Person:

Warren, Alvin

This article examines the recent district court decision in Long Term Capital Holdings v. United States, which involved the cloning of an artificial loss that was sold to two different groups of taxpayers for deduction. Professor Warren explains the convoluted transaction and then analyzes the court's decision in favor of the government. Particularly noteworthy, he says, is the court's refusal to let the taxpayers escape penalties on the grounds that they obtained favorable legal opinions from major law firms, when those opinions were, in the court's view, superficial at best. Given the sums of money involved, Warren concludes that such dubious behavior by taxpayers and their professional advisers will change only if the federal courts are willing to sustain penalties in cases such as this.

The goal of this brief note is to clarify the role of deferral in income taxation by introducing a distinction between pure deferral and counterparty deferral. Pure deferral (such as a current deduction for a capital expenditure) is equivalent to an interest-free loan from the government and, under certain assumptions, to a tax exemption for investment income. Counterparty deferral (such as qualified or nonqualified deferred compensation) shifts taxation of investment income to another party or account, so the advantage depends on the counterparty’s tax rate. Failure to understand these relationships can lead to erroneous conclusions. For example, it is sometimes said that capital gain property will suffer a tax disadvantage if placed in a qualified retirement account because the gain will be subject to full ordinary rates on withdrawal. Similarly, deferral of the employer’s deduction is often said to offset the benefit of deferring an employee’s inclusion of nonqualified deferred compensation. The note demonstrates that both of these statements are erroneous under standard assumptions.