8th Circuit Rejects Wells Fargo Bullshit Tax Shelter (4/27/20)

In Wells Fargo & Company v. United States, ___ F.3d ___ (8th Cir. 2020), here, the Eight Circuit rejected the taxpayer’s claim of entitlement for bullshit tax shelter benefits and claim that it should not be subject to the negligence penalty for claiming the supposed benefits of the bullshit tax shelter.

On the merits of the bullshit tax shelter, I just observe that it had a common characteristic for such nonsense - considerable complexity that served both to create a superstructure designed in part to hide the sham nature of the transaction.  The Eighth Circuit said (Slip Op. 4):

Turning to the facts of this case, we note that STARS is a sophisticated financial transaction with a fairly complex structure. See Wells Fargo & Co. v. United States (Wells Fargo I), 143 F. Supp. 3d 827, 831 (D. Minn. 2015) (“The STARS transaction was extraordinarily complicated—so complicated, in fact, that it almost defies comprehension by anyone (including a federal judge) who is not an expert in structured finance.”); Santander Holdings USA, Inc. v. United States, 977 F. Supp. 2d 46, 48 (D. Mass. 2013) (noting that STARS was “surpassingly complex and unintuitive; the sort of thing that would have emerged if Rube Goldberg had been a tax accountant”).

In my Federal Tax Procedure Book, I describe characteristics of abusive tax shelters as follows (footnotes omitted):

Abusive tax shelters are many and varied.  Some are outright fraudulent, usually wrapped in a shroud of paper work and cascade of words designed to mask the shelter as a real deal.  The more sophisticated are often without substance but do have some at least attenuated, if superficial, claim to legality.  Some of the characteristics that I have observed for tax shelters that the Government might perceive as abusive are that (i) the transaction is outside the mainstream activity of the taxpayer, (ii) the transaction is incredibly complex in its structure and steps so that not many (including IRS auditors, if they stumble across the transaction(s)) will have the ability, tenacity, time and resources to trace it out to its illogical conclusion (this feature is often included to increase the taxpayer’s odds of winning the audit lottery); (iii) the transaction costs of the arrangement and risks involved, even where large relative to the deal, offer a favorable cost benefit/ratio only because of the tax benefits to be offered by the audit lottery, (iv) the promoters (and other enablers) of the adventure make a lot more than even an hourly rate even at the high end for professionals (the so-called value added fee, which is often insurance type compensation to mediate potential penalty risks by shifting them to the tax professional or the netherworld between the taxpayer and the tax professional) and (v) the objective indications as to the taxpayer's purpose for entering the transaction are a tax savings motive rather than any type of purposive business or investment motive. 

Moving to the penalty issue, the bottom line holdings are:

1.  The negligence penalty in § 6662 applies to conduct including “any failure to make a reasonable attempt to comply with the provisions of this title, and the term “disregard” includes any careless, reckless, or intentional disregard.”  § 6662(c).  The regulations flesh this out by providing a “reasonable-basis” defense if the taxpayer’s return reporting position was “reasonably based on one or more of the authorities set forth in § 1.6662-4(d)(3)(iii) (taking into account the relevance and persuasiveness of the authorities, and subsequent developments).” 26 C.F.R. §§ 1.6662-3(b)(1), (3).  The issue was whether, in order to invoke the defense, the taxpayer must have actually based the return reporting position on authorities recognized by the regulation or whether, in the absence of such actual reliance, the taxpayer can ex post facto assert that the authorities render the position reasonable.  The majority held that actual reliance was required.  The majority based its holding on a de novo interpretation of the regulation text, which it found unambiguous on the issue, without any deference to the IRS’s interpretation of the regulation.

2.  The Court held that § 6751(b)’s written supervisor approval requirement did not apply because the Government asserted the penalty as a setoff in a refund suit in which no assessment was made (perhaps because beyond the statute of limitations).

JAT Comments:

1.  Professor Leslie Book has an excellent discussion of the case:  Leslie Book, In Wells Fargo 8th Circuit Holds Reasonable Basis Defense to Negligence Penalty Requires Taxpayers Prove Actual Reliance on Authorities (Procedurally Taxing Blog 4/27/20), here.

2.  For those who like dancing on the head of pins, one might focus on the difference in deference aspect of the interpretive strategies by the majority and the dissenting judge.  The majority held that the regulation was not ambiguous as to whether actual reliance on the authorities was required, so that the majority made the de novo interpretation of the reliance requirement.  The dissent apparently thought the regulation was ambiguous and, since the IRS was interpreting the regulation to require actual reliance, performed an Auer analysis (a la Kisor) to (i) determine that Auer deference did not apply and (ii) the best interpretation of the ambiguous regulation was that actual reliance was not required.

3.  I have to wonder why, for such a blatantly sham transaction, the Government did not assert the civil fraud penalty as an offset.

4.   Of course, often bullshit tax shelter promoters will provide or arrange for an opinion that will, so the taxpayers are promoted or otherwise belief, will also shelter them from penalties if the underlying bullshit tax shelter fails.  Those opinions are often, let's say, result oriented and lacking in intellectual and research rigor.  Nevertheless taxpayers anticipate that they may be able to rely on the opinions to avoid penalties.  To do that, of course, they have to produce the opinions and subject them to the scrutiny of the IRS and the courts (and to the public if they litigate the issue).  For  bullshit tax shelters, those opinions are also bullshit.  And might well only succeed in avoiding the criminal penalty, but will not withstand analysis for the civil penalties.  Hence, although Wells Fargo certainly had at least one law or accounting firm opinion, it did not rely on the supposed authorities cited.

District Court Holds that Santander's Arguments to Avoid Penalty for Bullshit Tax Shelter (No Substance) Lack Substance (7/24/18)

Here is an entry that I posted a few days ago on my Federal Tax Crimes Blog.  It is equally interesting to Federal Tax Procedure enthusiasts.

In Santander Holdings USA, Inc. v. United States (D. Mass. Dkt. 09-11043-GAO Dkt Entry 344 7/17/18), here, Santander previously lost the merits of its bullshit tax shelter on appeal, with the Court of Appeals holding that the shelter lacked economic substance.  Santander Holdings USA, Inc. v. United States, 844 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2016), here, cert. denied sub nom. Santander Holdings USA, Inc., & Subsidiaries v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 2295 (2017).  See my discussion of the Court of Appeals decision, First Circuit, Reversing the District Court, Rejects Santander's Bullshit Tax Shelter (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 12/17/16), here.

Santander argued that, although its tax shelter lacked economic substance -- i.e., was bullshit -- it should be able to avoid the accuracy related penalty.  Well, basically, the district court held that that argument too lacked substance -- was bullshit.  The opinion is short and, I think, predictable, so I forego addressing it further.

However, the district court did include a quote from the Court of Appeals' decision that I had included in my prior write up but was in a larger quote so that I had not focused on it.  The district court did focus on it as follows.  This is the quote (cleaned up):

When a transaction is one designed to produce tax gains not real gains—such as when the challenged transaction has no prospect for pre-tax profit—then it is an act of tax evasion that, even if technically compliant, lies outside of the intent of the Tax Code and so lacks economic substance.

The district corut did not quote the whole paragraph from the Court of Appeals which includes "tax evasion" twice, so I offer the whole paragraph (cleaned up):

The economic substance doctrine is centered on discerning whether the challenged transaction objectively lies outside the plain intent of the relevant statutory regime. A transaction fails the economic substance test if, though it actually occurred and technically complied with the tax code, it was merely a device to avoid tax liability. Courts may disregard the form of transactions that have no business purpose or economic substance beyond tax evasion. In other words, when a transaction is one designed to produce tax gains not real gains -- such as when the challenged transaction has no prospect for pre-tax profit -- then it is an act of tax evasion that, even if technically compliant, lies outside of the intent of the Tax Code and so lacks economic substance.

Readers of this blog will recognize the term "tax evasion."  At least in this blog and in other authorities on criminal tax matters, tax evasion is a term of art.  Narrowly, it means the specific tax evasion crime in § 7201, but is often used to cover the panoply of tax crimes where tax was evaded (e.g., the Sentencing Guidelines require that for a tax loss as the first step in the sentencing calculation).  But, the term usually does connote conduct that is criminal.  See e.g., the Wikipedia entry for Tax Evasion, here.

GE Ducks Any Penalty for Its Bullshit Tax Shelter -- For Now (4/17/14)

I have previously written on GE's bullshit tax shelter twice blessed by the district court and twice swatted down by the Court of Appeals..  See Second Circuit Strikes Down Another BS Tax Shelter (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 1/24/12); here, and Thoughts on the the Corporate Audit Lottery (Federal Tax Crimes 2/11/12), here.  The irrepressible district court, smarting over two failed attempts to approve a GE raid on the fisc, makes another go at it in TIFD-III-E Inc. v. United States, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41472 (D. Conn. 2014), here.  (The judgment entered shortly thereafter is here.)

The Second Circuit had already approved the application of the 20% substantial understatement penalty, but, as it turns out, when pushed to the taxpayer, the tax involved, though large, would not meet the threshold requirement that the understatement be "substantial" -- defined as exceeding "(i) 10 percent of the tax required to be shown on the return for the taxable year."  Section 6662(d)(1)(A)(i), here.

Readers will recall that the 20% accuracy related penalty has another basis -- if the position is due to negligence, which has no threshold limitation.  Section 6662(c), here.  So, the Government made another run to extract from GE some penalty for having played the audit lottery and lost for its bullshit tax shelter.  Again, this time, the district court tilted for GE, thus insulating GE from any cost or penalty for playing the audit lottery.  Why?

The Court opens its opinion as follows:

Defendant, the United States, moves for an order imposing a negligence penalty on plaintiff TIFD III-E Inc. ("TIFD") for tax years 1997 and 1998. During the 1990s, TIFD's parent company, General Electric Capital Corporation ("GECC"), joined with a pair of Dutch banks ("the Dutch Banks" or "the Banks") to form an aircraft leasing company. TIFD considered the Dutch Banks to be its partners in the venture, and did not report any income allocated to the Banks on its own tax returns. During the course of this litigation, I twice found that decision to be more than reasonable; indeed, I found that the company correctly deemed the Banks to be equity stakeholders rather than lenders. TIFD III-E v. United States, 342 F. Supp. 2d 94 (D. Conn. 2004)  [*4] ("Castle Harbour I"); TIFD III-E v. United States, 660 F. Supp. 2d 367 (D. Conn. 2009) ("Castle Harbour III"). The Second Circuit twice disagreed. TIFD III-E v. United States, 459 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2006) ("Castle Harbour II"); TIFD III-E v. United States, 666 F.3d 836 (2d Cir. 2012) ("Castle Harbour IV"). So, after more than a decade of litigation, TIFD ultimately lost this case. In addition, the Second Circuit held that the IRS could impose a 20% accuracy penalty against TIFD for substantial understatement of its income taxes in 1997 and 1998.

Despite having "twice found that [GE's] decision to be more than reasonable," the judge candidly acknowledges that the Second Circuit disagreed.  The court then proceeds to find GE reasonable again.

I won't review the facts, for the court itself that "I assume the parties' familiarity with the facts underlying this case."  I will note that, as is common in these bullshit corporate tax shelters, a foreign bank was the linchpin to make it have the superficial appearance of working.  (Foreign banks also played an essential role in the bullshit individual Son-of-Boss tax shelters; in this regard, see my postings Credit Suisse DOJ Investigation Status and New NY Investigation (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 4/7/14), here; and NY State Agency Makes New Moves in Investigation of Credit Suisse (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 4/17/14), here.)

Another Bull Shit Shelter Bites the Dust (12/19/13)

We have yet another of the genre out of the Tenth Circuit, this time proving Michael Graetz's famous observation that an abusive tax shelter is “[a] deal done by very smart people that, absent tax considerations, would be very stupid.”  The new case is Blum v. Commissioner, 737 F.3d 1303 (10th Cir. 2013), here.

Before discussing the case, I offer this description of tax shelters from my Federal Tax Procedure Book (footnotes omitted):

Abusive tax shelters are many and varied.  Some are outright fraudulent, usually wrapped in a shroud of paper work designed to present the shelter as a real deal.  The more sophisticated are often without substance but do have some at least attenuated, if superficial, claim to legality.  Some of the characteristics that I have observed for tax shelters that the Government might perceive as abusive are that (i) the transaction is outside the mainstream activity of the taxpayer, (ii) the transaction is incredibly complex in its structure and steps so that not many (including specifically IRS auditors) will have the ability, tenacity, time and resources to trace it out to its illogical conclusion (this feature is often included to increase the taxpayer’s odds of winning the audit lottery); (iii) the transaction costs of the arrangement and risks involved, even where large relative to the deal, still have a favorable cost benefit/ratio only because of the tax benefits to be offered by the audit lottery, (iv) the promoters of the adventure make a lot more than even an hourly rate even at the high end for professionals (the so-called value added fee, which is often insurance type compensation to mediate shift potential penalty risks to the tax professional or the netherworld between the taxpayer and the tax professional) and (v) the objective indications as to the taxpayer's purpose for entering the transaction are a tax savings motive rather than any type of purposive business or investment motive.  More succinctly, Michael Graetz, a Yale Law Professor, has described an abusive tax shelter as “[a] deal done by very smart people that, absent tax considerations, would be very stupid.”  Other thoughtful observers vary the theme, e.g. a tax shelter “is a deal done by very smart people who are pretending to be rather stupid themselves for financial gain.”

Blum fits the pattern.

Mr. Blum was a very successful businessman.  He was apparently very capable in assessing risks and rewards of financial ventures.  Mr. Blum retained KPMG who sold him one of its tax shelter products which it marketed in the 1990s and early 2000s.  This particular product was OPIS, a basis enhancement strategy. The abusive basis enhancement strategies claimed to create large amounts of basis without the taxpayer having to incur a cost for the basis.  The taxpayer would then use the artificial basis to offset otherwise taxable gain, thereby artificially reducing the tax liability.  Mr. Blum got into the deal when he had a large gain that would otherwise be taxed.

When KPMG's representative made the pitch, Mr. Blum "claims he saw an investment opportunity; the Commissioner claims Mr. Blum saw a tax evasion opportunity."  (Emphasis supplied.) Mr. Blum bought the pitch and made a representation to KPMG that he was doing the deal for a legitimate nontax business or investment purpose.  (That representation was essential to KPMG's participation in implementing the transaction.)  Bottom-line, the Tax Court concluded and the Tenth Circuit concluded that the representation was false.

Guest Blog - Morris on Inadvertently Running Afoul of the Tax Law (3/6/13)

Inadvertently Running Afoul of the Tax Law

Donald Morris, Professor of Accounting, University of Illinois Springfield

Author of Tax Cheating: Illegal—But Is It Immoral?

The term negligence holds an important place when talking about the work of a professional or a manufacturer or even about driving a car, where expectations for performance are clear and well established. Negligence in those circumstances is the “failure to use such care as a reasonably prudent and careful person would use under similar circumstances.” But what about negligence when applied to a taxpayer?  IRC § 6662 employs a generic meaning for negligence, which includes “any failure to make a reasonable attempt to comply with the provisions of the Code.” But measuring “reasonable” in the context of individual taxpayers is a contentious issue.

In 2011, the IRS audited 1,594,049 individual income tax returns, 1.1 percent of the 143,608,000 returns filed for the previous year. For correspondence audits, the IRS identified errors 79 percent of the times, resulting in corrections, and for field audits, the IRS identified errors 91percent of the time, resulted in IRS changes. Also for 2011, 28,749,882 of the returns filed—or one out of five—was assessed a civil penalty, while 500,472 of the returns audited was assessed an accuracy related (or negligence) penalty—a 31% penalty rate for negligence. If these results can be generalized to the taxpaying population, it is possible that 80 to 90 percent of individual tax returns, if examined by the IRS, would be found wanting, and of those, almost one-third would involve taxpayer negligence.

One question raised by these figures is whether taxpayers are truly that negligent—failing to use such care as a reasonably prudent and careful person would use under similar circumstances—or more likely, that the concept of negligence is out of place when applied to individual taxpayers confronting the notoriously complex tax law. At some point, what is officially seen as taxpayers failing to make a reasonable attempt to comply with the provisions of the Code, must instead be viewed as the congressional failure to provide a code that offers plain and clear guidance so that what a reasonably prudent and careful person would do under similar circumstances can be fairly determined.

A recent case in the U.S. Tax Court illustrates how easily the average taxpayer can cross the line to negligence without even knowing there was a line. In David P. Durden, et ux. v. Comm., TC Memo 2012-140 (05/17/2012), here, the taxpayers contested the IRS’s disallowance of a $25,171 charitable donation to their church. The IRS determined a tax deficiency of $7,552 and an accuracy-related penalty (§ 6662) of $1,510.40 with respect to the taxpayers’ 2007 jointly filed income tax return.

Yet Another Bullshit Tax Shelter Bites the Dust (2/27/13)

We have yet another court rejection of a bullshit tax shelter.  Chemtech Royalty Associates LP et al. v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. 26329 (MD LA 2013), here  This time it is Dow Chemical who tried unsuccessfully to underpay its taxes and thus shift its share of the burden of Government to the citizens of this country.  This bullshit tax shelter was cooked up by Goldman Sachs in league with lawyers at King & Spalding.

The trial judge says:  "Both arrangements are enormously complicated in their construction and operation."  Which brings me to the features of a tax shelter.  I address this in my Federal Tax Procedure Book and this is a portion of that discussion (footnotes omitted):

Tax shelters are many and varied.  Some are outright fraudulent wrapped in what is disguised as a real deal.  The more sophisticated, however, are often without substance but do have some at least tenuous claim to legality.  Some of the characteristics that I have observed for tax shelters that the Government might perceive as abusive are that (i) the transaction is outside the mainstream activity of the taxpayer, (ii) the transaction is incredibly complex in its structure and steps so that not many (including specifically IRS auditors) will have the ability, tenacity, time and resources to trace it out to its illogical conclusion (this feature is often included to increase the taxpayer’s odds of winning the audit lottery); (iii) the transaction costs of the arrangement and risks involved, even where large relative to the deal, still have a favorable cost benefit/ratio only because of the tax benefits to be offered by the audit lottery, (iv) the promoters of the adventure make a lot more than even an hourly rate even at the high end for professionals (the so-called value added fee), which in the final analysis is simply a premium for putting the reputations and perhaps their freedom at risk to give a comfort opinion that the deal which will not work if discovered, and (v) the objective indications as to the taxpayer's purpose for entering the transaction are a tax savings motive rather than any type of purposive business or investment motive.  More succinctly, a Yale Law Professor has described an abusive tax shelter as “[a] deal done by very smart people that, absent tax considerations, would be very stupid.”  Other thoughtful observers vary the theme, e.g. a tax shelter “is a deal done by very smart people who are pretending to be rather stupid themselves for financial gain.”