James F. McDonough
Of Counsel
732-568-8360 jmcdonough@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Aragona Trust v. Commissioner: A Taxpayer Victory Against the 3.8% Surcharge
Author: James F. McDonough
Date: April 8, 2014
Key Contacts
Back
One of the hard-fought issues between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was whether a trust could qualify for the passive activities exception. Specifically, activities are grouped into one of two categories, either active or passive. The goal of §469 was to prevent losses from a passive activity from offsetting active income. If one can recall the heyday of the tax shelter industry when losses from passive activities offset earned income (e.g., salary) and cause less income tax to be collected. The 1986 Tax Reform Act contained the passive loss rules §469 that were designed to segregate active and passive income and loss.
The passive loss rules contain an exception under §469(c)(7) whereby a taxpayer who satisfies the material participation test will be able to classify the income or loss as active. Why is this important? The Affordable Care Act introduced a 3.8% income tax surcharge on passive income that could be avoided if the trust materially participates. The other alternative is that losses, rather than being trapped, can be used against active income.
How does a trust qualify for the §469(c)(7) exception? The Tax Court held the taxpayer meets the requirement if more than one-half of the services are in real property trades or businesses in which he materially participates. The Tax Court agreed with the taxpayer and held that the activities of the trustee can be used to measure material participation. This is the pro-taxpayer aspect of the case. IRS had maintained the legislative history referred only to natural persons and C corporations as qualifying for material participation under this provision.
Trustees and advisors should review their real estate holdings in order to determine if they can avail themselves of the holding.
Aragona has some unique facts. The Trust owns rental real property and entities that hold and develop real estate. The Trust was managed by one independent trustee and the Grantor’s five children. One limited liability company (LLC) wholly owned by the Trust employed three children and managed trust properties.
Each one of the six trustees was paid a fee by the Trust. In 2005 and 2006, the Trust treated these payments as losses from non-passive activities. The IRS wanted the losses classified as passive activity losses.
The ability of a taxpayer to avoid passive characterization is very helpful as Aragona is a better reasoned opinion than the Mattie Carter Trust out of a District Court in Texas.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Aragona Trust v. Commissioner: A Taxpayer Victory Against the 3.8% Surcharge
Author: James F. McDonough
One of the hard-fought issues between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was whether a trust could qualify for the passive activities exception. Specifically, activities are grouped into one of two categories, either active or passive. The goal of §469 was to prevent losses from a passive activity from offsetting active income. If one can recall the heyday of the tax shelter industry when losses from passive activities offset earned income (e.g., salary) and cause less income tax to be collected. The 1986 Tax Reform Act contained the passive loss rules §469 that were designed to segregate active and passive income and loss.
The passive loss rules contain an exception under §469(c)(7) whereby a taxpayer who satisfies the material participation test will be able to classify the income or loss as active. Why is this important? The Affordable Care Act introduced a 3.8% income tax surcharge on passive income that could be avoided if the trust materially participates. The other alternative is that losses, rather than being trapped, can be used against active income.
How does a trust qualify for the §469(c)(7) exception? The Tax Court held the taxpayer meets the requirement if more than one-half of the services are in real property trades or businesses in which he materially participates. The Tax Court agreed with the taxpayer and held that the activities of the trustee can be used to measure material participation. This is the pro-taxpayer aspect of the case. IRS had maintained the legislative history referred only to natural persons and C corporations as qualifying for material participation under this provision.
Trustees and advisors should review their real estate holdings in order to determine if they can avail themselves of the holding.
Aragona has some unique facts. The Trust owns rental real property and entities that hold and develop real estate. The Trust was managed by one independent trustee and the Grantor’s five children. One limited liability company (LLC) wholly owned by the Trust employed three children and managed trust properties.
Each one of the six trustees was paid a fee by the Trust. In 2005 and 2006, the Trust treated these payments as losses from non-passive activities. The IRS wanted the losses classified as passive activity losses.
The ability of a taxpayer to avoid passive characterization is very helpful as Aragona is a better reasoned opinion than the Mattie Carter Trust out of a District Court in Texas.