Bloomberg says the case was a big win for the IRS.
However, Green & Sklarz LLC says they won big for their client who was fighting the IRS.
So…who’s actually right?
I’m not a lawyer, but let’s try to dissect what happened.
In general, rewards on credits card signup bonuses and spending are not considered taxable income. That’s true whether the rewards are for miles or cash back as they’re considered a rebate of the purchase price of the products or services bought. On the other hand, rewards earned from banking activities, referrals, and other activities that aren’t based on buying goods or services are considered taxable income.
In this case, the IRS accused husband and wife, Konstantin Anikeev and Nadezhda Anikeev, of failing to declare income earned from points. That’s when you use your credit card to purchase items that can be liquidated into cash in order to earn rewards.
The couple didn’t play small ball. In 2013 and 2014 they deposited $4,028,743 in money orders into their bank accounts!
As I always say, pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. That level of cash deposits into your bank account are bound to raise a red flag. I’d assume that enough suspicious activity reports were filed by their bank until the IRS took notice, but it’s unclear how exactly the IRS was tipped off.
They used a grandfathered Blue Cash AMEX that earned 5% at supermarkets and drugstores after spending $6,500 annually. They used that to buy Visa gift cards, debit cards, and money orders with their cards.
AMEX shut down their cards in 2014, but still paid out some 6 figures in statement credits. In 2017, the IRS wanted them to recognize additional income totaling $35,665 for 2013 and $276,381 for 2014 for their rewards points.
To generate the rewards, the Anikeevs bought Visa gift cards that they liquidated via money orders, they paid their bills via MoneyGram, they purchased reloadable debit cards, they reloaded debit cards, and they bought money orders directly with their AMEX cards.
The IRS said the items they bought were cash equivalents, and not goods or services. As such, the rewards were not a purchase rebate, but taxable income.
The Anikeevs argued that rewards on the purchase of gift cards should be considered a purchase rebate and not subject to income tax, regardless of what they are subsequently used for.
The court noted that the IRS policy for credit card rewards is vague and that had the Anikeevs not been so aggressive in their methods, the IRS would not have taken notice. As such, the court calls this an “extreme test of the longstanding nontaxability of credit card reward programs.”
The court found that most of the spending was on Visa gift cards, which were in turn liquidated. In the end, the court ruled that these gift cards are products, offer a service in the form of a plastic card, and are not directly able to be liquidated for cash. As such, earning rewards on these goods is not taxable income, even if a money order is subsequently purchased with them. Similarly, a reloadable debit card is a service and earnings rewards on it would not be considered taxable income
On the other hand, the court found that the direct purchase of money orders with a credit card, and the actual reloading of a reloadable debit card directly from a credit card are not product or service purchases. Therefore the rewards earned on direct purchases of money orders and cash infusions to the reloadable debit card would be subject to taxable income. Those types of transactions are much harder to do these days, so the ruling that rewards from purchasing and liquidating gift and debit cards is not considered taxable income is far more consequential.
That’s all based on the IRS policy to exclude rewards for product and service purchases from taxable income. Whether this case will cause a change to that official policy will be something that we’ll have to watch closely.
In short, as most of the spending was done to buy gift cards, this does appear to be a big win for the Anikeevs and for Green & Sklarz LLC, and they won’t have to pay income tax on most of the rewards! That means hundreds of thousands of dollars will remain in the Anikeev’s pocket.
And I’m not quite sure how Bloomberg got the case so wrong.
But let’s dig a bit deeper into the stranger part of the case that I’ve ignored up until this point. Why did the IRS make the flimsy argument that the rewards should be taxable instead of the obvious argument that the Anikeevs ultimately profited and made taxable income by cashing out the gift card for a money order? It would have been easy for the IRS to win the case with that argument. The IRS would have collected the same amount of unpaid taxes by calculating the amount in which the rebates exceeded the fees to cash out the gift card.
To learn more, I reached out to Green & Sklarz LLC for comment. This was Jeffrey Sklarz’s case, but he was unable to discuss the decision tonight, other than to say he was very pleased with the outcome.
I was able to speak with his partner Eric Green about the case. Mr. Green shared that when he first learned about the case, he told Mr. Anikeev point blank that he would lose. The IRS argument that there was income here would be an open and shut case.
But he was very surprised to see the IRS argue that the AMEX rebate should be considered taxable income due to buying cash equivalents, rather than their much easier argument about making a profit.
His theory as to why the IRS went down the much harder route was that they didn’t want people who are getting involved in rewards points to claim hobby losses when buying gift cards, as they might have if the IRS went after the added income argument.
I offered a theory based on my own usage. I buy Visa gift cards from Staples to earn 5 miles per dollar spent. If the IRS was able to get a broad ruling about rebates from the purchase of gift cards being taxable as they are not goods or services, they could potentially come after people like me even if I only transferred the points into United miles. While miles earned from credit card purchases aren’t taxable, miles earned from checking accounts are taxable and the bank comes up with an estimated value.
With a broad ruling in their favor, the IRS could demand that the value of the miles earned from the gift card purchases be included in taxable income, even if I later gave the gift card to someone as a present or donated it to charity, rather than cashed it out via a money order.
Luckily for us, the court refused to recognize that overly broad and flimsy IRS argument. In trying to create a potential precedent, they swung and missed. They can appeal the court’s decision, but they can’t change arguments against Mr. Anikeev for the easy win. Still, a higher court may disagree with the distinction between buying gift cards and buying money orders.
Let’s hear your theories about this case in the comments below!
Leave a Reply
105 Comments On "US Tax Court Weighs In On Whether Points Are Taxable Income; Theories For Why The IRS Chose Their Losing Argument"
All opinions expressed below are user generated and the opinions aren’t provided, reviewed or endorsed by any advertiser or DansDeals.
Seems like a big win for the Anikeevs, given the liquidity of gift cards. (Confused about the date of the post. The decision, T.C. Memo. 2021-23, just came out yesterday (2/23/21), but the post is dated 2/24/19 rather than 2/24/21.)
You found my work in progress draft 😀
Ruling makes sense in my mind (based on reading the article), a MO is somewhat considered a cash equivalent..
This got me in the mood of vanilla ice cream
Vanilla Reloads, Target REDcard, Dollar coins, Amazon Payments…oy meh haya lanu 😉
Just goes to show just because a lawyer says “you will lose”, doesn’t mean you should stop pursuing it. In every case, there’s at least one lawyer who thought the eventual winner would lose
This isn’t true at all.
I don’t see why your other argument is better. They didn’t earn a profit when cashing out the gift cards because they spent money to buy those GC’s. For example if they bought a $500 visa gift card and then cashed it out minus the fees they didn’t earn any profit in fact they lost money.
They started with $0.
They spent $506 on a gift card.
The earned $25.30 in rewards, reducing the basis in the gift card to $480.70.
They spent $1 to liquidate the gift card.
They profited $18.30 above their basis and should owe taxes on that.
But the IRS didn’t go after the income. They only went after the rewards, which was a bizarre tactic and why I proposed my theory.
You mean that the IRS pursued the $25.30 (from the above example) rather than the $18.30?
The IRS pursued $25.30, but I’d imagine that they still could have written off the ~$7 in liquidation expenses.
Only if they treated it as a business, and then they would be subject to SE tax. Remember expenses on hobbies are not only not deductible from gains, they are not deductible at all since the 2% miscellaneous deductions were eliminated under TCJA (the Trump tax cuts).
Right, but not hard to claim it’s a business with that kind of profit.
This was from 2013/2014, well before TCJA which began in 2018.
Yeah, but SE tax. If it’s a hobby then no SE tax.
But the earned rewards is a rebate so you can’t minus that from cost of the gift card. In other words if your holding that the rewards are a rebate, then you can’t minus that from the cost of the GC and say that they made a profit because then you’re essentially saying they profited the rebate, but a rebate is not taxable
Sure you can. The rebate reduces the cost basis in the gift card.
If you sell any item above your cost basis, you owe income tax on the amount above your cost basis.
I think that’s the rub – they didn’t sell it. If they had sold the gift card for face value and netted the same benefit, it would have obviously been an open and shut case for the IRS. The fact that they spent or ‘used’ the gift card and tossed it in the garbage made it far more muddy.
Mr. Green said that it’s tax law 101 that you need to pay tax on profits, no matter how they’re earned.
Which is why he thought this was an open and shut case until the IRS made their surprising argument.
Dan’s correct. It does not need to be a sale, an exchange is treated the same way.
Maybe it should be considered a 1031 exchange?
How does the company issuing the rebate/miles treat the rebate/miles on their books? Is it booked as a liability & reduces their income on their BS? When it’s given away so goes their liability. Or do they book it as short term debt/loans? Point is that the flip side of the Anikeevs’ transaction from the issuer should be relevant.
But doesn’t that typically apply to the sale of goods for profit – here they bought a gift card but they never sold it – they only consumed or used it. And apparently the manner in which they use it (goods or MOs) doesn’t make it taxable in the other argument, so I doubt it would have here either. It’s also interesting that this exact scenario comes up even for everyday consumers when OM/OD, grocery stores etc. have promotions to sell visas below face value.
I don’t see why that wouldn’t apply here. Neither did Mr. Green.
The judge himself insinuated in the ruling that it would have applied as well had they made that argument.
The IRS isn’t bothering everyday consumers. But as I said in the post, PGFHGS.
How about the overhead cost to carry out this entire transactional “business”? Lights, telephone, labor & payroll hours, accounting, etc. To rack up $4,000,000 had to be costs involved.
Does this mean Dan has probably never paid income taxes?
Maybe this is also what Trump was doing all along
Sadly, I have not figured out how to pay for cars or homes with miles.
Yet.
Or you don’t publicize it!!!!!!
GM CC
It’s always nice when someone beats the taxman
Thanks Dan!
While I would love to put on my 2 cents, I don’t have any, as you explained all details very well and your theory sounds right to me.
Thanks for another awesome post!
🙂
Good thing, otherwise Dan might need to pay tax on the two cents!
“And I’m not quite sure how Bloomberg got the case so wrong.”
I wonder who the author is.
“Jeffery Leon”
Most websites I saw this posted on were reporting it as “earning points are taxable”
I guess most websites copied Bloomberg’s mistake instead of studying the ruling.
Lol, that sure is a familiar pattern.
Can you please sum up in short.. i’m a shtikle confused
Where’s Rashi when you need him 😀
A while back, the IRS issued a field service advice concluding that frequent flyer miles were gross income. They then backtracked from that position, possibly due to public/industry pressure. However, GCs are arguably different given their liquidity (and fungibility). So arguably the CC holder has recognized income when it “purchases” the GC. Also, think about it- nobody’s getting GCs to hold onto them long-term; they’re held to use ASAP. So it’s not a stretch to argue that receipt of the GC that will be liquidated shortly is income.
From a tracking perspective, the IRS may get information from CC companies regarding GC purchases. They’re much less likely to get information telling it when the GC has been utilized.
I don’t buy Mr. Green’s theory about the IRS being concerned about people claiming losses from GCs. 1st of all, where’s the loss? 2nd, such losses would generally be personal and therefore non-deductible. 3rd, even if they were hobby losses, they’d only be deductible to the extent of hobby income. (Maybe for Dan it would be a business loss, but Dan probably wouldn’t have losses in the 1st place!) 🙂
I guess stimulus going on, somewhere they have to fill it in
i don’t get “his theory” why would they be a loss when buying gc? the rewards offset the fee in most cases
Failure to liquidate a gift card? Stolen/lost gift cards?
Either way, I like my theory more 🙂
Great write-up Dan! One problem with your theory, the IRS is allowed to propose alternative arguments, so they would have nothing to lose by arguing the basis reduction/profit theory as well.
I guess they really wanted to push the broader argument and get a ruling on that?
But I’m open to other theories. Like I said, I’m not a lawyer!
The decision says that they asserted the theory in their pretrial memorandum and they abandoned it later, even though they could have asserted it.
Which goes back to my theory.
Didn’t jj go to law school?
He’s an Ivy League dropout 😀
I lured him away after he took a few weeks of classes.
Once a GC is deemed a product and not a cash equivalent then no argument can be made whether liquidating them ultimately left them with a profit or not. How about one who uses his 5% earning cash back CC to buy furniture for instance, and then intentionally sells them at a loss of 3%, would the 2% “profit” he earned be taxable? No.
So the IRS wanted GC to be considered cash equivalents and the court ruled it has a “Din” product, and effectively just like a piece of furniture.
Technically, yes. You would owe taxes on the profit of that furniture.
Now the IRS isn’t going after someone selling a chair on eBay, but if you sell millions of dollars in chairs, they’ll come knocking.
I don’t think you own taxes on the furniture. Imagine you bought a municipal bond for $1000 whose interest is not taxable. You get a $50 of interest, and you buy a desk for $1050 that you then sell for $1025. There is nothing taxable. IMHO if the reward points/rebates are not taxable they are the same thing as non-taxable interest and what you do with them is irrelevant.
You’d think wrong then.
The interest is non taxable income.
The cash back is considered a rebate, not income. It reduces the cost of the furniture
A GC is absolutely not the same as a cash equivalent. Tax Court is right on this one. It can only be used for the purchase of goods and services that accept whatever brand of card in the US. A Redbird/Bluebird has ATM access and a universal bill pay feature, including to the owner of the card, and a money order can be cashed out or deposited at a bank. Those are properly cash equivalents.
Dan you might not be a schooled lawyer. You do a good legal analysis
Thanks 🙂
Great post Dan, thanks for sharing the case info. This is a Big Win for MS! Oh… 2014… bluebird / vanilla reload combo days
Thanks 🙂
I do miss those days…
Back in the day, checking account bonuses were not taxable either until Citi started issuing 1099s. What happens when one credit card company (likely Citi) starts issuing 1099s (at least for sign up bonus points)? Will the other credit card companies follow suit?
Bite your tongue 😀
they already do for referral bonuses
Thanks. I’m still waiting for a piece on Maaser Kesafim on points.
As the term implies, Maaser is owed on kesef, not nekudot.
YLORMV.
Rav Nissim Karelitz shlita (Chut Shani, Yom Tov and Chol Hamoed, p. 351), writes that if one receives supermarket vouchers that can be used for buying many different products, the obligation of separating Maaser applies.
Like I always say, AYLOR/YLORMV.
I have heard that some poskim hold that if you buy store cards at a discount then you must take maaser on the discount. I don’t understand why it should be different than buying the groceries themselves at a discount on which I guess nobody would say to take maaser.
I’ve requested a copy of the stipulated facts, all 1581 pages: https://dawson.ustaxcourt.gov/case-detail/13080-17 Should be interesting reading!
Keep us posted 😀
Great post.
Even if they had to pay tax, I see it as a win being they made (well into the) 6 digits 🙂
Side question – why can’t the IRS open a new case going after the easy profit, like you mentioned?
Thanks 🙂
My understanding is just like you can’t try a person twice for the same crime, the IRS can’t bring another case against the same money with a different legal argument. But as a disclaimer once again, I am not a lawyer!
It is possible that if the IRS did not want to go after the profit/loss argument because then they would need to calculate each transaction from beginning to end instead of just being able to look at the amount of the reward at the time of purchase which would give them a precedent to collect taxes on most spending.
I don’t think so, as the numbers would have been similar either way, as the judge notes.
It would have been up to the Anikeevs to show their costs to lower their tax bill.
Dan, the only thing I can add,
IRS, you too should remember, pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.
“The IRS would have collected the same amount of unpaid taxes by calculating the amount in which the rebates exceeded the fees to cash out the gift card.”
Is that so? From your example in comment: on a $500 GC, earned $25.30 in rewards, IRS wanted $25.30 in taxable reporting VS. only on profit, $18.30 in taxable income?
They could have reduced the $25.30 by the cost to liquidate, which would have the same end result.
Again from your example above, “They spent $1 to liquidate the gift card.” That would leave $24.30 in taxable income, which is still more than only on the profit $18.30. What am I missing? TIA
If the profits are income then its a busniess with 2 employees and many expenses vs just having points be blanketed as income period.
You can still adjust the points by the cost to liquidate them.
Wow! So you buy visa gift cards from a supermarket and then you buy money orders with the gift cards?
Dan, how long did it take you to write this?
I know a frum fellow who sells airline tickets off his points and reports the operation as a business on his tax returns.
No one will stop anyone from reporting it as income, but from the way the IRS argued this case, it seems to be unclear whether they consider ANY cc rewards income, even when exchanged for money.
When I need to return things at Costco and Trader Joe’s, the refund goes on my debit card, and I keep the original credit card points on those purchases.
Is this an issue?
No one will care bother you if this happens once in a while and you profit a few dollars worth of rewards a year. If this would be done deliberately with hundreds of thousands of dollars, there are bigger problems than tax liability, as you would be deliberately making money off the store’s loss of the original credit card fees. They obviously don’t mind if this happens with an occasional customer return however, as they are willing to take an occasional insignificant loss for the sake of customer satisfaction.
So what about the Chase feature of paying yourself back on grocery purchases? It seems like it’s still not taxable but could that change?
By the way – if the IRS would change their policy, would that be retroactive for that year? Previous years? Or only going forward?
maybe the appellate judge will be a points zamler
The ones that were slaughtered here was the IRS. If you are a pig you are starving.
Only the Anikeevs.
What about the next people they target with the alternate argument?
By declining to make the alternate argument in this case, can they just walk back on their earlier position if a new similar case comes up without changing their official policy? Didn’t they in effect define their own policy this way by declining to use the taxable income argument?
They can make a new policy.
What if they lose the alternative argument? This defendant stood by his convictions and won. Everyone is second guessing why the IRS made the argument they did. Sometimes it is as simple as KISS.
תפסת מרובה לא תפסת…
$4.0mm is a lot of תפסת
Hi, let me understand, let’s say I’m a retail business, buying products on wholesale for 500$ and selling them on the retail market for 800$, how about I should just ask my wholesaler to sell it for me for 900$ and then give me points for a 400 rebate, can I file the end of the year with a loss of 100$ per piece???!!
Great idea??…
amazing! @ dan will it work??
So let me get this straight:
If every month, I buy $1,000 worth of Visa gift cards with the 5% cash back and pay every single bill I have with those, all the cash back earned on those Visa gift card purchases are NOT subject to taxes?
the math doesnt add up – they were making 7.75% – how did they manage that with a 5% card?
money order deposits $4,028,743
Profit $312,046
percentage 7.75%