What Does It Mean To Rely On A Tax Pro?

You may know that permanent life insurance can create a tax trap.

This happens when the insurance policy builds up cash value. Nice thing about cash value is that you can borrow against it. If the cash value grows exponentially, you can borrow against it to fund your lifestyle, all the while not paying any income tax.

There is always a "but."

The "but" is when the policy terminates. If you die, then there is no tax problem. Many tax practitioners however consider death to be extreme tax planning, so let's consider what happens should the policy terminate while you are still alive. 

All the money you borrowed in excess of the premiums you paid will be income to you. It makes sense if you think of the policy as a savings account. To the extent the balance exceeds whatever you deposited, you have interest income. Doing the same thing inside of a life insurance policy does not change the general rule. What it does do is change the timing: instead of paying taxes annually you will pay only when a triggering event occurs.

Letting the policy lapse is a triggering event.

So you would never let the policy lapse, right?

There is our problem: the policy will require annual premiums to stay in effect. You can write a check for the annual premiums, or you can let the insurance company take it from the cash value. The latter works until you have borrowed all the cash value. With no cash value left, the insurance company will look for you to write a check.

Couple this with the likelihood that this likely will occur many years after you acquired the policy - meaning that you are older and your premiums are more expensive - and you can see the trap in its natural environment.  

The Mallorys purchased a single premium variable life insurance policy in 1987 for $87,500. The policy insured Mr. Mallory, with his wife as the beneficiary. He was allowed to borrow. If he did, he would have to pay interest. The policy allowed him two ways to do this: (1) he could write a check or (2) have the interest added to the loan balance instead.

Mallory borrowed $133,800 over the next 14 years - not including the interest that got charged to the loan.

Not bad.

The "but" came in 2011. The policy burned out, and the insurance company wanted him to write a check for approximately $26,000.

Not a chance said Mallory.

The insurance company explained to him that there would be a tax consequence.

Says you said Mallory.

The policy terminated and the insurance company sent him a 1099 for approximately $150,000.

It was now tax time 2012. The Mallorys went to their tax preparer, who gave them the bad news: a big tax check was due.

Tax preparer became ex-tax preparer.

The Mallorys did not file their 2011 tax return until 2013. They omitted the offending $150,000, but they attached the Form 1099 to their tax return with the following explanation:

Paid hundreds of $. No one knows how to compute this using the 1099R from Monarch -- IRS could not help when called -- Pls send me a corrected 1040 explanation + how much is owed. Thank you."

The IRS in turn replied that they wanted $40,000 in tax, a penalty of approximately $10,000 for filing the return late and another penalty of over $8,000 for omitting the 1099 in the first place.

The Mallorys countered that they had no debt with the insurance company. Whatever they received were just distributions, and they were under no obligation to pay them back.

In addition, since they received no cash from the insurance company in 2011, there could not possibly be any income in 2011.

It was an outside-the-box argument, I grant you. The problem is that their argument conflicted with a small mountain of paperwork accumulated over the years referring to the monies as loans, not to mention the interest on said loan.

They also argued for mitigation of the $8,000 penalty because no one could tell them the taxable portion of the insurance policy.

The Mallorys had contacted the IRS, who gave them the general answer.  It is not routine IRS policy to specifically analyze insurance company 1099s to determine the taxable amount.

They had also called random tax professionals asking for free tax advice.

COMMENT: Think about this for a moment. Let's say you receive a call asking for your thoughts on a tax question. The caller is not a client. Your first thought is likely: why get involved? Let's say that you take the call. You are then asked for advice. How specific can you be? They are not your client, and the risk is high that you do not know all the facts. The most you can tell them - prudently, at least - is the general answer.

This is, by the way, why many practitioners simply do not accept calls like this.                            

The Court did not buy the Mallory's argument. It was not true that the Mallorys were not advised: they were advised by their initial tax preparer - the one they unceremoniously fired. After that point it was a stretch to say that they received advice - as they never hired anyone. A phone call for free tax advice did not strike the Court as a professional relationship providing "reasonable cause" to mitigate the $8,000 penalty. 

The Mallorys lost across the board.

Splitting With The IRS Over Insurance

I am reading a case where the Tax Court just entered a “partial” summary judgement. This means that at least one issue has been decided but the remaining issue or issues are still being litigated.

And I think I see what the attorneys are up to.

We are talking about split-dollar life insurance. 

This had been a rather humdrum area of tax until 2002. The IRS then issued new rules which tipped the apple cart and sent planners scrambling to review – and likely revise – their clients’ split dollar arrangements (SDAs). I know because I had the misfortune of being point man on this issue at a CPA firm. There is a certain wild freedom when the IRS decides to reset an area of tax, with revisions to previous interim Notices, postponed deadlines and clients who considered you crazed.

To set-up the issue, a classic split dollar arrangement involves an employer buying a life insurance policy on an employee. The insurance is permanent – meaning cash value build-up - and the intent is for the employee to eventually walk away with the policy or for the employee’s estate to receive the death benefits. The only thing the employer wants is a return of the premiums it paid.

Find a policy where the cash value grows faster than the cumulative premiums paid and you have a tax vehicle ready to hit the highway. 

Our case involves the Morrissette family, owners of a large moving company. Grandmom (Clara Morrissette) had a living trust, to which she contributed all her company stock. She was quite concerned about the company remaining in the hands of the family. She had her attorney establish three trusts, one for each son. The sons, trusts and grandmom then entered into an agreement, whereby each son – through his trust – would buy the company stock of a deceased brother. If one brother died, for example, the remaining two would buy his stock. In the jargon, this is called a “cross purchase.”

This takes money, so each trust bought life insurance on the two other brothers.

This too takes money, which grandmom forwarded from her trust.

How much money? About $30 million for single-premium life policies.

Wow.

Obviously the moving company was extremely successful. Also obviously there must have been a life insurance person celebrating like a madman that day.

The only thing grandmom’s trust wanted was to be reimbursed the greater of the policies’ cash value or cumulative premiums paid.

Which gets us to those IRS Regulations from back when.

The IRS had decreed that henceforth SDAs would be divided into two camps:

(1) The employee owns the policy and the employer has a right to the cash value or some other amount.

This works fine until the premiums get expensive. Under this scenario the employee either has income or has a loan. Income of course is taxable, and the IRS insisted that a loan behave like a loan. The employee had to pay interest and the employer had to report interest income, with whatever income tax consequence followed.

And a loan has to be paid back. Many SDAs are set-up with the intent of the employee walking away someday. How will he/she pay back the loan at that time? This is a serious problem for the tax planners. 

(2)  The employer owns the policy and the employee has a right to something – likely the insurance in excess of the cash value or cumulative premiums paid.

The employee has income under this scenario, equal to the value of the insurance he/she is receiving annually. The life insurance companies publish tables, so practitioners can plan for this number.

But this leaves a dangerous possible tax issue: what happens once the cash value exceeds the amount to which the employer is entitled (say cumulative premiums)? Let’s say the cash value goes up by $250,000, and the employer’s share is met. Does the employee have $250,000 in income? There is a lot of lawyering on this point.

The Court decided that the grandmom had the second type – type (2) of SDA, albeit of the “family” and not the “employer” variety. The sons’ trusts had to report income equal the economic benefit of the life insurance, the same as an employee under the classic model.

This doesn’t sound like much, but the IRS was swinging for a type (1) SDA. If the sons’ trusts owned the policies, the next tax question would be the source of the money. The IRS was arguing that the grandmom trust made taxable gifts to the sons. Granted the gift and estate tax exclusion has been raised to over $5 million, but $30 million is more than $5 million and would trigger a hefty gift tax. The IRS was smelling money here.                 

The partial summary was solely on the income tax issue.

The Court will get back to the gift tax issue.

However, having won the income tax issue must make the Morrissette family feel better about winning the gift tax issue. According to the IRS’ own rules, grandmom’s trust owned the policies. What was the gift when the trust will get back all its money? The attorneys can defend from high ground, so to speak.

And there is one more thing.

Grandmom passed away. She was already in her 90s when the sons’ trusts were set up.

She died with the sons’ trusts owing her trust around $30 million.

Which her estate will not collect until the sons pass away or the SDAs are terminated. Who knows when that will be?

And what is a dollar worth X years from now? 

One thing we can agree on is that it not worth a dollar today.

Her estate valued the SDA receivables at approximately $7 million.

And the IRS is coming after her. There is no way the IRS is going to roll-over on those split dollar arrangements reducing her estate by $23 million.

You know the IRS did not think this through back in 2002 when they were writing and rewriting the split dollar rules.

Do You Have to Disclose That?

I was recently talking with another CPA. He had an issue with an estate income tax return, and he was wondering if a certain deduction was a dead loser. I looked into the issue as much as I could (that busy season thing), and it was not clear to me that the deduction was a loser, much less a dead loser.

He then asked: does he need to disclose if he takes the deduction?

Let’s take a small look into professional tax practice.

There are many areas and times when a tax advisor is not dealing with clear-cut tax law.

Depending upon the particular issue, I as a practitioner have varying levels of responsibility. For some I can take a position if I have a one-in-five (approximately) chance of winning an IRS challenge; for others it is closer to one-in-three.

There are also issues where one has to disclose to the IRS that one took a given position on a return. The concept of one-in-whatever doesn’t apply to these issues. It doesn’t have to be nefarious, however. It may just be a badly drafted Regulation and a taxpayer with enough dollars on the line.

Then there are “those” transactions.

They used to be called tax shelters, but the new term for them is “listed transactions.” There is even a subset of listed transactions that the IRS frowns upon, but not as frowny as listed transactions. Those are called “reportable transactions.”

This is an area of practice that I try to stay away from. I am willing to play aggressive ball, but the game stays within the chalk lines. Making tax law is for the big players – think Apple’s tax department – not for a small CPA firm in Cincinnati.

Staying up on this area is difficult, too. The IRS periodically revises a list of transactions that it is scrutinizing. The IRS then updates its website, and I – as a practitioner – am expected to repeatedly visit said website patiently awaiting said update. Fail to do so and the IRS automatically shifts blame to the practitioner.

No thanks.

I am looking at a case involving a guy who sells onions. His company is an S corporation, which means that he puts the business numbers on his personal return and pays tax on the conglomeration.

His name is Vee.

He got himself into a certain type of employee benefit plan.

A benefit plan provides benefits other than retirement. It could be health, for example, or disability or severance. The tax Code allows a business to prefund (and deduct) these benefits, as long as it follows certain rules. A general concept underlying the rules is risk-taking and cost-sharing – that is, there should be a feel of insurance to the thing.

This is relatively easy to do when you are Toyota or General Mills. Being large certainly makes it easier to work with the law of large numbers.

The rules however are problematic as the business gets smaller. Congress realized this and passed Code Section 419A(f)(6), allowing small employers to join with other small employers – in a minimum group of ten – and obtain tax advantages  otherwise limited to the bigger players.

Then came the promoters peddling these smaller plans. You could offer death and disability benefits to your employees, for example, and shift the risk to an insurance company. A reasonable employer would question the use of life insurance. If the employer needed money to pay benefits, wouldn’t a mutual fund make more sense than an illiquid life insurance policy? Ah, but the life insurance policy allows for inside buildup. You could overfund the policy and have all kinds of cash value. You would just borrow from the cash value – a nontaxable transaction, by the way – to pay the benefits. Isn’t that more efficient than a messy portfolio?

Then there were the games the promoters played to diminish the risk of joining a group with nine others.

Vee got himself into one of these plans.

He funded the thing with life insurance. He later cancelled the plan, keeping the life insurance policy for himself.

The twist on his plan was the use of experience-rated life insurance.

Experience-rated does not pay well with the idea of cost-and-risk sharing. If I am experience rated, then my insurance cost is based on my experience. My insurance company does not look at you or any of the other eight employers in our group. I am not feeling the insurance on this one.

Some of these plans were outrageous. The employer would keep the plan going for a few years, overpay for the insurance, then shut down the plan and pay “value” for the underlying insurance policy. The insurance company would keep the “value” artificially low, so it did not cost the employer much to buy the policy on the way out. Then a year or two later, the cash value would multiply ten, twenty, fifty, who-knows-how-many-fold. This technique was called “springing,” and it was like finding the proverbial pot of gold.

The IRS had previously said that plans similar to Vee’s were listed transactions.

This meant that Vee had to disclose his plan on his tax return.

He did not.

That is an automatic $10,000 penalty. No excuses.

He did it four times, so he was in for $40,000.

He went to Court. His argument was simple: the IRS had not said that his specific plan was one of those abusive plans. The IRS had said “plans similar to,” but what do those words really mean? Do you know what you have forgotten? What is the point of a spice rack? Does anybody really know what time it is?

Yea, the Court felt the same way. The plan was “similar to.” They were having none of it.

He owed $40,000.

He should have disclosed.

Even better, he should have left the whole thing alone.

Taxation of Disability Insurance

I was recently reviewing an individual tax return. There was something on there that distresses me.

This client walked into a tax trap, and that trap has gone off.  Unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done.

Let’s talk about disability insurance.

This client is a personal friend. You and I would agree that he is a high-incomer. He works for a large employer on the Kentucky side. One of the advantages of a large employer is the benefits. One of the benefits his provides is employer-funded long-term disability insurance.

He got hurt and hurt badly. He is now collecting on the disability insurance, and probably will be for a long time.  

Did you know that disability insurance can be taxable?

How?

There is extensive tax law on the taxation of disability insurance, and there are different answers depending upon who is paying the premiums and whether it is a group or individual policy. There is an overarching theme, though:

Disability benefits are taxable to the extent that the premiums were not included in income.

His long-term insurance was 100% employer-paid and 100% excluded from W-2 income. While this was beneficial to him then, it is the worst-case scenario now.

Long-term policies can be expensive. Take someone who is pushing the top tax brackets, and a recommendation to pay tax can mean thousands of extra dollars. Combine that with an all-too-human “it cannot happen to me” response, and it is easy to understand the reluctance.

And that is assuming the tax advisor is even aware of what is happening. Employer-provided disability insurance would not necessarily appear on any documents one would be reviewing. There are good odds that you and your tax advisor will be learning about your disability insurance together.

And so he has to pay tax on disability at the same time that his earning power is reduced.

Is there a compromise?

I think so, but – again – it has to be done upfront. I have no problem with short-term disability being taxable, whether because the premiums are employer-paid or because you run the premiums through your cafeteria plan. This is the insurance you buy from Aflac, for example, and it pays you for six months or a year if you get hit by the proverbial bus. Yes, it would stink to have to pay taxes, but it would only be for a short period of time. The expectation of this insurance is that you will heal and get back to work.

But long-term disability is different enough to warrant a different answer. You almost surely want to make sure this is paid with after-tax monies. If you are unfortunate enough to collect on this type of insurance, you do not need to compound the misfortune by having taxes as part of your household budget.

TomatoCare And The Supreme Court

Let’s play make believe.

Late on a dark and stormy Saturday night, the Congressional Spartans - urged on by Poppa John's and the National Tomato Growers Association – passed a sweeping vegetable care bill by a vote of 220-215.

The bill went to the Senate, where its fate was sadly in doubt. The fearless majority leader Harry Leonidas negotiated agreements with several recalcitrant senators, including the slabjacking of New Orleans, an ongoing automatic bid for the Nebraska Cornhuskers to the college Bowl Championship Series and the relocation of Vermont to somewhere between North Carolina and Florida. After passage, the bill was signed by the president while on the back nine at Porcupine Creek in Rancho Mirage, California.

As a consequence of this visionary act, Americans now had access to affordable tomatoes, thanks to market reforms and consumer protections put into place by this law. The law had also begun to curb rising tomato prices across the system by cracking down on waste and fraud and creating powerful incentives for grocery chains to spend their resources more wisely. Americans were now protected from some of the worst industry abuses like out-of-season shortages that could cut off tomato supply when people needed them the most.

California, Vermont and Massachusetts established state exchanges to provide tomato subsidies to individuals whose household income levels were below the threshold triggering the maximum federal individual income tax rate (presently 39.6 percent). The remaining states had refused to establish their own exchanges, prompting the federal government to intervene. The Tax Exempt Organization Division at the IRS, recognized for their expertise in technology integration, data development and retention, was tasked to oversee the installation of federal exchanges in those backwater baronies. IRS Commissioner Koskinen stated that this would require a reallocation of existing budgetary funding and – as a consequence - the IRS would not be collecting taxes from anyone in the Central time zone during the forthcoming year.

The 54 states that did not establish their own exchanges filed a lawsuit (Bling v Ne’er-Do-Well) challenging a key part of the TomatoCare law, which read as follows:

The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any vegetable coverage amount is the amount equal to the lesser of the greater…”

These benighted states pointed out that, botanically, a tomato was a fruit. A fruit was defined as a seed-bearing vessel developed from the ovary of a flowering plant. A vegetable, on the other hand, was any other part of the plant. By this standard, seedy growth such as bananas, apples and, yes, tomatoes, were all fruits.

There was great fear upon the land when the Supreme Court decided to hear the case.

Depending upon how the Supreme Court decided, there might be no tomato subsidies because tomatoes were not vegetables, a result clearly, unambiguously and irretrievably-beyond-dispute not the intent of Congress on that dark, hot, stormy, wintery Saturday night as they debated the merits of quitclaiming California to Mexico.

The case began under great susurration. The plaintiffs (the 54 moon landings) read into evidence definitions of the words “fruit” and “vegetables” from Webster’s Dictionary, Worcester’s Dictionary, the Imperial Dictionary and Snoop Dogg’s album “Paid tha Cost to Be da Bo$$.”

The Court acknowledged that the words “fruit” and “vegetable” were indeed words in the English language. As such, the Court was bound to take judicial notice, as it did in regard to all words in its own tongue, especially “oocephalus” and “bumfuzzle.” The Court agreed that a dictionary could be admitted in Court only as an aid to the memory and understanding of the Court and not as evidence of the meaning of words.

The Court went on:

Botanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of the vine. But in the common language of the 202 area code, all these are vegetables which are grown in kitchen gardens and, whether eaten cooked, steamed, boiled, roasted or raw, are like potatoes, carrots, turnips and cauliflower, usually served at dinner with, or after, the soup, fish, fowl or beef which constitutes the principal part of the repast.”

The Court decided:

            But it is not served, like fruits generally, as a dessert.”

With that, the Court decided that tomatoes were vegetables and not fruit. The challenge to TomatoCare was courageously halted, and the liberal wing of the Court – in a show of their fierce independence and tenacity of intellect – posed for a selfie and went to Georgetown to get matching tattoos.

Thus ends our make believe.

There was no TomatoCare law, of course, but there WAS an actual Supreme Court decision concerning tomatoes. Oh, you didn’t know?

Back in the 1880s the Port of New York was taxing tomatoes as vegetables. The Nix family, which imported tons of tomatoes, sued. They thought they had the law – and common sense – on their side. After all, science said that tomatoes were fruit. The only party who disagreed was the Collector of the Port of New York, hardly an objective juror.

The tax law in question was The Tariff of 1883, a historical curiosity now long gone, and the case was Nix v Hedden. 

And that is how we came to think of tomatoes as vegetables.

Brilliant legal minds, right?