Can You Have Income From Life Insurance?

 

I was looking at a recent case wondering: why did this even get to court?

Let’s talk about life insurance.

The tax consequences of life insurance are mostly straightforward:

(1) Receiving life insurance proceeds (that is, someone dies) is generally not an income-taxable event.

(2) Permanent insurance accumulates reserves (that is, cash value) inside the policy. The accumulation is generally not an income-taxable event.

(3) Borrowing against the cash value of a (permanent) insurance policy is generally not an income-taxable event.

Did you notice the word “generally?” This is tax, and almost everything has an exception, if not also an exception to the exception.

Let’s talk about an exception having to do with permanent life insurance.

Let’s time travel back to 1980. Believe it or not, the prime interest rate reached 21.5% late that year. It was one of the issues that brought Ronald Reagan into the White House.

Some clever people at life insurance companies thought they found a way to leverage those rates to help them market insurance:

(1)  Peg the accumulation of cash value to that interest rate somehow.

(2)  Hyperdrive the buildup of cash value by overfunding the policy, meaning that one pays in more than needed to cover the actual life insurance risk. The excess would spill over into cash value, which of course would earn that crazy interest rate.

(3)  Remind customers that they could borrow against the cash value. Money makes money, and they could borrow that money tax-free. Sweet.

(4)  Educate customers that – if one were to die with loans against the policy – there generally would be no income tax consequence. There may be a smaller insurance check (because the insurance is diverted to pay off the loan), but the customer had the use of the cash while alive. All in all, not a bad result – except for the dying thing, of course.

You know who also reads these ads?

The IRS.

And Congress.

Neither were amused by this. The insurance whiz kids were using insurance to mimic a tax shelter.

Congress introduced “modified endowment contracts” into the tax Code. The acronym is pronounced “meck.”

The definition of a MEC can be confusing, so let’s try an example:

(1)  You are age 48 and in good health.

(2)  You buy $4,000,000 of permanent life insurance.  

(3)  You anticipate working seven more years.

(4)  You ask the insurance company what your annual premiums would be to pay off the policy over your seven-year window.

(5)  The company gives you that number.

(6)  You put more than that into the policy over the first seven years.

I used seven years intentionally, as a MEC has something called a “7 pay test.” Congress did not want insurance to morph into an investment, which one could do by stuffing extra dollars into the policy. To combat that, Congress introduced a mathematical hurdle, and the number seven is baked into that hurdle.     

If you have a MEC, then the following bad things happen:

(1) Any distributions or loans on the policy will be immediately taxable to the extent of accumulated earnings in the policy.

(2) That taxable amount will also be subject to a 10% penalty if one is younger than age 59 ½.

Congress is not saying you cannot MEC. What it is saying is that you will have to pay income tax when you take monies (distribution, loan, whatever) out of that MEC.

Let’s get back to normal, vanilla life insurance.

Let’s talk about Robert Doggart.

Doggart had two life insurance contracts with Prudential Insurance. He took out loans against the two policies, using their cash value as collateral.

Yep. Happens every day.

In 2017 he stopped paying premiums.

This might work if the earnings on the cash value can cover the premiums, at least for a while. Most of the time that does not happen, and the policy soon burns out.

Doggart’s policies burned out.

But there was a tax problem. Doggart had borrowed against the policies. The insurance company now had loans with no collateral, and those loans were uncollectible.   

You know there is a 1099 form for this.

Doggart did not report these 1099s in his 2017 income. The IRS easily caught this via computer matching.

Doggart argued that he did not have income. He had not received any cash, for example.

The Court reminded him that he received cash when he took out the loans.

Doggart then argued that income – if income there be - should have been reported in the year he took out the loans.

The Court reminded him that loans are not considered income, as one is obligated to repay. Good thing, too, as any other answer would immediately shut down the mortgage industry.  

The Court found that Doggart had income.

The outcome was never in doubt.

But why did Doggart allow the policies to lapse in 2017?

Because Doggart was in prison.

Our case this time was Doggart v Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2023-25.

The Income Awakens

Despite the chatter of politicians, we are not soon filing income taxes on the back of a postcard. A major reason is the calculation of income itself. There can be reasonable dispute in calculating income, even for ordinary taxpayers and far removed from the rarified realms of the ultra-wealthy or the multinationals.    

How? Easy. Say you have a rental duplex. What depreciation period should you use for the property: 15 years? 25? 35? No depreciation at all? Something else?

And sometimes the reason is because the taxpayer knows just enough tax law to be dangerous.

Let’s talk about a fact pattern you do not see every day. Someone sells a principal residence – you know, a house with its $500,000 tax exclusion. There is a twist: they sell the house on a land contract. They collect on the contract for a few years, and then the buyer defaults. The house comes back.  

How would you calculate their income from a real estate deal gone bad?

You can anticipate it has something to do with that $500,000 exclusion.

Marvin DeBough bought a house on 80 acres of land. He bought it back in the 1960s for $25,000. In 2006 he sold it for $1.4 million. He sold it on a land contract.

COMMENT: A land contract means that the seller is playing bank. The buyer has a mortgage, but the mortgage is to the seller. To secure the mortgage, the seller retains the deed to the property, and the buyer does not receive the deed until the mortgage is paid off. This is in contrast to a regular mortgage, where the buyer receives the deed but the deed is subject to the mortgage. The reason that sellers like land contracts is because it is easier to foreclose in the event of nonpayment.

 

 DeBough had a gain of $657,796.

OBSERVATION: I know: $1.4 million minus $25,000 is not $657,796. Almost all of the difference was a step-up in basis when his wife passed away.  

DeBough excluded $500,000 of gain, as it was his principal residence. That resulted in taxable gain of $157,796. He was to receive $1.4 million. As a percentage, 11.27 cents on every dollar he receives ($157,796 divided by $1,400,000) would be taxable gain.

He received $505,000. Multiply that by 11.27% and he reported $56,920 as gain.

In 2009 the buyers defaulted and the property returned to DeBough. It cost him $3,723 in fees to reacquire the property. He then held on to the property.

What is DeBough’s income?

Here is his calculation:

Original gain		157,796
Reported to-date		(56,920)
Cost of foreclosure		(3,723)
		97,153

I don’t think so, said the IRS. Here is their calculation:

Cash received		505,000
Reported to-date		(56,920)
		448,080

DeBough was outraged. He wanted to know what the IRS had done with his $500,000 exclusion.

The IRS trotted out Section 1038(e):

         (e)  Principal residences.

If-

(1) subsection (a) applies to a reacquisition of real property with respect to the sale of which gain was not recognized under section 121 (relating to gain on sale of principal residence); and

(2)  within 1 year after the date of the reacquisition of such property by the seller, such property is resold by him,

then, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, subsections (b) , (c) , and (d) of this section shall not apply to the reacquisition of such property and, for purposes of applying section 121 , the resale of such property shall be treated as a part of the transaction constituting the original sale of such property.

DeBough was not happy about that “I year after the date of the reacquisition” language. However, he pointed out, it does not technically say that the $500,000 is NOT AVAILABLE if the property is NOT SOLD WITHIN ONE YEAR.

I give him credit. He is a lawyer by temperament, apparently.  DeBough could find actionable language on the back of a baseball card.

It was an uphill climb. Still, others have pulled it off, so maybe he had a chance.

The Court observed that there is no explanation in the legislative history why Congress limited the exclusion to sellers who resell within one year of reacquisition. Still, it seemed clear that Congress did in fact limit the exclusion, so the “why” was going to have to wait for another day.

DeBough lost his case. He owed tax.

And the Court was right. The general rule – when the property returned to DeBough – is that every dollar DeBough received was taxable income, reduced by any gain previously taxed and limited to the overall gain from the sale. DeBough was back to where he was before, except that he received $505,000 in the interim. The IRS wanted its cut of the $505,000.

Yes, Congress put an exception in there should the property be resold within one year. The offset – although unspoken – is that the seller can claim the $500,000 exclusion, but he/she claims it on the first sale, not the second. One cannot keep claiming the $500,000 over and over again on the same property.

Since Debough did not sell within one year, he will claim the $500,000 when he sells the property a second time.

When you look at it that way, he is not out anything. He will have his day, but that day has to wait until he sells the property again.

And there is an example of tax law. Congress put in an exception to a rule, but even the Court cannot tell you what Congress was thinking.

The IRS Wants More Levy Power

The IRS wants Congress to expand its tax levy authority.

This is a response against the taxpayer protections under the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA). One of the changes required the IRS to provide at least 30 days notice of a levy action, as well as the taxpayer right to appeal such action. The purpose is to slow down collections and allow the taxpayer to propose alternatives or to reiterate information that collections has chosen to ignore.

After enactment of the RRA, the number of IRS levies dropped by approximately 85 percent, from 473,000 for fiscal 1998 to 75,000 in fiscal 2000. This has reversed recently, and there was a 73 percent increase from fiscal 2009 to 2010. During fiscal 2010 the IRS filed approximately 667,000 levies.

The IRS does have some valid arguments. In some circumstances, timing requirements may require multiple levy actions. Some sources of income are difficult to reach and are currently beyond the reach of a continuous levy.

NOTE: A continuous levy remains in effect until cancelled and provides recurrent cash to the IRS. The most common example is a wage garnishment. This is in contrast to a bank levy, which is good for only one instance. Should the IRS want more cash, it has to file another bank levy.

The IRS wants to expand the continuous levy to reach rental income, nonemployee compensation, royalties and fishing boat proceeds.

Then there are questionable IRS arguments. For example, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) reviewed a sample of 30 cases where the taxpayer appealed a levy action. It found that appeals can be used to delay collection action. Gosh, I could have told them that without a study; it doesn’t mean, however, that the appeal right per se is without merit. In 28 cases Appeals upheld the levy action. The IRS extrapolates this to mean that the appeals protection under RRA is being abused.

Let’s talk about IRS abuses. The RRA protections were not enacted because the IRS was an innocent party. There are cases where the IRS has pursued levies for less than $30.  There are cases of IRS levies without any notification. We presently have a representation client where collections is pursuing more than $20,000 while we simultaneously are reducing that amount by almost 80 percent through a reconsideration. We put in a CDP request to put the brakes on collections and clue them that there is a favorable adjustment coming from exam. Do I even need to comment on IRS inflexibility with an unemployed/underplayed taxpayer who cannot continue a payment plan at the same amount as before being unemployed/underemployed?

Let me clue you in on a tax “secret.” The IRS says it will work with you if circumstances overwhelm your payment plan. However, the IRS keeps a golden key to itself. The IRS can reject a restructuring if one has defaulted on a payment plan. Think about this. I have a client who entered into a payment plan. Circumstances have been difficult, including foreclosure. She has continued her payments to the IRS, although sometimes in smaller amounts than agreed to. She takes pride in having lived up to her obligation. I contacted the IRS to formally restructure the plan to something like the following:

                First three months          $25 per month

                Next three months         $50 per month

                Next three months         $75 per month

               

The IRS refused. Why? Because she “defaulted” on her plan. Now think about this for a moment. My client is held in the same regard as a tax scofflaw who has never paid and has no intention of ever paying. Her default? She reduced her payment because she works for $7.50 per hour and is broke. She did not miss a payment, mind you, only reduced it. To be fair, we will work something out with the IRS, but it is a needless headache for both her and me. I do think it shows a blockheaded attitude at the IRS. Some of us – government employees excluded, apparently – can be fired.

Count me on the “nay” side of any proposal to expand IRS levy authority. Show me some proof of “kinder and gentler” before I board this bus.