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.

Requesting A Payment Plan With Over $7 Million In The Bank

Sometimes I wonder how people get themselves into situations.

Let’s take a look at a recent Tax Court case. It does not break new ground, but it does remind us that – sometimes – you need common sense when dealing with the IRS.

The Strashny’s filed their 2017 tax return on time but did not pay the tax due.

COMMENT: In and of itself, that does not concern me. The penalty for failing to file a tax return is 10 ten times more severe than filing but not paying. If the Strashny’s were my client and had no money, I would have advised the same.

The 2017 return had tax due, including interest, of over $1.1 million.

COMMENT: Where did the money go? I am curious now.

In June, 2018 the IRS assessed the tax along with a failure-to-pay penalty.

In July, 2018 the Strashny’s sent an installment payment request. Because of the amount of money involved, they had to disclose personal financial information (Form 433-A). They wanted to stretch the payments over 72 months.

COMMENT: Standard procedure so far.

Meanwhile the IRS sent out a Notice of Intent to Levy letter (CP90), which seemed to have upset the Strashny’s.

A collection appeal goes before an IRS officer settlement officer (or “SO,” in this context). In April, 2019 she sent a letter requesting a conference in May.

COMMENT: Notice the lapsed time – July, 2018 to April, 2019. Yep, it takes that long. It also explains while the IRS sent that CP90 (Notice of Intent to Levy): they know the process is going to take a while.

The taxpayers sent and the SO received a copy of their 2018 tax return. They showed wages of over $200,000.

OK, so they had cash flow.

All that personal financial information they had sent earlier showed cryptocurrency holdings of over $7 million. Heck, they were even drawing over $19,000 per month on the account.

More cash flow.

COMMENT: Folks, there are technical issues in this case, such as checking or not checking a certain box when requesting a collection hearing. I am a tax nerd, so I get it. However, all that is side noise. Just about anyone is going to look at you skeptically if you cite cash issues when you have $7 million in the bank.

The SO said no to the payment plan.

The Strashny’s petitioned the Tax Court.

COMMENT: Notice that this case does not deal with tax law. It deals, rather, with tax procedure. Procedure established by the IRS to deal with the day-to-day of tax administration. There is a very difficult standard that a taxpayer has to meet in cases like this: the taxpayer has to show that the IRS abused its authority.

The Strashny’s apparently thought that the IRS had to approve their request for a payment plan.

The Court made short work of the matter. It reasoned that the IRS has (with limited exceptions) the right to accept or reject a payment plan. To bring some predictability to the process, the IRS has published criteria for its decision process. For example, economic hardship, ill health, old age and so on are all fair considerations when reviewing a payment plan.

What is not fair consideration is a taxpayer’s refusal to liquidate an asset.

Mind you, we are not talking a house (you have to live somewhere) or a car (you have to get to work). There are criteria for those. We are talking about an investment portfolio worth over $7 million.

The Court agreed with the IRS SO.

So do I.

Was there middle ground? Yes, I think so. Perhaps the Strashny’s could have gotten 12 or 24 months, citing the market swings of cryptocurrency and their concern with initiating a downward price run. Perhaps there was margin on the account, so they had to be mindful of paying off debt as they liquidated positions. Maybe the portfolio was pledged on some other debt – such as business debt – and its rash liquidation would have triggered negative consequences. That approach would have, however, required common sense – and perhaps a drop of empathy for the person on the other side of the table – traits not immediately apparent here.

They got greedy. They got nothing.

Our case this time was Strashny v Commissioner.

Is Income From Investing Tax-Exempt Income Also Tax-Exempt?

Our story starts in 2005. Taxpayer (Lundy) received a Form 1099-R reporting approximately $42,000 of “retirement” income. The Lundys left it off their tax return. The IRS noticed and demanded payment. Off to Tax Court they went. Before there could be any hearing, the IRS settled, agreeing there was no tax due.

This action is referred to as a “stipulated” decision, and they tend to be about as terse as Bill Belichick at a press conference. We won’t read much there.

That said, I am thinking personal injury. We know that damages for personal injuries (think car accident) are tax-free. My hunch is that Lundy got injured, received a $42,000 settlement and a Form 1099-R to boot. Somebody messed up by issuing the 1099 in the first place. The IRS made a second mistake by not adequately investigating the facts before taking the matter to court.

Fast forward 6 years.

The Lundys file their tax return for 2011. Mr. Lundy has a W-2 from driving a school bus, and Mrs. Lundy has approximately $20,000 from a small business. There is some income tax, throw in some self-employment tax, and the Lundys owed about $3,500.

They send in the return. They do not send in any money, nor was there any withholding on Mr. Lundy’s W-2.

The IRS – of course – wants to know why. And they want their money.

The Lundy’s have no intention of sending money. 

The Lundys file a request for a due process hearing.

Their argument?

The funds that you are attempting to collect from are indeed part of my total and permanently [sic] disability benefits which were subject of the UNITED STATES TAX COURT CASE # 2759-07S***. We filed a timely appeal to the U.S. TAX COURT and laid out all of our affirmative defenses to the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service claims at that time. The most important claim that we made at that time is that whatever we funded, financed, and paid for with my total and permanently [sic] disability funds which were determined by this order to be non-reportable, tax free, and tax exempt from the clutches of the IRS was also off limits from the IRS.”

Well then.

Let’s think about their argument for a moment. The Lundys were arguing that any income earned from a tax-free source would – in turn – also be tax-free. Does this make sense? Let me give you a few situations:

·        You sell your primary residence, excluding $500,000 of gain. You invest the $500,000 in the next hot IPO. It takes off, and next thing you know you are rubbing shoulders with Gates, Buffett and Zuckerberg.

·        You take the interest from your municipal bond fund to fund the next great mobile app. You are subsequently acquired by Apple and you buy Ecuador.

·        You work overseas for a number of years, always claiming the foreign earned income exclusion. You invest your tax savings in raw land. Two decades later you sell the land to someone developing an outdoor mall. You buy a county in Wyoming so you have somewhere to hunt.

Of course it doesn’t make sense. It is clear that we have to separate the cart from the groceries. The cart stays at the store while the groceries go home with you. They are two different things, and the fate of the cart is not the fate of the groceries. Income from a tax-free pile of money does not mean that the earnings are magically tax-free. If only it were so. Could you imagine the ads from Fidelity or Vanguard if it were that simple?

The Lundys lost, of course.

Of surprise to me, as a practitioner, was the IRS restraint on penalties. The IRS popped them for late payment penalties, of course, but not for the super-duper penalties, such as for substantial accuracy. Why?

Who knows, but I did notice the Tax Court case was “pro se,” meaning that the Lundys represented themselves. There is a way to have a tax practitioner involved in a “pro se,” but I do not think that is what happened here. I suspect they actually represented themselves, without an accountant or attorney.

Not that an accountant or attorney could have represented them in any event. A practitioner is prohibited from taking frivolous positions. The Lundy positon was as close to frivolous as I have heard in a while.

And the IRS gave them a break.

Not that the Lundys would see it that way, though.

“ROB”-ing a 401(k) Plan

A CPA acquaintance from New Jersey came into town and spent a couple of days at the office. Why? Well, maybe he wanted to get away from New Jersey. Actually, he wanted to take a look at some of the policies and procedures we utilize. He only recently purchased his own practice.

He said something that surprised me, and which I thought we could discuss this week. He funded his accounting practice by using his 401(k) funds. This technique is sometimes referred to as “rollover for business startup.” The acronym is “ROBS.” Catchy, eh?

What do I think about ROBS? Frankly, I am a bit uncomfortable with them. There is the issue of concentrating your retirement monies in a venture also intended to provide current income. Should it fail both income and retirement monies vanish. I am financially conservative, as you can guess.

The second issue is technical: there are a number of ways this structure can run afoul of some very technical requirements. You have tax law, you have ERISA, you have … well, you have enough to cause concern.

Let’s give this CPA acquaintance a name. We will call him “Garry,” mostly because his name actually is Garry. Here is what Garry did:

(1)    Garry created a corporation. The corporation had no assets, no employees, no business operations, no shareholders. Accountants call this a “shell” corporation.

(2)    The corporation adopted a retirement plan. The plan allowed for participants to invest the entirety of their account in employer stock.

(3)    Garry became an employee of the corporation.

(4)    Garry rolled-over his 401(k) (or a portion thereof) to the newly-created retirement plan.

(5)    Garry had the plan purchase the employer stock.

(6)    The corporation now had cash, which …

(7)    The corporation used to purchase an accounting practice.

What can possibly go wrong? Here are several areas:

(1)    You need a solid valuation for the 401(k) purchase of the employer stock. I would not want to go into the IRS with only a rough calculation on the back of an envelope. The trustee of the plan has fiduciary responsibility. Granted Garry is both the fiduciary and beneficiary, but he still has responsibilities as trustee.

(2)    The workforce has to be able to participate in the plan.

a.       This is a qualified plan. There are nondiscrimination requirements, same as any other qualified plan.

b.      This is not a problem for a one-man shop. What will Garry do when he hires, however?

                                                               i.      Here is what he better do: amend the plan to prohibit further investment in employer stock. Future employees will not be allowed to invest in Garry’s accounting firm stock.

(3)    There is a fiduciary standard for investment diversification.

a.       You can see the problem.

                                                               i.      Maybe Garry can open a second accounting office. You know, diversify.

(4)    Garry is paying for all this. Some brokers will charge over $5,000 to set up a ROBS.

a.       Oh, there are also ongoing annual charges. The plan will have an annual Form 5500 filing requirement, for example.

b.      There may also be periodic valuations, requiring Garry to pay a valuation expert.

                                                               i.      Why? Because Garry has a difficult-to-value asset in a qualified plan. Difficult-to-value does not mean Garry gets a free pass on valuing the asset. It does mean that it is going to cost him.

(5)    These transactions have caught the attention of the IRS. This does not mean that his transaction will be audited, challenged or voided, but it does mean that he has walked into a spotlight.

a.       Garry had to gauge his IRS risk-tolerance as well as his financial diversification risk-tolerance.

Are ROBS considered “out there” tax-wise? Actually, no. There are tens of thousands of these structures and their businesses up and running. Garry is in good company. And while the IRS has scowled, that doesn’t mean that ROBS are not viable under the tax code and ERISA. It does mean that Garry should be careful, though. Professional advice is imperative.