A Firefighter Sues

The taxation of legal settlements can be maddening.

The general rule is found in IRC Section 61, which can be colloquially summarized as:

If it breathes, moves, or eats, it is taxable.

Then come the exceptions.

The Code begins with a broad rule, and then you must find and fit into an exception to avoid taxability. A big exception for legal settlements is Section 104(a)(2):

        § 104 Compensation for injuries or sickness.

(a)  In general.

Except in the case of amounts attributable to (and not in excess of) deductions allowed under section 213 (relating to medical, etc., expenses) for any prior taxable year, gross income does not include-

(1)  amounts received under workmen's compensation acts as compensation for personal injuries or sickness;

(2) the amount of any damages (other than punitive damages) received (whether by suit or agreement and whether as lump sums or as periodic payments) on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness;

What can we learn here?

(1) The Code does not care whether the judge decides or if the parties instead come to an agreement.  

(2)  It does not care if one gets paid in a lump sum or in a series of payments.

(3) It cares very much that the settlement is for something physical – whether injury or sickness.  

What about something nonphysical, such as mental or emotional distress?

Reviewing the history of the Code helps here, as we learn that the Code was changed in 1996 to clarify that mental and emotional injury settlements are excludable from income only if they arose from physical injury or sickness.

This gives the following rule of thumb:

          Physical               =       nontaxable

          Nonphysical        =       taxable      

The attorney must be aware of the above demarcation and wordsmith accordingly if some or all the settlement is for nonphysical damages. 

Can it be done?

Let’s look at the Montes case.

Suzanne Montes wanted to be a firefighter since she was a little girl. She was one of the few women to pass the exam to get into the San Francisco Fire Academy. She then was one of the few women to graduate from the program.

Good for her.

In 2016 she received a sweet assignment to a firehouse in downtown San Francisco.

You may know that firefighters work as a team and in 24-hour shifts. There are about 10 shifts per month, so they spend a LOT of time together. Suzanne was a woman. The remainder of the team were men. Many did not welcome her. First came the disparaging comments, then sabotaging her equipment, then doing - I do not know what specifically and I do not want to know – “disgusting and extremely unsanitary” things to her personal property and effects.

Thanks, guys, for painting men as knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. Way to represent the team.

She complained.

She sued.

She won approximately $380 grand.

Good.

She went to a CPA when it was time to file. The CPA advised that the $380 grand was not taxable.

Even better.

You know the IRS balked, as we are looking at a Tax Court case.

The IRS’s first argument?

Start with the complaint, which claimed sex discrimination and retaliation, including the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

There are no allegations of physical disease or harm to her in the complaint.”

We are not seeing the magic words here: physical injury, physical sickness or micrato raepy sathonich.

Hopefully her attorney salvaged this in the settlement agreement.

Here is the Court:

Our detective work here begins and ends with the settlement agreement.”

Oh oh.

There are no allegations of physical injury …, and indeed, in the summary of the complaint it says, ‘She has lost compensation for which she would have been entitled. She has suffered from emotional distress, embarrassment, and humiliation and her prospects for career advancement have been diminished.’”

No magic words.

Yep, she lost her case. The settlement was taxable.

The Court did hand her a small victory, though. Penalties did not apply because she took a reasonable position based on the advice of a CPA.

Our case this time was Montes v Commissioner, Docket No. 17332-21, June 29, 2023.

 

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.

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.

When A Tax Audit Is Not An Audit

 

I am cleaning-up files here at Galactic Command. I saw an e-mail from earlier this year chastising someone for running business deposits through a personal account.

I remember.

He wanted to know why his extension payment came in higher than expected.

Umm, dude, you ran umpteen thousands of dollars through your personal account. I am a CPA, not a psychic.

Let’s spend some time in this yard.

If you are self-employed – think gig worker – and are audited, the IRS is almost certain to ask for copies of your bank accounts. Not just the business account(s), mind you, but all your accounts, business and personal.

I have standard advice for gig workers: open a separate business account. Make all business deposits to that account. Pay all business expenses from that account. When you need personal money, draw the needed amount from the business account and deposit to your personal account.

This gives the accountant a starting point: all deposits are income until shown otherwise. Expenses are trickier because of depreciation, mileage, and other factors.

Is it necessary?

No, but it is best practice.

I stopped counting how many audits I have represented over the years. I may not win the examiner’s trust with my record-keeping, but I assure you that I will win their distrust without it.

Does the examiner want to pry money from you? You bet. Examiners do not like to return to their managers with a no-change.

Will the examiner back-off if all the “i’s” are dotted? That varies per person, of course, but the odds are with you.

And sometimes unexpected things happen.

Let’s look at the Showalter case.

Richard Showalter (RS) owned a single-member LLC. The LLC in turn had one bank account with Wells Fargo.

This should be easy, I am thinking.

RS did not file a tax return for 2013.

Yep, horror stories often start with that line.

The IRS prepared a substitute for return (SFR) for 2013.

COMMENT: The IRS prepares the SFR with information available to it. It will add the 1099s for your interest and dividends, the sales price for any securities trades, any 1099s for your gig, and so forth. It considers the sum to be taxable income.

         Where is the issue?

Here’s one: the IRS does not spot you any cost for securities you sold. Your stock may have gone through the roof, but the odds that it has no cost is astronomical.

Here is another. You have a gig. You have gig expenses. Guess what the IRS does not include in its SFR? Yep, you get no gig expenses.

You may be thinking this has to be the worst tax return ever. It is leaving out obvious numbers.

Except that the IRS is not trying to prepare your tax return. It is trying to get your attention. The IRS throws an inflated number out there and hopes that you have enough savvy to finally file a tax return.

So, RS caught an SFR. The IRS sent him a 90-day notice (also known as a statutory notice of deficiency or SNOD), which is the procedure by which the IRS can move your file to Collections. You already know the tender mercies of IRS Collections.

RS responded to the SNOD by filing with the Tax Court. He wanted his business expenses.

Well, yeah.

RS provided bank statements. The IRS went through and – sure enough – found about $250 grand of deductions, either business or itemized.

That turned out rather well for RS. He should have done this up-front and spared himself the headache.

Then the IRS looked at his deposits. Lo and behold, they found another hundred grand or so that RS did not report as income.

It is not taxable, said RS.

Prove it, said the IRS.

RS did not.

COMMENT: It is unclear to me whether this disputed deposit was fully or partially taxable or wholly nontaxable. The deposit came from a closing statement. Maybe I am being pedantic, but I expect a cost for every sale. The closing statement for the sale is not going to show cost. Still, RS did not argue the point, so ….  

Now think about what RS did by getting into IRS dispute.

RS filed with the Tax Court because he wanted his deductions. Mind you, he could have gotten them by filing a return when required. But no, he did this the hard way.

He now submitted invoices and bank statements to support his deductions.

However, using bank statements is an audit procedure. Why is the IRS using an audit procedure?

Well, he is in Tax Court and all. He picked the battleground.

Had RS filed a return, the IRS might have processed the return without examination or further hassle. Since bank statements are an examination step, the IRS would never have seen them.

Just saying.

Was this this fair play by the IRS?

The Court thought so. The IRS cannot run wild. There must be a “minimal evidentiary showing” tying the taxpayer to potential income. The IRS added up his deposits; that exceeded what he reported as income. Seems to me the IRS cleared the required “minimal” hurdle.

By my reckoning, RS should still come out ahead. The IRS bumped his income by a smidgeon less than a hundred grand, but they also spotted him around a quarter million in business and itemized deductions. Unless there is crazy in that return, this should have improved his tax compared to the SFR.

Our case this time was Richard Showalter v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-114.

How A Drug Dealer Then Affects Marijuana Taxation Today

 

I spent substantial time last week reviewing and researching issues related to the marijuana industry. There is one Code section – Section 280E – that overpowers almost all tax planning in this area.

That section came into the Code in 1982.

It came in response to a Tax Court decision.

Let’s talk about it.

Here is the Court setting the table:

During …, petitioner Jeffrey Edmonson was self-employed in the trade or business of selling amphetamines, cocaine, and marijuana. His primary source of controlled substances was one Jerome Caby, who delivered the goods to petitioner in Minneapolis on consignment. Petitioner paid Caby after the drugs were sold. Petitioner received on consignment 1,100,000 amphetamine tablets, 100 pounds of marijuana, and 13 ounces of cocaine during the taxable year 1974. He had no beginning inventory of any of these goods and had an ending inventory of only 8 ounces of cocaine.

What got this bus in motion was a 1961 Supreme Court decision holding that everyone who made money – whether through legal or illegal activities – had to pay taxes on that money.

Edmonson got busted.

The IRS came in with a jeopardy assessment.

The IRS was concerned about Edmonson skipping, hence the jeopardy. This assessment causes all taxes, penalties, and interest to become immediately due. This allows to IRS to exercise its Collections powers (liens, levies, not answering phone calls for extreme durations) on an expedited basis.

Edmonson might not have been too concerned about po-po, but he wasn’t about to mess with the IRS. Although he did not keep books and records (obviously), he came up with a bunch of expenses to reduce his taxable income.

The IRS said: are you kidding me?

Off they went to Tax Court.

Edmonson went green eyeshade.

·      He calculated cost of goods sold for the amphetamines, marijuana, and cocaine

·      He calculated his business mileage

·      He had business trips and meals

·      He paid packing expenses

·      He had bought a small scale

·      He used a phone

·      He even deducted an office-in-home

The IRS, on the other hand, reduced his cost of goods sold and simply disallowed all other expenses.

The Court reduced or disallowed some expenses (it reduced his office in home, for example), but it allowed many others, including his cost of goods sold.

Here is the Court:

Petitioner asserts by his testimony that he had a cost of goods sold of $106,200. The nature of petitioner’s role in the drug market, together with his appearance and candor at trial, cause us to believe that he was honest, forthright, and candid in his reconstruction of the income and expenses from his illegal activities in the taxable year 1974.

The Edmonson decision revealed an unanticipated quirk in the tax Code. This did not go over well with Congress, which closed the Edmonson loophole by passing Code section 280E in 1982:

No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.

This Code section pretty much disallows all business deductions (marijuana is classified as a controlled substance), except for cost of goods sold. Cost of goods sold is not considered a deduction in the tax Code; rather it is a subtraction from gross receipts to arrive at gross income. Think about a business where you could not deduct (most or all) your salaries, rent, utilities, taxes, insurance and so on. That is the headwind a marijuana business faces.

Meanwhile, things around us have changed greatly since 1982. Marijuana is legal in 21 states, and medical marijuana is legal in almost twice that number. Colorado by itself has collected over $2 billion in taxes since legalizing marijuana. There are publicly traded companies in the marijuana industry. There are even ETFs should you want to invest in this sector.

And that is how we have business activity that may be legal under state law but is illegal under federal law. The federal tax Code taps into federal law – that is, the Controlled Substances Act – and that tap activates Section 280E and its harsh tax result. 

Our case this time was Edmonson v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1981-623.

Can A Severance Be A Gift?

I am looking at a case wondering why a tax practitioner would take it to Tax Court.

Then I noticed that it is a pro se case.

We have talked about this before: pro se means that the taxpayer is representing himself/herself. Technically that is not correct (for example, someone could drag me in and still be considered pro se), but it is close enough for our discussion.

Here is the issue:

Can an employer make a nontaxable gift to an employee?

Jennifer Fields thought so.

She worked at Paragon Canada from 2009 to 2017. Apparently, she was on good terms with her boss, as the company …

·      Wired her 35,000 Canadian dollars in 2012

·      Wired her $53,020 in 2014 to help with the down payment on a house in Washington state.

I am somewhat jealous. I am a career CPA, and CPA firms are not known for … well, doing what Paragon did for Jennifer.

She separated from Paragon in 2017.

They discussed a severance package.

Part of the package was forgiveness of the loan arising from those wires.

Forgiveness here does not mean what it means on Sunday. The company may forgive repayment, but the IRS will still consider the amount forgiven to be taxable income. The actual forgiveness is therefore the after-tax amount. If one’s tax rate is 25%, then the actual forgiveness would be 75% of the amount forgiven. It is still a good deal but not free.

Paragon requested and she provided a Form W-9 (the form requesting her social security number).

Well, we know that she will be getting a W-2 or a 1099 for that loan.

A W-2 would be nice. Paragon would pick-up half of the social security and Medicare taxes. If she is really lucky, they might even gross-up her bonus to include the taxes thereon, making the severance as financially painless as possible.

She received a 1099.

Oh well.

She left the 1099 off her tax return.

The IRS computers caught it.

Because … of course.

Off to Tax Court they went.

This is not highbrow tax law, folks. She worked somewhere. She received a paycheck. She left work. She received a final paycheck. What is different about that last one?

·      She tried to get Paragon to consider some of her severance as a gift.

The Court was curt on this point. You can try to be a bird, but you better not be jumping off tall buildings thinking you can fly.

·      She was good friends with her boss. She produced e-mails, text messages and what-not.

That’s nice, said the Court, but this is a job. There is an extremely high presumption in the tax Code that any payment to an employee is compensatory.

But my boss and I were good friends, she pressed. The law allows a gift when the relationship between employer and employee is personal and the payment is unrelated to work.

Huh, I wonder what that means.

Anyway, the Court was not buying:

Paragon’s inclusion of the disputed amount in the signed and executed severance agreement and the subsequent issuance of a Form 1099-MISC indicates that the payments were not intended to be a gift.”

She really did not have a chance.

The IRS also wanted penalties. Not just your average morning-drive-through penalties, no sir. They wanted the Section 6662(a) “accuracy related” penalty. Why? Well, because that penalty is 20%, and it is triggered if the taxpayer omits enough income to underpay tax by the greater of $5 grand or 10% of what the tax should have been.

Think biggie size.

The Court agreed on the penalty.

I was thinking what I would have done if Jennifer had been my client.

First, I would have explained that her chance of winning was almost nonexistent.

COMMENT: She would have fired me then, realistically.

Our best course would be to resolve the matter administratively.

I want the penalties dropped.

That means we are bound for Appeals. There is no chance of getting that penalty dropped before then.

I would argue reasonable cause. I would likely get slapped down, but I would argue. I might get something from the Appeals Officer.

Our case this time was Fields v Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2022-22.

 

Is Found Money Taxable?

Say that you found a money clip with several hundred dollars. There is no identification, so there is no way to return it.

Question: Do you have taxable income?

Let’s look at a famous tax case.

In 1957 the Cesarinis purchased a used piano at an auction for $15. Their daughter took lessons using this piano.

In 1964, while cleaning the piano, they discovered $4,467 in old currency bills. They exchanged the old currency for new at the bank. They also reported the $4,467 as income on their tax return.

By October 1965 they were having second thoughts. They amended their 1964 tax return, reversing the $4,467 from income and asking for a tax refund of $836.

The IRS rejected the refund claim.

Off to Court they went.

The Cesarinis had three arguments:

(1)  The $4,467 was not income under the tax Code.

(2)  If it was, then it was income in 1957, when they purchased the piano. Since 1957 was a closed tax year, there was no further tax consequence.

(3) Even if it was taxable in 1964, it should be taxable as capital gains and not as ordinary income.

The Court was methodical:

·      Code section 61(a) stated “except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived….” 

Granted, there are other sections that may keep a source from being taxed – or delaying its taxation – but the general rule is to consider all accessions to wealth as taxable. The language was intentional, and it was deliberately used by Congress to assert the full measure of its taxing power under the 16^th amendment.

·      The IRS did not, but the Court did, point to the following Regulation:

Treasure trove, to the extent of its value in United States currency, constitutes gross income for the taxable year in which it is reduced to undisputed possession.”

The Cesarinis, seeing an opening, pressed on the year they obtained undisputed possession.

That is not a tax question per se, so the Court looked at state law. Say the Cesarinis had sold the piano in 1958, not knowing about the cash. Would they have an action against a purchaser who later found the cash? In Ohio (their state of residence) they would not. Extrapolating, the Court determined that “undisputed possession” occurred in 1964, when the cash was found.

·      The Court acknowledged that both the piano and the cash could be construed as capital assets, and that capital gains derive from the sale or exchange of capital assets. 

And this is where word selection is critical: neither the piano or the currency had been sold or exchanged. No sale or exchange = no capital gain.

The Cesarini case cemented that found money – sometimes called “treasure trove” – is taxable just like any other type of income.

You are not really surprised at the answer, are you?

Our case this time was Cesarini v United States 296 F Supp 3 (N.D. Ohio 1969).

The Obamacare Subsidy Cliff

 

I am looking at a case involving the premium tax credit.

We are talking about the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

Obamacare uses mathematical tripwires in its definitions. That is not surprising, as one must define “affordable,” determine a “subsidy,” and - for our discussion – calculate a subsidy phase-out. Affordable is defined as cost remaining below a certain percentage of household income. Think of someone with extremely high income - Elon Musk, for example. I anticipate that just about everything is affordable to him.

COMMENT: Technically the subsidy is referred to as the “advance premium tax credit.” For brevity, we will call it the subsidy.

There is a particular calculation, however, that is brutal. It is referred to as the “cliff,” and you do not want to be anywhere near it.

One approaches the cliff by receiving the subsidy. Let’s say that your premium would be $1,400 monthly but based on expected income you qualify for a subsidy of $1,000. Based on those numbers your out-of-pocket cost would be $400 a month.

Notice that I used the word “expected.” When determining your 2022 subsidy, for example, you would use your 2022 income. That creates a problem, as you will not know your 2022 income until 2023, when you file your tax return. A rational alternative would be to use the prior year’s (that is, 2021’s) income, but that was a bridge too far for Congress. Instead, you are to estimate your 2022 income. What if you estimate too high or too low? There would be an accounting (that is, a “true up”) when you file your 2022 tax return.

I get it. If you guessed too high, you should have been entitled to a larger subsidy. That true-up would go on your return and increase your refund. Good times.

What if it went the other way, however? You guessed too low and should have received a smaller subsidy. Again, the true-up would go on your tax return. It would reduce your refund. You might even owe. Bad times.

Let’s introduce another concept.

ACA posited that health insurance was affordable if one made enough money. While a priori truth, that generalization was unworkable. “Enough money” was defined as 400% of the poverty level.

Below 400% one could receive a subsidy (of some amount). Above 400% one would receive no subsidy.

Let’s recap:

(1)  One could receive a subsidy if one’s income was below 400% of the poverty level.

(2)  One guessed one’s income when the subsidy amount was initially determined.

(3)  One would true-up the subsidy when filing one’s tax return.

Let’s set the trap:

(1)  You estimated your income too low and received a subsidy.

(2)  Your actual income was above 400% of the poverty level.

(3)  You therefore were not entitled to any subsidy.

Trap: you must repay the excess subsidy.

That 400% - as you can guess – is the cliff we mentioned earlier.

Let’s look at the Powell case.

Robert Powell and Svetlana Iakovenko (the Powells) received a subsidy for 2017.

They also claimed a long-term capital loss deduction of $123,822.

Taking that big loss into account, they thought they were entitled to an additional subsidy of $636.

Problem.

Capital losses do not work that way. Capital losses are allowed to offset capital losses dollar-for-dollar. Once that happens, capital losses can only offset another $3,000 of other income.

COMMENT: That $3,000 limit has been in the tax Code since before I started college. Considering that I am close to 40 years of practice, that number is laughably obsolete.

The IRS caught the error and sent the Powells a notice.

The IRS notice increased their income to over 400% and resulted in a subsidy overpayment of $17,652. The IRS wanted to know how the Powells preferred to repay that amount.

The Powells – understandably stunned – played one of the best gambits I have ever read. Let’s read the instructions to the tax form:

We then turn to the text of Schedule D, line 21, for the 2017 tax year, which states as follows:

         If line 16 is a loss, enter ... the smaller of:

·      The loss on line 16 or

·      $3,000

So?

The Powells pointed out that a loss of $123,822 is (technically) smaller than a loss of $3,000. Following the literal instructions, they were entitled to the $123,822 loss.

It is an incorrect reading, of course, and the Powells did not have a chance of winning. Still, the thinking is so outside-the-box that I give them kudos.

Yep, the Powells went over the cliff. It hurt.

Note that the Powell’s year was 2017.

Let’s go forward.

The American Rescue Plan eliminated any subsidy repayment for 2020.

COVID year. I understand.

The subsidy was reinstated for 2021 and 2022, but there was a twist. The cliff was replaced with a gradual slope; that is, the subsidy would decline as income increased. Yes, you would have to repay, but it would not be that in-your-face 100% repayment because you hit the cliff.

Makes sense.

What about 2023?

Let’s go to new tax law. The ironically named Inflation Reduction Act extended the slope-versus-cliff relief through 2025.

OK.

Congress of course just kicked the can down the road, as the cliff will return in 2026.

Our case this time was Robert Lester Powell and Svetlana Alekseevna Iakovenko v Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2002-19.