New Vehicle Loan Interest Deduction

 

I have been looking at individual tax changes for 2025 returns as well as changes starting anew in 2026. We may do several posts covering the changes likely to affect the most people.

I will start with one that may affect me: the new vehicle loan interest deduction.

My car has been reliable, but it is getting old. There comes a point with older cars where regular maintenance instead changes to regular repairs. I may or may not be there yet, but I am paying attention. What I know is the next car will not be cheap.

So, what is the tax change?

First, it is a deduction, not a credit. As we have discussed before, a credit is worth more than a deduction (a credit is dollar-for-dollar, whereas a deduction is a dollar-times-the-tax-rate). We will take it, though.

Second, it is not an itemized deduction. This is important, because introducing something as an itemized deduction is as much political sleight-of-hand as a real tax break. How? Easy. Let’s say that you are married, and the sum of your taxes, mortgage interest, and contributions is $25 grand. The tax Code spots you $31,500 just for being married (this amount is called the standard deduction). Which number will you use: the actual ($25,000) or the standard ($31,500)? The standard, of course, because it is the bigger deduction. Now someone can yammer that your mortgage interest is deductible – but is it really? I would argue that it is not, because the $31,500 is available whether you have a mortgage or not. Calling it deductible does allow for political blather, though.

The vehicle loan interest deduction is taken in addition to the itemized/standard deduction. It will show up on line 13b (see below), after the standard deduction/itemized deductions on line 12e. Our married couple will be deducting $31,500 (the standard) plus the allowable new vehicle loan interest.

Third, the deduction is not limited to cars. Technically it applies to “qualified passenger vehicles,” a term that includes the usual suspects (cars, trucks, SUVs, vans, minivans) as well as motorcycles. I am not as clear on campers, although the 14,000-pound limitation might kick-in there.

Fourth, it must be a new vehicle, which the Code refers to as “original use.” Not surprisingly, there is a special rule to exclude dealership demo use.

Fifth, you must have bought the vehicle after 2024. The deduction expires (unless a future Congress extends it) after 2028. Note that I said “bought.” A lease will not work.

Sixth, the deduction is for personal use of the vehicle, and the personal use must exceed 50 percent. While this may sound strict, it is not. Deductions for business use of a vehicle might take place under other areas of the tax Code, so it is possible that you will be deducting some of the interest as a business deduction (say as a proprietor or landlord) and the personal portion under this new deduction. You decide how to chop-up and report the numbers (some business, none business), and you cannot deduct the same interest twice. The behind-the-scenes accounting might be a mess, but you have the concept. There is also a favorable rule concerning personal use: such use is decided when you buy the vehicle. Later changes in use will be disregarded.

Seventh, the deduction is available to individuals, decedent estates, (certain) disregarded entities and nongrantor trusts. An estate is not immediately intuitive (why would a deceased person buy a vehicle?), but it refers to someone passing away after buying a vehicle qualifying for the deduction. A nongrantor trust generally means a trust that files its own tax return. Personal use would be measured by the beneficiary, as a trust cannot drive a car.

Eighth, there are some housecleaning rules. For example, you cannot pay interest to yourself or – more accurately stated – to a related party. The Code wants to see a lien securing the loan on the vehicle. There are also rules on add-ons (think extended warranties), lemon law replacements, subsequent loan refinancings, and no-no rules on negative equity on trade-ins.

Ninth, final assembly must occur in the United States. You may want to check on this before buying the vehicle. I have already checked on my next likely vehicle purchase (a Lexus).

Tenth, the deduction limit is $10 grand. It doesn’t matter if you are married or single, the limit applies per return and is $10 grand. Seems to me that marrieds filing separately got a break here. File jointly and cap at $10 grand. File separately and cap at $20 grand. Such moments are rare in the tax Code.

Eleventh, if you make too much money, the Code will phase-out the deduction you could otherwise claim. Too much begins at $100 grand if you are single or $200 grand if you are married filing jointly. Hit that limit and you phase-out at 20 cents on the dollar (rounded up).

Twelfth, you must include the vehicle VIN on your tax return. Leave it out and the IRS will simply disallow the deduction and send you a bill for the additional tax.

Finally, Congress and the IRS prefer that anything which moves be reported on a Form 1099. The problem here is that the tax bill was signed midway into 2025, meaning that banks and loan companies would have to make retroactive changes for 1099s issued in 2026. In light of this, the 2026 reporting (for tax year 2025) has been relaxed a bit: you may have to go to a website to get the interest amount rather than receiving a formal 1099, for example. Do not worry, though: the normal 1099 reporting will be back in full force in 2027 (for the 2026 tax returns).

My thoughts? I would neither buy or not buy a vehicle because of this deduction, but I am happy to take the deduction if I bought and financed. The $10 grand limit seems high to me, but - to be fair - I avoid borrowing money. I suppose $10 grand might be a backdoor way to allow for two vehicle loans on the same tax return (think married filing jointly). I do know that - unless one is making beaucoup bucks - spending $10 grand on vehicle interest does not immediately appear to be sound household budgeting.

And there you have the new vehicle loan interest deduction.

An Intrafamily Loan, A Death And A Reportable Gift

 

Let’s talk about a (somewhat) high-end tax strategy: intrafamily loans.

At its core, it involves wealth and the transfer of wealth within a family.

Let’s walk through an example.

You want to help out your son. Your attorney or CPA mentions that one way is to loan money and charge your son as low an interest rate as possible. The fancy word for this is arbitrage, and it is how a bank makes money.

Let’s go with an easy example:

·       You loan the money at 2.45%.

·       Your son can invest in a CD at 5.45%

We are arbitraging 3 points, meaning $3 grand per $100 thousand.

Lend $1 million and you have moved $30 grand.

What is the term of the loan?

Coincide it with the term of the CD.

Let’s say 5 years.

I am seeing you move $150 grand ($30,000 times 5 years).

Then what?

He pays you back $1 million when the CD matures.

How does the IRS view intrafamily loans?

With suspicion. The IRS has multiple points of interest here.

·       Are you reporting the interest income for income tax purposes?

·       Is there a gift component to this? If so, have you filed a gift tax return?

·       If you die with the loan outstanding, is the loan properly reported and valued on the estate tax return?

·       If the loans involve grandchildren, are there generation-skipping tax considerations? If so, have you filed that return?

The IRS’ primary line of attack will be that the debt is not bona fide. How do you know if it is or isn’t? The landmark case in this area is Miller v Commissioner, and the Tax Court looked at nine factors:

·       Is there a written promissory note?

·       Is adequate interest being charged?

·       Is there security or collateral for the loan?

·       Is there a maturity date?

·       Is there a believable demand for repayment?

·       Is the loan being repaid?

·       Can the borrower repay the debt?

·       Have you created and maintained adequate records?

·       Have you properly reported the loan for tax purposes?

The closer you get to a bank loan, the better your odds of defeating an IRS challenge. There is tension in this area, as courts will tell you that an intrafamily loan does not need to rise to the underwriting level of a bank loan while simultaneously testing whether an actual loan exists by comparing it to a bank loan.

Let’s go through our CD example. What can we do to discourage an IRS challenge?

·       We can create a written promissory note.

·       We will look at the Galli case in a moment to discuss adequate interest.

·       We probably will not require collateral.

·       The loan is due when the CD matures.

·       It is not our example, but a common way to show repayment intent is to amortize the debt: think monthly payments on a house or car.

·       The loan will be repaid when the CD matures.

·       Probably. Your son never had a chance to spend the loan amount.

·       Let’s say you have good records.

·       Let’s say you use a competent tax practitioner.

Let’s review the Estate of Barbara Galli case to discuss adequate interest.

In 2013 Barbara Galli lent $2.3 million to her son Stephen. They paid attention to the Miller factors above: a written note, paying 1.01% interest and due in nine years. Stephen paid the interest reliably and Barbara reported the same as income on her tax return.

Barbara passed away in 2016.

The IRS challenged the loan for both estate and gift tax purposes. The two cases (one for gift and another for estate) were consolidated by the Tax Court for disposition.

Here is the IRS:

·       The loan was unsecured and lacked a legally enforceable right to repayment reasonably comparable to the loans made between unrelated persons in the commercial marketplace.

·       It has not been shown that the borrower had the ability or intent to repay the loan.

·       It has not been shown that the decedent had the intent to create a legally enforceable loan, or that she expected repayment.

·       The decedent did not file a gift tax return relating to the loan.

·       The estate valued the note for tax purposes at $1,624,000.

The IRS points are predictable.

Note that Barbara did not file a gift tax return. This is because she did not consider herself as having made a gift. She instead had made a loan, with interest and repayment terms. In retrospect, she should have filed a gift tax return, if only to start the statute of limitations. The return might look odd if the loan were the only item reported, as the amount of reportable gifts would be zero. It happens. I have seen gift tax returns like this.

I suspect however that it was the last factor - the difference in values - that caught the IRS’ attention. The IRS saw a loan of $2.3 million. It then saw the same loan reported on an estate tax return at $1.624 million.

Now the IRS was in Tax Court trying to explain why and how they saw a gift rather than a loan.

The amount by which the value of money lent in 2013 exceeds the fair market value of the right to repayment set forth in the note is a previously unreported and untaxed gift. 

The Court was confused. Its reading (and mine) of the above is that the IRS wanted the difference between the two numbers to be the gift and not the original $2.3 million.

How can we get to the IRS position?

The easiest way would be to charge inadequate interest. The inadequate interest over the life of the loan would be a gift.

Bad argument, however. There used to be endless contention between the IRS and taxpayers on loans and adequate interest. In some cases, the IRS saw additional compensation; in others it saw reportable gifts. In all cases, taxpayers disagreed. There was constant litigation, and Congress addressed the matter during the Reagan administration with Section 7872.

    26 U.S. Code § 7872 - Treatment of loans with below-market interest rates

              

This Section introduced the concept of minimum interest rates, which the IRS would publish monthly. Think of it as a safe harbor: as long as the loan used (at least) the published rate, Congress was removing the issue of adequate interest from the table.

Let’s look at these rates for February, 2013.

                       REV. RUL. 2013-3 TABLE 1

 

           Applicable Federal Rates (AFR) for February 2013

  _____________________________________________________________________

                                       Period for Compounding

                          _____________________________________________

  

                         Annual    Semiannual  Quarterly    Monthly

  _____________________________________________________________________

  

                              Short-term

  

      AFR                 .21%        .21%        .21%        .21%

 

                               Mid-term

  

      AFR                1.01%       1.01%       1.01%       1.01%

 

Barbara made a nine-year loan, which Section 7872 considers “mid-term.” The published rate is 1.01%.

What rate was Barbara was charging Stephen?

1.01%.

Coincidence? No, no coincidence.

 Here is the Court:

We reiterated the point later … by concluding that ‘Congress indicated that virtually all gift transactions involving the transfer of money or property would be valued using the current applicable Federal rate …. Congress displaced the traditional methodology of valuation of below-market loans by substituting a discount methodology.'

To sum up, the issue on these motions are whether the transaction was a gift, a loan, or a partial gift. We determine that the Commissioner is not asserting that the transaction was entirely a gift and would lose on the proof if he were. This leave us to apply section 7872, and under that section, this transaction was not a gift at all.”

The IRS lost. I would say that Section 7872 did its job.

Our case this time was Estate of Galli v Commissioner, Docket Nos 7003-20 and 7005-20 (March 5, 2025).