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.

Revoking A Church’s Tax-Exempt Status

 

I do not recall an audit of a church during my career.

I have however practiced at the other end: helping religious organizations obtain tax-exempt status.

Terms are important here. Let us look at two: churches and religious organizations.

A church is the immediate mental image: a congregation; an established place to meet; a code of doctrine; procedures for ordaining ministers, and so forth. A more intuitive term would be “a house of worship,” and worship would include Christianity and other religions.

A religious association is a religiously-oriented entity other than a church.

The terminology is important be cause churches do not need to apply for and obtain tax-exempt status. As long as they meet basic Section 501(c) requirements, they are deemed to be tax-exempt – the term is “per se” – just by being a church. That said, it is not unusual for a church to formally apply for tax-exempt status. Why? To tie to bow, so to speak. Chances are the church will regularly and routinely seek tax-deductible donations. It might be helpful to assure donors that the IRS recognizes the church as qualifying to receive such donations.

Since a church does not need to request and obtain 501(c) status, it is also not required to file annual Forms 990. It can, of course, the same as it can also formally apply for exempt status. The church can decide.

A religious organization – not being a church – must apply for exempt status, file annual Forms 990, and all the paperwork we routinely associate with being tax-exempt.

Let’s return to the requirements, and then we will discuss a church that crossed the line.

There are five basic requirements under Section 501(c):

·      The entity must be a corporation.

·      The entity must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific, and other charitable purposes.

·      Net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder.

·      No substantial part of the organization’s activity may be attempting to influence legislation.

·      The organization may not intervene in political campaigns.

These are the minimum hurdles. In practice there is some latitude (must be a corporation, for example, but the definition of corporation for this purpose is generous), but one must still keep the tires on the pavement.

The Community Worship Fellowship (CWF) was founded in 1998 by Lester Goddard and his family. The organizing documents with Oregon had all the magic words (“organized exclusively for …”), and it obtained tax-exempt status from the IRS. It was governed by an uncompensated council of elders.

There are two broad requirements in this area: what the paperwork says and what you actually do. So far, the paperwork seems normal.

However, it turned out that your name had to be “Goddard” (or related to) to be on the council of elders – the governing body of the church.

Bad start. They might want to address this as soon as possible.

After a decade the IRS began asking questions. There were reports that CWF assets were being used for personal benefit. The church blew off the initial inquiry. The IRS responded by auditing years 2013 through 2016.

COMMENT: Brilliant.

The IRS discovered the following:

·      Lester Goddard determined his own salary and bonus.

·      His salary and bonus were approved by the members, but most of the members were related to Lester.

·      CWF credit cards showed purchases of Prada handbags, jewelry, perfume, and furs.

·      CWF paid personal boat payments and private travel, including Disneyland and Hawaii.

·      CWF paid for improvements (think a pool) at Lester’s home.

·      CWF lent money to Lester and family. Let’s say CWF was … not rigorous … about the money being repaid.

In tax lingo, this money shuffle is called “private inurement.” In common conversation, we call it something else.

Meanwhile CWF moved its incorporation from Oregon to Hawaii. Why? I am not sure. The IRS – to the best of my knowledge – still reaches Hawaii.

In December 2018 the IRS revoked CWF’s exemption.

Problem: the IRS did not publicly disclose the revocation. How were donors to know?

In March 2019 CWF filed suit.

In October 2025 the Federal Court of Claims finally decided.

The reason for a six-year delay? There were 18 stays for additional discovery.

This is not a pretty story, and church exemptions is not an area the IRS likes to tread. Tax and constitutional law weave together closely, and even an IRS win might be construed as pyrrhic. There are more than 350,000 religious tax-exempt organizations, for example, but less than five lost their exemption in 2023. None of those five were churches.

Our case this time was Community Worship Fellowship v United States, No 19-352 (Fed Cl October 23, 2025).