1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
STAT
E BO
AR
D
OF E
Q
UA
L
IZA
TI
ON
PERSONA
L IN
COM
E
TAX
A
P
PEAL
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Appeal of:
NED YAMIN AND HAIDEH YAMIN
) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
SUMMARY DECISION
PERSONAL INCOME TAX APPEAL
Case No. 6032211
Adopted: September 23, 2014
Representing the Parties:
For Appellants: Gary M. Slavett, Esq.
For Franchise Tax Board: Raul A. Escatel, Tax Counsel III
Counsel for the Board of Equalization: William J. Stafford, Tax Counsel III
This appeal is made pursuant to section 19045 of the Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) from the action of the Franchise Tax Board (FTB or respondent) on appellants’ protest against a proposed assessment in the amount of $152,299.00 in additional tax and a $22,408.50 late filing
penalty for 2005.2 The issue presented in this appeal is whether appellants have shown reasonable
cause for abatement of the late filing penalty. ///
1
This appeal originally was scheduled for this Board’s July 17, 2013 oral hearing calendar. At appellants’ request it was deferred, and rescheduled for this Board’s October 29-31, 2013 oral hearing calendar. In a letter dated October 4, 2013, appellants made new arguments regarding the late filing penalty and, this appeal was removed from this Board’s
October 29-31, 2013 oral hearing calendar pursuant to a request of the Appeals Division to conduct additional briefing. The appeal was rescheduled for this Board’s August 5-7, 2014 oral hearing calendar. Subsequently, when appellants failed to respond to the hearing notice, this appeal was rescheduled to this Board’s September 23-24, 2014, nonappearance calendar.
2
As discussed below, on appeal, appellants concede the amount of additional tax. The FTB clarified that the late filing penalty is $22,408.50, as set forth in the Notice of Proposed Assessment (NPA)—not $37,417.75 as stated in the Notice of Action (NOA).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
STAT
E BO
AR
D
OF E
Q
UA
L
IZA
TI
ON
PERSONA
L IN
COM
E
TAX
A
P
PEAL
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Background
In 1990 appellants acquired commercial property in Los Angeles, California
(“relinquished property”), which they held until its disposition on July 30, 2004. The disposition of the relinquished property was structured with the intent to result in a like-kind exchange in which appellants would exchange the relinquished property for another commercial property located in Las Vegas,
Nevada (“replacement property”). The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 1031 transaction spanned over two tax years—i.e., the disposition of the relinquished property occurred in 2004 and the
acquisition of the replacement property (and the receipt of boot) occurred in 2005.
Appellants’ Return
Appellants filed their joint 2005 California Resident Income Tax Return late on
February 13, 2007,3 reporting a federal adjusted gross income (AGI) of $590,727 and a California
taxable income of $508,300. On a 2005 federal Form 8824 (Like Kind Exchanges), appellants reported the following amounts: (i) fair market value of like-kind property received of $5,100,000; (ii) adjusted basis of like-kind property given up of $2,350,000; and (iii) a deferred gain of $2,750,000 from a like-kind exchange under IRC section 1031.
Audit
The FTB audited appellants’ 2005 tax return to determine whether appellants properly reported the IRC section 1031 transaction. After reviewing the matter, the FTB allowed an adjusted basis in the relinquished property in the amount of $860,962. During the audit, the FTB determined that appellants had to recognize taxable gain of $1,488,239 from the IRC section 1031 transaction. Based on the foregoing, the FTB issued an NPA for the 2005 tax year on February 24, 2010, which added $1,488,239 to appellants’ taxable income. The NPA proposed an additional tax of $152,299.00, a late filing penalty of $22,408.50, and an accuracy-related penalty of $30,459.80, plus interest.
Protest
Appellants filed a timely protest, arguing that they were permitted to defer recognition
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
STAT
E BO
AR
D
OF E
Q
UA
L
IZA
TI
ON
PERSONA
L IN
COM
E
TAX
A
P
PEAL
of gain under IRC section 1031 because they “acquired like property at a cost higher than the value of the property sold.” In addition, appellants argued that the accuracy-related penalty should be abated because they reasonably relied on the advice of their tax attorney, Mr. Michael Singer, in preparing their return. Appellants did not specifically address the imposition of the late filing penalty in their protest letter.
After reviewing the matter, the FTB abated the accuracy-related penalty, finding that appellants reasonably relied upon their tax attorney in structuring the IRC section 1031 transaction. Later, the FTB issued an NOA on January 20, 2012, for the 2005 tax year, which, among other things, added $1,488,239 to appellants’ taxable income. The NOA proposed an additional tax of $152,299.00 and a late filing penalty of $37,417.75, plus interest. In response, appellants filed this timely appeal.
Concessions on Appeal
On appeal, appellants concede the amount of additional tax of $152,299. The FTB states that the late filing penalty is only $22,408.50, as set forth in the NPA, not $37,417.75 as stated in the NOA. The only issue remaining on appeal is whether appellants have shown reasonable cause for abatement of the late filing penalty.
Contentions
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants assert that their California return was filed late because of a conflict between their attorney and their CPA regarding the proper reporting of the IRC section 1031 transaction. Specifically, appellants assert that their tax attorney was of the opinion the 1031 transaction was a tax deferred transaction while their CPA was of the opinion the 1031 transaction was taxable.
Appellants contend that they provided their CPA with all the necessary information to file their California return in a timely manner (i.e., before expiration of the extended deadline of
October 15, 2006) but their CPA would not complete and file their return until the taxable nature of the 1031 transaction was resolved.
Appellants state that their tax attorney and their CPA had numerous discussions regarding the taxable nature of the 1031 transaction. Appellants contend that by the time of the filing deadline of October 15, 2006, their CPA was still unsure as to whether the 1031 transaction was taxable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
STAT
E BO
AR
D
OF E
Q
UA
L
IZA
TI
ON
PERSONA
L IN
COM
E
TAX
A
P
PEAL
and he told appellants he needed additional time to determine the proper reporting of the transaction. Appellants assert that (i) their CPA had no discussions with them regarding a potential late filing penalty if they filed their return after the extended deadline of October 15, 2006, and (ii) their CPA did not give them any options regarding the filing of their return other than to wait until he
(the CPA) could determine the proper reporting of the 1031 transaction.
Appellants state that between October of 2006 and January of 2007, their CPA had additional conversations with appellants’ tax attorney regarding the nature of the 1031 transaction, and by the first week of February 2007, their tax attorney convinced their CPA the 1031 transaction was classified properly as a tax deferred transaction, at which time their CPA completed and filed their return.
Appellants also contend, in a general manner, that they frequently requested updates from their CPA and they indicated to their CPA they wanted to file their tax return as soon as possible. In support of their arguments, appellants provide the following documents:
• An opinion letter dated November 22, 2004, from their tax attorney, who states that the
1031 transaction qualifies for non-recognition of income:
Since Mr. Yamin is acquiring like property at a cost higher than the value of the property sold, the transaction qualifies for non-recognition of income, even though not all of the “boot” (cash) received is used to acquire the new property. This is so because the basis of the newly acquired property will still exceed the basis of the transferred property.
• A declaration dated January 31, 2014, from their CPA who states as follows:
1. I am a licensed certified public accountant (“CPA”) in the State of California. I am currently a
shareholder at Bamshad & Company, An Accountancy Corporation. My current business address is . . . Encino, CA 91436.
2. I am (sic) been Ned and Haideh Yamin’s (the “Yamins”) CPA for and have prepared their
individual income tax returns for over 10 years.
3. I prepared the Yamins’ 2005 Form 540, California Resident Income Tax Return.
4. I prepared and filed an extension of time to file the Yamins’ 2005 tax returns. It was common
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
STAT
E BO
AR
D
OF E
Q
UA
L
IZA
TI
ON
PERSONA
L IN
COM
E
TAX
A
P
PEAL
exact reason for filing the Yamins’ extension.
5. In approximately July/August of 2006, I began the process of preparing the Yamins’ tax returns.
By this time the Yamins had provided my office with all of their tax documents necessary to complete the return. I was aware the Yamins had enter [sic] into a Section 1031 transaction that was completed in 2005. The tax documents included all third party reporting (Forms 1098, 1099s), schedules of income and expenses related to rental properties, documents related to the sale of real property located at . . . Victory Blvd, Van Nuys, California (“Van Nuys property”), and documents related to the purchase of real property located at . . . S. Pecos Road, Las Vegas, Nevada [(]“Las Vegas Property”). The documents related to the Van Nuys Property included the Final Settlement Statement. Further, with the tax documents provided by the Yamins was a letter from Attorney Michael Singer regarding the tax treatment of the sale and purchase of the two properties and the application of Internal Revenue Code section 1031.
6. In approximately August/September 2006, during the preparation of the tax return, I entered the
information regarding the Section 1031 transaction into my tax preparation software. The Amended Settlement Statement for the Van Nuys property (this was the relinquished property) contained the information regarding the sale price, fees/commissions paid, as well as the closing date. The cost basis of the Van Nuys property was provided by the Yamins. The Settlement Statement for the Las Vegas Property (this was the replacement property) contained the information regarding the purchase price, settlement date, cash received and mortgage assumption.
7. Upon entering the information regarding the Section 1031 transaction, my tax preparation
software indicated an issue with the Section 1031 transaction. The tax preparation software was indicating a taxable gain, whereby the letter from Attorney Michael Singer advised that there should be no taxable gain.
8. In approximately September/October 2006, I conducted my own research and had discussions
with the Yamins and Attorney Singer. By the due date of the return, I was still unclear as to the proper reporting of the Section 1031 transaction. I spoke with the Yamins and advised them that I needed additional time to determine the proper reporting of the Section 1031 transaction.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
STAT
E BO
AR
D
OF E
Q
UA
L
IZA
TI
ON
PERSONA
L IN
COM
E
TAX
A
P
PEAL
There was no discussion with the Yamins regarding the consequences of filing the return after the due date. I did not give the Yamins any options; I simply explained I needed additional time to determine the proper reporting of the Section 1031 transaction.
9. Between October 2006 and January 2007, I had numerous telephone discussions with
Attorney Singer and the Yamins, and conducted additional research. The Yamins had requested frequent updates and requested that I file the return as soon as possible.
10.By the first week of February 2007, Attorney Singer had convinced me that his interpretation of
Section 1031 was correct. At that time I completed the return and it was filed.
11.These events occurred over 7 years ago. I do not have any documents/e-mails regarding my
discussions with the Yamins or Attorney Singer regarding this issue. I believe that the Yamins relied on me as their CPA to determine the course in which their return should be filed. I was concerned about filing an incorrect return and felt that I needed additional time to determine the proper reporting of the Section 1031 transaction. Accordingly, I do not believe the Yamins caused the late filing of their return.
The FTB’s Contentions
The FTB states that appellants’ assert that they believed the return was timely filed by their tax professional as reasonable cause for the late filing. The FTB asserts that appellants have a personal nondelegable obligation to file their tax return by the due date and may not rely upon their agents (such as their CPA and/or attorney) to excuse their failure to file in a timely manner, citing
Boyle v. United States (1985) 469 U.S. 241 (“Boyle”) and Knappe v. United States (9th Cir. 2013)
713 F.3d 1164 (“Knappe”).
The FTB summarizes Boyle,wherein an executor relied on his attorney to prepare and
file an estate tax return. The executor contacted the attorney a number of times to inquire as to what progress had been made, and was assured that the return would be filed timely. The attorney, however, missed the filing deadline through a clerical oversight. The Supreme Court held the executor failed to show reasonable cause for filing a late return because he had a nondelegable duty to comply with the
filing deadline and could not simply rely on his attorney to do so. (Id. at 249-52.) The Court
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
STAT
E BO
AR
D
OF E
Q
UA
L
IZA
TI
ON
PERSONA
L IN
COM
E
TAX
A
P
PEAL
of counsel concerning a question of law,” such as “whether a liability exist[ed]” or whether it was
necessary to file a return at all. (Id. at 250-251.)
The FTB states that this Board consistently has applied the holding in Boyle to reach the
conclusion that each taxpayer has a personal nondelegable obligation to file his/her tax return and reliance on an accountant or an attorney does not constitute reasonable cause. In this respect, the FTB argues that (a) it makes no difference that appellants’ CPA was unable to reconcile the discrepancy between his tax treatment of the like-kind exchange and what the Opinion Letter from the tax attorney stated because it was appellants’ duty to ensure the tax return was timely filed, and (b) appellants should have hired another accountant to timely prepare the return when they understood, or should have determined their CPA was not able to prepare and file their return by the extended deadline of
October 15, 2006.
The FTB summarizes Knappe v. United States, supra,wherein the United States Court
of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue of whether the executor of an estate could show reasonable cause for filing an estate tax return past the legal deadline because he had received faulty advice from his accountant as to the length of the filing extension. The Court held that the executor failed to show reasonable cause for filing a late return because he had relied upon his accountant’s
advice about a nonsubstative matter—i.e., the length of the filing extension. (Knappe, 713 F.3d at
1171.) The Court reasoned that the maximum length of a filing deadline extension is not a “debatable” question as to which reliance on an expert might provide reasonable cause for a late filing.
The FTB asserts that appellants’ position on appeal is even more “culpable” than that of
the taxpayer in Knappe because in that case the taxpayer’s failure to timely file a tax return was due to
reliance on his accountant to obtain an extension of time and the accountant gave the taxpayer erroneous advice regarding the due date. In comparison, the FTB asserts that in the current appeal, appellants clearly knew the due date for filing their return was October 15, 2006, a fact the FTB asserts is not disputed on appeal.
As noted above, appellants assert the following factors, among others, demonstrate reasonable cause for relief from the late filing penalty: (a) appellants had no conversations with their CPA regarding the consequences of filing their return late; (b) their CPA did not give appellants any
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
STAT
E BO
AR
D
OF E
Q
UA
L
IZA
TI
ON
PERSONA
L IN
COM
E
TAX
A
P
PEAL
“options” regarding the filing of their return; and (c) their CPA stated that he required additional time to correctly determine whether the 1031 transaction was taxable. The FTB asserts that the above-listed factors are merely “excuses” that fail to demonstrate reasonable cause for relief from the late filing penalty because (i) appellants took no responsibility for ensuring the timely filing of their return and (ii) appellants’ inaction does not comport with how an ordinary and intelligent businessperson would act in similar circumstances.
The FTB contends that appellants’ assertion they relied upon their accountant is “illusory” for the following reasons:
• Appellants knew their return was due by October 15, 2006.
• Appellants knew that the due date for filing their return included an extension, giving them
notice there was no additional time beyond October 15, 2006.
• Appellants were aware that they had no additional time, as evidenced by the fact that their CPA
routinely filed extensions of time on their behalf.
• Appellants knew that their CPA would not complete their return by the “due date,” as evidenced
by the fact that appellants’ supplemental brief which states the CPA advised them he required additional time.
• Appellants never describe the purported “inconsistency” between their CPA’s tax preparation
software and the information contained in their tax attorney’s Opinion Letter—nor have they shown that the alleged inconsistency was material.
• Appellants failed to exercise prudent business care and inquire as to the consequences of not
filing their return by the extended filing deadline.
The FTB contends that appellants had to report other items of income for the 2005 tax year and, thus, their failure to file a return timely because of the alleged discrepancy over the taxable nature of the 1031 transaction does not support a finding of reasonable cause. Specifically, the FTB asserts that appellants received over $500,000 in taxable income that needed to be reported for the 2005 tax year, independent of the 1031 transaction. In addition, the FTB asserts that their tax attorney’s opinion letter shows that the like-kind exchange would result in income recognition of some proceeds, as the letter states that there was gain from the transaction equal to $600,000, plus any cash boot
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
STAT
E BO
AR
D
OF E
Q
UA
L
IZA
TI
ON
PERSONA
L IN
COM
E
TAX
A
P
PEAL
received.
The FTB asserts that appellants could have timely filed their return to comply with their duty to file their return by the due date, and once the discrepancy surrounding the like-kind exchange was resolved, whether by their current accountant or another, appellants could have filed an amended return. The FTB contends that instead of doing such, appellants simply ignored the extended due date of October 15, 2006.
Discussion
California imposes a penalty for failure to file a return by its due date, unless the failure to file was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 19131.) To establish reasonable cause, a taxpayer “must show that the failure to file timely returns occurred despite the exercise of ordinary business care and prudence, or that cause existed as would prompt an ordinary
intelligent and prudent businessman to have so acted under similar circumstances.” (Appeal of
Howard G. and Mary Tons, 79-SBE-027, Jan. 9, 1979.)
In Boyle, the Supreme Court stated that it is reasonable for a taxpayer to rely on the advice of an accountant or attorney when that accountant or attorney advises a taxpayer as to a matter of tax law; however, the Supreme Court also held that one does not need to be a tax expert to know that
tax returns have fixed filing dates and taxes must be paid when due. (Id., at 251-252.) In addition, the
Supreme Court held that a taxpayer’s reliance on an accountant or attorney cannot be a substitute for
compliance with an unambiguous statute. (Id.)
In the Appeal of Philip C. and Anne Berolzheimer (86-SBE-172), decided on
November 19, 1986, 4 this Board distinguished between relying on a tax professional’s expert advice
about a matter of substantive tax law and relying on a tax professional merely as an agent to file the return and pay taxes by the deadline. “Reasonable cause” for late filing might exist where a taxpayer reasonably relied on the expert opinion of a tax professional, even if that expert opinion was later determined to be incorrect. By contrast, relying on an agent merely to file the return and pay taxes on time is not considered “reasonable cause” for purposes of penalty abatement because taxpayers have a
4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
STAT
E BO
AR
D
OF E
Q
UA
L
IZA
TI
ON
PERSONA
L IN
COM
E
TAX
A
P
PEAL
personal, non-delegable obligation to file their tax returns and pay their taxes in a timely manner. (Appeal of Thomas K. and Gail G. Boehme, 85-SBE-134, Nov. 6, 1985.)
Appellants contend that they have established reasonable cause for the late filing of the return because of the conflict between the CPA and the attorney concerning the proper reporting of the IRC section 1031 like-kind exchange transaction. This Board has held that a taxpayer’s difficulty in obtaining necessary information, and the complexity and problems in accumulating the information
necessary to complete a return, is not reasonable cause for late filing. (Appeal of J.B. and
P.R. Campbell,85-SBE-112, Oct. 9, 1985; Appeal of Incom International, Inc.,82-SBE-053, Mar. 31, 1982) Furthermore, the correctness of reporting the transaction potentially impacted appellants’ reported income and tax liability, but not their ability to file a timely return. Appellants have not explained why they were unable to file the return by the extended due date of October 15, 2006, based on the available information, and if necessary file an amended return later. We find that an ordinarily intelligent and prudent business person under similar circumstances would have filed a return, based on an estimation of tax, before or on the due date, to avoid a late filing penalty, and, thereafter, would have filed an amended return if required.
Appellants state that the CPA “demanded additional time to determine the proper reporting of the 1031 transaction”. This Board has held that relying on an agent merely to file the return and pay taxes on time is not considered “reasonable cause” for purposes of penalty abatement because taxpayers have a personal, non-delegable obligation to file their tax returns and pay their taxes
in a timely manner. (Appeal of Thomas K. and Gail G. Boehme, supra.) Furthermore, appellants have
not asserted, and the evidence does not indicate, that their failure to file their return timely was due to reliance on their representative for advice concerning a substantive matter of tax law. Thus, appellants have not demonstrated reasonable cause based on their reliance on their CPA or attorney. Accordingly, appellants have failed to demonstrate that the late filing penalty should be abated.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the FTB’s action is hereby modified, as conceded by the FTB on appeal, such that the late filing penalty of $37,417.75, as set forth in the NOA, is reduced to $22,408.50, as set forth in the NPA. Otherwise, the FTB’s action is affirmed.