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.

A Skeleton Return And Portability

 

The amount for 2025 is $13.99 million.

This is the lifetime exclusion amount for combined gift and estate taxes. You can give away or die with assets up to this amount and owe neither gift nor estate tax. This amount is per person, so – if married – you and your spouse have a combined $27.98 million.

Next year that amount resets to $15 million, or $30 million for a married couple.

Let’s say it: most of us do not need to sweat. This is a high-end issue, and congrats if it impacts you.

What I want to talk about is the portability of the lifetime exclusion amount.

Tax practice brings its own acronyms and (call it) slang.

Here is one: DSUE, pronounced Dee-Sue and referring to the transfer of the lifetime exclusion amount from the first spouse-to-die to the second.

Let’s use a quick example to clarify what we are talking about. 

• Mr. and Mrs. CTG have been married for years.
• They have not filed gift tax returns in the past, either because they have not made gifts or gifts made have been below the annual gift exclusion. The exclusion amount for 2025 is $19,000, for example, so only a hefty gift would be reportable.
• Mr. and Mrs. CTG have a combined net worth of $20 million.
• For simplicity, let’s assume that all CTG marital assets are owned jointly.

 At a net worth of $20 million, one might be concerned about the estate tax.

Except for one thing: we said that all assets are owned jointly.

Let’s say that Mr. CTG passes away in 2026 when the lifetime exclusion amount is $15 million. His share of the joint estate is $10 million ($20 million times ½), well within the safety zone. There is no estate tax due.

Let’s go further. Let’s say that Mrs. CTG dies later in 2026.

Her net worth would be $20 million ($10 million - her half - and $10 million from Mr. CTG).

Could she have an estate tax issue?

First impression: yes, she could. She exceeded the lifetime exclusion amount by $5 million ($20 million minus $15 million).

In income tax we are used to numbers being combined when filing as married-filing-jointly. This is estate tax, though. That MFJ concept … does not apply so neatly here.

We can even create our own tax headache by having the first-to-die leave all assets to the surviving spouse.

And there is the point of the DSUE: whatever lifetime exclusion amount the first-to-die doesn’t use can be transferred to the surviving spouse. In our example, $5 million ($15 million minus $10 million) could be transferred. If Mrs. CTG dies shortly after Mr. CTG, her combined exclusion amount would be $20 million (her $15 million and $5 million from Mr. CTG). Since combined assets were $20 million, there would be no estate tax due. It’s not quite the simplicity of married-filing-jointly, but it gets us there.

Moving that $5 million from Mr. CTG to Mrs. CTG is called “portability,” and there are rules one must follow.

The main rule?

          A complete and properly prepared estate return must be filed.

Practitioners who work in this area know how burdensome a complete and properly prepared estate tax return can be. The return requires full disclosure of assets and liabilities, including descriptions and values, not to mention documentation to support the same. Here are a few examples:

•  Do you own stock? If yes, then each stock position must be valued at the date of death (or six months later, an alternative we will skip for this discussion). How do you do this? Perhaps your broker can help. If not, there is specialized software available.
•  Do you own 401(k)s or IRAs? If so, one needs to know who the beneficiaries are.
•  Do you own a business? If so, you will need a valuation.
•  Do you own real estate? If so, you will need an appraiser.

Let’s be blunt: there are enough headaches here that someone could (understandably) pass on filing that first-to-die estate tax return.

Fortunately, the IRS realized this and allowed a special rule when filing an estate tax return solely for DSUE portability.

Yes, we see the usual tax gobbledygook, but the IRS is spotting us a break when preparing the Form 706. 

• You can use (good faith) estimates. You do not have to hire appraisers and valuation specialists, for example.
• However, the special rule only applies if all property goes to the surviving spouse (the marital deduction), to charity (the charitable deduction), or a combination of the two.

Can you fail the special rule?

Yeppers.

Let’s look at the Rowland case.

Fay Rowland passed away in April 2016. She did not have a taxable estate.

The surviving spouse (Billy Rowland) passed away in January 2018. He did have a taxable estate.

Note the fact pattern: they will want to transfer Faye’s unused lifetime exemption (that is, the DSUE) to Billy, because he is in a taxable situation.

Fay’s Trust Agreement (effectively functioning as a will) instructed the following:

• 20% to a foundation
• 25% to Billy
• The remainder to her grandchildren

Fay filed an estate tax return reporting everything under the special rule: showing zero for individual assets but a total for all combined assets.

Billy’s estate return reported a DSUE (from Fay) of $3.7 million.

The IRS bounced Billy’s DSUE.

Off to Tax Court they went.

The Court agreed with the IRS.

Why?

Take a look at the special rule again.

• Assets passing to Billy qualify as a marital deduction.
• Assets passing to the foundation qualify as a charitable deduction.
• Assets passing to the grandchildren …. do not qualify for the special rule.

Fay’s estate tax return showed all assets as qualifying for the special rule. This was incorrect. The return should have included detailed reporting for assets passing to the grandchildren, with simplified reporting for the assets passing to Billy or the foundation.

Fay did not file a complete and properly prepared estate return.

The failure to do so meant no DSUE to port to Billy.

Considering that the estate tax rate reaches 40%, this is real money.

What do I think?

I have seen several DSUE returns over the last year and a half. Some have been straightforward, with all assets qualifying for the special rule. We still had to identify assets and obtain estimated values, but it was not the same amount of work as a full Form 706.

COMMENT: Practitioners sometimes refer to this special-rule Form 706 as a “skeleton” return. Skeleton refers to one providing just enough information on which to drape a portability election.

Then we had returns with a combination of assets, some qualifying for the special rule and others not. This is a hybrid return: nonqualifying assets are reported in the usual detail, while assets qualifying for the special rule are more lightly reported.

Fay’s estate tax return should have used that hybrid reporting.

Our case this time was Estate of Billy S Bowland v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2025-76.

Recurring Proposal For Estate Beneficiary’s Basis In An Asset

There is an ongoing proposal in estate taxation to require the use of carryover basis by an inheriting beneficiary.

I am not a fan.

There is no need to go into the grand cosmology of the proposal. My retort is simple: it will fail often enough to be an unviable substitute for the current system.

You might be surprised how difficult it can be sometimes to obtain routine tax reports. I have backed into a social security 1099 more times than I care to count.

And that 1099 is at best a few months old.

Let’s talk stocks.

Question: what should you do if you do not know your basis in a stock?

In the old days – when tax CPAs used to carve numbers into rock with a chisel – the rule of thumb was to use 50% of selling price as cost. There was some elegance to it: you and the IRS shared equally in any gain.

This issue lost much of its steam when Congress required brokers to track stock basis for their customers in 2011. Mutual funds came under the same rule the following year.

There is still some steam, though. One client comes immediately to mind.

How did it happen?

Easy: someone gifted him stock years ago.

So?  Find out when the stock was gifted and do a historical price search.

The family member who gifted the stock is deceased.

So? Does your client remember - approximately - when the gift happened?

When he was a boy.

All right, already. How much difference can it make?

The stock was Apple.

Then you have the following vapid observation:

Someone should have provided him with that information years ago.

The planet is crammed with should haves. Take a number and sit down, pal.

Do you know the default IRS position when you cannot prove your basis in a stock?

The IRS assumes zero basis. Your proceeds are 100% gain.

I can see the IRS position (it is not their responsibility to track your cost or basis), but that number is no better than the 50% many of us learned when we entered the profession.

You have something similar with real estate.

 Let’s look at the Smith case.

Sherman Darrell Smith (Smith) recently went before the Tax Court on a pro se basis.

COMMENT: We have spoken of pro se many times. It is commonly described as going to Tax Court without an attorney, but that is incorrect. It means going to Tax Court represented by someone not recognized to practice before the Tax Court. How does one become recognized? By passing an exam. Why would someone not take the exam? Perhaps Tax Court is but a fragment of their practice and the effort and cost to be expended thereon is inordinate for the benefits to be received. The practitioner can still represent you, but you would nonetheless be considered pro se.

Smith’s brother bought real property in 2002. There appears to have been a mortgage. His brother may or may not have lived there.

Apparently, this family follows an oral history tradition.

In 2011 Smith took over the mortgage.

The brother may or may not have continued to live there.

Several years later Smith’s brother conveyed an ownership interest to Smith.

The brother transferred a tenancy in common.

So?

A tenancy in common is when two or more people own a single property.

Thanks, Mr. Obvious. Again: so?

Ownership does not need to be equal.

Explain, Mr. O.

One cannot assume that the real estate was owned 50:50. It probably was but saying that there was a tenancy in common does not automatically mean the brothers owned the property equally.

Shouldn’t there be something in writing about this?

You now see the problem with an oral history tradition.

Can this get any worse?

Puhleeeze.

The property was first rented in 2017.

COMMENT: I suspect every accountant that has been through at least one tax course has heard the following:

The basis for depreciation when an asset is placed in service (meaning used for business or at least in a for-profit activity) is the lower of the property’s adjusted basis or fair market value at the time of conversion.

One could go on Zillow or similar websites and obtain an estimate of what the property is worth. One would compare that to basis and use the lower number for purposes of depreciation.

Here is the Court:

Petitioner used real estate valuation sources available in 2024 to estimate the rental property’s fair market value at the time of conversion.”

Sounds like the Court did not like Smith researching Zillow in 2024 for a number from 2017. Smith should have done this in 2017.

If only he had used someone who prepares taxes routinely: an accountant, maybe.

Let’s continue:

But even if we were to accept his estimate …, his claim to the deduction would fail because of the lack of proof on the rental property’s basis.”

The tenancy in common kneecapped the basis issue.

Zillow from 2024 kneecapped the fair market value issue.

Here is the Court:

Petitioner has failed to establish that the depreciation deduction here in dispute was calculated by taking into account the lesser of (1) the rental property’s fair market value or (2) his basis in the rental property.”

And …

That being so, he is not entitled to the depreciation deduction shown on his untimely 2018 federal tax return.”

Again, we can agree that zero is inarguably wrong.

But such is tax law.

And yes, the Court mentioned that Smith failed to timely file his 2018 tax return, which is how this mess started.

Here is the Court:

Given the many items agreed to between the parties, we suspect that if the return had been timely filed, then this case would not have materialized.”

Let’s go back to my diatribe.

How many years from purchase to Tax Court?

Fifteen years.

Let’s return to the estate tax proposal.

Allow for:

• Years if not decades
• Deaths of relevant parties
• Failure to create or maintain records, either by the parties in interest or by municipalities tasked with such matters
• Soap opera fact patterns

And there is why I object to cost carryover to a beneficiary.

Because I have to work with this. My classroom days are over.

And because – sooner or later – the IRS will bring this number back to zero. You know they will. It is chiseled in stone.

And that zero is zero improvement over the system we have now.

Our case this time was Smith v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2025-24.

Shoplifting And Sales Tax

 

I was recently surprised by a question.

It has to do with use tax, and it is not the most riveting issue – even for a tax CPA.

But it did remind me of a recent-enough case from New Jersey involving sales tax.

Sales tax and use tax are flip sides of the same coin. Let’s set up an example.

·      You have a product-intensive business. Maybe you sell vintage collectible baseball and other sports-themed cards.

·      When you buy cards, it is your intention to sell them. That is your business, of course, and those cards are your inventory. You do not pay sales tax when you purchase them, but you would collect and remit sales tax when you finally sell them.  

·      Let’s say that you acquire a particularly appealing card, one that you want for your personal collection. You remove that card from inventory and take it home.

·      If it stops here, the state does not receive any tax on that card. The business did not pay sales tax when it bought the card. It did not resell because you took the card home.

·      To make the system work, you would owe use tax when you take the card. The state gets its money. Granted, there was a change in names: use tax versus sales tax. I suppose you might have to send a personal check for the tax, or perhaps the business could collect and remit on your behalf. Different states, different rules.

There was a New Jersey case to determine whether sales tax should be included in the calculation of “full retail value” when someone shoplifted an Xbox One game console.

Why the nitpicking?

Because New Jersey categorized the crime depending on full retail value. If the value was between $200 and $500, it was a fourth-degree offense. Go over $500, however, and it becomes a third-degree offense.

Kohl’s sold the X Box for $499.99.

Two pennies away.

Yes, the sales tax would take that above $500 and make it third degree.

Which is what the Court decided.

Then – believe it or not – the decision was appealed. The grounds? The full retail value should not include sales tax.

A fourth degree gets someone up to 18 months in prison. A third degree is between 3 and 5 years.

The Appellate Court noted that no New Jersey court had ever looked at this issue.

OK.

The Court reasoned that shoplifting was the purposeful taking of merchandise belonging to a merchant, thereby depriving him/her of the economic benefit from the same. A merchant does not keep the sales tax. Instead, the merchant is an agent, collecting the tax from the customer and remitting it to the state (although there me be a small administrative allowance). Since the merchant would not have kept the sales tax, the Court decided that it should not be considered when calculating full retail value.

The Appellate Court reversed the lower Court’s decision.

Not all states agree with this reasoning. California for example will include sales tax in its full retail value.

Our case this time was State v Burnham, 474 N.J. Super. 226 (App. Div 2022).