Negative AGI and percentages for various deductions.


D

D. Stussy

From what I read in the IRC, it simply says that: "There shall be allowed
as an expense the amount ... which exceeds X% of AGI." (paraphrase). This
type of language is present in sections 67 (misc-2%), 165 (personal
casualty loss - 10%), and 213 (medical expense - 7.5%). All three sections
allow for an artificial number which is the difference between the
respective percentage of AGI and the amount of the expense(s) incurred (for
casualty, less an amount per incident). This isn't much of a problem when
AGI is a positive number, but what about when it's negative?

A response I got from the IRS suggested that when AGI is negative, the
medical and miscellaneous percentages become zero, but surprisingly enough,
not the casualty loss figure. However, I cannot find any authority for
treating AGI as if it were zero for percentage purposes. There's nothing
in the code nor the regulations, and I have not found any revenue ruling,
procedure, or court case that says such.

Does anyone know of any authority where a negative AGI is treated as zero
for percentage-floor purposes of other deductions?

If there is no authority for such, then is there any reason why the
statutory formulae should be disregarded?
 
A

Alan

as an expense the amount ... which exceeds X% of AGI." (paraphrase). This
type of language is present in sections 67 (misc-2%), 165 (personal
casualty loss - 10%), and 213 (medical expense - 7.5%). All three sections
allow for an artificial number which is the difference between the
respective percentage of AGI and the amount of the expense(s) incurred (for
casualty, less an amount per incident). This isn't much of a problem when
AGI is a positive number, but what about when it's negative?

A response I got from the IRS suggested that when AGI is negative, the
medical and miscellaneous percentages become zero, but surprisingly enough,
not the casualty loss figure. However, I cannot find any authority for
treating AGI as if it were zero for percentage purposes. There's nothing
in the code nor the regulations, and I have not found any revenue ruling,
procedure, or court case that says such.

Does anyone know of any authority where a negative AGI is treated as zero
for percentage-floor purposes of other deductions?

If there is no authority for such, then is there any reason why the
statutory formulae should be disregarded?
The IRS response is nonsensical.

When AGI goes negative, an individual's itemized deductions become
worthless for purposes of computing taxable income unless there is an
NOL. The medical and misc. itemized deductions are not allowed for an
NOL, so it doesn't matter what you use for the % floor limitation. The
actual calculation would create an amount equal to the full expense
whether you used the negative number or zero. The full expense would
generate no tax benefit. Casualty & theft losses are not handled the
same way. They are allowed for purposes of computing an NOL. Therefore,
the amount of loss can create a tax benefit when AGI is negative. I am
"not aware" of any guidance anywhere that says when you compute your
casualty/theft loss, you use any number other than the amount identified
as AGI and the amount of 10% that is in the statute. That would make the
casualty/theft loss fully allowable (except for the incident deduction)
for computing an NOL.
 
Ad

Advertisements

D

D. Stussy

Alan said:
The IRS response is nonsensical.

When AGI goes negative, an individual's itemized deductions become
worthless for purposes of computing taxable income unless there is an
NOL. The medical and misc. itemized deductions are not allowed for an
NOL, so it doesn't matter what you use for the % floor limitation. The
actual calculation would create an amount equal to the full expense
whether you used the negative number or zero. The full expense would
generate no tax benefit. Casualty & theft losses are not handled the
same way. They are allowed for purposes of computing an NOL. Therefore,
the amount of loss can create a tax benefit when AGI is negative. I am
"not aware" of any guidance anywhere that says when you compute your
casualty/theft loss, you use any number other than the amount identified
as AGI and the amount of 10% that is in the statute. That would make the
casualty/theft loss fully allowable (except for the incident deduction)
for computing an NOL.
I agree that itemized deductions are pointless for the end tax result where
there is no NOL, but it clearly does have an effect when an NOL is present.
The medical deduction, as a non-business expense, does reduce net
non-business income (if not already brought to zero) that can offset an
NOL. As for Misc-2% expenses, some are business (i.e. EBE) and some
aren't, but they also have an effect.

Even the IRC does not treat the medical deduction as the expense. It is an
artificial number - the difference between the expense and the AGI
percentage. Therefore, when AGI is negative, why shouldn't its respective
percentage also be negative? Same with the misc-2% category. However,
where is there a limit that the artificial number resulting from the
formula cannot exceed the amount of the expense? The code says simply (for
all three deductions):

D = E - %AGI.

I'm looking for the authority that says that such can only be used when AGI
= 0, and supposedly where AGI < 0, D = E. I can't find any such authority
that the IRS claims exists (and even if it exists, as the formulae are
statutory, if the authority is not statutory, I see no valid reason to
follow it).


As I'm dealing with a NOL carryback year in a few months with IRS appeals
over this matter, it does make a difference.
 
A

Alan

I agree that itemized deductions are pointless for the end tax result where
there is no NOL, but it clearly does have an effect when an NOL is present.
The medical deduction, as a non-business expense, does reduce net
non-business income (if not already brought to zero) that can offset an
NOL. As for Misc-2% expenses, some are business (i.e. EBE) and some
aren't, but they also have an effect.

Even the IRC does not treat the medical deduction as the expense. It is an
artificial number - the difference between the expense and the AGI
percentage. Therefore, when AGI is negative, why shouldn't its respective
percentage also be negative? Same with the misc-2% category. However,
where is there a limit that the artificial number resulting from the
formula cannot exceed the amount of the expense? The code says simply (for
all three deductions):

D = E - %AGI.

I'm looking for the authority that says that such can only be used when AGI
that the IRS claims exists (and even if it exists, as the formulae are
statutory, if the authority is not statutory, I see no valid reason to
follow it).


As I'm dealing with a NOL carryback year in a few months with IRS appeals
over this matter, it does make a difference.
I think your use of the word "percentage" has confused me. In fact, I am
not sure exactly what the IRS is telling to you. All that being said, I
am not aware of any statutory rule, IRS guidance or court decision that
alters the basic formula. Your deduction equals the amount of expense
that exceeds the limitation calculated by multiplying AGI by the
applicable percentage. If AGI is negative, then the limit is negative
and your excess will be greater than your actual expense. The law limits
your deduction to the actual. In the worst case scenario, someone may
argue that you can't use a negative limit and therefore you must use AGI
of zero for the calculation. The end result is the same, you get to use
the entire amount of expense.

If the IRS is saying, that when AGI goes negative, your deductions are
disallowed, that is nonsensical.
 
S

Seth

Your deduction equals the amount of expense
that exceeds the limitation calculated by multiplying AGI by the
applicable percentage. If AGI is negative, then the limit is negative
and your excess will be greater than your actual expense. The law limits
your deduction to the actual.
I think that's what he's asking for: a reference to which law limits
the deduction to the actual, since the Internal Revenue Code gives a
formula that exceeds the actual.

Seth
 
A

Alan

I think that's what he's asking for: a reference to which law limits
the deduction to the actual, since the Internal Revenue Code gives a
formula that exceeds the actual.

Seth
Well... if that's what he wants.... The actual code sections that allow
the deductions for the items in question limit the amount to actuals.

E.g., the section on medical (213) says you can deduct "the expenses
paid during the taxable year, not compensated for by insurance or
otherwise"; the section for losses (165) says you can deduct "any loss
sustained during the taxable year and not compensated for by insurance
or otherwise". The other sections of the code that flow to the 2%
limited miscellaneous items have similar wording. E.g., the section on
expenses for production of income (212) says you can deduct "all the
ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable
year." The section on business expenses (162) uses the words "all the
ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year
in carrying on any trade or business..."


And finally.... Section 461 and its Regulation, the general rule....
Under the cash receipts and disbursements method of accounting, amounts
representing allowable deductions shall, as a general rule, be taken
into account for the taxable year in which paid.
 
D

D. Stussy

Alan said:
I think your use of the word "percentage" has confused me. In fact, I am
not sure exactly what the IRS is telling to you. All that being said, I
am not aware of any statutory rule, IRS guidance or court decision that
alters the basic formula. Your deduction equals the amount of expense
that exceeds the limitation calculated by multiplying AGI by the
applicable percentage. If AGI is negative, then the limit is negative
and your excess will be greater than your actual expense. The law limits
your deduction to the actual. In the worst case scenario, someone may
argue that you can't use a negative limit and therefore you must use AGI
of zero for the calculation. The end result is the same, you get to use
the entire amount of expense.

If the IRS is saying, that when AGI goes negative, your deductions are
disallowed, that is nonsensical.
You said a key point: "The law limits your deduction to the actual." I
don't see that in statute at all since the deduction is defined only as a
difference (between two values). That's the problem. In most other
sections, I agree that the deduction is the amount of the expense
(occasionally with an adjsutment or two), but these three sections which
have a percentage of AGI as the amount to compare with the expense to
arrive at the deduction don't seem to have that boundary.

What you identify above as the worst case scenario is what the IRS
asserted. However, I cannot find authority for that position, nor is such
consistent with the statutory formulae given in the code. That's why I
asked the question.
 
D

D. Stussy

Alan said:
Well... if that's what he wants.... The actual code sections that allow
the deductions for the items in question limit the amount to actuals.

E.g., the section on medical (213) says you can deduct "the expenses
paid during the taxable year, not compensated for by insurance or
otherwise"; the section for losses (165) says you can deduct "any loss
sustained during the taxable year and not compensated for by insurance
or otherwise". The other sections of the code that flow to the 2%
limited miscellaneous items have similar wording. E.g., the section on
expenses for production of income (212) says you can deduct "all the
ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable
year." The section on business expenses (162) uses the words "all the
ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year
in carrying on any trade or business..."
Those sections all say that one may deduct the appropriate expense to the
extent it exceeds the relevant percentage of AGI. It does not say to treat
the that percentage as if AGI were zero when AGI is negative. The
deduction is the difference between the expense and the floor, and when AGI
is negative, the statutory formula indicates that the deduction is
mathematically larger than the expense -- WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

Except where AGI is naturally exactly zero, the deduction allowed will not
equal the expense.

Where is the wording that limits the artificial number computed as the
deduction to the expense? Nowhere! That's why I asked the question.
And finally.... Section 461 and its Regulation, the general rule....
Under the cash receipts and disbursements method of accounting, amounts
representing allowable deductions shall, as a general rule, be taken
into account for the taxable year in which paid.
This issue is accounting method independent.
 
Ad

Advertisements

A

Alan

You said a key point: "The law limits your deduction to the actual." I
don't see that in statute at all since the deduction is defined only as a
difference (between two values). That's the problem. In most other
sections, I agree that the deduction is the amount of the expense
(occasionally with an adjsutment or two), but these three sections which
have a percentage of AGI as the amount to compare with the expense to
arrive at the deduction don't seem to have that boundary.

What you identify above as the worst case scenario is what the IRS
asserted. However, I cannot find authority for that position, nor is such
consistent with the statutory formulae given in the code. That's why I
asked the question.
Reread the sections and decisions on distortion of income based on
accounting.

Here's the one on Medical:

(a) Allowance of deduction
There shall be allowed as a deduction the expenses paid during the
taxable year, not compensated for by insurance or otherwise, for medical
care of the taxpayer, his spouse, or a dependent (as defined in section
152, determined without regard to subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), and
(d)(1)(B) thereof), to the extent that such expenses exceed 7.5 percent
of adjusted gross income.

Note that it says you can deduct what you "PAID" "to the extent" that it
exceeds the limit. It doesn't say you can deduct the amount that exceeds
the floor.

Come on.... do you really believe that you would ever be allowed to
deduct $1000 in medical expenses when you only paid $750?
 
D

D. Stussy

Alan said:
Reread the sections and decisions on distortion of income based on
accounting.

Here's the one on Medical:

(a) Allowance of deduction
There shall be allowed as a deduction the expenses paid during the
taxable year, not compensated for by insurance or otherwise, for medical
care of the taxpayer, his spouse, or a dependent (as defined in section
152, determined without regard to subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), and
(d)(1)(B) thereof), to the extent that such expenses exceed 7.5 percent
of adjusted gross income.

Note that it says you can deduct what you "PAID" "to the extent" that it
exceeds the limit. It doesn't say you can deduct the amount that exceeds
the floor.

Come on.... do you really believe that you would ever be allowed to
deduct $1000 in medical expenses when you only paid $750?
That's EXACTLY what the code itself literally says. If the floor is
$-250.00 because the AGI is $-3,333.33, the expense paid does in fact
exceed the floor by $1,000, and the deduction is the difference between the
floor and the expense (when the floor is less than the expense). There is
no limit on where the floor may be -- it is always 0.075 x AGI.

The equation of the code section itself is:

Where E <= 0, D = 0:
Where E <= 0.075 x AGI, D = 0, and
where E > 0.075 x AGI, D = E - 0.075 x AGI.

That's it. There is no condition to treat AGI as equal to 0 when AGI is
negative. The deduction is not the expense itself but an artificial number
based on it. Where the floor and expense are equal, the expense does not
exceed the floor, thus equality is assigned to the first part of the
equation.

Show me where it specifically says D <= E (i.e. where the deduction may not
exceed the expense). I see no such language in the section itself.

"There shall be allowed as a deduction the expenses paid during the taxable
year, not compensated for by insurance or otherwise, for medical care of
the taxpayer, his spouse, or a dependent (as defined in section 152,
determined without regard to subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), and (d)(1)(B)
thereof), ..."

=> E > 0. (expenses must exist; i.e. not zero), and

"... to the extent that such expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross
income."

=> E > 0.075 x AGI.
Then D = E - 0.075 x AGI.


In the computer language C, this would be written as a single, one line
equation:

D = ( E > max( 0, 0.075 * AGI))? (E - 0.075 * AGI) : 0;

There simply is nothing that says that AGI must be non-negative, and the
IRC in section 61 as well as 62 do not forbid a negative AGI. In fact,
since gross income includes capital losses, and section 62 are all
subtractions from gross income (section 61) to arrive at AGI, if the value
of the sum of those subtractions exceed gross income (including when GI
itself is negative), AGI will be negative without question.


A paraphrase of the section (formula part): Where there exists a
qualifying expense, the deduction is the amount that the expense exceeds
the appropriate percentage of AGI. It simply does not say that [the
absolute value of] the deduction may not exceed [the absolute value] of the
expense anywhere.

However, the IRS says the deduction is limited to the expense. Where's the
authority for that outcome?

That would be the same as:

D = ( E > max( 0, 0.075 * AGI))? max(E, E - 0.075 * AGI) : 0;

Which is an identical outcome to declaring AGI equal to zero when otherwise
negative.
 
D

D. Stussy

The last part of my reply this message is attached to should read:

"However, the IRS says the deduction is limited to the expense. Where's
the
authority for that outcome?

"That would be the same as:

D = ( E > max( 0, 0.075 * AGI))? min(E, E - 0.075 * AGI) : 0;

"Which is an identical outcome to declaring AGI equal to zero when
otherwise
negative."
 
R

Ron Rosenfeld

A response I got from the IRS suggested that when AGI is negative, the
medical and miscellaneous percentages become zero,
I agree that itemized deductions are pointless for the end tax result where
there is no NOL, but it clearly does have an effect when an NOL is present.
I think if you go through Form 1045 Schedule B, you will find that to be the case. See especially lines 13-18.
 
S

Seth

That's EXACTLY what the code itself literally says. If the floor is
$-250.00 because the AGI is $-3,333.33, the expense paid does in fact
exceed the floor by $1,000, and the deduction is the difference between the
floor and the expense (when the floor is less than the expense). There is
no limit on where the floor may be -- it is always 0.075 x AGI.
It says you may deduct *the expenses paid* *to the extent that they
exceed the floor*. That is (in a particular example), you may deduct
the $1000 paid to the extent that it exceeds $-250. "To the extent
that" is the phrase that implies "the lesser of".

Seth
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
It says you may deduct *the expenses paid* *to the extent that they
exceed the floor*. That is (in a particular example), you may deduct
the $1000 paid to the extent that it exceeds $-250. "To the extent
that" is the phrase that implies "the lesser of".
This is exactly as a I understand the section to mean just by reading it.
 
Ad

Advertisements

D

D. Stussy

D. Stussy said:
allowed
as an expense the amount ... which exceeds X% of AGI." (paraphrase). This
type of language is present in sections 67 (misc-2%), 165 (personal
casualty loss - 10%), and 213 (medical expense - 7.5%). All three sections
allow for an artificial number which is the difference between the
respective percentage of AGI and the amount of the expense(s) incurred (for
casualty, less an amount per incident). This isn't much of a problem when
AGI is a positive number, but what about when it's negative?

A response I got from the IRS suggested that when AGI is negative, the
medical and miscellaneous percentages become zero, but surprisingly enough,
not the casualty loss figure. However, I cannot find any authority for
treating AGI as if it were zero for percentage purposes. There's nothing
in the code nor the regulations, and I have not found any revenue ruling,
procedure, or court case that says such.

...
The examination that this question resulted from was just closed with the
taxpayer's claim ALLOWED IN FULL, which includes negative percentages for
the respective AGI-based floors. This does mean that the allowed
deductions did exceed the expenses of each respective category. Today, the
taxpayer received a check for full payment of the claim (plus statutory
interest).

I guess the IRS didn't want to litigate the issue.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads


Top