New Vehicle Loan Interest Deduction

 

I have been looking at individual tax changes for 2025 returns as well as changes starting anew in 2026. We may do several posts covering the changes likely to affect the most people.

I will start with one that may affect me: the new vehicle loan interest deduction.

My car has been reliable, but it is getting old. There comes a point with older cars where regular maintenance instead changes to regular repairs. I may or may not be there yet, but I am paying attention. What I know is the next car will not be cheap.

So, what is the tax change?

First, it is a deduction, not a credit. As we have discussed before, a credit is worth more than a deduction (a credit is dollar-for-dollar, whereas a deduction is a dollar-times-the-tax-rate). We will take it, though.

Second, it is not an itemized deduction. This is important, because introducing something as an itemized deduction is as much political sleight-of-hand as a real tax break. How? Easy. Let’s say that you are married, and the sum of your taxes, mortgage interest, and contributions is $25 grand. The tax Code spots you $31,500 just for being married (this amount is called the standard deduction). Which number will you use: the actual ($25,000) or the standard ($31,500)? The standard, of course, because it is the bigger deduction. Now someone can yammer that your mortgage interest is deductible – but is it really? I would argue that it is not, because the $31,500 is available whether you have a mortgage or not. Calling it deductible does allow for political blather, though.

The vehicle loan interest deduction is taken in addition to the itemized/standard deduction. It will show up on line 13b (see below), after the standard deduction/itemized deductions on line 12e. Our married couple will be deducting $31,500 (the standard) plus the allowable new vehicle loan interest.

Third, the deduction is not limited to cars. Technically it applies to “qualified passenger vehicles,” a term that includes the usual suspects (cars, trucks, SUVs, vans, minivans) as well as motorcycles. I am not as clear on campers, although the 14,000-pound limitation might kick-in there.

Fourth, it must be a new vehicle, which the Code refers to as “original use.” Not surprisingly, there is a special rule to exclude dealership demo use.

Fifth, you must have bought the vehicle after 2024. The deduction expires (unless a future Congress extends it) after 2028. Note that I said “bought.” A lease will not work.

Sixth, the deduction is for personal use of the vehicle, and the personal use must exceed 50 percent. While this may sound strict, it is not. Deductions for business use of a vehicle might take place under other areas of the tax Code, so it is possible that you will be deducting some of the interest as a business deduction (say as a proprietor or landlord) and the personal portion under this new deduction. You decide how to chop-up and report the numbers (some business, none business), and you cannot deduct the same interest twice. The behind-the-scenes accounting might be a mess, but you have the concept. There is also a favorable rule concerning personal use: such use is decided when you buy the vehicle. Later changes in use will be disregarded.

Seventh, the deduction is available to individuals, decedent estates, (certain) disregarded entities and nongrantor trusts. An estate is not immediately intuitive (why would a deceased person buy a vehicle?), but it refers to someone passing away after buying a vehicle qualifying for the deduction. A nongrantor trust generally means a trust that files its own tax return. Personal use would be measured by the beneficiary, as a trust cannot drive a car.

Eighth, there are some housecleaning rules. For example, you cannot pay interest to yourself or – more accurately stated – to a related party. The Code wants to see a lien securing the loan on the vehicle. There are also rules on add-ons (think extended warranties), lemon law replacements, subsequent loan refinancings, and no-no rules on negative equity on trade-ins.

Ninth, final assembly must occur in the United States. You may want to check on this before buying the vehicle. I have already checked on my next likely vehicle purchase (a Lexus).

Tenth, the deduction limit is $10 grand. It doesn’t matter if you are married or single, the limit applies per return and is $10 grand. Seems to me that marrieds filing separately got a break here. File jointly and cap at $10 grand. File separately and cap at $20 grand. Such moments are rare in the tax Code.

Eleventh, if you make too much money, the Code will phase-out the deduction you could otherwise claim. Too much begins at $100 grand if you are single or $200 grand if you are married filing jointly. Hit that limit and you phase-out at 20 cents on the dollar (rounded up).

Twelfth, you must include the vehicle VIN on your tax return. Leave it out and the IRS will simply disallow the deduction and send you a bill for the additional tax.

Finally, Congress and the IRS prefer that anything which moves be reported on a Form 1099. The problem here is that the tax bill was signed midway into 2025, meaning that banks and loan companies would have to make retroactive changes for 1099s issued in 2026. In light of this, the 2026 reporting (for tax year 2025) has been relaxed a bit: you may have to go to a website to get the interest amount rather than receiving a formal 1099, for example. Do not worry, though: the normal 1099 reporting will be back in full force in 2027 (for the 2026 tax returns).

My thoughts? I would neither buy or not buy a vehicle because of this deduction, but I am happy to take the deduction if I bought and financed. The $10 grand limit seems high to me, but - to be fair - I avoid borrowing money. I suppose $10 grand might be a backdoor way to allow for two vehicle loans on the same tax return (think married filing jointly). I do know that - unless one is making beaucoup bucks - spending $10 grand on vehicle interest does not immediately appear to be sound household budgeting.

And there you have the new vehicle loan interest deduction.

Happy New Year

 

A Surprise Tax From Life Insurance Loans

 

For some reason, the taxability of life insurance seems to be an old reliable in tax controversy.

Granted, there are areas involving life insurance that are not intuitive. The taxation of a split-dollar life insurance policy to an employee can be a bit puzzling until you have studied it one or ten times. There is also the tax history of “janitors insurance,” which resulted in yet another tax acronym (“EOLI”), the creation of Form 8925, and the recurring question “what is the purpose of this form” from young tax accountants ever since.

 

No, what we are talking about is the income taxation of vanilla-ice cream-on-a-regular-cone life insurance. Life insurance is normally nontaxable. You can change that answer by not ordering vanilla.

David and Cindy Fugler bought permanent (that is, cash value) life insurance on their two children in 1987. There was the initial year payment, plus additional yearly premiums, some of which were paid by borrowing against the policies. After many years, they cashed-in the policies. The life insurance company sent Forms 1099, which the Fuglers did not report on their joint tax return.

COMMENT: As we have discussed before, the IRS loves to trace Forms 1099 to tax returns, as the process can be computerized and requires no IRS manpower. You, on the other hand, have no such luck and will likely contact your tax preparer/advisor – and incur a fee - to make sense of the notice. There you have current tax administration in a nutshell: increasingly shift compliance to taxpayers by requiring almost everything to be reported on a 1099. It is a brilliant if not cynical way to increase taxes without – you know – actually increasing taxes.

Here is a recap of the relevant Fugler numbers:      

		Policy #1		Policy #2
Cumulative premiums paid		6,850		6,850
Accumulated cash value		22,878		23,428
Outstanding loan & interest		(19,845)		(20,699)
Settlement check		3,033		2,729

 

On first impression, it might seem odd that the Fuglers did not report the two distribution checks: the $3,033 and the $2,729. This is the amount they received upon policy cancelation – and after repaying policy loans and related interest and whatnot charges. Then again, one does not normally expect to have taxable income from life insurance. One should still report the 1099 amount (so the IRS computers have something to latch onto) and thereafter adjust the numbers to what one considers correct. Without that latch, these IRS matching notices are automatic.

So, what do you think:

·      Do the Fuglers have income?

·      If so, what is the income amount?

To reason through this, think of the life insurance policies as savings accounts. Granted, inefficient savings accounts, but the tax reasoning is similar. If you put in $6,850 and years later receive $22,878, the difference is likely (some type of) income. The same reasoning applies to the second policy.

So, you have income. Is there some way to not have income? Sure, if the cumulative premiums you paid exceed any cash value. In that case any refund would be a return of your own money.

But what is the income amount: is it the checks they received: $3,033 (for policy #1) and $2,729 (for policy #2)?

Normally, this would be correct, but the Fuglers borrowed against the polices. The loan did not create income at the time (because of the obligation to repay). That obligation has now been repaid with cash that would otherwise have been included in those distribution checks. You cannot avoid income by having a check go directly to your lender. Tax advisors would have a field day if only that were possible.

I would say that the income amount is the cash received plus the loan forgiven: $16,028 (policy #1) and $16,578 (policy #2).

Before thinking the result unfair, remember that the Fuglers did receive the underlying cash. The timing for the taxation of the loan was delayed, but even that result was pro-taxpayer. This is not phantom income that we sometimes see in other areas of the Code.

There is some chop in the numbers for the loan forgiven. As you can imagine, there are all kinds of fees and charges in there, as well as possibly accrued interest on the loan.  The Fuglers thought of that also, arguing that the accrued interest should not be taxable – or at least should be deductible.

The “should not be taxable” is a losing argument, as all income is taxable unless the Code says otherwise. It does not, in this case.

That leaves a possible interest deduction.

The problem here is that Congress limited the type of nonbusiness loans whose interest is deductible: loans on a principal residence; loans used to buy or carry investments, college loans; loans (starting in 2026) on a new car with final assembly in the United States. Any other nonbusiness loans are considered personal, meaning the interest thereon is also personal and thus nondeductible.

The Fuglers could not fit into any of those deductible categories. There was no subtraction for interest, no matter what the insurance company called it.

The Fuglers had taxable income. They reported none of it on their return. The IRS – as usual – wanted interest and penalties and whatever else they could get.

The Tax Court agreed.

Our case this time was Fugler v Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2025-10.