A Couple of S Corporations, A Couple of Rental Arrangements, A Couple of Taxpayer Losses

Recently, two Circuit Courts shot down the taxpayers in two cases involving rents and S Corporations.

In the Estate of Stuller, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals addressed a Tennessee Walking Horse breeding operation held in an S Corporation.  Surprise! The IRS, the District Court, and the Seventh Circuit found that the breeding operation was a hobby.  Among other facts not in the favor of the taxpayer was that the operation lost money for 15 of 16 years.  It made a whopping $1,500 profit one year.  The breeding activity was not conducted in a business-like manner.  No real surprise, so far.

The Stullers’ S Corporation rented property from Mr. and Mrs. Stuller, the rents from which apparently they reported as income.  After the Stullers were found by the courts to have a non-deductible hobby in the S Corporation, they sought for the courts to hold that they did not have to report as income the rental payments that they received from the hobby-bearing S Corporation.  They were rebuffed.   The S corporation is separate from the owners.  They organized the arrangement and it did not turn out like they wanted.   Tough luck. They picked their poison.

In Williams v. Commissioner, the Fifth Circuit addressed a case where an S corporation rented realty to a C corporation.  The Williamses owned all of the stock in both companies.  Mr. Williams materially participated in the business of the C corporation.  The arrangement appeared to be arms’- length and there is no indication that the IRS had a problem with the economics of the deal.  The Williamses reported the rental income in the S corporation as passive income, which, conveniently, was offset by losses in other passive activities.

The Williamses got it all wrong.  While the “self-rental rule” is a bit obscure, it is aimed squarely at what the Williamses were doing.  The IRS, the Tax Court and the Fifth Circuit all agreed that under the self-rental rule, they had to classify the rent income as nonpassive income and their passive losses could not offset the related-party rental income.

In both cases, it appears that the taxpayers tried to be a little bit too clever in structuring their activities for tax purposes.  In both cases, they got bad results.

VKM

Latest News

The Home Mortgage Interest Deduction – Changes Under the TCJA

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (“TCJA”), enacted Dec. 22, makes modifications to the deductibility of ...

Qualified Opportunity Funds – A New Investment Vehicle from the TCJA

A new Qualified Opportunity Zone (“QOZ”) program to encourage investment in low-income communities (“LICs”) is part of the ...

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, passed and signed into law on February 9, 2018, has a number of tax law changes.

On February 9, Congress passed, and the President signed into law, H.R. 1892, the “Bipartisan Budget Act of ...

HM&M Updates

Recent Tax Developments Impacting Nonprofit Organizations

On May 22, 2018 Randy Garcia spoke at the TSCPA 2018 Nonprofit Organizations Conference and shared some important ...

HM&M leading in Fort Worth, Texas

Shareholder, Susan Adams, and Senior Manager, Michele Sanchez-Soriano were both nominated as committee chairs of the Fort Worth Chapter of ...

Randy Garcia selected as TSCPA Rising Star

The Texas Society of Certified Public Accountants (TSCPA) recently announced its 2018 Rising Star honorees. This recognition highlights ...