

2) If my IRA purchases a condo for nightly rental using debt will it owe UBIT on the nightly rental and UDFI on the profit percentage of the debt?

 

3) In the following  published article you state that UDFI is on Acquisition debt. Does this infer that if I pay cash for the house and then borrow against it later there is no UDFI? In other words is UDFI on all debt or just aquisition debt.

 

https://www.questira.com/why-your-ira-may-owe-taxes-to-pay-or-not-to-pay-that-is-the-question/

 

Definition of “Debt Financed Property.” In general, the term “debt-financed property” means any property held to produce income (including gain from its

disposition) for which there is an acquisition indebtedness at any time during the taxable year (or during the 12-month period before the date of the property’s disposal if it was disposed of during the tax year). If your retirement plan invests in a non-taxable entity and that entity owns debt financed property, the income from that property is attributed to the retirement plan, whether or not the income is distributed.

 

 

Answer:

 

Thanks for the reference and the questions yesterday. Sorry we couldn’t get to all of them on the call.  As far as your questions:

1) I believe the IRA would owe this tax, but I have heard different arguments on this. If you think about it, it wouldn’t make sense to be able to deduct depreciation from current UDFI and then escape it on the sale of the property. However, one CPA told me that if the property had been paid off for more than 12 months so there was no capital gains tax then there wouldn’t be depreciation recapture either. I think this was based on the theory that ‘depreciation recapture’ is really another form of capital gains, technically called ‘unrecaptured section 1250 gains.’ To be honest, I just don’t know.

2) That’s a good question. Certainly running a hotel is considered to be a business operation as opposed to just rental income, so I see where you could assume that the nightly rentals would be UBI and not UDFI. I think that if it is considered to be a business operation then probably all income from that business would be UBI not UDFI. I don’t think you can split the capital gains in that case away and call them UDFI, but once again I’m really not that confident, especially this early in the morning. On the other hand, if it were me I would probably just report it as UDFI and see if the IRS disagreed. There is a lot of ambiguity in this area, unfortunately.

 

3) Another good question, but this one I can actually help you with. 🙂 Acquisition indebtedness is 1) when acquring or improving the property; 2) before acquring or improving the property if the debt would not have been incurred except for the acquisition or improvement; or 3) after acquiring or improving the property if (a) the debt would not have been incurred except for the acquisition or improvement, and b) incurring the debt was reasonably forseeable when the property was acquired or improved. So most likely in your scenario the debt would still be considered ‘acquisition indebtedness.’

 

Here is an interesting brain twister: what if my IRA owns a piece of land with no debt which produces no income but which is expected to be sold within a year. If my IRA borrows money to purchase bank stock, which will not be sold for several years, which property is considered debt-financed, the land or the bank stock? If the answer is the bank stock, then can my IRA escape taxation entirely on the gains from the bank stock because the debt will have been paid off from the sales proceeds of the land for more than 12 months prior to the sale of the bank stock?

Another Blow to Checkbook Control IRA Owned Entities

            In the latest United States Tax Court case involving an IRA owned entity managed by the IRA owners, the taxpayers have once again lost.  In 2001 taxpayers Lawrence F. Peek and Darrell G. Fleck established traditional IRAs.  Each IRA then purchased 50% of a newly formed corporation, FP Company, Inc. (FP Company) for $309,000.  Mr. Peek and Mr. Fleck were appointed as corporate officers and directors of FP Company.  FP Company then acquired the assets of Abbot Fire & Safety, Inc. (“AFS”) for $1,100,000, which included a $200,000 promissory note from FP Company to the sellers of AFS, with personal guaranties by Mr. Peek and Mr. Fleck.  The $200,000 note to the sellers was secured by deeds of trust on Mr. Peek’s and Mr. Fleck’s personal residences.  In 2003 and 2004, Mr. Peek and Mr. Fleck both converted their IRAs to Roth IRAs, paying the taxes on the fair market value of the shares at that time.  In 2006 the Roth IRAs sold FP Company to Xpect First Aid Co., eventually receiving $1,668,192 for their stock.

             The Tax Court ruled that 1) each of the personal guaranties of the FP Company loan is an indirect extension of credit to the IRAs, which is a prohibited transaction under Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) §4975(c)(1)(B); 2) because the prohibited transaction terminated the IRAs under IRC §408(e), the gains realized on the sale of FP Company are included in the taxpayers’ personal income, and 3) the taxpayers are liable for the accuracy-related penalties under IRC §6662.

             The IRS argued that Mr. Peek’s and Mr. Fleck’s personal guaranties of the $200,000 promissory note from FP Company to the sellers of AFS in 2001 were prohibited transactions under IRS §4975(c)(1)(B), which prohibits any direct or indirect lending of money or other extension of credit between a plan (including an IRA) and a disqualified person.  Mr. Peek and Mr. Fleck were disqualified persons as to their IRAs as fiduciaries. Mr. Peek and Mr. Fleck countered that the guaranties were not prohibited transactions because they did not involve their IRAs directly – the personal guaranties were for debts of FP Company, not their IRAs.  The Tax Court ruled, however, that to read the statute as Mr. Peek and Mr. Fleck would have liked “would rob it of its intended breadth.”  The Supreme Court has observed that “when Congress used the phrase ‘any direct or indirect’ in section 4975(c)(1), it thereby employed ‘broad language’ and showed an obvious intention to ‘prohibit something more’ than would be reached without it.”  As the IRS Commissioner pointed out, if the statute prohibited only a loan or loan guaranty between a disqualified person and the IRA itself, then the prohibition could be easily and abusively avoided simply by having the IRA create a shell subsidiary to which the disqualified person could then make a loan.

             As far as the tax consequences of the prohibited transactions in this case, the Tax Court ruled that 1) the accounts that held the FP Company stock were not IRAs in 2006 when the stock was sold, 2) the accounts ceased to be IRAs in 2001 and therefore were not exempt from income tax, and 3) the tax consequence of their non-exemption was that Mr. Peek and Mr. Fleck were liable for tax on the capital gains realized in 2006 and 2007 from the sale of the FP Company stock.  Because the guaranties remained in place and constituted a continuing prohibited transaction, the accounts that held the FP Company stock could not be IRAs in subsequent years, including the subsequently established Roth IRAs.

             The Tax Court also ruled that Mr. Peek and Mr. Fleck were liable for a 20% accuracy related penalty because their tax underpayments were “substantial understatements” of income tax under §6662(b).  Mr. Peek and Mr. Fleck relied upon a CPA, Mr. Christian Blees, to set up a strategy which Mr. Blees identified as the “IACC” plan.  The IACC plan called for the participant to establish a self-directed IRA, transfer funds from an existing IRA or 401(k) plan into the self-directed IRA, set up a new corporation, sell shares in the new corporation to the self-directed IRA, and finally to use the funds from the sale of shares to purchase a business.  In addition to describing the plan, the IACC documents included a discussion of prohibited transactions which would be detrimental to the IACC plan’s tax objectives, including a warning that all actions must be taken by the participant as an agent for the corporation and not by the participant personally.  Given that Mr. Peek and Mr. Fleck had been given advice about the hazards of prohibited transactions and their personal involvement with the FP Company transactions, the Tax Court held that they were negligent and liable for the 20% accuracy-related penalty.  Mr. Peek and Mr. Fleck were unable to convince the court that they acted with reasonable cause and in good faith because of their reliance on advice provided by Mr. Blees, the CPA, because Mr. Blees was a promoter and not a disinterested professional.  A “promoter” is “an advisor who participated in structuring the transaction or is otherwise related to, has an interest in, or profits from the transaction.”  Additionally, there is no indication that Mr. Peek and Mr. Fleck ever asked for advice from Mr. Blees about whether or not the personal guaranties would be prohibited transactions.

             This case shows the danger of checkbook control IRA owned entities.  Some people use this setup in an attempt to get around the prohibited transaction rules, which clearly does not work.  In fact, arguably it could increase the likelihood of a prohibited transaction occurring within your IRA.  Remember that the phrase “direct or indirect” is meant to be very broad, and simply interposing an entity in between your IRA and the transaction will not provide any insulation against the prohibited transaction rules. Relying on a promoter for advice as opposed to a disinterested professional will not help you avoid penalties, either.

 Self-directed IRAs are indeed a very powerful tool for building your retirement wealth, but if you violate the prohibited transaction rules your IRA will be deemed distributed to you as of January 1 of the year in which the prohibited transaction occurs. As I always have said, use the law, but do not abuse the law.