Related Posts

Land Yachts and the Tax Law: Four Tips to Avoid “At-Risk” Pitfalls

If there’s one thing the economy offers to businesses nowadays, it’s opportunities to lose money. As unpleasant as that is, it at least will reduce your taxes, right?

Maybe.

Even tax loss parties have their poopers, and the “At-risk rules” of Code Sec. 465 are as poopy as can be. Drafted to fight the first generation of retail tax shelters in the 1970s, these rules have faded into obscurity, but remain available for annoyingly competent IRS agents to wield against your loss deductions. The rules are supposed to defer losses when it’s really the lender on the hook for them, rather than the nominal owner of the money-losing activity. The losses carry forward to offset future income on the activity, or gain on a sale someday.


These rules pooped all over the tax loss of CTI Leasing, an LLC owned by Kieth Roberts, an Indiana man, to lease trucks to his trucking company. He loanded the LLC $425,000 to buy a “Vantare H3-45 Super S2” RV. The Tax Court says “Vantare RVs are custom-built, fully furnished, luxury coach RVs known for their ‘yacht quality fit and finish.'”

The leasing business cranked out tax losses. The IRS disallowed $425,000 of them on the grounds that the $425,000 loan didn’t give the LLC owner “at-risk” basis in his leasing activity. The Tax Court said the taxpayer failed to show that the land yacht was used in the truck leasing business or was owned by it, so the $425,000 wasn’t “at-risk” in the leasing activity.

Not every business can afford a nice land yacht, but they all can lose money. Some pointers to help keep you from trippng over the at-risk rules:

• If your loan is “non-recourse” — if you don’t pay, all the lender can do is repossess the property — that’s an at-risk rule red flag.

• Limited partners and LLC members are likely to face at-risk issues; the whole point of a “limited liability company” is to limit owner liability, after all.

• Be careful of loans from related parties. If you borrow from the wrong person, the tax law will treat the loan as not “at-risk,” even if you borrow from a business partner who might leave you under an end-zone somewhere if you don’t pay up.

• If you are in the real-estate business, “qualified” non-recourse debt – generally third-party commercial loans – are O.K. under the at-risk rules.

If you trip over the at-risk rules, your losses may not be gone forever. Form 6198 tracks your deferred losses, and you can lose them if your activity generates income someday.

Joe Kristan is a shareholder of Roth & Company, P.C. in Des Moines, Iowa, author of the Tax Update Blog and Going Concern contributor. You can see all of his posts for GC here.

Tax Court Rules That Feng Shui-Inspired Business Plan Made Couple Professional Gamblers

There are plenty of businesses out there that simply don’t have a plan. They may have a sign in the window, products on their shelves and a room full of “keepers” but not much else.

Trieu Le and Baymone Thongtheposmphou, on the other hand, had a plan. When Le’s company moved to Costa Rica in 2005, he opted to turn his focus towards professional gambling.

Sure, there are plenty of people out there that claim to be professional gamblers that would probably be better described as “degenerates” but not Le and Thongtheposmphou. They would use the principles of Feng Shui to focus their wagering efforts on their “lucky days,” increasing their wagering, foregoing sleep and possibly unnecessary food or bathroom breaks in order to maximize their luckiness.


Things were going on swimmingly for the couple until, at some point in 2007, they realized they were 200k in debt, having “withdrawn money from their retirement funds and borrowed against various assets to finance their attempt to make a profit.” These two were obviously committed to their idea and their plan.

TL and BT filed their losses (not to the exceed their winnings, of course) on a Schedule C to be included on the 1040. Unfortch, the IRS wasn’t buying the notion of this “professional gambling” and called bullshit:

Respondent treated petitioner’s winnings as not being from a business (i.e., that petitioner was not in the business of gambling) and accordingly determined that his losses should have been reported on Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, as an itemized deduction rather than a business deduction. The income tax deficiency respondent determined arose from the inclusion of the gambling winnings in income and the resulting increase of the limitations on miscellaneous itemized deductions claimed on Schedule A.

The tax court decided to boil this down to the facts. That being, these two people had a plan – to gamble based on Feng Shui principles. Was this a bad business plan? Certainly not the best but far from the worst. Was it harebrained? Maybe. But was the tax treatment correct? The tax court says yes!

We find that petitioner’s gambling activity was a trade or business that was pursued in good faith, with regularity, and for the production of income, and that it was not merely recreation or a hobby.

[…]

Respondent also argues that petitioners’ approach was not businesslike and that it was irrational. The standard, however, requires only that the profit objective be actual and honest. It would be difficult to find on the record before the Court that petitioner’s approach to making a profit was irrational. For example, if someone’s investment in a stock or a business were based on Feng Shui or some other cultural judgment, that would not per se be “irrational”. Petitioners used their best judgment and successfully tested their business approach. Ultimately, the fact that their approach was unsuccessful does not make it irrational.

So take heed degenerate gamblers with crackpot business plans! As long as you’re using your best judgment and have some semblance of an “business approach” you too can take on the IRS (these two were pro sese, no less). Good luck!

[h/t TaxProf]