Failing To Update A Plan Beneficiary Designation

 

Technically it is not a tax case, but it is so tax-adjacent it might as well be.

Let’s talk about beneficiaries on a retirement account – and, more specifically, an employer-sponsored retirement account.

Carl Kleinfeldt participated in the Packaging Corporation of America (PCA) Thrift Plan for Hourly Employees. In 2006 he designated his (then) wife – Dena Langdon – as his primary beneficiary.

Kleinfeldt and Langdon divorced in 2022. The divorce included a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). A QDRO is a court order authorizing distribution to the nonparticipating (ex) spouse. The PCA Benefits Center distributed to Langdon as directed.

However, even after the QDRO there is one more step: has the ex-spouse been formally removed as beneficiary?

Kleinfeldt faxed a request to the Benefits Center to remove Langdon from both his health and life insurance as well as his retirement plan. The Benefits Center updated her status on the retirement account to “ex-spouse.” Mind you, this was not the same as removing her as a beneficiary altogether.

Why not?

There were written plan procedures to follow. Kleinfeldt’s fax was a good start but was not quite enough.

You can guess that Kleinfeldt died.

You know that Langdon wanted that retirement money.

You also know the matter went to court.

And we are in legal weeds immediately.

We are talking here about an employer-sponsored plan, which (almost always) makes the plan subject to ERISA.

ERISA in turn uses a “substantial compliance” doctrine when reviewing actions required under a plan document. It is what it sounds like: if you miss a minor clerical step, the law presumes that responsible parties know what was meant and are expected to act accordingly.

The Kleinfeldt Estate argued the substantial compliance doctrine with a white-knuckle grip.

The Court observed that substantial compliance has two steps:

1.  Was there intent to make the change?
2.  Was the attempt to make the change similar (in all material aspects) to the proper procedures required by the plan?

There was no argument about the first test: the fax was clear evidence that Kleinfeldt intended to remove Langdon as a beneficiary.

On to the second test.

The plan documents wanted Kleinfeldt to either (1) call the Benefits Center or (2) update his beneficiary designation online.

The plan documents nowhere stated that he could update beneficiaries by fax.

The Court did not consider this a minor clerical step.

Kleinfeldt did not follow the rules.

Meaning that Langdon won.

And fair had nothing to do with it.

Our case this time was Packaging Corporation of America Thrift Plan v Langdon, No 25-1859 (7^th Cir. Feb. 2, 2026)

New Rules for 2026 Charitable Contributions

 

I have been going through the provisions of the new tax bill (One Big Beautiful Bill Act), which I refer to as OB3 (Oh Bee Three). I like the Star Wars reverb to it.

You ever wonder how the tax Code gets so complicated?

I can understand if one is already in a complex area to begin with. Take an international conglomerate, sprinkle in some treaty relief, add transfer pricing creativity and bake off for FDDEI minutes and it makes sense.

But what about something routine – something like charitable contributions?

Let’s talk about OB3 and contributions.

We will separate our discussion into two sections: contributions for C corporations and contributions for individuals.

C Corporations

For years, the rule for C corporation contributions has been simple: there is a limit of 10% of taxable income before any charitable deduction.

EXAMPLE ONE:

Blue Sky Corp has taxable income of $1 million before a charitable deduction of $105,000. Blue Sky can deduct $100,000 ($1 million times 10%). The $5,000 balance carries forward to the next tax year.

Let’s call that 10% the ceiling. It has been tax law since I came out of school.

OB3 has introduced a floor. The new law is that C corporation contributions are allowed only to the extent they exceed 1% of taxable income before any charitable deduction.

EXAMPLE TWO:

Let’s return to Blue Sky, which made charitable contributions of $9,000. Well, 1% of $1 million is $10 grand. $9 grand is less than $10 grand, so Blue Sky gets no deduction at all.

But wait, it gets better.

There is a macabre dance between the ceiling and the floor.

·       Contributions in excess of the 10% ceiling may be carried forward.

·       Contributions cut off at the knees by the 1% floor may be carried forward, BUT ONLY IF the corporation’s contributions exceed the ceiling.

What are they talking about?

The ceiling (sub) rule has been with us for decades. In Example One, the $5,000 may be carried forward up to five years.

The floor (sub) rule is … peculiar.

Let’s go back to Example Two. Blue Sky did not clear the floor and did not exceed the ceiling. Blue Sky loses that $9 grand as a deduction forever. Blue Sky is grey.

Let’s tweak Example Two and call it EXAMPLE THREE:

Blue Sky makes contributions of $125,000.

Blue Sky loses the first 1%, which is $10 grand ($1 million times 1%).

At this point we still have $115,000 at play.

To be cut off at $100 grand, leaving $15,000.

However, since Blue Sky exceeded BOTH the ceiling (by $15 grand) and the floor, it gets to carryforward both the $15 grand (ceiling) and the $10 grand (floor) for a total carryforward of $25 grand.

Another way to say this is: if you clear both the floor and the ceiling, you are back to the old rule ($125,000 minus $100,000).

But look at the hoops you must go through to get back to where you were.

Congress has malintent, methinks.

Individuals

We also have a shiny new contribution floor for individuals. The floor is ½ of 1%, so it is less than a corporation.

The new rule for Individual contributions works solely off the floor, so we avoid the double Dutch dilemma of Example Three.  

On to EXAMPLE FOUR:

Bo Runs-Like-A-Gazelle plays in the NFL and makes $7 million.

Bo’s charitable floor is $7 million times .005 = $35 grand.

Bo makes contributions of $33,000 grand.

Bo did not clear the floor, so Bo gets no charitable deduction.

However, does Bo at least get to carryforward the $33 grand?

No, Bo does not.

Bo is hosed.

Let’s tweak for EXAMPLE FIVE:

Same as Example Four but Bo donates $50 grand.

His floor is still $35 grand.

Bo has a deduction of $15 grand.

However since Bo cleared the floor, he gets to carry over the $35 grand (the floor) to future tax years.

Bo is less hosed.

There is another grenade from OB3 that might also affect Bo: if his tax rate ever exceeds 35%, the tax benefit from a charitable contribution will stop at 35%. We will leave that tax twister for another day.

There is a positive provision in OB3 for nonitemizers: beginning in 2026 one will be able to deduct $1,000 (if single) or $2,000 (if married) for cash contributions. Yep, you will be able to claim the standard deduction and another grand (or two), assuming you made contributions. It's something.  

Congress continues to add complexity to the Code, and not just for heavy hitters like Bo. Unfortunately, these rules might (in fact, they probably will) affect you and me – average folk. So why did Congress do it?  Same reason junkies steal: Congress is addicted. There is no other reason for nonsense like this.

How will tax advisors react? We will educate clients on ceilings and floors, and we will continue to emphasize “bunching.” Bunching means that you make an oversized donation in one year and a much smaller (or no) donation the following year. It can be rough on the receiving charity (can you imagine budgeting), but what are you (as a donor) to do?

A Short Story About Connecticut Unemployment Reporting

I read that the Governor of Connecticut has signed a bill repealing certain additional payroll reporting requirements otherwise slated to start next year.

As background, all state quarterly unemployment returns include certain basic information, including:

·       Name

·       Social security number

·       Wages paid in the quarter

Prior to repeal, Connecticut employers were to report additional information with their quarterly unemployment returns. The reporting was to start in 2024, with the exact phase-in depending on the number of employees:

·       Gender identity

·       Age

·       Race

·       Ethnicity

·       Veteran status

·       Disability status

·       Highest education completed

·       Home address

·       Address of primary work site

·       Occupational code under the standard occupational classification (SOC) system of the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics

·       Hours worked

·       Days worked

·       Salary or hourly wage

·       Employment start date in the current job title

·       Employment end date (if applicable)

Ten of the above 15 data elements are not collected by any other state.

There was concern that the additional elements could negatively impact people filing for benefits – that is, the actual purpose of unemployment taxes.

“The Department of Labor would need to edit incoming reports against certain standards and reject employer wage/tax reports or suspend processing while seeking clarification of elements reported.   

“Rejected or suspended wage reports could make wage information unavailable when unemployment claimants apply for benefits.”

It appears a breath of sanity.

A Bad Idea

I am reading an abstract for an upcoming article in the Southern California Law Review.

When an electricity provider wants customers to pay their bills monthly, it sends them a bill each month. Yet this is not how the tax system works, at least for independent contractors. Their taxes are due quarterly, but they receive a tax statement (Form 1099) only one time a year. It is up to the individual, then, to know when their taxes are due and how to pay them, and it is on that individual to estimate how much they owe each quarter. As a result, compliance for independent contractors – particularly for online platform workers–tends to be lacking. Failure to pay their estimated taxes subjects these taxpayers to potential penalties and causes the government to collect less tax revenue.

Yep, quarterly taxes for the self-employed. I know a lot about the topic.

There is a simple, yet entirely overlooked, reform that could vastly improve compliance when it comes to paying estimated taxes: third-party information returns (Form 1099s) should be issued to taxpayers on a quarterly basis. The idea is straightforward and intuitive. If the government wants people to pay taxes four times per year, it needs to effectively “bill” them four times per year. This idea is supported by social science research showing that, the more taxpayers are reminded to pay their taxes, the more likely they are to do so.

Sigh.

If only it were so simple.

Unspoken is an arrogance that accounting is just pushing a button. Everything is automated, right, so what is the issue?

Much is automated. More so today than when I started, and it will be more so again when I eventually retire. But much is not all. Much is not necessarily even much.

The presumption that Fortune 500 accounting departments are the norm for businesses will lead to erroneous conclusions, including the one above. There are over 30 million companies in the United States. Less than 1 percent of those are publicly traded, and the Fortune 1000 constitutes a fraction of that fraction. There is an entire economic sector - the self-employeds, the small- and mid-market companies - that are unlikely to have an accountant - much less an accounting department - available to respond to the whims of nonserious minds. Most CPAs - including me – advise that market. When we meet with ownership, we meet with the owner or owners, not an assemblage at an annual shareholder meeting.  When decisions are required, the number of decision makers is few; in many cases, it is only one.

Somehow this overlooked sector represents roughly half of all economic activity and approximately two-thirds of all jobs created in the United States since the 1990s. This sector employs tens of millions, allowing them home ownership, EV purchases, private schools, higher education, smart phones, streaming services, and perhaps an occasional vacation to Disney World.

Can this sector push a button to generate quarterly 1099s because a professor thinks the idea has been “entirely overlooked?” Maybe, but probably not. More likely, they will call their CPA – assuming they have one.

That quarterly 1099 is somehow now in my court.

CPAs want to go home, too.

Then there is the issue of who will prepare these 1099s. I know that accounting literature is not a thing, but glance at the following:

Statistics from the AICPA suggest that 75 percent of current CPAs will retire in the next 15 years.

Does this seem like an appropriate time to further add to the problems of accounting? Many already see a profession facing future demands exceeding its ability to supply.

No, I don’t think that quarterly 1099s are a bright idea.

In fact, maybe the Congressional effort in 1986 to move almost all taxable year-ends to December 31, further compressing our work schedule was – in retrospect – not such a bright idea.  

Notices are the bane of tax practice. One may be a gifted practitioner but send enough penalty notices and even a loyal client begins to question. Maybe the decades of Congress “balancing” budget bills by increasing tax penalties on virtually anything that moves was not such a bright idea.

Maybe the relentless introduction of arbitrary, inconsistent if not preposterous – other than as blatant money grabs - tax laws was not such a bright idea.

Maybe passing tax laws late in the year when there is no time for advisors to react – or even better, passing those laws the following year but with retroactive effect – was not such a bright idea.

Maybe the hubris that just one more surtax, deduction or tax credit will somehow solve the enduring difficulties of the species and pave the highway to heaven was not such a bright idea. 

We are showered by sententious minds bringing bright ideas.

They should be entirely overlooked.

Change In The Kiddie Tax

Congress took a tax calculation that was already a headache and made it worse.

I am looking at a tax change included in the year-end budget resolution.

Let’s talk again about the kiddie tax.

Years ago a relatively routine tax technique was to transfer income-producing assets to children and young adults. The technique was used mainly by high-income types (of course, as it requires income), and the idea was to redirect income that would be taxed at a parent’s or grandparent’s (presumably maximum) tax rate and tax it instead at a child/young adult’s lower tax rate.

As a parent, I immediately see issues with this technique. What if one of my kids is responsible and another is not? What if I am not willing to just transfer assets to my kids – or anyone for that matter? What if I do not wish to maximally privilege my kids before they even reach maturity? Nonetheless, the technique was there.

Congress of course saw the latent destruction of the republic.

Enter the kiddie tax in 1986.

In a classroom setting, the idea was to slice a kid’s income into three layers:

(1)  The first $1,050

(2)  The second $1,050

(3)  The rest of the kid’s income

Having sliced the income, one next calculated the tax on the slices:

(1)  The first $1,050 was tax-free.

(2)  The second $1,050 was taxed at the kid’s own tax rate.

(3)  The rest was taxed at the parents’ tax rate.

Let’s use an example:

(1)  In 2017 the kid has $20,100 of income.

(2)  The parents are at a marginal 25% tax rate.

Here goes:

(1)  Tax on the first slice is zero (-0-).

(2)  Let’s say the tax on the second slice is $105 ($1,050 times 10%).

(3)  Tax on the third slice is $4,500 (($20,100 – 2,100) times 25%).

The kid’s total 2017 tax is $4,605.

Let’s take the same numbers but change the tax year to 2018.

The tax is now $5,152.

Almost 12% more.

What happened?

Congress changed the tax rate for slice (3). It used to be the parent’s tax rate, but starting in 2018 one is to use trust tax rates instead.

If you have never seen trust rates before, here you go:

          

Have over $12,500 of taxable income and pay the maximum tax rate. I get the reasoning (presumably anyone using trusts is already at a maximum tax rate), but I still consider these rates to be extortion. Sometimes trusts are just that: one is providing security, navigating government programs or just protecting someone from their darker spirits. There is no mention of maximum tax rates in that sentence.

Let’s add gas to the fire.

The kiddie tax is paid on unearned income. The easiest type to understand is dividends and interest.

You know what else Congress considered to be unearned income?

Government benefits paid children whose parent was killed in military service. These are the “Gold Star” families you may have read about.

Guess what else?

Room and board provided college students on scholarship.

Seriously? We are taking people unlikely to be racking Thurston Howell III-level bucks and subjecting them to maximum tax rates?

Fortunately, Congress – in one of its few accomplishments for 2019 – repealed this change to the kiddie tax.

We are back to the previous law. While a pain, it was less a pain than what we got for 2018.

One more thing.

Kids who got affected by the kiddie tax changes can go back and amend their 2018 return.

I intend to review kiddie-tax returns here at Galactic Command to determine whether amending is worthwhile.

It’s a bit late for those affected, but it is something.