Odd Reason To Be In Tax Court

 

Not all accountants practice tax.

To the contrary, I suspect most accountants do not. The confusion, I suspect, has to do with the CPA license. One associates the license with practicing at a CPA firm, but that is not necessarily true. Most accountants do not practice at a firm, and just practicing at a firm does not mean that one works tax. I have worked with a firm my entire career, and there have been many CPAs – auditors, forensics, valuation experts and so on – who have little crossover with tax. Step outside a firm – say internal audit or accounting at a corporate employer – and those numbers only increase.

I am looking at a pro se case in the Tax Court.

We have discussed pro se many times. It is commonly described as a taxpayer representing himself/herself before the Court. That technically is not true. A taxpayer can have professional representation and still be considered pro se. What it means is that the representative does not have a license to independently practice before the Court. The representative can act as an agent, advocating for and advising a taxpayer, but without that license the taxpayer is still considered pro se.

That license requires one to pass an exam, and the Tax Court exam is commonly considered one of the more challenging exams in tax practice. The exam BTW is not about tax law; rather it is about rules and procedures at the Tax Court. I have been involved in this area for decades, and I admit that those rules and procedures can be a bit … arcane.

Eva Zaczek finds herself in Tax Court. There is only one issue: how much does she owe? The answer in turn depends on how much of her Affordable Care (that is, Obamacare) subsidy was overpaid and now has to be returned. The concept is straightforward: make little money and the subsidy might fully pay for the premiums; make too much money and there is no subsidy at all. The rub is that someone is applying for the subsidy early in the tax year, before knowing what income for the year will be. Take a promotion or job change or marriage – or just ignore the too-much-income issue altogether - and the numbers can swing hard.

The IRS sent Eva a Notice of Deficiency for $2,418.

COMMENT: Eva sent a handwritten tax return, and the IRS made mistakes reading her writing.  

To its credit, the IRS admitted its mistake and revised the balance due to $900.

Eva challenged the calculation.

The rub was line 11 of Form 8962 Premium Tax Credit.

Both Eva and the IRS agreed that the number in box 11(b) should be $7,294.

This box represents the maximum premium that can be subsidized.

Both agreed that box 11(c) should be $9,057.

This amount represents the amount of premium the taxpayer is expected to pay himself/herself, without subsidy.

Eva calculated box 11(d) as $1,763 ($9,057 - $7,294).

Eva got the numbers reversed. Box 11(d) should be minus $1,763 ($7,294 - $9,057).

So?

If you read the instructions, box 11(d) cannot go below zero ($-0-).

Eva was convinced she owed the IRS $1,763.

The IRS said no, no: you only owe us $900.

And Eva was in Court arguing that she owed the $1,763 and not the $900 the IRS was seeking.

Here is the Court:

      

I will spare both of us the difference in tax law between a “deficiency” and a “balance due,” other than to point out the IRS notice that got Eva into Tax Court is called a Notice of Deficiency.

Pro se cases have a reputation for being entertaining, and we have looked at a number of them over the years.

But to go to Tax Court to argue that one owes more than the IRS wants? And this action from an accountant?

I consider this to be shade: 

I truly, truly hope that Eva doesn’t practice anywhere near a tax return.

This time we talked about Eva Zaczek v Commissioner, docket 4667-25S, filed 7/15/26.

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.