Sign In
 
 

If it Sounds Too Good to be True ... Get a Second Opinion!

Megan Hughes's picture

I'm confused!I’m confused!Sometimes people get interesting ideas about tax strategies. Given the amount of information available on the web and other places it’s not surprising. But every so often I run across something that just leaves me shaking my head … again. Tonight was no exception!

As I was browsing recent IRS rulings, I came across one where a married couple were denied their deduction for mortgage interest on their home. That got me interested - under what circumstances would that deduction be denied? It’s a pretty straightforward deduction, wouldn’t you think?

Turns out, what the couple claimed to have done was borrow money from their own, closely-held corporation, in order to pay off the mortgages on their home. Then, they claimed that the amount they paid their corporation each month was interest only … ergo, they could deduct every penny of their monthly mortgage payment.

The only problem with their theory was the complete lack of documentation. For example, they couldn’t provide any canceled checks noting their payments. They couldn’t produce an authentic copy of the promissory note. They couldn’t even show that a transfer deed had been properly recorded, noting the mortgage on the property, which should now be held by their corporation. Upon questioning in court, the taxpayers couldn’t even agree between themselves on the details of the transaction. The court was perhaps generous in calling their testimony “contradictory and incredible.”

With the huge mortgage interest deduction completely disallowed, the taxpayers were required to recalculate their return and wound up owning a fair chunk of money in unpaid taxes.

Diane and I see all kinds of strategies. Some are sent to us for a laugh, and others come in from clients asking, essentially, “Is this too good to be true?” It’s a little frightening to me just how willing we are, sometimes, to believe in things that just don’t quite ring true.

In this particular case, I can see how it could work. Say you’ve got a C Corporation with plenty of retained earnings kicking around. You want to use the money, but you can only get at that money in a few ways. Taking it out as a dividend means you will get a tax hit - currently 15%. Loaning the money to yourself, on the other hand, isn’t considered reportable income. So, loan yourself the money to pay off your own mortgage, and enter into a new mortgage - presumably with extremely favorable terms - such as interest-only payments. Now you’ve created a great tax break for yourself personally. Instead of writing off part of the money paid out each month towards your mortgage, you can write off all of it! You can’t do that when you purchase an investment property. And depending on the size of the mortgage, who wouldn’t want to do that? You’re potentially talking about a huge deduction!

But assuming the whole strategy is above board and won’t bring the IRS knocking on your front door, wouldn’t you just assume that proper-to-the-point-of-overkill documentation was a mandatory part of the strategy? In this case I couldn’t even find a mention that the bank had noted the payout and discharged their mortgage! That leaves me wondering if there was any money moving around at all, or whether the entire thing was just subterfuge to write off the couple’s entire mortgage payment.

Anyhow, at the end of the day, I guess the message is the same: “if a strategy seems to good to be true … get a second opinion before you buy into it!”

TrackBack

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.taxloopholes.com/connect/trackback/1181

How would the above scheme save the taxpayer any money at all? Would the interest payments not be taxable income to the closely-held corporation?

It would seem to me that the couple would be deducting interest on their personal return, only to pay tax on the interest on the corporation’s return, but I am not a tax expert by any stretch of the imagination.

mary100's picture

I had the same thought, but then re-read the post.

Then yes, the interest was reportable as income to the C-Corp but it got them a much bigger personal deduction - and since there was no real "payoff" to the mortgage company, the C-Corp started paying the mortgage thereby creating an offset to the interest "earned."

Am I on the right track?

Mary

http://bridgeway2success.blogspot.com/

www.bridgeway.merchantrates.com

Megan Hughes's picture

On the facts of the case, to be honest - I’m not sure! That was part of the court’s problem - with no documentation to substantiate who was paying what to whom, it all collapsed.

Let’s assume it was legitimate. Couple makes interest-only (re)payments to their closely-held corporation. It’s not necessarily income to the corporation - it loaned them the money, remember. So where the principal is concerned it’s just being repaid.

If the corporation is tracking the money paid as interest, though, then yes, that would be income to the corporation. However … the corporation will have all of the deductions available to it to offset that income, including all costs to operate the property, and depreciation - which is going to be pretty significant. And, even if the corporation does have a profit left over when it’s all said and done, it’s going to be paying tax on the profit at a lower rate (probably). C Corps pay 15% on their first $50k. So if the couple are in a 25-35% tax bracket, they’ve not only taken a huge deduction personally, they’ve also ensured that any taxable income being made is being taxed at a reduced rate.


Megan Hughes
www.businessfirstformations.com
Last week, my business had its best month ever.

mary100's picture

Megan, this really intrigues me because of the possibility of the idea being valid, even though they messed up on the details.

Question - wouldn't the property have to be transferred to the C-Corp for this to work? Otherwise it couldn't take the deductions to offset the interest income, right? And an appreciating asset in a C-Corp is not a good idea, especially if it was their primary residence and they qualified for the $500,000 exclusion on the sale.

This is one of those intricate mind puzzles that make my brain hurt...but it's so much fun!

Mary

http://bridgeway2success.blogspot.com/

www.bridgeway.merchantrates.com

Megan Hughes's picture

Hi Mary,

Assuming I am correctly understanding the facts, if this transaction worked the way it was presented, the corporation would lend the couple the cash to pay off their mortgage (or mortgages). Essentially they’d be getting a second (or third) mortgage, equivalent to the outstanding debt of all other mortgages combined. That loan is secured by a charge being recorded against the property.

Now the couple would turn around and use the proceeds from this new mortgage to pay off all other mortgages. As they’re discharged the other mortgages are cleared from the title, leaving corporation as the sole mortgage holder. Title hasn’t changed hands. The couple are still the titled owners of the house.

I think it’s an interesting idea. I can’t speak to the legalities of it, but you could always run it past a tax attorney to see what they thought. My concern is that it’s very circular; the IRS could consider the loan to be a personal benefit to the business owners … and potentially a taxable event.

And … the fundamental element in the whole plan is to have a corporation with enough excess cash to pay off the mortgage in the first place Smiling


Megan Hughes
www.businessfirstformations.com
Last week, my business had its best month ever.

Syndicate content