The IRS Meets An Actuary

I think it was November or December of last year that I met with a client. He was “behind” on his taxes, and he now wanted to do the right thing and catch up.  He passed me a Form 1099, which he described as bogus. It had his name and social security number, but he swore he did not know the payor or provide any services for them.

Could be. Mistakes happen all the time.

I am reviewing the Tax Court summary opinion in Furnish v Commissioner. It is not a technically difficult case – the “summary” part tells you that – but it made me think of my client.

Furnish is an actuary.

QUESTION: Do you know what an actuary does? These guys/gals bring math, statistics and financial modeling to bear in measuring and predicting uncertain outcomes. They may work for insurance companies, for pension plans, for banks and investment firms. Think of them as the Sheldon Coopers of the business world.

Furnish had bought life insurance policies back when. He used policy dividends to buy additional coverage over the years, and he thereafter used policy loans to pay premiums on some or all of the policies. If you use loans to pay premiums for long enough, the policy will eventually burnout. This means it runs out of money. The insurance company will then shut down the policy. It happens with some frequency.

This happened to Furnish. The insurance company then sent him a Form 1099 saying that he had $49,255 as taxable income from the burnout.

         QUESTION: How can you have income from a burnout?

ANSWER: There are three pieces to the answer: (1) you have written checks for the policy over the years. The total amount of checks is your “basis” in the policy; (2) you have loans on the policy; (3) the policy has built-up “cash value” over the years. When the policy burns out, the cash value is used to pay off the loans. If that cash value exceeds your basis, you have income. “Phantom” income perhaps, but still income.

Furnish doesn’t buy into the $49,255 at all. He contacts the insurance company and requests files and records back to the beginning of time. The insurance company had a problem, as those old files were nonelectronic and not easily retrieved.

The insurance company wants nothing to do with this guy. Their letters to him went something like “We are right. Why do you keep bothering us?”

Ah, but they were dealing with an actuary.

Furnish sends the IRS two tax returns: one reporting the $49,255 and one not reporting and explanations for each. I presume he did not have professional advice to handle it in this manner, but so be it. The IRS of course accepts the one with the $49,255 reported in income.

PAUSE: I’ll give you a moment to get over your shock.

The IRS wanted their money. Furnish tells the IRS that the insurance company was full of bunkum and the 1099 was incorrect. The IRS tells Furnish to have the insurance company correct their paperwork. Until then, the IRS wanted their money. Eventually Furnish took the matter to the Taxpayer Advocate.

No dice with the Advocate and the matter went before a Tax Court judge. At play is Code Section 6201(d), which reads:

           

In any court proceeding, if a taxpayer asserts a reasonable dispute with respect to any item of income reported on an information return field with the Secretary *** by a third party and the taxpayer has fully cooperated with the Secretary (including providing, within a reasonable period of time, access to and inspection of all witnesses, information, and documents within the control of the taxpayer as reasonably requested by the Secretary),  the Secretary shall have the burden of producing reasonable and probative information concerning such deficiency in addition to such information return.”

Furnish argued that he met the requirements of Section 6201(d). The IRS argued that he had not; that he raised the issue too late in the proceedings; that he showed only minor calculation issues; and that Furnish had bad breath. The only evidence the IRS presented was a declaration by an insurance company employee, agreeing that Furnish did in fact have bad breath.

The Court decided that Furnish had raised enough doubt whether the Form 1099 income could be materially incorrect, and that Furnish had interacted reasonably in providing information and otherwise responding to the IRS. Furnish had met the requirements of Section 6201(d), and the burden of proof shifted to the IRS.

The IRS, having presenting no additional evidence beyond a Form 1099 and a letter from the insurance company, lost. They did not meet the burden of proof.

CONCLUSION: Some commentators consider this decision an outlier, and the judge has taken criticism in the literature. My experience is for the IRS to require the taxpayer to have the issuer either void or amend the disputed information form. Makes sense, in truth. Many times the issuer will, but then there are those hard-luck cases. Furnish gives practitioners an option to consider.

Dividing An Inherited IRA

We had a situation where a father left his IRA to his two children. The father was in his 70s, the son was in his 50s and the daughter in her 40s. The tax problem was triggered by having one IRA with two beneficiaries.

There are certain tax no-no's involving an IRA. One is to have your IRA go to your estate. An estate has no “actuarial life expectancy,” as only individuals can have life expectancies. Tax rules require an estate IRA to pay-out much sooner than may be desired or tax-advantageous. A second no-no is what the above father had done.

When there are multiple beneficiaries of an IRA, the IRS requires the IRA to calculate the minimum required distributions (MRD) based on the life of the oldest beneficiary. In our case, it wasn’t too bad, as the siblings were within 10 years of each other. Consider an alternate situation: a son/daughter and a grandchild. In that case the grandchild would be receiving MRDs based on the son/daughter’s life expectancy, which likely would not be in the grandchild’s best financial interest. 

What to do? Split the IRA into two: one for the son and another for the daughter. As long as this is done no later than the last day of the year following the year of death, the IRS will respect the division. This allows the son to use his life expectancy for his withdrawals, and the daughter to use her life expectancy.

 

The jargon for this is “subaccount,” and if you are in this situation (death in 2011), please consider dividing the inherited IRA into subaccounts by December 31.

By the way, there is a tax trap in setting up the subaccounts. These are inherited accounts, and the IRS requires inherited accounts to retain the name of the decedent. What do I mean? Say that Adam Jones passed way, so we would be looking at the “IRA FBO Adam Jones.” When the subaccounts are created, they should be named (something like) “IRA FBO Adam Jones Deceased FBO Benjamin Jones Inherited.” If one does not do this correctly, the IRS can (as has before) consider Benjamin as having withdrawn ALL the inherited IRA and put it into his own separate IRA. Since he withdrew all the inherited IRA, he has to pay tax on all of it, not just the minimum required distribution.

I consider the above tax trap to be unfair, but the IRS has brought down the hammer before. Do not be one of the unfortunate caught in this trap. We have discussed before that even an average person may need a tax pro here and there throughout life. This is one of those moments.

Gifting And The Rest of 2012

I met with a client last week who has a child with special needs. His daughter has a syndrome I cannot remember, except that it is quite rare and was named after a physician who practiced at Children’s Hospital here in Cincinnati. He is concerned about her welfare, especially after he passes away. We wound up talking about gifting and expected changes in gift tax law.

Let’s talk about the gift tax today.

There is an opportunity to gift up to $5,120,000 without paying gift tax, but this expires at the end of 2012. If you are married, then double that amount (10,240,000). If you exceed that amount, then gift tax is 35%. The $5,120,000 is set to drop to (approximately) $1,360,000 in 2013, and the 35% rate is slated to increase to 55%. If you are in or above this asset range, 2012 is a good time to think about gifting.

Here are some gifting ideas to consider:

(1)   Use up your $13,000 annual exemption per donee. This is off-the-top, before you even start counting. If you are married, you can have your spouse join in the gift, even if you made the gift from your separate funds. That makes the exempt gift $26,000 per donee.

(2)   Let’s say that gifting appeals to you, but you do not want to part with $5,120,000. Perhaps you could not continue your standard of living. I know I couldn’t. One option is to have one spouse gift up to $5,120,000 without gift splitting. This preserves the (approximately) $1,360,000 exemption for future use by the other spouse.

(3)   By the way, gifting between spouses does not count as a taxable gift. Should one spouse own the overwhelming majority of assets, then consider inter-spouse gifting to better equalize the estates. This is more of an estate planning concept, but it may regain interest if the estate tax exemption decreases next year.

(4)   Consider intrafamily loans. The IRS forces you to use an IRS-published interest rate, but those interest rates are at historic lows. For example, you can make a 9-year loan to a family member and charge only 0.92% interest. Granted, the monies have to be repaid (or gifted), but the interest is negligible.

(5)   Consider a family limited partnership. We have spoken of FLPs (pronounced “flips”) before. A key tax benefit is being able to discount the taxable value of the gift for the lack of control and marketability associated with a minority interest in the FLP.

(6)   Consider income-shifting trusts to move income and asset appreciation to younger family members. A common use is with family businesses. Say that you own an S corporation, for example. Perhaps the S issues nonvoting stock and you transfer the nonvoting stock to your children using Qualified Subchapter S trusts.

(7)   Consider a grantor retained annuity trust (GRAT). With this trust, you receive an annuity for a period of years. The shortest period I have seen is 2 years, but more commonly the period is 5 or more years. The amount you take back reduces the amount of the gift, of course, but not dollar-for-dollar. I am a huge fan of GRATs.

(8)   Consider a qualified personal residence trust (QPRT, pronounced “Q-pert”). This is a specialized trust into which you put your house. You continue to live in the house for a period of years, which occupancy reduces the value of the gift. If you outlive that period then you can continue to live in the house, but you must begin paying fair market rent to the trust.  I have seen these trusts infrequently and usually with second homes, although I also can see a use with a principal residence in Medicare/Medicaid planning.

(9)   Consider a life insurance trust (ILIT, pronounced “eye-let”). This trust buys a life insurance policy on you, and its purpose is to keep life insurance out of your estate. You might pay the policy premiums on behalf of the trust, using your annual gift tax exclusion. This setup is an excellent way to fund a “skip” trust, which means the trust has beneficiaries two or more generations below you. The “skip” refers to the generation-skipping tax (GST), which is yet another tax, separate and apart from the gift tax or the estate tax.

(10)  Consider a dynasty trust if you are planning two or more generations out. This technique is geared for the very wealthy and involves an especially long-lived trust. It is one of the ways that certain families (the Kennedy’s come to mind) that family wealth can be controlled for many years. A key point to this trust is minimizing or avoiding the generation-skipping tax (GST) upon transfer to the grandchildren or great grandchildren. The GST is an abstruse area of tax law, even for many tax pros.

OBSERVATION: You could incur both a gift tax and a GST tax. That would be terribly expensive and I doubt too many people would do so intentionally.

Although not frequently mentioned, remember to consider any state tax consequence to the gift. For example, does the state impose its own gift tax? If you live in California, would the transfer of real estate reset the assessable value for property taxes?

It is frustrating to plan with so much uncertainty about tax law. We do know that – for the balance of this year – you can gift over $5 million without incurring a gift tax liability. That much is a certainty. If this is you, please think about this window in combination with your overall estate plan. This opportunity may come again – or it may not.

New Annuities Allowed Inside a Retirement Plan

On February 2, 2012 the IRS published proposed Regulations concerning QLACs – qualified longevity annuity contracts. These contracts would be purchased by and held within your 401(k), 403(b), 457 and IRA accounts.

NOTE: Roths however are not permitted to own a QLAC. Can you guess why? (The answer is below).

Longevity annuities provide life annuity payments, typically starting at age 80 or 85. In many cases, the life annuity is the only benefit the contract provides. As such, these are specialized contracts to aid against outliving your savings. The IRS requires certain bells and whistles before deeming them “qualified” to be owned inside your retirement account.

Why would someone put an annuity inside a retirement account? The IRS has given us at least one very good reason.

You can delay the minimum distribution rules (MRD) on a QLAC. Yes, you read that correctly. Normally, you have to begin taking distributions in the year you reach age 70 ½. A QLAC allows you to defer distributions until and no later than the month following your 85th birthday.   

How will the minimum distribution rules work with a QLAC? You may remember that the normal rule for an MRD is to divide the retirement account balance by an IRS-provided factor for your age. The IRS is allowing you to exclude the QLAC from the balance in the retirement account.

EXAMPLE: If your account is worth $850,000, of which $95, 0000 is a QLAC, you will compute your MRD on $755,000 ($850,000 - $95,000).

The proposed regulations provide that the only QLAC benefit permitted after death is a life annuity. If the contract provides an annuity for a term certain or for a refund of premiums, it will not qualify as a QLAC.

There are restrictions; this is the tax code, after all. Premiums you pay for a QLAC are limited to the lesser of $100,000 or 25% of your retirement account. Bad things happen if you exceed this, so do not exceed the limit.

ANSWER: So why are Roths not permitted to own QLACs? Simple. Roths have no minimum distribution requirement.