ILNews

BGBC: Prohibited transactions can result in deemed IRA distributions

July 12, 2017
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Pollom Pollom

As self-directed Individual Retirement Accounts become more popular, their owners and beneficiaries need to be aware of the rules regarding prohibited transactions to avoid pitfalls. Failure to follow the rules for self-directed IRAs can risk the tax-deferred status of the IRA account, which could make the entire balance taxable to the owner in the year of the infraction. If the owner is not yet 59 ½ years old, the 10 percent penalty for early withdrawal will also apply.

A self-directed IRA is not a recent phenomenon. They’ve been around since the IRA was created in 1974, and the Internal Revenue Service has always allowed investments in alternatives to traditional stocks, bonds and mutual funds. There are only a few investments that are not allowed to be held by an IRA. The IRS does not provide guidance on what is permitted; it only lists the investments that are NOT allowed. Examples of prohibited IRA investments include collectibles such as artwork, antiques and certain coins. Life insurance is also a prohibited investment for an IRA. IRS Publication 590 provides more information regarding prohibited investments.

The IRS rules for IRAs also dictate what transactions involving an IRA are prohibited. Generally, a prohibited transaction is any improper use of an IRA account by the owner, the beneficiary or any “disqualified person.” Investments made with a self-directed IRA must be at arm’s length. Prohibited transactions include investments with disqualified persons, self-dealing, and receiving indirect benefits. Specific examples include selling property to the IRA, buying property for personal use with IRA funds, and any lending of money or extension of credit to disqualified persons.

Disqualified persons are defined as individuals or entities between whom (or which) an IRA is prohibited from engaging in any direct or indirect sale or exchange or leasing of any property; lending of money or other extension of credit; furnishing goods, services or facilities; or transferring to or permitting the use of IRA income or assets. Such persons include family members of the IRA owner, fiduciaries, service providers of the IRA (i.e., custodians and financial planners) and any entities of which 50 percent or more is owned directly or indirectly by the IRA owner.

If the IRA owner or his or her beneficiary engage in a prohibited transaction during a tax year, the account ceases to be an IRA as of the first day of that tax year, and the account is treated as if all the assets were distributed to the owner on the first day of the year. The distribution would then be subject to taxation at ordinary rates. The IRS imposes these strict rules on IRAs because the purpose of the IRA is to provide for future retirement. If the IRA is engaging in transactions that currently benefit the owner, it is considered to be an “indirect benefit,” which is prohibited under the IRA rules. Also, it is important to note that losses on investments held inside an IRA are not tax deductible for the owner.

James and Judith Thiessen learned about prohibited transactions the hard way. In 2003, they were interested in purchasing a metal products company. As part of their plan to purchase the company, they formed a C corporation. A few days later, each spouse set up self-directed IRAs and funded them with other retirement funds transferred via tax-free rollovers. The couple then directed their IRAs to purchase stock of the C corporation. About 10 days later, the C corporation purchased the metal products the company financed partially by a $200,000 note from the C corporation that the Thiessens personally guaranteed. The couple reported the tax-free rollover on their 2003 joint income tax return, but failed to disclose the loan guarantee. The IRS examined the return, discovered the prohibited transaction (the loan guarantee), disqualified the IRAs and assessed a deficiency of over $180,000.

The Thiessens petitioned the U.S. Tax Court for relief, but found none (see Thiessen v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. No. 7 2016). The Tax Court held that the loan guarantee was a prohibited transaction because it was an indirect extension of credit. As a result, the assets of the IRAs were deemed to have distributed to the Thiessens on the first day of 2003 and were subject to income tax and the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty. This mistake was likely the result of not properly analyzing the various phases of the transaction and applying the prohibited transaction rules.

If you are considering setting up a self-directed IRA, it is highly recommended that you consult with your CPA or financial adviser to be sure you don’t conflict with the rules regarding prohibited transactions. The rules are strict and the penalty for breaking them is harsh.•

__________

Samuel M. Pollom, JD, CPA is with BGBC Partners LLP — Litigation, Forensic and Business Valuation. Contact BGBC at 317-633-4700 or visit www.bgbc.com. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

ADVERTISEMENT