It is a tax trap. An employer thinks that they are
doing a boon for their employees by providing a tax-exempt fringe benefit.
Where is the trap?
CTG: it has to do with insurance.
I don’t get it, you say. My employer pays for some/most/all
my health insurance. When I see a doctor, the insurance pays some, I pay some.
Granted, some health insurances are better than others, but where is the trap?
CTG: it is not health insurance.
I get life insurance at work, you continue. It is equal
to a year’s salary or something like that. I have noticed that they charge me
something for this on my W-2 every year.
CTG: Life insurance has a split personality. An
employer can offer you up to $50 thousand of life insurance as a nontaxable
fringe. Any insurance above that amount (for example, if your annual salary is
more than $50 grand) is taxable to you. Mind you, the charge tends to be
minimal - as the IRS uses favorable rates - but you are charged something.
It is not life insurance.
It is disability insurance.
Let’s look at John Linford.
John sold Medicare supplement and Medicare Advantage
plans. His employer decided to do a nice, and in 2011 it purchased a group disability
policy from Principal Life. On the plan’s first iteration, the company paid
100% of the premiums. In 2013 the plan was amended, giving the company the option
to charge an employee 25% of the premiums. The company said “nah” to the
option, choosing to continue paying 100% of the premiums.
At first blush, this sounds like a beneficent employer.
John incurred a disability in 2014. He filed a worker’s
compensation claim in December 2014.
John was fired a year later, in November 2015.
This may still be a beneficent employer. They might
have been assisting John in getting to that disability policy.
In May 2017 Principal Life approved his disability
claim.
At that speed, one could be homeless before the
insurance kicks-in.
Principal Life paid him a $105 grand in retroactive
benefits.
John heard that disability is generally nontaxable.
Yep.
John left the $105 grand off his tax return.
Nope.
The IRS caught it, of course.
The IRS wanted almost $22 thousand in tax, as well as a
penalty chop of over $4 grand.
Off to Tax Court they went.
There is a Code section for this type of employer-provided
insurance: Section 105.
§ 105 Amounts received under accident & health plans.
(a) Amounts attributable to employer contributions.
Except as otherwise
provided in this section, amounts received by an employee through accident or
health insurance for personal injuries or sickness shall be included in gross
income to the extent such amounts (1) are attributable to contributions by the
employer which were not includible in the gross income of the employee, or (2)
are paid by the employer.
Read the verbiage at (a).
Except as otherwise provided, any accident
or health insurance is taxable to the extent the employer provides the
insurance as a tax-free benny. Wait, you say, what about health insurance? That
is not taxable. True, but health insurance is nontaxable via the “except as
otherwise provided” language. There is no such exception for disability insurance.
This stuff can be confusing.
John had one more swing at the plate. Remember
that the company amended the plan allowing them to charge employees 25% of the cost.
John wanted to know if there was some relief there. I get it: 25% nontaxable is
not as good as 100% nontaxable, but it is better than 100% taxable.
The Court said no. Potential is not
actuality, and John never paid any of the premiums.
What about the penalties? Did the Court
cut John some slack? One can get confused here: one rule for health insurance,
another rule for different insurance.
Based on the record
the Court concludes that the petitioner husband did not have reasonable cause
and did not act in good faith in not reporting the disability payments.”
The Court upheld the penalties. There went
another $4-plus grand.
Some companies allow one to purchase
short-term disability through their cafeteria plan. Mind you, this means that
the premiums are paid with pre-tax money and will result in taxable income if benefits
are ever collected. I tend to back-off on short-term disability, although I prefer
that one pay with after-tax dollars for either short- or long-term disability.
I, however, feel strongly about paying after-tax
for long-term disability. Those benefits may continue until you reach social
security age, and you do not need to be dragging taxes behind you until then.
The small rush of a tax-free benny is insignificant if you are ever – in fact –
disabled.
Our case this time was Cynthia L Hailstone
and John Linford v Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2023-17.
