Navigating The Tax Code On Your Own

 

I received a phone call recently from the married daughter of a client. I spoke with the couple – mostly the son-in-law – about needing an accountant. They had bought property, converted property to rental status and were selling property the following (that is, this) year.

It sounds like a lot. It really isn’t. It was clear during our conversation that they were well-versed in the tax issues.

I told them: “you don’t need me.”

They were surprised to hear this.

Why would I say that?

They knew more than they gave themselves credit for. Why pay me? Let them put the money to better use.

Let’s take an aside before continuing our story.

We - like many firms - are facing staffing pressure. The profession has brought much of this upon itself – public accounting has a blemished past – and today’s graduates appear to be aware of the sweatshop mentality that has preceded them. Lose a talented accountant. Experience futility in hiring new talent. Ask those who remain to work even harder to make up the shortfall. Be surprised when they eventually leave because of overwork. Unchecked, this problem can be a death spiral for a firm.

Firms are addressing this in different ways. Many firms are dismissing clients or not accepting new ones. Many (if not most) have increased minimum fees for new clients. Some have released entire lines of business. There is a firm nearby, for example, which has released all or nearly all of its fiduciary tax practice.

We too are taking steps, one of which is to increase our minimum fee for new individual tax clients.

Back to the young couple.

I explained that I did not want to charge them that minimum fee, especially since it appeared they could prepare their return as well as I could. 

They explained they wanted certainty that it was done right.

Yeah, I want that for them too. We will work something out.

But I think there is a larger issue here.

The tax Code keeps becoming increasingly complex. That is fine if we are talking about Apple or Microsoft, as they can afford to hire teams of accountants and attorneys. It is not fine for ordinary people, hopefully experiencing some success in life, but unable – or fearful - to prepare their own returns. Couple this with an overburdened accounting profession, a sclerotic IRS, and a Congress that may be brewing a toxic stew with its never-ending disfigurement of the tax Code to solve all perceived ills since the days of Hammurabi.

How are people supposed to know that they do not know?

Let’s look at the Lucas case.

Robert Lucas was a software engineer who lost his job in 2017. He was assisting his son and daughter, and he withdrew approximately $20 grand from his 401(k) toward that end.

Problem: Lucas was not age 59 ½.

Generally speaking, that means one has taxable income.

One may also have a penalty for early distribution. While that may seem like double jeopardy, such is the law.

Sure enough, the plan administrator issued a Form 1099 showing the distribution as taxable to Lucas with no known penalty exception.

Lucas should have paid the tax and penalty. He did not, which is why we are talking about this.

The IRS computers caught the omission, of course, and off to Tax Court they went.

Lucas argued that he had been diagnosed with diabetes a couple of years earlier. He had read on a website that diabetes would make the distribution nontaxable.

Sigh. He had misread – or someone had written something wildly inaccurate about – being “unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity.”

That is a no.

Since he thought the distribution nontaxable, he also thought the early distribution penalty would not apply.

No … again.

Lucas tried.

He thought he knew, but he did not know.

He could have used a competent tax preparer.

But how was he to know that?

Our case this time was Robert B. Lucas v Commissioner T.C.M. 2023-009.

Diabetes, Disability And A Penalty

I have a friend who damaged his back, leading to nerve complications which have greatly affected his ability to work. Granted, he can still work, but not with the same intensity as before and certainly not for as many continuous hours. Sometimes by midday he has to take pain medications, which tend to knock him out. It is an unfortunate cycle, and the impact on his earning power is significant.

Let’s talk about disability. Then let’s talk about a disability exception to a penalty.

First, is disability income taxable or nontaxable?

Let’s confine this discussion to a disability policy purchased from an insurance company, omitting coverage from workers compensation and social security. There is a rule of thumb that is very important when thinking about disability insurance:

If you deducted the insurance, then payments under the insurance are taxable.

Let’s say that you purchased a short-term disability policy through your cafeteria plan. Amounts run through a cafeteria plan are generally not taxable to you. That is the point of the cafeteria, after all. Collect on the policy, however, and you trigger the above rule.

As a consequence, just about any financial or tax advisor will tell you to pay for disability insurance with after-tax dollars. The issue becomes even more important when purchasing long-term disability, as you would be permanently disabled (however defined) should you collect. You do not need the tax burden at the same time that your earning power is compromised.

You may recall that there is a 10% penalty if you take monies out of your 401(k) or IRA early. Early has different meanings, depending upon whether it is an IRA (or IRA-based) plan or a qualified plan. You can take money from a 401(k) at age 55 without penalty, for example, if you no longer work for the employer. An IRA does not care about your employer, but it does make you wait instead to age 59 ½. Take a distribution before those ages and you are likely facing a penalty.

But there is an exception to the 10% penalty if you get disabled.

Let’s say that you are injured enough to collect disability. Will that count for purposes of avoiding the 10% penalty?

You would think so, right?

Let’s talk about the Trainito case.

Trainito worked with the Boston Department of Environmental Health (DEH).  He was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in 2005. He unfortunately did not take good care of himself, and he had continuous and increasing issues with neuropathy. He worked for DEH until October 2010, when he resigned due to the diabetes. He did not pursue disability benefits from DEH. Perhaps they did not offer such benefits.

Then he stopped taking his meds.

Fast forward six months. Trainito took a retirement distribution of over $22 thousand in April 2011.

Two months later he was found at his home in a diabetic coma. He was taken to a hospital where he spent more than a month recuperating, leaving the hospital in late July 2011. Damage was done, and he had reduced use of an arm and leg. He then applied for disability benefits with the state.

When preparing his return for 2011 he claimed the disability exception to the 10% penalty on the retirement distribution. The IRS disagreed, and the two found themselves in Tax Court.

The Code section at play is Sec 72(m)(7):

            (7) Meaning of disabled

For purposes of this section, an individual shall be considered to be disabled if he is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or to be of long-continued and indefinite duration. An individual shall not be considered to be disabled unless he furnishes proof of the existence thereof in such form and manner as the Secretary may require.

On first reading, it seems to make sense. Introduce an attorney and a couple of non-immediate points appear:

(1) The disability must be “total.”

This is a rewording of “unable to engage in any substantial gainful…” This is not an insignificant requirement, as it does not look to one’s regular and primary employment.

Many private disability policies will find you disabled if you are unable to perform your own occupation. The IRS definition is much stricter, requiring one to be unable to reasonably perform almost any occupation. As a consequence, it is possible that someone may be considered disabled by his/her insurance company but not considered so by this section.

(2) The distribution must be attributable to the disability.

The clearest way to show this is to take the distribution after being medically adjudged as disabled. Trainito did not do that. It is extremely likely that he knew he was seriously compromised by his diabetes, but he had not obtained a medical signoff to that effect.

The question before the Court was whether the absence of that medical signoff was fatal. 

The Court acknowledged that “substantial gainful activity” can be impaired by progressive diseases, such as diabetes. The Court further clarified that the presence of an impairment (such as diabetes) does not necessarily mean that an individual is disabled as intended under Sec 72(m)(7).

COMMENT: Makes sense. Odds are we each know someone who is diabetic but has it under medical control.

Trainito provided the Court with the record of his six weeks in the hospital, from June through July, 2011.  He was in a coma for most of it.

The Court wanted records back to April, 2011, when Trainito took the distribution.

Trainito testified that he saw a primary care doctor twice a month after being diagnosed in 2005. He stopped that when he was no longer working at DEH.

The Court sniffed:

Thus the fact that petitioner suffered a diabetic coma on June 12, 2011 does not indicate whether he was disabled on April 22, 2011. Petitioner undoubtedly suffered from diabetes on April 22, 2011 but he has not provided sufficient evidence to show that his diabetes caused him to be disabled within the meaning of section 72(m)(7).”

This seems a bit harsh. There is a “duh” element considering that he has a progressive disease. Perhaps if Trainito had his doctor testify, perhaps if he introduced his earlier medical records …

But Trainito did not have his doctor testify nor did he provide his earlier medical records. Why? Who knows. I suspect there may have been a financial consideration, but the Court did not say. It is also possible that he thought his testimony, accompanied by his shortly-thereafter month-long coma, would be sufficient proof to the Court.

The Court concluded that Trainito did not meet test (2) above: he did not show that the distribution was attributable to the disability. Trainito owed the penalty.

What are my thoughts?

Sometimes tax is not just about Code sections and Regulations. Sometimes it is about facts and – more importantly – being able to prove those facts. I believe you when you tell me that you donated multiple rooms of furniture to charity when you moved, but you still need receipts and documentation. I believe you when you explain how you supported your children from a previous marriage, but I still need to review the divorce decree and related legal paperwork to determine whether you can claim the children as dependents.

The IRS told Trainito to “prove it.”

He didn’t.