A Surprise Tax From Life Insurance Loans

 

For some reason, the taxability of life insurance seems to be an old reliable in tax controversy.

Granted, there are areas involving life insurance that are not intuitive. The taxation of a split-dollar life insurance policy to an employee can be a bit puzzling until you have studied it one or ten times. There is also the tax history of “janitors insurance,” which resulted in yet another tax acronym (“EOLI”), the creation of Form 8925, and the recurring question “what is the purpose of this form” from young tax accountants ever since.

 

No, what we are talking about is the income taxation of vanilla-ice cream-on-a-regular-cone life insurance. Life insurance is normally nontaxable. You can change that answer by not ordering vanilla.

David and Cindy Fugler bought permanent (that is, cash value) life insurance on their two children in 1987. There was the initial year payment, plus additional yearly premiums, some of which were paid by borrowing against the policies. After many years, they cashed-in the policies. The life insurance company sent Forms 1099, which the Fuglers did not report on their joint tax return.

COMMENT: As we have discussed before, the IRS loves to trace Forms 1099 to tax returns, as the process can be computerized and requires no IRS manpower. You, on the other hand, have no such luck and will likely contact your tax preparer/advisor – and incur a fee - to make sense of the notice. There you have current tax administration in a nutshell: increasingly shift compliance to taxpayers by requiring almost everything to be reported on a 1099. It is a brilliant if not cynical way to increase taxes without – you know – actually increasing taxes.

Here is a recap of the relevant Fugler numbers:      

		Policy #1		Policy #2
Cumulative premiums paid		6,850		6,850
Accumulated cash value		22,878		23,428
Outstanding loan & interest		(19,845)		(20,699)
Settlement check		3,033		2,729

 

On first impression, it might seem odd that the Fuglers did not report the two distribution checks: the $3,033 and the $2,729. This is the amount they received upon policy cancelation – and after repaying policy loans and related interest and whatnot charges. Then again, one does not normally expect to have taxable income from life insurance. One should still report the 1099 amount (so the IRS computers have something to latch onto) and thereafter adjust the numbers to what one considers correct. Without that latch, these IRS matching notices are automatic.

So, what do you think:

·      Do the Fuglers have income?

·      If so, what is the income amount?

To reason through this, think of the life insurance policies as savings accounts. Granted, inefficient savings accounts, but the tax reasoning is similar. If you put in $6,850 and years later receive $22,878, the difference is likely (some type of) income. The same reasoning applies to the second policy.

So, you have income. Is there some way to not have income? Sure, if the cumulative premiums you paid exceed any cash value. In that case any refund would be a return of your own money.

But what is the income amount: is it the checks they received: $3,033 (for policy #1) and $2,729 (for policy #2)?

Normally, this would be correct, but the Fuglers borrowed against the polices. The loan did not create income at the time (because of the obligation to repay). That obligation has now been repaid with cash that would otherwise have been included in those distribution checks. You cannot avoid income by having a check go directly to your lender. Tax advisors would have a field day if only that were possible.

I would say that the income amount is the cash received plus the loan forgiven: $16,028 (policy #1) and $16,578 (policy #2).

Before thinking the result unfair, remember that the Fuglers did receive the underlying cash. The timing for the taxation of the loan was delayed, but even that result was pro-taxpayer. This is not phantom income that we sometimes see in other areas of the Code.

There is some chop in the numbers for the loan forgiven. As you can imagine, there are all kinds of fees and charges in there, as well as possibly accrued interest on the loan.  The Fuglers thought of that also, arguing that the accrued interest should not be taxable – or at least should be deductible.

The “should not be taxable” is a losing argument, as all income is taxable unless the Code says otherwise. It does not, in this case.

That leaves a possible interest deduction.

The problem here is that Congress limited the type of nonbusiness loans whose interest is deductible: loans on a principal residence; loans used to buy or carry investments, college loans; loans (starting in 2026) on a new car with final assembly in the United States. Any other nonbusiness loans are considered personal, meaning the interest thereon is also personal and thus nondeductible.

The Fuglers could not fit into any of those deductible categories. There was no subtraction for interest, no matter what the insurance company called it.

The Fuglers had taxable income. They reported none of it on their return. The IRS – as usual – wanted interest and penalties and whatever else they could get.

The Tax Court agreed.

Our case this time was Fugler v Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2025-10.

The Obamacare Subsidy Cliff

 

I am looking at a case involving the premium tax credit.

We are talking about the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

Obamacare uses mathematical tripwires in its definitions. That is not surprising, as one must define “affordable,” determine a “subsidy,” and - for our discussion – calculate a subsidy phase-out. Affordable is defined as cost remaining below a certain percentage of household income. Think of someone with extremely high income - Elon Musk, for example. I anticipate that just about everything is affordable to him.

COMMENT: Technically the subsidy is referred to as the “advance premium tax credit.” For brevity, we will call it the subsidy.

There is a particular calculation, however, that is brutal. It is referred to as the “cliff,” and you do not want to be anywhere near it.

One approaches the cliff by receiving the subsidy. Let’s say that your premium would be $1,400 monthly but based on expected income you qualify for a subsidy of $1,000. Based on those numbers your out-of-pocket cost would be $400 a month.

Notice that I used the word “expected.” When determining your 2022 subsidy, for example, you would use your 2022 income. That creates a problem, as you will not know your 2022 income until 2023, when you file your tax return. A rational alternative would be to use the prior year’s (that is, 2021’s) income, but that was a bridge too far for Congress. Instead, you are to estimate your 2022 income. What if you estimate too high or too low? There would be an accounting (that is, a “true up”) when you file your 2022 tax return.

I get it. If you guessed too high, you should have been entitled to a larger subsidy. That true-up would go on your return and increase your refund. Good times.

What if it went the other way, however? You guessed too low and should have received a smaller subsidy. Again, the true-up would go on your tax return. It would reduce your refund. You might even owe. Bad times.

Let’s introduce another concept.

ACA posited that health insurance was affordable if one made enough money. While a priori truth, that generalization was unworkable. “Enough money” was defined as 400% of the poverty level.

Below 400% one could receive a subsidy (of some amount). Above 400% one would receive no subsidy.

Let’s recap:

(1)  One could receive a subsidy if one’s income was below 400% of the poverty level.

(2)  One guessed one’s income when the subsidy amount was initially determined.

(3)  One would true-up the subsidy when filing one’s tax return.

Let’s set the trap:

(1)  You estimated your income too low and received a subsidy.

(2)  Your actual income was above 400% of the poverty level.

(3)  You therefore were not entitled to any subsidy.

Trap: you must repay the excess subsidy.

That 400% - as you can guess – is the cliff we mentioned earlier.

Let’s look at the Powell case.

Robert Powell and Svetlana Iakovenko (the Powells) received a subsidy for 2017.

They also claimed a long-term capital loss deduction of $123,822.

Taking that big loss into account, they thought they were entitled to an additional subsidy of $636.

Problem.

Capital losses do not work that way. Capital losses are allowed to offset capital losses dollar-for-dollar. Once that happens, capital losses can only offset another $3,000 of other income.

COMMENT: That $3,000 limit has been in the tax Code since before I started college. Considering that I am close to 40 years of practice, that number is laughably obsolete.

The IRS caught the error and sent the Powells a notice.

The IRS notice increased their income to over 400% and resulted in a subsidy overpayment of $17,652. The IRS wanted to know how the Powells preferred to repay that amount.

The Powells – understandably stunned – played one of the best gambits I have ever read. Let’s read the instructions to the tax form:

We then turn to the text of Schedule D, line 21, for the 2017 tax year, which states as follows:

         If line 16 is a loss, enter ... the smaller of:

·      The loss on line 16 or

·      $3,000

So?

The Powells pointed out that a loss of $123,822 is (technically) smaller than a loss of $3,000. Following the literal instructions, they were entitled to the $123,822 loss.

It is an incorrect reading, of course, and the Powells did not have a chance of winning. Still, the thinking is so outside-the-box that I give them kudos.

Yep, the Powells went over the cliff. It hurt.

Note that the Powell’s year was 2017.

Let’s go forward.

The American Rescue Plan eliminated any subsidy repayment for 2020.

COVID year. I understand.

The subsidy was reinstated for 2021 and 2022, but there was a twist. The cliff was replaced with a gradual slope; that is, the subsidy would decline as income increased. Yes, you would have to repay, but it would not be that in-your-face 100% repayment because you hit the cliff.

Makes sense.

What about 2023?

Let’s go to new tax law. The ironically named Inflation Reduction Act extended the slope-versus-cliff relief through 2025.

OK.

Congress of course just kicked the can down the road, as the cliff will return in 2026.

Our case this time was Robert Lester Powell and Svetlana Alekseevna Iakovenko v Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2002-19.

Deducting “Tax Insurance” Premiums

 There is an insurance type that I have never worked with professionally: tax liability insurance.

It is what it sounds like: you are purchasing an insurance policy for unwanted tax liabilities.

It makes sense in the area of Fortune 500 mergers and acquisitions. Those deals are enormous, involving earth-shaking money and a potentially disastrous tax riptide if something goes awry. What if one the parties is undergoing a substantial and potentially expensive tax examination? What if the IRS refuses to provide advance guidance on the transaction? There is a key feature to this type of insurance: one is generally insuring a specific transaction or limited number of transactions. It is less common to insure an entire tax return.  

My practice, on the other hand, has involved entrepreneurial wealth – not institutional money - for almost my entire career. On occasion we have seen an entrepreneur take his/her company public, but that has been the exception. Tax liability insurance is not a common arrow in my quiver. For my clients, representation and warranty insurance can be sufficient for any mergers and acquisitions, especially if combined with an escrow.

Treasury has been concerned about these tax liability policies, and at one time thought of requiring their mandatory disclosure as “reportable” transactions. Treasury was understandably concerned about their use with tax shelter activities. The problem is that many routine and legitimate business transactions are also insured, and requiring mandatory disclosure could have a chilling effect on the pricing of the policies, if not their very existence. For those reasons Treasury never imposed mandatory disclosure.

I am looking at an IRS Chief Counsel Memorandum involving tax liability insurance.

What is a Memorandum?

Think of them as legal position papers for internal IRS use. They explain high-level IRS thinking on selected issues.

The IRS was looking at the deductibility by a partnership of tax insurance premiums. The partnership was insuring a charitable contribution.

I immediately considered this odd. Who insures a charitable contribution?

Except …

We have talked about a type of contribution that has gathered recent IRS attention: the conservation easement.

The conservation easement started-off with good intentions. Think of someone owning land on the outskirts of an ever-expanding city. Perhaps that person would like to see that land preserved – for their grandkids, great-grandkids and so on – and not bulldozed, paved and developed for the next interchangeable strip of gourmet hamburger or burrito restaurants. That person might donate development rights to a charitable organization which will outlive him and never permit such development. That right is referred to as an easement, and the transfer of the easement (if properly structured) generates a charitable tax deduction.

There are folks out there who have taken this idea and stretched it beyond recognition. Someone buys land in Tennessee for $10 million, donates a development and scenic easement and deducts $40 million as a charitable deduction. Promoters then ratcheted this strategy by forming partnerships, having the partners contribute $10 million to purchase land, and then allocating $40 million among them as a charitable deduction. The partners probably never even saw the land. Their sole interest was getting a four-for-one tax deduction.

The IRS considers many of these deals to be tax shelters.

I agree with the IRS.

Back to the Memorandum.

The IRS began its analysis with Section 162, which is the Code section for the vast majority of business deductions on a tax return. Section 162 allows a deduction for ordinary and necessary expenses directly connected with or pertaining to a taxpayer’s trade or business.

Lots of buzz words in there to trip one up.

You my recall that a partnership does not pay federal tax. Instead, its numbers are chopped up and allocated to the partners who pay tax on their personal returns.

To a tax nerd, that beggars the question of whether the Section 162 buzz words apply at the partnership level (as it does not pay federal tax) or the partner level (who do pay federal tax).

There is a tax case on this point (Brannen). The test is at the partnership level.

The IRS reasoned:

·      The tax insurance premiums must be related to the trade or business, tested at the partnership level.

·      The insurance reimburses for federal income tax.

·      Federal income tax itself is not deductible.

·      Deducting a premium for insurance on something which itself is not deductible does not make sense.

There was also an alternate (but related argument) which we will not go into here.

I follow the reasoning, but I am unpersuaded by it.

·      I see a partnership transaction: a contribution.

·      The partnership purchased a policy for possible consequences from that transaction.

·      That – to me - is the tie-in to the partnership’s trade or business.

·      The premium would be deductible under Section 162.

I would continue the reasoning further.

·      What if the partnership collected on the policy? Would the insurance proceeds be taxable or nontaxable?

o  I would say that if the premiums were deductible on the way out then the proceeds would be taxable on the way in.

o  The effect – if one collected – would be income far in excess of the deductible premium. There would be no further offset, as the federal tax paid with the insurance proceeds is not deductible.

o  Considering that premiums normally run 10 to 20 cents-on-the-dollar for this insurance, I anticipate that the net tax effect of actually collecting on a policy would have a discouraging impact on purchasing a policy in the first place.

The IRS however went in a different direction.

Which is why I am thinking that – albeit uncommented on in the Memorandum – the IRS was reviewing a conservation easement that had reached too far. The IRS was hammering because it has lost patience with these transactions.

It’s A Cliff, Not A Slope

It is one of my least favorite areas of individual tax practice.

We are talking about health insurance. More specifically, health insurance purchased through the exchanges, coupled with advance payment of the premiums.

Why?

Because there is a nasty tax trap in there, and I saw the trap again the other day. It caught a client who gets by, but who is hardly in a position to service heavy tax debt.

Let’s set it up.

You can purchase health insurance in the private market or from government-sponsored marketplaces – also called exchanges. The exchanges were created under the Affordable Care Act, more colloquially known as Obamacare.

If you purchase health insurance through the exchange and your income is below a certain level, you can receive government assistance in paying the insurance premiums. Make very little income, for example, and it is possible that the insurance will be free to you. Make a little more and you will be expected to contribute to your own upkeep. Make too much and you are eliminated from the discussion altogether.

The trap has to do with the dividing line of “too much.”

Let’s look at the Abrego case.

Mr and Mrs Abrego lived in California. For 2015 he was a driver for disabled individuals, and he also prepared a few tax returns (between 20 and 30) every year. Mrs Abrego was a housekeeper.

They enrolled in the California exchange. They also did the following:

(1)  They provided an estimate of their income for 2015. Remember, the final subsidy is ultimately based on their 2015 income, which will not be known until 2016. While it is possible that someone would purchase health insurance, pay for it out-of-pocket and eventually get reimbursed by the IRS when filing their 2015 tax return in 2016, it is far more likely that someone will estimate their 2015 income to then estimate their subsidy. One would use the estimated subsidy to offset the very real monthly premiums. Makes sense, as long as all those estimated numbers come in as expected.

(2)  They picked a policy. The monthly premiums were $1,029.

(3)  The exchange cranked their expected 2015 numbers and determined that they could personally pay $108 per month.

(4)  The difference - $ 1,029 minus $108 = $921– was their monthly subsidy.

The Abregos kept this up for 10 months. Their total 2015 subsidy was $9,210 ($921 times 12).

Since the Abregos received a subsidy, they had to file a tax return. One reason is to compare actual numbers to the estimated numbers. If they guessed low on income, they would have to pay back some of the subsidy. If they guessed high, the government would owe them for underestimating the subsidy.

The Abregos filed their 2015 return.

They reported $63,332 of household income.

How much subsidy should they have received?

There is the rub.

The subsidy changes as income climbs. The subsidy gets to zero when one hits 400% of the poverty line.

What was the poverty line in California for 2015?

$15,730 for a married couple.

Four times the poverty line was $62,920.

They reported $63,332.

Which is more than $62,920.

By $412.

They have to pay back the subsidy.

How much do they have to pay back?

All of it - $9,210.

Folks, the tax rate on that last $412 is astronomical.

It is frustrating to see this fact pattern play out. The odds of a heads-up from the client while someone can still do something are – by the way – zero. That leaves retroactive tax planning, whose success rate is also pretty close to zero.

Our client left no room to maneuver. Why did her income go up? Because she sold something. Why did she not call CTG galactic command before selling – you know: just in case? What would we have done? Probably advised her to NOT SELL in the same year she is receiving a government subsidy.

How did it turn out for the Abregos?

They should have been toast, except for one thing.

Remember that he prepared tax returns. He did that on the side, meaning that he had a gig going. He was self-employed.

He got to claim business deductions.

And he had forgotten one.

How much was it?

$662.

It got their income below the magic $69,920 level.

They were on the sliding scale to pay back some of that subsidy. Some - not all.

It was a rare victory in this area.

Our case for the homegamers was Abrego v Commissioner.