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.

New Life Expectancy Tables For Your Retirement Account

On November 7, 2019 the IRS issued Proposed Regulations revising life expectancy tables used to calculate minimum required distributions from retirement plans, such as IRAs.

That strikes me as a good thing. The tables have not been revised since 2002.

There are three tables that one might use, depending upon one’s situation. Let’s go over them:

The Uniform Lifetime Table

This is the old reliable and the one most of us are likely to use.

 Joint Life and Last Survivor Expectancy Table

This is more specialized. This table is for a married couple where the age difference between the spouses is greater than 10 years.

The Single Life Expectancy Table

Do not be confused: this table has nothing to do with someone being single. This is the table for inherited retirement accounts.

Let’s take a look at a five-year period for the Uniform Lifetime Table:

Age	Old	New	Difference
71	26.5	28.2	1.7
72	25.6	27.3	1.7
73	24.7	26.4	1.7
74	23.8	25.5	1.7
75	22.9	24.6	1.7

If you had a million dollars in the account, the difference in your required minimum distribution at age 71 would be $2,275.

It is not overwhelming, but let’s remember that the difference is for every remaining year of one’s life.

As an aside, I recently came across an interesting statistic. Did you know that 4 out of 5 Americans receiving retirement distributions are taking more than the minimum amount? For those – the vast majority of recipients – this revision to the life expectancy tables will have no impact.

Let’s spend a moment talking about the third table - the Single Life Expectancy Table. You may know this topic as a “stretch” IRA.

A stretch IRA is not a unique or different kind of IRA. All it means is that the owner died, and the account has passed to a beneficiary. Since minimum distributions are based on life expectancy, this raises an interesting question: whose life expectancy?

COMMENT: There is a difference on whether a spouse or a non-spouse inherits. It also matters whether the decedent reached age 70 ½ or not. It is a thicket of rules and exceptions. For the following discussion, let us presume a non-spouse inherits and the decedent was over age 70 ½.

An easy way to solve this issue would be to continue the same life expectancy table as the original owner of the account. The problem here is that – if the beneficiary is young enough – one would run out of table.

So let’s reset the table. We will use the beneficiary’s life expectancy.

And there you have the Single Life Expectancy Table.

As well as the opportunity for a stretch. How? By using someone much younger than the deceased. Grandkids, for example.

Say that a 35-year old inherits an account. What is the difference between the old and new life expectancy tables?

                                Old             48.5

                                New            50.5

Hey, it’s better than nothing and – again – it repeats every year.

There is an odd thing about using this table, if you have ever worked with a stretch IRA. For a regular IRA – e.g., you taking distributions from your own IRA – you look at the table to get a factor for your age in the distribution year. You then divide that factor into the December 31 IRA balance for the year preceding the distribution year to arrive at the required minimum amount.

Point is: you look at the table every year.

The stretch does not do that.

You look at the table one time. Say you inherit at age 34.  Your required minimum distribution begins the following year (I am making an assumption here, but let’s roll with it), when you are age 35. The factor is 48.5. When you are age 36, you subtract one from the factor (48.5 – 1.0 = 47.5) and use that new number for purposes of the calculation. The following year you again subtract one (47.5 – 1.0 = 46.5), and so on.

Under the Proposed Regulation you are to refer to the (new) Single Life Expectancy Table for that first year, take the new factor and then subtract as many “ones” as necessary to get to the beneficiary’s current age. It is confusing, methinks.

There are public comment procedures for Proposed Regulations, so there is a possibility the IRS will change something before the Regulations go final. Final will be year 2021.

So for 2020 we will use the existing tables, and for 2021 we will be using the new tables.

An Engineer Draws A Tax Penalty

We have spoken in the past about clients I would not accept: one with an earned income credit, for example. The tax Code requires me to go all social worker, obtaining and reviewing documents to have reasonable confidence that there is a child and said child lives in given household. There are penalties if I do not.

Not happening.

Did you know that I can be penalized for not signing a tax return as a paid professional? Yep, it is in Section 6694 for the home gamers.

I saw a penalty recently under Section 6701. That one is a rare bird.

The 6701 penalty can reach someone who is not a preparer but who “aids,” “assists” or “advises” with respect to information, knowing that it will be used in a material tax situation.

Here is an example: you gift majority control of your (previously) wholly-owned business to your kids. This would require a valuation, which in turn requires a valuation expert. That expert is probably not preparing the gift tax return, but the preparer of the gift tax return is relying – and heavily – on his/her work.

The penalty is $1,000 for each incident. Pray that you are not advising a corporation, as then it goes to $10,000 per incident.

The IRS recently trotted out Section 6701 in Chief Counsel Advice (CCA) 201805001. Think of a CCA as an IRS attorney advising an IRS employee on what to do.

The situation here involved a “tax-consultant engineer” who analyzed a taxpayer’s assets to determine the classification of property for depreciation purposes.

In the trade, we call this type of work “cost segregation.”

If you have enough money tied-up in certain types of depreciable assets, a “cost seg” may be a very good idea.

What drives the cost seg is an abnormally-long tax life for commercial property: usually 39 years.  It is a tax fiction, divorced from any economic analysis to build or not build or from a bank decision to lend or not lend.

The grail is to “carve out” some of that 39-year property into something that can be depreciated faster. There is room. The parking lot and landscaping, for example, can be depreciated over 15 years. Upgraded wiring to run equipment can be depreciated with the equipment. The additional plumbing at a dentist’s office? Yep, that gets faster depreciation.

But it probably requires a cost seg. Realistically, an accountant can do only so much. A cost seg really needs an engineer.

The engineer in this CCA must have left the plot, as the IRS was nearly out-of-its-mind over his classification into five-year property. The word they used was “egregious.”

Unfortunately, we are not told what he “egregiously” misclassified.

We are however told that he is getting the Section 6701 chop.

What is the math on this penalty?

Well, his misclassification affected five years of individual returns. The penalty would be 5 times $1,000 or $5,000 for each individual client. Hopefully this was a one-off, as $5 grand should be enough to get his attention.

Can you imagine if it had been a corporation? 

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.

How An Estate Can Lose A Charitable Deduction

It happened again this week. I was speaking with another accountant when he raised a tax question concerning an “estate” return. My stock question to him was whether it was an “estate fiduciary” or an “estate estate.” Both have the word “estate” in it, so one needs further clarification.

What is the difference?

If one dies with too many assets, then the government requires one to pay taxes on the transfer of assets to the next person. This is sometimes referred to as the “death” tax, and I sometimes refer to it as the “estate estate” tax.

It has gotten a little more difficult to trigger the federal estate tax, as the taxable threshold has been raised to over $5 million. That pretty much clears out most folk.

Then you can have the issue of the estate earning income. How can this happen? An easy way is to own stock, or a business – or perhaps a part of a business through a partnership or S corporation. That income will belong to the estate until the business is transferred to the beneficiary. That may require a trip to probate court, getting on the docket, waiting on the judge…. In the interim the estate has income.

And what do you have when an estate has income? You have an income tax return, of course. There is no way the government is not going to grab its share. I sometimes refer to that tax return as the “estate fiduciary.” A trust is a fiduciary, for example. The estate is behaving as a fiduciary because it is handling money that belongs to other people – the same as a trust.

Say that an estate receives a disbursement from someone’s 401(k). That represents income. This is usually a significant amount, and Hamilton’s Third Theorem states that a percentage of a significant number is likely to also be a significant number. This seems to always come as a surprise when the attorney fires over an estate’s paperwork – usually very near the filing due date – with the expectation that I “take care of it.”

Then we are looking for deductions.

A fiduciary has a deduction called an “income distribution,” which I rely upon heavily in situations like this. We will not dwell on it, other than to say that the fiduciary may be allowed a deduction when he/she writes a check to a beneficiary.

No, the deduction I want to talk about today is about a contribution to charity.  Does our “estate fiduciary” get a deduction for a charity? You bet.

Let’s take this a step further. What if the estate intends to write a check to charity but it cannot just yet? Can it still get a deduction?

Yep.

This is a different rule than for you and me, folks. The estate has a more lenient rule because it may have to wait on a court hearing and receive a judge’s approval before writing that check. The IRS – acknowledging that this could wreak havoc on claiming deductions – grants a little leeway.

But only a little. This rule is known as the “set aside,” and one must meet three requirements:

(1)   The contribution is coming from estate income (that is, not from estate corpus)

(2)   The contribution must be allowed by estate organizing documents (like a will), and

(3)    The money must be permanently set aside, meaning that the likelihood that it would not be used as intended is negligible.

So, if we can clear the above three requirements – and the estate intends to make a contribution – then the estate has a possible deduction against that 401(k) distribution that I learned about only two or three days before the return is due.

What can go wrong?

One can flub the “negligible” requirement.

I cannot remember the last time I read about a case where someone flubbed this test, but I have recently finished reading one.

The decedent (Ms Belmont) passed way with a quarter million in her 401(k) and a condo in California. She lived in Ohio.

Alright, there is more than one state involved. It is a pain but it happens all the time.

Her brother lived in the condo. He was to receive approximately $50,000, with the bulk of the estate going to charity. He was under mental care, so there may have been a disability involved.

How can this blow up? Her brother did not want to move out of the house. He offered to exchange his $50,000 for a life estate. He really wanted to stay in that house.

The charity on the other hand did not want to be a landlord.

Her brother brought action and litigation. He argued that he had a life estate, and he was being deprived of his contractual rights.  He filed with the Los Angeles County Probate Court and the California Recorder’s Office.  

Meanwhile the estate fiduciary return was due. There was a big old number in there for the 401(k) distribution. The accountant – who somehow was not fully informed of developing events in California – claimed a charitable contribution deduction using the “set aside” doctrine.

The California court decided in the brother’s favor and orders a life estate to him and a remainder deed to the charity.

The estate thinks to itself, “what are the odds?” It keeps that set aside deduction on the estate fiduciary return though.

The IRS thinks otherwise. It points out that the brother was hip deep by the time the accountant prepared the return, and the argument that risks to the set aside were “negligible” were unreasonable when he was opening up all the guns to obtain that life estate.

The estate lost and the IRS  won. Under Hamilton’s Third Theorem, there was a big check due.

What do I see here? There was a tax flub, but I suspect that the underlying issue was non-tax related. Likely Ms Belmont expected to outlive her brother, especially if he was disabled. It did not occur to her to plan for the contingency that she might pass away first, or that he might contest a life estate in the house where he took care of their mom up to her death while his sister was in Ohio.