Splitting With The IRS Over Insurance

I am reading a case where the Tax Court just entered a “partial” summary judgement. This means that at least one issue has been decided but the remaining issue or issues are still being litigated.

And I think I see what the attorneys are up to.

We are talking about split-dollar life insurance. 

This had been a rather humdrum area of tax until 2002. The IRS then issued new rules which tipped the apple cart and sent planners scrambling to review – and likely revise – their clients’ split dollar arrangements (SDAs). I know because I had the misfortune of being point man on this issue at a CPA firm. There is a certain wild freedom when the IRS decides to reset an area of tax, with revisions to previous interim Notices, postponed deadlines and clients who considered you crazed.

To set-up the issue, a classic split dollar arrangement involves an employer buying a life insurance policy on an employee. The insurance is permanent – meaning cash value build-up - and the intent is for the employee to eventually walk away with the policy or for the employee’s estate to receive the death benefits. The only thing the employer wants is a return of the premiums it paid.

Find a policy where the cash value grows faster than the cumulative premiums paid and you have a tax vehicle ready to hit the highway. 

Our case involves the Morrissette family, owners of a large moving company. Grandmom (Clara Morrissette) had a living trust, to which she contributed all her company stock. She was quite concerned about the company remaining in the hands of the family. She had her attorney establish three trusts, one for each son. The sons, trusts and grandmom then entered into an agreement, whereby each son – through his trust – would buy the company stock of a deceased brother. If one brother died, for example, the remaining two would buy his stock. In the jargon, this is called a “cross purchase.”

This takes money, so each trust bought life insurance on the two other brothers.

This too takes money, which grandmom forwarded from her trust.

How much money? About $30 million for single-premium life policies.

Wow.

Obviously the moving company was extremely successful. Also obviously there must have been a life insurance person celebrating like a madman that day.

The only thing grandmom’s trust wanted was to be reimbursed the greater of the policies’ cash value or cumulative premiums paid.

Which gets us to those IRS Regulations from back when.

The IRS had decreed that henceforth SDAs would be divided into two camps:

(1) The employee owns the policy and the employer has a right to the cash value or some other amount.

This works fine until the premiums get expensive. Under this scenario the employee either has income or has a loan. Income of course is taxable, and the IRS insisted that a loan behave like a loan. The employee had to pay interest and the employer had to report interest income, with whatever income tax consequence followed.

And a loan has to be paid back. Many SDAs are set-up with the intent of the employee walking away someday. How will he/she pay back the loan at that time? This is a serious problem for the tax planners. 

(2)  The employer owns the policy and the employee has a right to something – likely the insurance in excess of the cash value or cumulative premiums paid.

The employee has income under this scenario, equal to the value of the insurance he/she is receiving annually. The life insurance companies publish tables, so practitioners can plan for this number.

But this leaves a dangerous possible tax issue: what happens once the cash value exceeds the amount to which the employer is entitled (say cumulative premiums)? Let’s say the cash value goes up by $250,000, and the employer’s share is met. Does the employee have $250,000 in income? There is a lot of lawyering on this point.

The Court decided that the grandmom had the second type – type (2) of SDA, albeit of the “family” and not the “employer” variety. The sons’ trusts had to report income equal the economic benefit of the life insurance, the same as an employee under the classic model.

This doesn’t sound like much, but the IRS was swinging for a type (1) SDA. If the sons’ trusts owned the policies, the next tax question would be the source of the money. The IRS was arguing that the grandmom trust made taxable gifts to the sons. Granted the gift and estate tax exclusion has been raised to over $5 million, but $30 million is more than $5 million and would trigger a hefty gift tax. The IRS was smelling money here.                 

The partial summary was solely on the income tax issue.

The Court will get back to the gift tax issue.

However, having won the income tax issue must make the Morrissette family feel better about winning the gift tax issue. According to the IRS’ own rules, grandmom’s trust owned the policies. What was the gift when the trust will get back all its money? The attorneys can defend from high ground, so to speak.

And there is one more thing.

Grandmom passed away. She was already in her 90s when the sons’ trusts were set up.

She died with the sons’ trusts owing her trust around $30 million.

Which her estate will not collect until the sons pass away or the SDAs are terminated. Who knows when that will be?

And what is a dollar worth X years from now? 

One thing we can agree on is that it not worth a dollar today.

Her estate valued the SDA receivables at approximately $7 million.

And the IRS is coming after her. There is no way the IRS is going to roll-over on those split dollar arrangements reducing her estate by $23 million.

You know the IRS did not think this through back in 2002 when they were writing and rewriting the split dollar rules.

Now You Say You're Leaving California

I have stumbled into our next story of outrageous state tax behavior.

I was skimming (quickly, trust me) the Supreme Court decision in Franchise Tax Board v Hyatt. It involves a resident of Nevada who sued California. California invoked sovereign immunity, a legal doctrine arising from the era of royalty and asserting that the king can do no wrong and is therefore immune from legal action.

Handy, if you are the king  … or any of California’s countless government agencies.

This case goes back a long way. Gilbert Hyatt moved from California to Nevada in the early 1990s. More specifically, he said he moved in September, 1991. California says he moved in April, 1992.

COMMENT: Sounds like a “poe-tae-toe” versus “poe-taw-toe” moment, on first impression.

California said this meant he owed the state $10 million in taxes, interest and penalties from patent income.

            COMMENT: Of course.

Problem is that the California Franchise Tax Board took some … questionable steps in developing their case against Hyatt:

·        They went through his mail

·        They rifled through his garbage

·        They contacted third parties, including estranged family and people who did not have his best interests at heart

He brought suit … in Nevada courts. There was a previous Supreme Court decision (Nevada v Hall) that allowed a private citizen to bring legal action against a second state, without the second state's consent.

The jury verdict was almost $500 million in damages and fees.

Then California appealed, arguing that Nevada's law limited damages in similar suits against its own agencies to $50,000.  

California got the Nevada Supreme Court to reduce the verdict to $1 million. The Court reasoned that California went a bit further than Nevada would allow, so the $50,000 cap did not apply.

COMMENT: Folks, we need our own state. We could do whatever we want and then hide behind sovereign immunity, hakuna matata or whatever other multi-syllabic nonsense springs to mind.

California was still not happy, arguing that Nevada was exhibiting a “policy of hostility.”      

California appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution applied. The Supreme Court agreed, using words such as "comity" to reduce the damages to $50,000.

My thoughts?

I allow that there may have been a legitimate disagreement at the very beginning of this whole matter. Let’s say that you move most, but not all, of your possessions to another state. You leave some furniture there, as the realtor said that it would help to show and sell the house. You then have a California tell you that you had not really moved until the last chair and framed art had left the state. What are you going to do: sue? You are not moving back to California just to sue. That means that you are suing from another state and California is going to invoke the doctrine of the king’s pantaloons or whatever.

Still, doesn’t it feel … wrong … to have California going through your mail and trash, peering through your windows and contacting estranged relatives? This is behavior beyond the pale. We are not talking about homeland security, where some argument might possibly be made to excuse the king’s overreach. 

We are only talking about taxes.

Wal-Mart Sues Puerto Rico Over Tax Changes

I had seen the headline, but it was busy season and there were other priorities.

Now I have had time to look into the matter.

I am referring to the Wal-Mart v Zaragoza-Gomez decision. It has to do with Puerto Rican taxes.

You may know that Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory. I have bumped into it professionally only a couple of times over the last dozen or so years. It simply is not a component of my practice.

What you may not know is that Puerto Rico has its own taxes. It is similar to a state in that regard, but there are differences. For example, if you are a resident of Puerto Rico you do not have to file a U.S. tax return – unless you have income in the U.S. You then file a U.S. return, but only for the U.S. income.

Puerto Rico however is now on the precipice of bankruptcy. They decided to bring-in more money to the fisc by changing a tax rule or two:

·        Tripling the “tangible personal property” tax rate from 2.5% to 6.5% on purchases from vendors located off the island.

·        Eliminating the option for the Treasury Secretary to exempt, in whole or part, a 20% tax on services provided by related entities or by a home office upon proof that the price charged was equal or substantially similar to the price which would occur with an unrelated person.

There was a problem, however: the tax, as changed, applied to only one taxpayer: Wal-Mart.

Granted, Wal-Mart is also the island’s largest corporate taxpayer, but one would think the politicians would employ some … deniability … before they culled the Arkansan wildebeest from the herd. Shheessssh.

Now, 6.5% does not sound like a lot, but I suppose one has to specify what it is being multiplied against. 

·        If net profit, that would leave 93.5% of profit left over. That is pretty good.

·        If cost of sales, then we need one more piece of information.

We need to know the gross profit.

Say that you bought something for $93. You sold it for $100.  Your gross profit is $7. Now you have to pay tax. That tax is calculated as 6.5% times $93 or slightly over $6. Your profit was $7.

That is not so good.

Wal-Mart said that the effect of the changes was an effective tax rate of over 90%, so I am thinking we are not too far off with the above example.

Wal-Mart did what it had to do: it sued.

The District Court was sympathetic to Puerto Rico’s financial plight:

·        It gives us no pleasure, under these circumstances, to enjoin a revenue stream that flows directly into Puerto Rico’s general fisc.”

·        … we, too, are citizens of this island and we, too, must suffer the consequences….”

·         … we are here because … has left the plaintiff, Wal-Mart, with nowhere else to turn.”

The government argued that Wal-Mart would simply have to pay the tax and sue for refund. Wal-Mart’s argument was “not yet ripe,” as it had not been denied a refund of its taxes. Furthermore, Wal-Mart could “afford to pay” the tax.

The Court pointed out the obvious: it would likely take a generation for the case to resolve, at which point Puerto Rico might be as able to repay Wal-Mart as it is to have winter sports. 

This is not a remedy, but a cynical means of extracting more unconstitutional revenue from an innocent taxpayer without the deterrent effect of having to pay it back…,” said the Court.

The government said it would appeal.

The judge just took away $100 million from the people of Puerto Rico and gave it to Wal-Mart. Now I have to look for that money somewhere else,” said Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla.

I have no particular sympathy for Wal-Mart, other than the deep belief that any government desirous of being perceived as legitimate is mandated to deal fairly with its citizenry. Taxation is especially sensitive, and this is the equivalent of having you pay for all the new sidewalks in the neighborhood because you have the nicest house.

Smart person moves out of the neighborhood.

The IRS Could Not Collect When Limitations Period Expired

Let’s talk a bit about the tax statute of limitations.

There are two limitations periods, and it is the second one that can lead to odd results.

(1) The first one is referred to as the limitations on assessments. This is the three-year period that we are familiar with. The IRS has three years to audit your return, for example. If they do not, then – in general – the opportunity is lost to them.

There are a number of ways to extend the three-year period. When I was young in the profession, for example, tax practitioners would “hold back” certain tax deductions until the client was closing-in on the three years. With a scant few and breathless days remaining before the period expired, they would file amended tax returns, thereby obtaining a refund for the client and simultaneously kneecapping the IRS’ ability to look at the return.

The rules have been revised allowing the IRS additional time when this happens. I have no problem with this change, as I consider the previous practice to be unacceptable. 

(2) The second one is the collections period, and this one runs ten years.

Say you filed your return on April 15, 2014. You got audited and the IRS assessed $15,000 on December 15, 2015. The IRS has ten years – until December 15, 2025 – to collect.

There are things that can extend (the technical term is “toll”) the collections period. Make an offer in compromise, for example, and the period gets tolled. 

Sometimes tax practice boils down to letting the ten-year period click-off, hoping that the IRS does not initiate action. It happens. A few years ago I had a client who had moved to Florida, remarried and had her new husband involve her in an unnecessary tax situation. It was extremely unfortunate and she was extraordinarily ill-advised. He passed away, leaving her as the remaining target for the IRS to pursue. She had a fairness argument, but that meant as much as a snowball in July to IRS Collections. They have a different mind frame over there.

So I am looking at a case where a taxpayer (Grauer) had an issue with his 1998 tax return. He filed it late (in 2000).  That was his first problem. He owed around $40 grand, which quickly became almost $58 grand when the IRS was done tacking-on interest and penalties. That was his second problem. He could pay that much money about as easily as I can fly.

In 2001 he signed a waiver, extending the ten-year collections period.

What makes this point interesting to a tax nerd is that someone would not (knowingly) sign a waiver without something else going on.  In fact, Congress disallowed this in the late nineties, responding to perceived IRS abuses - especially in Collections.

Sure enough, the IRS said that he signed an installment agreement in 2001 (around the time of that waiver), but that he broke it in 2006

Grauer said that he never signed an installment agreement.

It was now 2013, and off to Tax Court they went.

The Court looked at the account transcript, which showed that the IRS had issued an earlier Notice of Intent to Levy.  This was an immediate technical issue, as the Court would not have jurisdiction past the first Notice. The IRS persuaded the Court that the transcript was wrong. 

COMMENT: Your transactions with the IRS go to your “account.” That account is updated whenever a transaction occurs. The posting will include a date, a code, and sometimes a dollar amount and perhaps a meaningful description.  Some codes are straightforward, some are cryptic. 

The Court next observed that Grauer asserted that he had not signed a payment plan. In legal jargon, this was an “affirmative defense,” and the IRS had to prove otherwise. The IRS argued that its transcript was correct and that Grauer was incorrect.

The Court was a bit flummoxed by this response. The IRS was having it both ways.

The Court told the IRS to “show us the installment agreement.” 

The IRS could not.

The Court went on to describe the IRS account transcript as “indecipherable and unconvincingly explained.”

The Court decided for the taxpayer.

Remember: ten years had passed. The waiver needed to attach to something. In the absence of something, the waiver fizzled and had no effect.

The statute had expired.

Did the taxpayer get away with something?

I don’t know, but think about the alternative. Let’s say that the IRS could post whatever it wanted – to speak bluntly, to make things up – to your account. You then get into tax controversy. You are required to prove that the IRS did not do whatever it claimed it did. Good luck to you in that scenario. I find that result considerably more unacceptable than what happened here.