When Your Employer Bungles Your Retirement Plan Loan

I admit that I am not a fan of borrowing from an employer retirement plan, except perhaps as a next-to-last step before being evicted.

Things go wrong.

Lose your job, for example, and not only are you looking for work but you also have a tax bill on a loan you cannot pay back.

You do not even have to lose your job.

Ms. Frias participated in her company’s retirement plan. She was getting ready to go on maternity leave when she borrowed $40,000 from her 401(k). Her employer was to withhold from her paycheck (to be paid biweekly), and there was a make-up provision allowing her to correct any shortfall by the end of the following month.

COMMENT: Retirement plan proceeds are normally tax-free if repaid over a period of five years or less.

She went on leave on or around August 1^st.  She was drawing on her accumulated vacation and sick time.  Sounds pretty routine.

She returned to work October 12th.

In November, she learned that her employer had failed to withhold any monies for her 401(k) loan.

She immediately wrote a $1,000 check and increased her withholding to get caught-up.

Nonetheless, at the end of the year the plan administrator (Mutual of America Life) sent her a $40,000 Form 1099R on the loan.

They however sent it to her electronically. Having no reason to expect one, she did not realize that she had even received a 1099. Goes without saying it was not on her tax return.

You know the IRS matched this up and sent her a notice.

What do you think: does she have a tax issue?

No question her employer messed up.

And that she tried to correct it.

However, the law is strict:

Although a loan may satisfy the section 72(p) requirements, “a deemed distribution occurs at the first time that the requirements … of this section are not satisfied, in form or operation.”

Her first payment was due in August, the month following the loan. If she had a deemed distribution, it would have occurred then. A distribution – even a “deemed” one – would be taxable.

There remained hope, though:

The plan administrator may provide the plan participant with an opportunity to cure the failure, and a deemed distribution does not occur unless the participant fails to pay the delinquent payment within the cure period.”

This is a nice safety valve. If the employer gives you a “cure” period, you can still avoid having the fail and its associated tax.

What was her cure period?

The end of the following month: September.

When did she write a check?

November, when she realized that there was a problem.

Too late.

She had one last long shot: a “leave of absence” exception.

Which is Code section 72(p)(2)(C), and it provides for interruption in a loan repayment schedule if one is not drawing a paycheck or not drawing enough to meet the minimum loan payment.

Her argument? She was not receiving her “regular” paycheck. She instead was drawing on her vacation and sick time bank.

Problem: she nonetheless received a check, and the Court was unwilling to part-and-parcel its source. She was collecting enough to make the loan payments.

She was hosed.

She did nothing wrong, but her employer’s negligence cost her somewhere near $15 grand in unnecessary taxes.

Is There Any Point To Middle Class Entitlements?

I was reading a Bloomberg article last week titled “Those Pointless Upper-Middle-Class Entitlements.” It is - to be fair - an opinion piece, so let’s take it with a grain of salt.

The article begins:

Let’s talk about upper-middle-class entitlements, the subsidies that flow almost entirely to those in the upper fifth or even tenth of the income distribution. You know, the home mortgage interest deduction and the tax subsidies for 401(k)s, IRAs and other retirement plans.

Then we have a spiffy graph: 

I am confused with what is considered a “tax break.”

The true “tax break” here is the earned income credit. We know that this began as encouragement to transition one from nonworking to working status, and we also know that it is the font of massive tax fraud every year. The government just sends you a check, kind of like the tooth fairy. An entire tax-storefront industry has existed for decades just to churn-out EIC returns. Too often, their owners and practitioners are not as … uhh, scrupulous … as we would want.

And this is a surprise how? Give away free money to every red-headed Zoroastrian Pacific Islander and wait to be surprised by how many red-headed Zoroastrian Pacific Islanders line up at your door. Even those who are not red-headed, Zoroastrian or Pacific Islander in any way. 

Here is more:

Of course, we wouldn’t want to take away all of those tax expenditures, would we? The earned income tax credit and the Social Security exclusion, for example, are targeted at people with pretty low incomes.

Doesn’t one need to have income before receiving an INCOME TAX expenditure?

Then we have these bright shiny categories:

·       Defined contribution retirement plans

·       Defined benefit retirement plans

·       Traditional IRAs

·       Roth IRAs

Interesting. One would think that saving for retirement would be a social good, if only to lessen the stress on social security.

We read:

Wealthy people who would save for retirement in any case respond to subsidies by shifting assets into tax-sheltered accounts; the less wealthy don’t respond much at all.

It makes some sense, but don’t you feel like you are being conned? Step right up, folks; make enough money to save for retirement and you do not need a tax break to save for retirement.

When did we all become wealthy? Did someone send out letters to inform us?

Did you know that the majority of income tax breaks are claimed by people with the majority of the income?  

Think about that one for a second, folks.

This following is a pet peeve of mine:

·       Deferral of active income of controlled foreign corporations

We have discussed this issue before. Years ago, when the U.S. was predominant, it decided that U.S. corporations would pay tax on all their earnings, whether earned in the U.S. or not.

There is a problem with that: the U.S. is almost a solo act in taxing companies on their worldwide income. Almost everyone else taxes only the profit earned in their country (the nerd term is “territoriality”).

Let’s be frank: if you were the CEO of an international company, what would you do in response to this tax policy?

You would move the company – at least the headquarters - out of the U.S., that’s what you would do. And companies have been moving: that is what "inversions" are.

So, the U.S. had no choice but to carve-out exceptions, which is how we get to “deferral of active income of controlled foreign corporations.” This is not a tax break. It is a fundamental flaw in U.S. international taxation and the reason Congress is currently considering a territorial system.

By the way, how did these tax breaks come to be, Dudley?

Why do these subsidies continue nonetheless? Mainly, it seems, because they’ve been granted to a sizable, influential population who, it is feared, will fight any effort to take them away. 

Politicians giving away money. Gasp.

But mainly it’s the millions of upper-middle-class Americans who, like me and my family, are beneficiaries of tax subsidies for home mortgages, retirement accounts and/or college savings.

To state another way: It is unfair that people with more money can do more things with money than people with less money.

Profound.

What offends about this bella siracha is:

You train for a career.

You set an alarm clock daily, dress, fight traffic and do your job.

You get paid money.

You take some of this money and save for nefarious causes such as your kids’ college and your eventual retirement.

Yet you keeping your own money is the equivalent of receiving a welfare check euphemistically described as an “earned income credit.”

No, no it is not.

And the false equivalence is offensive.

I get the issue. I really do. The theory begins with all income being taxable. When it is not, or when a deduction is allowed against income, there is – arguably - a “tax break.” The criticism I have is equating one-keeping-one’s-money (for example, a 401(k)) with flat-out welfare (the earned income credit). Another example would be equating a deeply-flawed statutory tax scheme (multinational corporations) with the state income tax deduction (where approximately 30% of this tax break goes to two states: California and New York). 

And somebody please tell me what “wealthy” means anymore. It has become one of the most abused words in the English language.

Bloomberg

Being Unemployed, Depressed And Owing The IRS

The case is 55 pages long.

Even a tax guy gets tired of marathon reading.

The story got me fired up, however, so let’s talk about it.

A frequent area of taxpayer request for IRS relief from penalties is rollovers of retirement monies, especially IRAs. Used to be that one filed for a Private Letter Ruling to obtain official absolution. Those bad boys are not cheap, as you will pay a tax CPA or attorney to draft the PLR, as well as pay the IRS filing fee. The filing fee alone can run you $10,000.

In 2016 the IRS published Revenue Procedure 2016-47 allowing for alternate means of absolution without requesting a PLR. Even the IRS got tired of taking your money.

Mr Trimmer was a retired cop with the New York Police Department. He was moving on after 20 years with the NPD, taking a security job with the New York Stock Exchange. He needed the job to supplement his pension, as he had two sons going through college. The new job however fell through. He was hosed, as the NYPD does not rehire.

And Trimmer went major depressive. He was antisocial, rarely left the house, neglected his hygiene and grooming – all the classic symptoms.

Somewhere in there he received two retirement checks: one for $99,990 and a second for $710. They lay on his dresser for weeks until he finally got around to depositing them into … his checking account.

COMMENT: If you were thinking a rollover, he flubbed because the roll did not go into an IRA account.

Months later Trimmer and his wife met with their accountant for their taxes. The accountant advised that he transfer the monies to an IRA immediately.

COMMENT: Trimmer was well outside the 60-day window at that point.

The IRS sent him a notice asserting that he failed to report over $100,000 of income and demanded taxes, penalties, interest, a Weimaraner puppy and a month’s pass to Planet Fitness.

It added up close to $40.000.

Yipes!

Trimmer wrote back to the IRS: 

    Dear Sirs:

I am contesting the amount of money said to be owed. Please allow me to explain the situation. In April 2011 I retired from my job and took a pension loan. After my retirement I went through a period of depression and was not managing my affairs. I received my check for the loan and deposited it into Santander bank on July 5, 2011. The money remained in this account until April of 2012 when it was switched to an I.R.A. in the same bank where it remains to this day.

A few points

- There was no deception or spending, investing of the money at all. I received the check and deposited it into the bank.

- My wife and I have been paying taxes for a combined 60 years and NEVER had the least bit a problem.

- There was no harm done to anyone with the money staying in the bank except me (I was receiving 0.25% interest.)

- I switched the money to an I.R.A. before I was notified by the I.R.S.

I am now employed again and am driving a school bus and have a son in college and another a year away. To pay $40,000 in taxes for money that is in an I.R.A. would absolutely cripple my family as it would be 3 years of my salary. Sir no harm was done to anyone. I went through a rough time upon separation from my job, causing me emotional hard times that caused this situation. Penalizing me and my family would not benefit anybody, only cause extreme duress and punish my children who played no part in this situation. I ask you to consider these facts and please come to a fair decision. Please contact me if you need at [phone number redacted].

Thank You,

John Trimmer

I feel sorry for the guy.

Here is the IRS reply:

“The law requires you to roll over your distribution within 60 days of the distribution date. If the roll over exceeds the time frame it becomes fully taxable.”

Nice folk over there.

Here is the tax issue: The IRS can issue waivers for this penalty, but they did not mention such fact to Mr Trimmer or how to apply for a waiver. Heck, they did not even reference Trimmer’s unfortunate circumstances. A reasonable person could question whether anyone even read his letter.

The IRS sent a Statutory Notice of Deficiency, also known as a 90-day letter.

Trimmer filed with the Tax Court.

The IRS went right for the throat:

•  Trimmer did not follow procedures (Rev Proc 2013-16 for the nerds).
• This made the hardship waiver provision “inapplicable.”
•  Since Trimmer had not pressed the point, there technically had been no “final administrative determination.”
• Without that “final,” the Tax Court had no authority over the case.
• In any event, Trimmer had never explained why he was unable to accomplish the two rollovers within 60 days.
• And where is that puppy?

Well, thank you Darth.

The Tax Court seemed to like Trimmer:

(1) OK, so he did not follow procedures.

(2) Not so quick, Sith Lord. How does the IRS reconcile 2003-16 with the following from the Internal Revenue Manual:

Examiners are given the authority to recommend the proper disposition of all identified issues, as well as any issued raised by the taxpayer.”

(3) The examiner’s authority to consider a hardship waiver “strongly implies” that the taxpayer may request the waiver.

COMMENT: 

(4) From the Court:

As might be expected from a self-represented taxpayer unversed in the technicalities of the tax law, he did not expressly cite section 402(c)(3)(B). But his letter leaves little doubt that he was seeking a hardship waiver of the 60-day rollover requirement….”

(5) The Court points out that the examiner 

… did not decline to consider Mr. Trimmer’ request, did not request that petitioners provide any additional information, and did not advise them that they were required to submit a private letter request or do anything else in particular to have their request considered.”

(6) If anything, the examiner wrote Mr. Trimmer that

… you do not need to do anything else for now. We will contact you within 60 days to let you know what action we are taking.”

(7) And 3 days later the examiner

… wrote petitioners again, denying requested relief, not on the basis that petitioners had requested it in the wrong manner or had provided insufficient information, but on the basis of cursory and incomplete legal analysis that failed to take into account the provision for hardship waivers under section 402(c)(3)(B).”

The Tax Court found in favor of Trimmer. He could do a late rollover. He was not subject to tax or penalty and could keep his Weimaraner puppy.

Good.

But it should not have gone this far. We are not in unexplored tax country here.

One could argue that our tax system is near-to breaking when you have to hire a professional to resolve near-routine tax problems. This man did not roll-over his money within 60 days. He was clinically depressed for a while. I can see requesting a doctor’s letter attesting to the taxpayer’s condition, but this is not cutting-edge tax practice.  

So why the HBO-level drama?

Here is one commentator’s remark:

We have a lazy revenue agent who probably just glances over the response. Is it the revenue agent’s fault? No, I don’t blame the revenue agent. With budget cuts, the caseloads of revenue agents are insane.”

I was listening until the “overworked” card. Seriously? I recommend this revenue agent not consider a career as a tax CPA, although – as a positive – it would probably be a short one.  

I do think our case highlights a disturbingly under-skilled IRS employee.

I also think it shows a trigger-happy IRS assessing penalties on anyone for anything. That examiners are throwing them around like sugar packets from a McDonalds drive-through indicates that they are under pressure to sweeten the take, irrespective of whether penalties are appropriate. Those penalties are under-the-table income to an IRS already facing a tight budget.

We have spoken before of a goose-and-gander bill, requiring the IRS to pay a taxpayer when the agency acts recklessly. The IRS already has people on payroll to pin your ears back, whereas you have to hire someone like me to fend them off. Their incremental cost to chase you is minimal, but your incremental cost to defend yourself can be significant if not ruinous.

Our goose-and-gander bill might or might not have protected Trimmer specifically, but eventually the IRS would lose enough cases to reconsider the automatic-tax-and-penalty-no-reasonable-cause-raised-middle-finger policy it has adopted. Cutting a check really focuses one’s attention.

When Hardship Is Not Enough

Let’s talk a bit about hardship distributions from your retirement plan – perhaps your 401(k).

You may know that you are not supposed to touch this money before a certain age. If you do, not only will there be income taxes to pay, but also a 10% early withdrawal penalty. These are two moving pieces here: one is the income tax on the distribution and another for the 10% penalty.

Here is a question for you:

Let’s say you can withdraw money from your plan for hardship reasons. Does that mean that the penalty does not apply?

The answer is no. One would think that the two Code sections move in tandem, but they do not.

Candace Elaine ran into this in a recent Tax Court decision.

Candace lived in California, and in 2012 she withdrew $84,000 from her retirement plan. She had lost her job in 2009, and she was trying to support herself and family.

The tax Code applies two requirements to the income taxation of hardship withdrawals:

·        On account of an immediate and heavy financial need, and

·        Any amount withdrawn is limited to actual need

An “immediate and heavy financial need” would include monies needed for medical expenses or to avoid foreclosure. In addition, one is not allowed to withdraw $20,000 if the need is only $12,000, with the intention of using the excess for other purposes. 

The plan custodian is the watchman for these two requirements. The custodian is to obtain reasonable assurance of need and inquire whether other financial resources exist. This is a role above and beyond routine administration, and consequently many plans simply do not offer hardship withdrawals.

Candace met those requirements and her plan allowed withdrawals. She reported and paid income tax on the $84,000, but she did not pay the 10% penalty.

The IRS bounced her return. Off to Tax Court they went, where Candace represented herself.

Her argument was simple: I received a hardship distribution. There is an exemption for hardship.

The IRS said that there was not. And in the spirit of unemployed taxpayers trying to support their family, the IRS assessed a penalty on top of the 10% chop.

The Court pointed several exceptions to the 10% early withdrawal penalty, including:

·        Separation from service

·        Disability

·        Deductible medical expenses

·        Health insurance premiums while unemployed

·        Higher education

·        First time purchase of a principal residence

There isn’t one for hardship, though.

Meaning that Candace owed the 10% penalty.

The Court did note that the misunderstanding on the 10% is widespread and refused to assess the IRS’ second penalty.

Why did Candace not just borrow the money from her 401(k) and avoid the issue? Because she had been let go, and you have to be employed in order to take a plan loan.

What if she had rolled the money into an IRA?

IRAs are not allowed to make loans, even to you. The only way you can get money out of an IRA is to take a distribution. This is what sets up the ROBs (Roll-Over as Business Start-Up) as a tax issue, for example.

Candace was stuck with the penalty.

What If You Put Too Much In An IRA?

I am looking at a Tax Court case (Dunn v Commissioner) for $1,460 in tax and $292 in penalties. It seemed a low dollar amount to take to Tax Court, which in turn prompted me to think that Dunn was either an attorney or CPA. He would then represent himself, skipping the professional fees.

Dunn is an attorney.

Then I read what landed in him in hot water.

Folks, sometimes we have to pay attention to the details.

We have talked on this blog about shiny objects like real estate investment trusts, charitable remainder trusts, private foundations and so forth.  Hopefully we have told the story in an entertaining way, as tax literature does not tend to be riveting reading. For most of us, however, our finances and taxes are quite humdrum. Odds are our tax troubles are going to come from not attending to the details.

Let’s tell the story.

Stephen Dunn is a tax attorney in Michigan. In 2008 he was working for a law firm. He finished 2008 as self-employed and continued as such through 2010. He participated in the law firm’s retirement plan – presumably a 401(k) - for the part of 2008 he was there.

He made the following IRA contributions:

            2008                          $6,000

            2009                          $6,000

            2010                          $ 800

The IRS took a look and disallowed his 2008 IRA contribution.

Why?

Because he was covered by a retirement plan at work.

There is no income “test” for an IRA contribution if one (or one’s spouse) does not have another available retirement plan. Have a plan at work, however, and the rule changes. The tax Code will disallow your IRA deduction if you make too much money.

What is too much?

If you are a single filer, it starts at $61,000. If you are a married filer, it starts at $98,000.

For what it is worth, I consider these income limits to be idiocy. I cringe when someone thinks that $61,000 is “too much money.” Perhaps it was back in the 1950s, but nowadays $61,000 will not rock you a Thurston Howell lifestyle anywhere across the fruited plain. Remember also that a maximum IRA is $5,500 ($6,500 if one is age 50 and above). If taxes on $5,500 are a fiscal threat to the Treasury, we have much more serious problems than any discussion about IRAs.

Dunn got caught-up in the rules and made too much money for a deductible IRA contribution in 2008.

No problem, thought Dunn the attorney. He rolled the $6,000 forward and deducted it in 2010. Mind you, he wrote checks for only $800 in 2010. The $6,000 was a “carryforward,” so to speak.

So, what is the problem?

Generally speaking, individuals report their taxes on the cash basis of accounting. This means that they report income in the year they receive a check, and they report deductions in the year they write a check. The tax Code does allow some latitude with IRAs, as one can fund a previous-year IRA through April 15^th of the following year. That is a special case, however. The tax Code however does not automatically “carryover” an excess contribution from one year to the next. In fact, overfund an IRA and the tax Code will assess a 6% penalty for every year you leave the excess in the IRA.

How do tax professionals handle this in practice?

Easy enough: you have the IRA custodian move it to the following year. Say that you are age 58 and put $7,000 in your 2014 IRA. You have overfunded $500, no matter what the results of the income test are. You would call the custodian (Dunn’s custodian was Vanguard), explain your situation and ask them to move the $500.

Now there is a detail here that has to be clarified. Say that you contributed $1,000 of the $7,000 in March, 2015 (for your 2014 tax year). You could ask Vanguard to move $500 of that $1,000 to 2015. They probably would, as they received it in 2015.

Let’s change the facts. You contributed all of the $7,000 in 2014. Vanguard now will likely not move any of the money because none of it was received in 2015.  The best Vanguard can do is send you a $500 check, which you will deposit and send back to Vanguard as a 2015 contribution.

What did Dunn not do?

He never called Vanguard and had them move the money. In his case it would have been a bit frustrating, as he had to get from 2008 to 2010. He would be calling Vanguard a lot. He would have to refund 2008 and fund 2009; then refund 2009 and fund 2010. Vanguard may have not wanted him as a customer by that point, but that is a different issue.

Dunn tried. He even requested the equivalent of mercy, pointing out:

…Congress’ policy of encouraging retirement savings supports the deduction they seek.”

Here is the Tax Court:

            These arguments are addressed to the wrong forum.”

Ouch.

Dunn did not pay attention to the details. He lost his case and also got smacked with a penalty. I am not a fan of IRS-automatically-hitting-people-in-the-face-with-a-penalty, but in this case I understand.

After all, Dunn is a tax attorney.