Question: The debate continues:)  I actually have an account with another SDIRA company in FL. I use their company website as a resource but, it does not seem to give much information regarding the the tax treatment of Flipping notes in an IRA:  I am networking with a lot of younger investors and there seems to be a lot of questions and little information.  When we ask our tax professionals they “look at us like-you can’t do that.”  Most tax and legal professionals do not seem to understand much, if anything about Self Directed Investing.  So here is a follow up to the conversation if you can help us clear this up.  Just to put this into context, the original question was, “what would you do with $50k in a Self Directed IRA.”  I would say the average reader is in their late 30′s. 

Investor: I find it very hard to believe that flipping notes could be considered appreciably different than transacting stocks quickly.

Tax Professional: I don’t think we are saying that they are “appreciably” different, just that the two investment options (stocks on public market vs. private market notes) are different in other means. I have no idea which is the correct and legal answer, but in my opinion, I see how one can argue that notes sold/transfered from flipping which deal with a buyer and a seller who negotiate between themselves and have contact between them in a private manner is functionally different than flipping stocks in a public market where the buyer and seller never negotiate and never have contact. To add to the confusion, what if you bought and immediately sold an actual business inside your 401k/IRA. Would UBIT apply?

Investor: Flipping stocks doesn’t just magically occur either. A buyer and a seller still have to agree on a price for a transaction to occur. There may be fewer things to negotiate in these transactions, but I don’t see how they are really different from a “business standpoint.” What about trading something on the pink sheets? Is that somehow different still?

Tax Professional: I almost always agree with you, but will have to agree to disagree on this. Regardless of who is right, as no final evidence has been discovered clearly (and may never be clear), we just have two different thoughts on this. I see a difference in stocks vs. flipping notes as explained, you do not as explained. No problem.  Not only that, when they discuss the fact that the IRA can use debt leverage on a rehab, it makes no mention of UDFI which also triggers UBIT (unless debt is paid off 365 days before sale). As I have mentioned in the past, unfortunately, find details are often missing from TPA’s such as the one you are dealing with.

It seems like there is a lot of mis information and confusion out there regarding the subject.  I certainly appreciate your thoughts, time and any information you can cite to help us clear this up.  Please note that am not asking for advice-just information on where we can find facts in regards to this subject. 

Quincy’s Answer: I think you’re trying to over analyze this and impose rationality and reason on the US government, which is of course quite impossible.  Step back and ask yourself one question while forgetting entirely about the IRA aspect of it – would note flipping be considered a trade or business if you did it personally?  If the answer is yes, then it is, by definition, a trade or business within the IRA as well, and it will generate UBIT, assuming it is “regularly carried on.”  If the answer is no, then it should not generate UBIT.  Whether something else like day trading stocks is or isn’t a trade or business is irrelevant.  You are focusing on the IRA aspect of it when you should be focusing on whether or not it is a trade or business.  In general terms, anything that you buy as “inventory” for resale to the public is going to be considered a trade or business, whether it is real estate, notes, widgets or anything else.  Unfortunately, the standard of when you cross the line from being an investor to being in a trade or business is fuzzy at best and depends on many factors.  Oh well, that’s the world we live in.

 I have attached my short paper on UBIT.  You may also find more information on UBIT in IRS Publication 598.  The Internal Revenue Code sections dealing with UBIT are 26 USC 511-514.  I hope that helps some.  Good luck!

Response: Thank you for taking the time to help me out with this.  It seems to me that it is best to error on the side of caution with this since the penalties can be so steep.  I see a lot of guys buying and flipping homes in IRA’s.  These guys are considered “Dealers” because they also buy and flip properties outside of IRA’s.  I would say since these are bought with the intention of immediately offering them for sale to the public that they would then be subject to UBIT.  The same would hold tru for a note that is immediately flipped.  When you say “regulatory carried on,” do you mean this is something you do inside the IRA X amount of times per year, X amount of times during the life if the IRA? 

Quincy’s Answer to Reponse: Review Page 3 of IRS Publication 598, which states:  “Business activities of an exempt organization ordinarily are considered regularly carried on if they show a frequency and continuity, and are pursued in a manner similar to comparable commercial activities of nonexempt organizations.”  An example is given in the publication.  I agree that intent is very important.  I’m not sure that an occasional flip in an IRA among many other investments will cause UBIT, but certainly if that’s all that the IRA invests in and the IRA owner also flips properties outside of his or her IRA that would weigh heavily in the consideration of whether the IRA had dealer income.  While IRAs are very rarely audited, it is always important to give the IRS what they are due, because they have what it takes to take what you have. 

One thing I would caution you about is not to confuse the payment of UBIT with the penalties associated with prohibited transactions.  It is perfectly legal to make investments which subject your IRA to taxation, but if you do a prohibited transaction it blows up your entire IRA and you and others may owe excise taxes and penalties as well.  The two subjects are completely separate, but many people, even educated ones, get them mixed together in their minds.

Quincy Says: As I predicted long ago, the IRS will not invalidate millions of IRAs because of the indemnification and cross-collateralization clauses in a typical brokerage style of IRA.  In at least some brokerage accounts, the account agreement calls for the assets of the IRA to indemnify any other losses from individual accounts at that brokerage and vice versa.  This of course has never been a problem with self-directed IRAs because we have no cross-indemnification clause.  However, there were people who then used this to scare people into paying them thousands of dollars to apply for an individual prohibited transaction exemption.  I maintained that if there was a problem with brokerage IRAs because of these clauses the solution would be a global solution in the form of a class prohibited transaction exemption, not an individual exemption for each IRA. 

See below.  Now the IRS has granted temporary relief from the scary scenario of a disqualified IRA simply for signing the typical brokerage account agreement in anticipation of a class exemption request expected to be submitted to the Department of Labor. 

Make no mistake, this is big news in the IRA world.  It is worthy of an article in any newsletter that is sent out, etc.  While not a permanent solution yet, the light can be seen at the end of the tunnel and the immediate threat has been removed.

If you do not understand the background of this announcement and need any clarification, please feel free to contact me at Quincy@questira.com. Have a great day!

Temporary relief for IRA owners who entered broker indemnification agreements

Ann. 2011-81, 2011-52 IRB

IRS has provided temporary relief for IRAs where the owner has signed an indemnification agreement with a broker or other financial institution, or granted certain security interests in other accounts held by the institution, that may result in a prohibited loan transaction under Code Sec. 4975.

Background. If an IRA engages in a prohibited transaction under Code Sec. 4975, it ceases to be considered an IRA and loses its tax-exempt status. (Code Sec. 408(e)(2)) The direct or indirect lending of money, or other extension of credit, between a plan and a disqualified person is a prohibited transaction. (Code Sec. 4975(c)(1)(B))

For these purposes, a “plan” includes an IRA. (Code Sec. 4975(e)(1)(B)) The term “fiduciary” includes any person who exercises any discretionary authority or discretionary control over management of a plan, or who exercises any authority or control over management or disposition of plan assets. (Code Sec. 4975(e)(3)) A “disqualified person,” includes a fiduciary, and members of the family of a fiduciary. (Code Sec. 4975(e)(2))

Department of Labor (DOL) Prohibited Transaction Exemption 80-26– is a class exemption that permits interest-free loans and extensions of credit to a plan from a party in interest in instances in which the plan faces a temporary cash shortage. If certain requirements are met, these loans won’t result in a prohibited transaction.

Previous guidance. In ERISA Op Letter No 2011-09A, 2011, the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) determined that where a broker required an indemnification agreement in order for an IRA owner to open a futures trading account in his IRA, Prohibited Transaction Exemption 80-26– was not available to save the agreement from being a prohibited loan under Code Sec. 4975(c)(1)(B).

Notably, EBSA found that granting the broker a security interest in the assets of the IRA owner’s personal accounts to cover the IRA’s debts to the broker would be akin to the IRA owner guaranteeing those debts. Thus, DOL concluded that the grant of the security interest in non-IRA assets would amount to a prohibited extension of credit under Code Sec. 4975(c)(1)(B) (see article in Federal Taxes Weekly Alert 11/19/2009).

Similarly, in ERISA Op Letter No 2009-03A, 2009, EBSA issued an earlier advisory opinion to this same requester holding that an individual’s grant to a brokerage firm of a security interest in the assets of the individual’s non-IRA accounts as a requirement for the individual’s establishment of an IRA with the broker would be a prohibited loan.

Now, EBSA has advised IRS that it is considering further action regarding these agreements (collectively known as cross-collateralization agreements), including consideration of a class exemption request expected to be submitted to EBSA.

Temporary relief. In response to these developments and pending further action by EBSA, IRS says it will determine the tax consequences relating to an IRA without taking into account the consequences that might otherwise result from a Code Sec. 4975 prohibited transaction from entering into any indemnification agreement, or any cross-collateralization agreement, similar to the agreements described in ERISA Op Letter No 2011-09A, 2011 and ERISA Op Letter No 2009-03A, 2009.

This relief is available only if there has been no execution or other enforcement under the agreement against the assets of an IRA account of the individual granting the security interest or entering into the cross-collateralization agreement. IRS advises that no inference with respect to the application of any Code section other than Code Sec. 4975 should be drawn from this announcement.

2011 was a great year that allowed Quest IRA, Inc. to be created and just like it has been since we opened the office in 2003, we had another great growth year. But the growth we have experienced over the past 9 years will pale in comparison to the exponential growth we will see in 2012!

 There are many changes that are coming to Quest IRA for our clients, prospects and business partners that will allows Quest IRA to be the leader in timely opening, processing, and funding transactions while still be the national leader in localized education for each community. The website, education classes, networking events, webinars, and many other aspects Quest IRA has spent hundreds of thousand of dollars improving for you, the client.

Another BIG change to Quest IRA, Inc. will be that we will be attending many more seminars, workshops, association and organization meetings nationally and not just throughout Texas. Since we already have a office in Michigan with another office expected to be open in Seattle, WA by the end of 2012 you can expect Quest IRA to show up in your city or town very soon.

Should you have an event you would like Quest IRA to attend, sponsor, and/or present information on self-directed IRAs, please contact Ryan Kimura (ryan@questira.com or 800.320.5950 x 3584)