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.

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.

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.

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.

Deducting “Tax Insurance” Premiums

 There is an insurance type that I have never worked with professionally: tax liability insurance.

It is what it sounds like: you are purchasing an insurance policy for unwanted tax liabilities.

It makes sense in the area of Fortune 500 mergers and acquisitions. Those deals are enormous, involving earth-shaking money and a potentially disastrous tax riptide if something goes awry. What if one the parties is undergoing a substantial and potentially expensive tax examination? What if the IRS refuses to provide advance guidance on the transaction? There is a key feature to this type of insurance: one is generally insuring a specific transaction or limited number of transactions. It is less common to insure an entire tax return.  

My practice, on the other hand, has involved entrepreneurial wealth – not institutional money - for almost my entire career. On occasion we have seen an entrepreneur take his/her company public, but that has been the exception. Tax liability insurance is not a common arrow in my quiver. For my clients, representation and warranty insurance can be sufficient for any mergers and acquisitions, especially if combined with an escrow.

Treasury has been concerned about these tax liability policies, and at one time thought of requiring their mandatory disclosure as “reportable” transactions. Treasury was understandably concerned about their use with tax shelter activities. The problem is that many routine and legitimate business transactions are also insured, and requiring mandatory disclosure could have a chilling effect on the pricing of the policies, if not their very existence. For those reasons Treasury never imposed mandatory disclosure.

I am looking at an IRS Chief Counsel Memorandum involving tax liability insurance.

What is a Memorandum?

Think of them as legal position papers for internal IRS use. They explain high-level IRS thinking on selected issues.

The IRS was looking at the deductibility by a partnership of tax insurance premiums. The partnership was insuring a charitable contribution.

I immediately considered this odd. Who insures a charitable contribution?

Except …

We have talked about a type of contribution that has gathered recent IRS attention: the conservation easement.

The conservation easement started-off with good intentions. Think of someone owning land on the outskirts of an ever-expanding city. Perhaps that person would like to see that land preserved – for their grandkids, great-grandkids and so on – and not bulldozed, paved and developed for the next interchangeable strip of gourmet hamburger or burrito restaurants. That person might donate development rights to a charitable organization which will outlive him and never permit such development. That right is referred to as an easement, and the transfer of the easement (if properly structured) generates a charitable tax deduction.

There are folks out there who have taken this idea and stretched it beyond recognition. Someone buys land in Tennessee for $10 million, donates a development and scenic easement and deducts $40 million as a charitable deduction. Promoters then ratcheted this strategy by forming partnerships, having the partners contribute $10 million to purchase land, and then allocating $40 million among them as a charitable deduction. The partners probably never even saw the land. Their sole interest was getting a four-for-one tax deduction.

The IRS considers many of these deals to be tax shelters.

I agree with the IRS.

Back to the Memorandum.

The IRS began its analysis with Section 162, which is the Code section for the vast majority of business deductions on a tax return. Section 162 allows a deduction for ordinary and necessary expenses directly connected with or pertaining to a taxpayer’s trade or business.

Lots of buzz words in there to trip one up.

You my recall that a partnership does not pay federal tax. Instead, its numbers are chopped up and allocated to the partners who pay tax on their personal returns.

To a tax nerd, that beggars the question of whether the Section 162 buzz words apply at the partnership level (as it does not pay federal tax) or the partner level (who do pay federal tax).

There is a tax case on this point (Brannen). The test is at the partnership level.

The IRS reasoned:

·      The tax insurance premiums must be related to the trade or business, tested at the partnership level.

·      The insurance reimburses for federal income tax.

·      Federal income tax itself is not deductible.

·      Deducting a premium for insurance on something which itself is not deductible does not make sense.

There was also an alternate (but related argument) which we will not go into here.

I follow the reasoning, but I am unpersuaded by it.

·      I see a partnership transaction: a contribution.

·      The partnership purchased a policy for possible consequences from that transaction.

·      That – to me - is the tie-in to the partnership’s trade or business.

·      The premium would be deductible under Section 162.

I would continue the reasoning further.

·      What if the partnership collected on the policy? Would the insurance proceeds be taxable or nontaxable?

o  I would say that if the premiums were deductible on the way out then the proceeds would be taxable on the way in.

o  The effect – if one collected – would be income far in excess of the deductible premium. There would be no further offset, as the federal tax paid with the insurance proceeds is not deductible.

o  Considering that premiums normally run 10 to 20 cents-on-the-dollar for this insurance, I anticipate that the net tax effect of actually collecting on a policy would have a discouraging impact on purchasing a policy in the first place.

The IRS however went in a different direction.

Which is why I am thinking that – albeit uncommented on in the Memorandum – the IRS was reviewing a conservation easement that had reached too far. The IRS was hammering because it has lost patience with these transactions.

Losing A Tax Exemption

The taxation of tax-exempts can sometimes be tricky.

The reason is that a tax-exempt can – depending on the facts – owe income tax. This type of income is referred to as unrelated business income, and the tax issue developed because Congress did not want tax-exempts to mimic the activities of for-profit companies while not paying tax.

There are certain areas – such as permitting third-party use of membership data – that can trigger the unrelated business tax.

Another would be the rental of real estate with associated indebtedness.

The organization will owe tax on these activities.

Then there is the worst-case scenario: the revocation of the tax-exempt status itself. Think Elon Musk putting Tesla in a 501(c)(3) – the IRS is going to blow-up that arrangement.

Let’s discuss a recent case that walked the revocation ledge.

There is an organization in New York. It is open to seniors from age 55 to 90. To become a member a senior must submit an application and application fee. 

It appears to have four principal activities:

·      To provide burial benefits for members and assistance to surviving family

·      To provide information and referrals to seniors regarding burial as well as general concerns

·      To provide organized activities for senior citizens

·      To provide annual scholarships to needy, promising students

The organization charges fees as follows:

·      An application fee of $100 for seniors age 55 to 70

·      An application fee of $150 for seniors age 71 to 90

·      A $30 annual fee

·      A $10 fee every time a member dies

It doesn’t appear unreasonable to me.

There was an interesting and heartwarming twist to their activities: the organization would pay a separate amount directly to the family of a deceased member, pursuant to a Korean tradition. The organization paid, for example, $11 thousand directly to a funeral home and over $3,200 to the family of a deceased member.

Since we are talking about them, you know that the organization went to audit.

The IRS wanted to revoke their tax-exempt status.

Why?

The is an over-arching requirement that a tax-exempt be operated “exclusively” for an exempt purpose. There is some latitude in the “exclusive” requirement, otherwise de minimis and silly stuff could cost an organization its exemption.

Still, what did the IRS see here?

The first is that benefits were available only to members.

COMMENT: The organization had expressed an intent to include nonmembers, but as of the audit year that goal remained aspirational.

OBSERVATION: The organization had told the IRS of its intent to include nonmembers when it requested exempt status. Upon audit and failure to find nonmember benefits, the IRS argued that the organization had failed to operate in the manner it had previously represented to the IRS. 

Second is that a member was required to pay dues. In fact, if a member failed to pay dues for 90 days after receiving written notice, the organization could terminate the membership and – with it – the requirement to pay any burial benefits.

COMMENT: Sounds a bit like an insurance company, doesn’t it?

Third is that the amount of burial benefits was based on the number of years the deceased had been a member. A member of 12 years would receive more than a member of 5 years.

The IRS brought big heat. The organization was organized in 1996, applied for exempt status in 1998 and was being audited for 2013.

OK, a reasonable number of years had passed since receiving exempt status.

The organization had reported over $2.3 million in revenues on their Form 990.

Sounds to me like they were doing well.

In 2008 they bought a condominium, paying over $800 grand.

Oh, oh.

You can begin to understand where the IRS was coming from. As operated, the organization was looking like a small insurance company. It was accumulating a bank balance; it had bought real estate. The IRS wanted to see obvious charitable activities. If the organization could swing $800 grand on a condo, then they could shake loose a few dollars and waive dues for someone who was broke. They were operating dangerously close to a private club. That is fine, but do not ask for (c)(3) status.

The organization had a remaining argument: there was no diversion of earnings or money. There couldn’t be, as no benefits occurred until someone passed away.

The Court however separated this argument into two parts:

(1)  The earnings and assets of the organization cannot inure (that is, return to) to a member.

The organization successfully argued this point.

(2)  There must be no private benefit.

This makes more sense if one flips the wording: there must be a public benefit. The Court did not see a public benefit, as the organization was not providing benefits to nonmembers or allowing for reduction or abatement of dues for financial need. Not seeing a public benefit, the Court saw a private benefit.

The organization was operating in a manner too close to a for-profit business, and it lost its tax-exempt status.

I get the technical issues, but I do not agree as vigorously as the Court that there was that much private benefit here. Society has an interest in promoting the causes and issues of senior citizens, and the organization – in its own way – was helping. By aiding seniors with government agencies, it was reducing the strain on social services. By assisting seniors with planning and paying for funeral services, it was reducing costs otherwise defaulting to the municipality.

One would have preferred a warning, an opportunity for the organization to right its course, so to speak. What happened instead was akin to burning down the bridge.  

Still, that is how issues in this area go: one is working on a spectrum. The advisor has to judge whether one is on the safe or the non-safe side of the spectrum.

The Court decided the organization had wandered too far to the non-safe side.

Our case this time was The Korean-American Senior Mutual Association v Commissioner.

It’s A Cliff, Not A Slope

It is one of my least favorite areas of individual tax practice.

We are talking about health insurance. More specifically, health insurance purchased through the exchanges, coupled with advance payment of the premiums.

Why?

Because there is a nasty tax trap in there, and I saw the trap again the other day. It caught a client who gets by, but who is hardly in a position to service heavy tax debt.

Let’s set it up.

You can purchase health insurance in the private market or from government-sponsored marketplaces – also called exchanges. The exchanges were created under the Affordable Care Act, more colloquially known as Obamacare.

If you purchase health insurance through the exchange and your income is below a certain level, you can receive government assistance in paying the insurance premiums. Make very little income, for example, and it is possible that the insurance will be free to you. Make a little more and you will be expected to contribute to your own upkeep. Make too much and you are eliminated from the discussion altogether.

The trap has to do with the dividing line of “too much.”

Let’s look at the Abrego case.

Mr and Mrs Abrego lived in California. For 2015 he was a driver for disabled individuals, and he also prepared a few tax returns (between 20 and 30) every year. Mrs Abrego was a housekeeper.

They enrolled in the California exchange. They also did the following:

(1)  They provided an estimate of their income for 2015. Remember, the final subsidy is ultimately based on their 2015 income, which will not be known until 2016. While it is possible that someone would purchase health insurance, pay for it out-of-pocket and eventually get reimbursed by the IRS when filing their 2015 tax return in 2016, it is far more likely that someone will estimate their 2015 income to then estimate their subsidy. One would use the estimated subsidy to offset the very real monthly premiums. Makes sense, as long as all those estimated numbers come in as expected.

(2)  They picked a policy. The monthly premiums were $1,029.

(3)  The exchange cranked their expected 2015 numbers and determined that they could personally pay $108 per month.

(4)  The difference - $ 1,029 minus $108 = $921– was their monthly subsidy.

The Abregos kept this up for 10 months. Their total 2015 subsidy was $9,210 ($921 times 12).

Since the Abregos received a subsidy, they had to file a tax return. One reason is to compare actual numbers to the estimated numbers. If they guessed low on income, they would have to pay back some of the subsidy. If they guessed high, the government would owe them for underestimating the subsidy.

The Abregos filed their 2015 return.

They reported $63,332 of household income.

How much subsidy should they have received?

There is the rub.

The subsidy changes as income climbs. The subsidy gets to zero when one hits 400% of the poverty line.

What was the poverty line in California for 2015?

$15,730 for a married couple.

Four times the poverty line was $62,920.

They reported $63,332.

Which is more than $62,920.

By $412.

They have to pay back the subsidy.

How much do they have to pay back?

All of it - $9,210.

Folks, the tax rate on that last $412 is astronomical.

It is frustrating to see this fact pattern play out. The odds of a heads-up from the client while someone can still do something are – by the way – zero. That leaves retroactive tax planning, whose success rate is also pretty close to zero.

Our client left no room to maneuver. Why did her income go up? Because she sold something. Why did she not call CTG galactic command before selling – you know: just in case? What would we have done? Probably advised her to NOT SELL in the same year she is receiving a government subsidy.

How did it turn out for the Abregos?

They should have been toast, except for one thing.

Remember that he prepared tax returns. He did that on the side, meaning that he had a gig going. He was self-employed.

He got to claim business deductions.

And he had forgotten one.

How much was it?

$662.

It got their income below the magic $69,920 level.

They were on the sliding scale to pay back some of that subsidy. Some - not all.

It was a rare victory in this area.

Our case for the homegamers was Abrego v Commissioner.