No, not a reduced-staff soap opera. Kunjlata J. Jadhav and Jalandar Y. Jadhav, T. C. Memo. 2023-140, filed 11/21/23, had a Plan. Actually, it was Jal’s Plan. Jal was a research chemist, employed full-time in what my Texan descendants would call “th’ awl bidniz.” In addition, he had a lucrative side hustle, KJ, which acted as broker between chemical producers and potential customers. A dodgeflogger hooked Jal into an “income tax plan,” the usual corporate give-and-go to siphon off income.
Judge Vasquez will tell you how IRS drained the siphon, but I’m here concerned with the 401(k)s Jal set up for his two sons. All IRS raised to thwart the 401(k) deductions was sons’ employee status in Year One.
“Petitioners viewed K J as a family business and wished to pass it on to [sons]. Petitioner husband started training his sons when they were in high school. While [sons] were in college, he assigned them research tasks and oversaw their work.” T. C. Memo. 2023-140, at p. 3. [Names omitted.]
It’s the usual command-and-control test for qualification as an “employee” for 401(k) entitlement. For a rundown of factors, see T. C. Memo. 2023-140, at p. 16, footnote 16.
“At trial petitioner husband credibly testified that he viewed K J…as a family business. He also credibly testified that he wished to pass his business on to [sons]. The record establishes that petitioners pursued that goal. Although [sons] were in college in [Year One], petitioner husband credibly recounted assigning them research tasks and overseeing their work while they were in school. Upon {S Corp]’s incorporation, [sons] became employees of the S corporation, which issued them Forms W–2, Wage and Tax Statement, for [Years Two, Three, and Four]. [No. 1 son] was a full-time employee of [S Corp] at the time of trial. These facts support a finding of an employment relationship, as they demonstrate petitioner husband’s control over his sons’ work, his investment in the business, a lengthy employment relationship, and an intention to create an employer-employee relationship.” T. C. Memo. 20-23-140, at pp. 16-17. (Names omitted).
IRS doesn’t contest Years Two, Three, and Four 401(k) deductions, but claims sons weren’t employees in Year One, and as sons didn’t testify on the trial IRS claims the benefit of an adverse inference, to wit, that the sons’ testimony would sink Jal.
Negatory, says Judge Vasquez, blowing IRS off in a footnote.
“…where both parties have equal access to the evidence, we do not apply an adverse inference. Respondent could have subpoenaed [sons]; thus both parties had equal access to the potential witnesses. We therefore decline to draw a negative presumption against petitioners on this issue. Even if we did, we would still find that the weight of the evidence favors petitioners here.” T. C. Memo. 2023-140, at p. 17, footnote 17. (Citations omitted, but get them for your memo of law file).
And Judge Vasquez gets to trot out his trusty warhorse cite. “See Diaz v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 560, 564 (1972) (observing that the process of distilling truth from the testimony of witnesses, whose demeanor we observe and whose credibility we evaluate, ‘is the daily grist of judicial life’).” Idem, as my expensive colleagues would say.
There’s a BoP skirmish when IRS tries to up the SNOD, claiming clerical error in the SNOD.
“Where the increase in deficiency is based on a clerical or mathematical error in the notice of deficiency, the Commissioner bears only the burden of establishing the clerical or mathematical error….
“In his First and Second Amended Answers, respondent asserts increased deficiencies and accuracy-related penalties for [Years Two, Three, and Four] on the ground that the SNODs contain clerical errors for those years. In his Simultaneous Opening Brief, respondent described those errors and directed the Court to several Exhibits showing how they occurred. Besides disputing respondent’s Motion for Leave, petitioners did not address the clerical errors on brief. They have therefore conceded that the errors in the SNODs are clerical. Thus, having established clerical errors in the SNODs for [Years Two, Three, and Four] respondent has met his burden as to the increased deficiencies.” T. C. Memo. 2023-140, at p. 14. (Citations omitted, but get them for your memo of law file.)
As for the shot-down deductions generated by the Plan, they might have worked, if the economic reality and the trial evidence matched the Plan.
I give Jal’s trusty attorneys a Taishoff “Good Job, Second Class” on the 401(k)s; they had a good witness and told a good story. I won’t deduct points for not attacking the clerical error argument, not having seen IRS’ story; IRS can tell a good story, too.
But IRS misses the additional Section 6662 chops for the increased deficiency for want of Boss Hossery. Now Jal is in 5 Cir (TX), and only 9 Cir and the Elevenses have so far endorsed ex-Ch J Michael B. (“Iron Mike”) Thornton’s dictionary chaw anent “assessment.” But if I were IRS, I’d move to reconsider, do the Boss Hossing now (if I could dig up examiner and supe, and supe still had charge over examiner), and argue the 9 Cir and Elevenses case. See my blogpopst “Beating the Dead (Boss) Hoss,” 10/26/23.
You must be logged in to post a comment.