Social Security And A Claim Of Right

 

I am reading a Tax Court case.

I disagree with commentary on the case.

Let’s talk about Michael Smith and his 2022 tax return.

Michael worked a couple of jobs in 2022 and reported wages of $16 grand on his individual tax return. I see that one of his employers was New York City Transit. Michael would not have gotten far in New York with only $16 grand of earnings.

He applied for Social Security disability in April 2022.

I am thinking that he worked, got injured and applied for disability.

In November 2022, the SSA sent a letter saying that he qualified for SSI retroactive to March. He received SSI of $26,802 for the year.

And in April 2023 the SSA wanted the money back.

Why?

The SSA explained:

Your disability payments were stopped as of April 2023 because we learned that you had been working since April 2022.”

Well, so much for my guess that he got injured and stopped working.

Michael repaid what he could and set up a payment plan for the balance.

What makes this a tax case is that Michael left the SSI off his 2022 tax return.

Social security disability is taxed the same as regular social security. There is an unfortunate tax maze here, I admit. Up to a certain income, 50% of one’s social security is taxable. Keep increasing income and up to 85% is taxable. Land somewhere in-between and you almost need software to do the math. It is not a pretty area of the tax Code, frankly.

Michael explained that he omitted the social security because it was “an accidental overpayment” and was “repaid … in full.” He considered it more a loan than taxable income.

I get it, but Michael ran face first into a basic principle in taxation: you have to report what happened during the taxable period. In this case the period was 2022. By the end of 2022 he did not know that he would be required to return the money to the SSA. This was income free-and-clear when the New Year’s ball dropped.

OK, you ask: when would Michael make it right on his taxes?

In 2023, when he found out and returned the money.

How would Michael make it right?

He would do a special calculation on his 2023 return.

The concept here is called “claim of right,” and it goes back to a famous 1932 tax case. It was formalized into the tax Code in 1954 as Section 1341.

Have you ever read or heard a case about a corporate executive or professional athlete having to return money to his/her employer or team? The tax side (almost certainly) involves Section 1341.

How does it work?

First, there have to be (at least) two tax periods at play. If Michael had learned and repaid the SSA by the end of 2022 there would be no tax issue. It is flipping the calendar and starting another period that sets up the claim of right.

Second, there are two calculations, and you use the one yielding the smaller tax.

You run the tax for the year (of repayment) with the deduction, and

You (re)run the tax for the original year (that is, the claim of right year) with the deduction.

You use the smaller tax.

And yes, there can be trap here.

What if the repayment year has much less (or worse, no) income than the claim of right year?

You have a problem because the calculation takes the smaller of the two amounts. The flaw is baked into Section 1341.

The commentary I read speculated that the case may have involved a statute of limitations issue.

Nope, methinks.

Our secret mystery obscure Section 1341 kicks-in for the repayment year, which is 2023 in this case. The 2023 return was due on April 15, 2024. Let’s skip extensions and whatnot: the earliest that statute will expire is April 15, 2027.

No, I don’t think that was it.

Michael went for a long shot and hoped to exclude the income from his 2022 rather than 2023. Why?

Because Michael had no (or little) income in 2023 to absorb the Section 1341 lesser-of calculation.

I am again wondering if Michael was truly disabled in 2022 and subsequently got run over by both the SSA and IRS.

Our case this time was Smith v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2026-25.

Embezzlement And A Payroll Tax Penalty

It has been about a month since I last posted.

To (re)introduce myself, I am a practicing tax CPA. I like to think practice allows a certain reality check on topics we discuss here. I am hesitant to discuss topics I do not work with or have not worked with for a long time. On the other hand, I can be acerbic while bloviating within my wheelhouse. I have strong opinions, for example, with IRS administration of “reasonable cause” relief for certain penalties. Here is one: work someone 80, 90 or more hours per week, deprive him/her of adequate rest, maintain the stress meter at redline, and ... stuff ... just ... happens. Maybe - if we had a government union to drag high achievers down to the level of the common spongers - then stuff would stop happening.

The downside is that this blog is maintained by a practicing CPA, and we just finished busy season.

Let’s ease back into it.

Let’s talk about the big boy penalty - the BBP.

There are penalties when someone fails to remit withheld payroll taxes to the IRS. It makes sense when you think about it. Your employer withholds 6.2% of your gross paycheck for social security and another 1.45% for Medicare. Your employer is also withholding federal income tax. All that is your money - your employer is acting only as a go-between - and not remitting the tax to the IRS is tantamount to stealing from you. And from the IRS.

I have seen it many times over the years. Sometimes still do. Not grievous stuff like Madoff, but nonetheless happening when a business is laboring.

I get it: the business is doing the best it can. I am not saying it is right, but growing up includes acknowledging that a lot of things are not right.

The BBP is a 100% penalty on the withheld employee taxes.

You read that right: 100 percent.

It applies if you are a “responsible person.” That makes sense to me if you are the big cheese at the Provolone factory, but the IRS has been known to consider ordinary Joe’s – somebody stuck at a miserable job for a needed paycheck before another job allows an escape – to be responsible persons. A common thread is that someone has the authority to write checks, meaning the person can decide where the money (however limited) goes. Sounds great in a classroom, but it can lead to stupid in the real world.

Let’s look at Rodney Taylor.

He has degrees in political science, speech, and theater. He is multilingual. He has worked domestically and internationally. He now owns a management company called Taylor & Co.

He says that he suffers from a limited learning disability, one involving mathematics.

Couldn’t tell, but I believe him.

Over the years he delegated much of his financial stuff to professionals such as Robert Gard, his CPA.

OK.

Gard embezzled between one and two million dollars from Taylor. Some of those monies were earmarked as payroll tax deposits.

Gard had a heart attack during a meeting when his fraud was unearthed. It appears that Taylor is a good sort, as Gard survived and attributed his survival to actions Taylor immediately took in response to the heart attack.

And next we read about the lawsuits. And the insurance companies. And banks. And insurance reimbursements. You know the storyline.

While all of this was happening, Taylor paid himself a $77 thousand bonus.

STOP! Pay it back. Immediately. Not Kidding.

Taylor transferred funds from the company’s bank account to a new something he was launching.

DID YOU NOT HEAR STOP???

You know the IRS had a BBP issue here.

Taylor argued that he could not be a responsible person, as he was embezzled. He had difficulties with mathematical concepts. He hired people to do stuff.

I do not know who was advising Taylor - if anyone - but he lost the plot.

• Taylor owed the IRS.
• Taylor was CEO, hired and fired, controlled the financial affairs of the company, and made the decision to sue Gard. He couldn’t be any more responsible if he tried.
• Meanwhile, Taylor diverted money to himself while still owing the IRS.

The IRS gets snarky when you prioritize yourself when you still owe back payroll taxes.

Bam! Big boy penalty.

Yeah, and rain is wet.

Sometimes it … is … just … obvious.

Our case this time was Taylor v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2024-33.

Owing Tax on Social Security Not Received

 

I am spending more time talking about social security.

The clients and I are aging. If it does not affect me, it affects them – and that affects me.

Social security has all manners of quirks.

For example, say that one worked for an employer which does not pay into social security. There are many - think teachers, who are covered instead by state plans. It is common enough to mix and match employers over the course of a career, meaning that some work may have been covered by social security and some was not. What does this mean when it comes time to claim benefits?

Well, if you are the employee in question, you are going to learn about the windfall elimination provision (WEP), which is a haircut to one’s social security for this very fact pattern.

What if this instead is your spouse and you are claiming spousal benefits? Well, you are going to learn about the “government pension offset,” which is the same fish but wrapped in different paper.

What if you are disabled?

Kristen Ecret was about to find out.

She worked a registered nurse until 2014, when she suffered an injury and became medically disabled. She started receiving New York workers compensation benefits.

Oh, she also applied for social security benefits in 2015.

In December 2017 (think about it) she heard back from the SSA. She was entitled to benefits, and those benefits were retroactive to 2015.

Should be a nice check.

In January 2018 she received a Form SSA-1099 for 14,392, meaning the SSA was reporting to the IRS that she received benefits of $14,332 during 2017.

But there was a bigger problem.

Kristen had received nothing – zippo, nada, emptitadad – from SSA. The SSA explained that her benefits had been hoovered by something called the “workers’ compensation offset.”

She filed a request for reconsideration of her benefits.

She got some relief.

It’s a year later and she received a Form SSA-1099 for 2018. It reported that she received benefits of $71,918, of which $19,322 was attributable to 2018. The balance – $52,596 – was for retroactive benefits.

Except ….

Only $20,749 had been deposited to her bank account. Another $5,375 was paid to an attorney or withheld as federal income tax. The difference ($45,794) was not paid on account of the workers’ compensation offset.

Something similar happened for 2019.

Let’s stay with 2019.

Instead of using the SSA-1099, Kristen reported taxable social security on her 2019 joint income tax return of $5,202, which is 85% of $6,120, the only benefits she received in cash.

I get it.

The IRS of course caught it, as this is basic computer matching.

The IRS had records of her “receiving” benefits of $55,428.

The difference? Yep: the “workers’ compensation offset.”

There was some chop in the water, as a portion of the benefits received in 2019 were for years 2016 through 2018, and both sides agreed that portion was not taxable. But that left $19,866 which the IRS went after with vigor.

The Court walked us through the life, times and humor of the workers’ compensation offset, including this little hummable ditty:

For purposes of this section, if, by reason of section 224 of the Social Security Act [i.e., 42 U.S.C. § 424a] . . . any social security benefit is reduced by reason of the receipt of a benefit under a workmen’s compensation act, the term ‘social security benefit’ includes that portion of such benefit received under the workmen’s compensation act which equals such reduction."

Maybe the Court will find a way ….

            Section 86(d) compels us to agree with respondent."

The “respondent” is the IRS. No help here from the Court.

Applying the 85% inclusion ratio, we conclude that petitioners for 2019 have taxable Social Security benefits of $16,886, viz, 85% of the $19,866 in benefits that were attributable to 2019. Because petitioners on their 2019 return reported only $5,202 in taxable Social Security benefits, they must include an additional $11,684 of such benefits ($16,886 − $5,202) in their gross income."

Kristen lost.

Oh, the IRS applied an accuracy-related penalty, just to make it perfect.

We know that tax law can be erratic, ungrounded, and nonsensical. But why did Congress years ago change the tax Code to convert nontaxable disability income into taxable social security income? Was there some great loophole here they felt compelled to squash?

Our case this time was Ecret v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2024-23.

Do Not Do This When Buying Disability Insurance

 

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.

Exceptions to Early Distribution Penalties

 

What caught my eye about the case was the reference to an “oral opinion.”

Something new, methought.

Better known as a “bench opinion.’

Nothing new, methinks.

What happened is that the Tax Court judge rendered his/her opinion orally at the close of the trial.

Consider that a tax case will almost certainly include Code section and case citations, and I find the feat impressive.

Let’s talk about the case, though, as there is a tax gotcha worth discussing.

Molly Wold is a licensed attorney. She was laid-off in 2017. Upon separation, she pulled approximately $86 grand from her 401(k) for the following reasons:

(1)  Pay back a 401(k) loan

(2)  Medical expenses

(3)  Student loans

(4)  Mortgage and other household expenses

You probably know that pulling money from a 401(k) is a taxable event (set aside a Roth 401(k), or we are going to drive ourselves nuts with the “except-fors”).

Alright, she will have income tax.

Here is the question: will she have an early distribution penalty?

This is the 10% penalty for taking money out from a retirement account, whether a company plan (401(k), 403(b), etc) or IRA and IRA-based plans (SIMPLE, SEP, etc). Following are some exceptions to the penalty:

·      Total and permanent disability

·      Death of the account owner

·      Payments over life expectancy; these are sometimes referred to as “Section 72(t)” payments.

·      Unreimbursed medical expenses (up to a point)

·      IRS levy

·      Reservist on active duty

Then it gets messy, as some exceptions apply only to company-based plans:

·      Leaving your job on reaching age 55 (age 50 if a public safety employee)

Is there a similar rule for an IRA?

·      Withdrawals after attaining age 59 ½.

Why age 55 for a 401(k) but 59 ½ for an IRA?

Who knows.

Molly was, by the way, younger than age 55.

There are exceptions that apply only to a company-based plan:

·      A qualified domestic relations order (that is, a divorce)

·      Dividends from an ESOP

There are exceptions that apply only to an IRA and IRA-based plans:

·      Higher education expenses

·      First-time homebuyer (with a maximum of $10,000)

Yes, Congress should align the rules for both company, IRA and IRA-based plans, as this is a disaster waiting to happen.

However, there is one category that all of them exclude.

Ms Wold might have gotten some pop out of the exception for medical expenses, but that exclusion is lame. The excluded amount is one’s medical expenses exceeding 7.5% of adjusted gross income (AGI). I suppose it might amount to something if you are hit by the proverbial bus.

The rest of the $86 grand would have been for general hardship.

Someone falls on hard times. They turn to their retirement account to help them out. They take a distribution. The plan issues a 1099-R at year-end. Said someone says to himself/herself: “surely, there is an exception.”

Nope.

There is no exception for general hardship.

10% penalty.

Let’s go next to the bayonet-the-dead substantial underpayment penalty. This penalty kicks-in when the additional tax is the greater of $5,000 or 10% of the tax that should have been shown on the return.

Folks, considering the years that penalty has been around, you would think Congress could cut us some slack and at least increase the $5 grand to $10 grand, or whatever the inflation-adjusted equivalent would be.

Ms Wold requested abatement of the penalty for reasonable cause.

Reasonable cause would be that this area of the Code is a mess.

You know who doesn’t get reasonable cause?

An attorney.

Here is the Court:

So I will hold her as a lawyer and as a highly intelligent person with a good education to what IRS instructions that year showed.”

Our case this time was Woll v Commissioner, TC Oral Order.

Depression And Disability

I am reading a Tax Court case where the taxpayer represented himself. This is referred to as “pro se.” Technically, it does not mean that you cannot have an attorney or advisor with you; it rather means that the attorney or advisor is not admitted to practice before the Tax Court. If I was your CPA, for example, I would field the questions-and-answers on your behalf while you sat there silent and forlorn. You would still be considered to be “pro se,” as I do not practice before the Court. Had I practiced in the D.C. area or with the national tax office of a large firm, I might have been more interested in pursuing admission to practice.

The taxpayer’s name is Walter Kowsh, and he had an incredible string of misfortune. Walter lived in New York. His wife died at age 53, leaving him with two teenage children and an elderly parent.

Then he lost several friends on the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. Some of those friends had gone to his wife’s funeral.

By 2002 he could longer work because of depression and anxiety attacks.

He started taking prescriptions, including Wellbutrin and Paxil.

His depression became debilitating.

He started collecting on his private disability insurance.

He did not however apply for Social Security disability. Too bad, as there is a case (Dwyer) that accepts social security as proof of disability.

He took an early distribution from his 401(k) or IRA in 2003. He did not however file a tax return for 2003.

So the IRS tentatively prepared one for him.

After a string of IRS notices, he finally prepared and filed his 2003 return.

The IRS next wanted penalties for late filing as well as the 10% penalty on the early distribution.

Walter needed an out from both penalties. Is there way to do it?

Yep.

Disability would do it. Disability is an exception to the 10% penalty and is also reasonable cause to abate a late filing penalty.

Walter argued that he was disabled.

Question is: did Walter’s depression rise to the level of a disability?

Incredible story, said the IRS. Get us a doctor’s letter, and let’s wrap this up.

Walter could not – or would not - get a doctor’s letter. His own doctor refused to provide one.

This was a bad start.

How about a prescription history from the pharmacy? asked the IRS. They might be able to print out your history for the whole year.

Nope, said Walter.

I am already collecting disability, continued Walter. What part of “disability” do you not understand?

Walter could really have used a tax advisor at this point.

You see, collecting disability from an insurance company lends strong credibility to Walter’s claim, but disability is a medical diagnosis. The insurance reinforces the diagnosis but is not a substitute for it.

Rest assured the Court was curious why Walter’s doctor would not provide a letter, or why he refused to have another doctor provide one…

… despite numerous requests from respondent.”

Respondent means the IRS.

And I am curious myself.

I do not doubt that he was depressed. I also do not doubt that he considered himself disabled. What I don’t understand is the big pushback on what appears to be a reasonable request.

It is not personal, Walter. Stop taking it that way.

Walter lost.

You see the downside to a true pro se.

I would have been screaming at Walter for sabotaging his own case. He would have gotten that doctor’s letter or I would have fired him.

But Walter made the tax literature for the point that collecting private disability insurance, by itself and without further substantiation, does not prove disability for purposes of the tax Code.

Tax geeks will remember Walter for decades.