Can You Have Income From Life Insurance?

 

I was looking at a recent case wondering: why did this even get to court?

Let’s talk about life insurance.

The tax consequences of life insurance are mostly straightforward:

(1) Receiving life insurance proceeds (that is, someone dies) is generally not an income-taxable event.

(2) Permanent insurance accumulates reserves (that is, cash value) inside the policy. The accumulation is generally not an income-taxable event.

(3) Borrowing against the cash value of a (permanent) insurance policy is generally not an income-taxable event.

Did you notice the word “generally?” This is tax, and almost everything has an exception, if not also an exception to the exception.

Let’s talk about an exception having to do with permanent life insurance.

Let’s time travel back to 1980. Believe it or not, the prime interest rate reached 21.5% late that year. It was one of the issues that brought Ronald Reagan into the White House.

Some clever people at life insurance companies thought they found a way to leverage those rates to help them market insurance:

(1)  Peg the accumulation of cash value to that interest rate somehow.

(2)  Hyperdrive the buildup of cash value by overfunding the policy, meaning that one pays in more than needed to cover the actual life insurance risk. The excess would spill over into cash value, which of course would earn that crazy interest rate.

(3)  Remind customers that they could borrow against the cash value. Money makes money, and they could borrow that money tax-free. Sweet.

(4)  Educate customers that – if one were to die with loans against the policy – there generally would be no income tax consequence. There may be a smaller insurance check (because the insurance is diverted to pay off the loan), but the customer had the use of the cash while alive. All in all, not a bad result – except for the dying thing, of course.

You know who also reads these ads?

The IRS.

And Congress.

Neither were amused by this. The insurance whiz kids were using insurance to mimic a tax shelter.

Congress introduced “modified endowment contracts” into the tax Code. The acronym is pronounced “meck.”

The definition of a MEC can be confusing, so let’s try an example:

(1)  You are age 48 and in good health.

(2)  You buy $4,000,000 of permanent life insurance.  

(3)  You anticipate working seven more years.

(4)  You ask the insurance company what your annual premiums would be to pay off the policy over your seven-year window.

(5)  The company gives you that number.

(6)  You put more than that into the policy over the first seven years.

I used seven years intentionally, as a MEC has something called a “7 pay test.” Congress did not want insurance to morph into an investment, which one could do by stuffing extra dollars into the policy. To combat that, Congress introduced a mathematical hurdle, and the number seven is baked into that hurdle.     

If you have a MEC, then the following bad things happen:

(1) Any distributions or loans on the policy will be immediately taxable to the extent of accumulated earnings in the policy.

(2) That taxable amount will also be subject to a 10% penalty if one is younger than age 59 ½.

Congress is not saying you cannot MEC. What it is saying is that you will have to pay income tax when you take monies (distribution, loan, whatever) out of that MEC.

Let’s get back to normal, vanilla life insurance.

Let’s talk about Robert Doggart.

Doggart had two life insurance contracts with Prudential Insurance. He took out loans against the two policies, using their cash value as collateral.

Yep. Happens every day.

In 2017 he stopped paying premiums.

This might work if the earnings on the cash value can cover the premiums, at least for a while. Most of the time that does not happen, and the policy soon burns out.

Doggart’s policies burned out.

But there was a tax problem. Doggart had borrowed against the policies. The insurance company now had loans with no collateral, and those loans were uncollectible.   

You know there is a 1099 form for this.

Doggart did not report these 1099s in his 2017 income. The IRS easily caught this via computer matching.

Doggart argued that he did not have income. He had not received any cash, for example.

The Court reminded him that he received cash when he took out the loans.

Doggart then argued that income – if income there be - should have been reported in the year he took out the loans.

The Court reminded him that loans are not considered income, as one is obligated to repay. Good thing, too, as any other answer would immediately shut down the mortgage industry.  

The Court found that Doggart had income.

The outcome was never in doubt.

But why did Doggart allow the policies to lapse in 2017?

Because Doggart was in prison.

Our case this time was Doggart v Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2023-25.

An IRS Payment Plan And Tax Evasion

 

Let’s talk today about IRS payment plans. More specifically, let’s talk about common paperwork in requesting a payment plan.

A common one is Form 433-A, and it is used by W-2 workers and self-employeds.

The IRS is trying to figure out how much you earn, own, and owe.

There are questions about whether you (or your spouse) own a business, are a beneficiary of a trust or have gifted property worth more than $10,000 over the last 10 years. Yes, they wanna know stuff.

You will have to list your bank accounts, as well as other investments, real estate and other assets.

You will have to provide an accounting of your monthly income and expenses.

There is also expanded disclosure if you are self-employed (that is, a sole proprietor).

There are other ways to own a business than as a proprietor (for example, a shareholder in a C corporation). The IRS will want to know about that, too.

Part of tax practice is avoiding this series, if possible. For example, if you have personal tax debt of $50,000 or less, you can bypass the 433 series and request a “streamlined” payment plan. You are still entering into a contract with the IRS (you must stay current with your filings, make all payments as required, and so on), but in exchange the IRS lifts some of the paperwork requirements. Sometimes advisors recommend hybrid arrangements (taking out a second mortgage, for example), leaving the IRS debt at $50 grand or less. And sometimes you are simply into the IRS for more than $50 grand, leaving no choice but to run the 433 gauntlet. This can be a rude awakening, as the IRS uses standards for certain expense categories (for example, housing and utilities). You might google that you can request an increase from these standards. You can request; don’t expect to receive, though. Barring significant factors (think care for chronic medical conditions), it is unlikely to happen. Depending on the numbers, you might be forced to downgrade a vehicle or pull the kids from a private school. This is not a friendly loan.  

And you do not want to be … sly … when running the 433 hurdles.

Let’s look at someone who was too clever by half.

Kevin Crandell is a medical doctor. He contracted with two hospitals, one in Mississippi and another in Alabama, for $30 to $40 grand per month.

From 2006 through 2012 he did not file returns or pay taxes.

The IRS started garnishing his wages in 2010.

COMMENT: I find it remarkable that he still did not file or pay even when garnished.

The doctor racked up close to a million dollars in taxes, penalties, and interest.

Somewhere in there he formed a couple of corporations. He used one to receive monies earned as a contractor. The second appeared to serve as asset protection.

He finally hired someone (Blue Tax) to help out with tax returns and attendant debt.

Blue Tax drafted a 433. The first draft showed Crandell’s salary as $17 grand per month (I don’t know where the rest of the money went either). The doctor howled that the number was much too high and should be closer to $12 grand.

Oh, the 433 also left out bank accounts for those two corporations (which he controlled). And a $50,000 gun collection. And the $40 grand he drew from the corporations shortly after submitting a 433 stating that his salary was around $12 grand.

Doc, you have to know when to stop. Lying, and then lying about the lying is called something in tax.

Crandell was indicted for fraud.

That pattern of non-file and non-pay looked bad now. That “creative” 433 also gleamed like a badge of fraud, leaving off income, assets and so on.

Crandell argued that he relied on Blue Tax.

It is a good argument - an excellent argument, in fact - except that he did not fully disclose to Blue Tax. If you want to show reliance on an advisor, you have to … you know … actually rely on the advisor.

Crandell was convicted for tax evasion.

Our case this time was US v Crandell, 2023 PTC 178 (5^th Cir. 2023).

The IRS Changes An In - Person Visit Policy

 

This afternoon I was reading the following:

As part of a larger transformation effort, the Internal Revenue Service today announced a major policy change that will end most unannounced visits to taxpayers by agency revenue officers to reduce public confusion and enhance overall safety measures for taxpayers and employees.”

One can spend a lifetime and never interact with a Revenue Officer. We are more familiar with Revenue Agents, who examine or audit tax returns and filings. Revenue Officers, on the other hand, are more specialized: they collect money.

I deal with ROs often enough, but – then again – consider what I do. I rarely meet with one in person, though. The last time I met an RO was one late afternoon at northern Galactic Command. I was the only person in the office, until I realized that I was not. I encountered someone who claimed to be an RO, which I immediately and expressly disbelieved. He presented identification, which gave me pause. He then asked about a specific client, giving me grounds to believe him. The IRS could not contact a taxpayer, so the next step was to contact the last preparer associated with that taxpayer.

I was – BTW – not amused.

I wonder if the above IRS policy change has something to do with an event that occurred recently in Marion, Ohio. The following is cited from a recent House Judiciary Committee letter to IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel:

On April 25, 2023, an IRS agent—who identified himself as 'Bill Haus' with the IRS’s Criminal Division—visited the home of a taxpayer in Marion, Ohio. Agent 'Haus' informed the taxpayer he was at her home to discuss issues concerning an estate for which the taxpayer was the fiduciary. After Agent 'Haus' shared details about the estate only the IRS would know, the taxpayer let him in. Agent 'Haus' told the taxpayer that she did not properly complete the filings for the estate and that she owed the IRS 'a substantial amount.' Prior to the visit, however, the taxpayer had not received any notice from the IRS of an outstanding balance on the estate.
 
"During the visit, the taxpayer told Agent 'Haus' that the estate was resolved in January 2023, and provided him with proof that she had paid all taxes for the decedent's estate. At this point, Agent 'Haus' revealed that the true purpose of his visit was not due to any issue with the decedent’s estate, but rather because the decedent allegedly had several delinquent tax return filings. Agent 'Haus' provided several documents to the taxpayer for her to fill out, which included sensitive information about the decedent.
 
"The taxpayer called her attorney who immediately and repeatedly asked Agent 'Haus' to leave the taxpayer's home. Agent 'Haus' responded aggressively, insisting: 'I am an IRS agent, I can be at and go into anyone's house at any time I want to be.' Before finally leaving the taxpayer’s property, Agent 'Haus' said he would mail paperwork to the taxpayer, and threatened that she had one week to satisfy the remaining balance or he would freeze all her assets and put a lean [sic] on her house.
 
"On May 4, 2023, the taxpayer spoke with the supervisor of Agent 'Haus,' who clarified nothing was owed on the estate. The supervisor even admitted to the taxpayer that 'things never should have gotten this far.' On May 5, 2023, however, the taxpayer received a letter from the IRS— the first and only written notice the taxpayer received of the decedent’s delinquent tax filings—addressed to the decedent, which stated the decedent was delinquent on several 1040 filings. On May 15, 2023, the taxpayer spoke again with supervisor of Agent 'Haus,' who told the taxpayer to disregard the May 5 letter because nothing was due. On May 30, 2023, the taxpayer received a letter from the IRS that the case had been closed.”

Yeah, someone needs to be fired.

The IRS did point out the following in today’s release:

For IRS revenue officers, these unannounced visits to homes and businesses presented risks.

No doubt, especially for those who think they can go into “anyone’s house at any time.”

What will the IRS do instead?

In place of the unannounced visits, revenue officers will instead make contact with taxpayers through an appointment letter, known as a 725-B, and schedule a follow-up meeting. This will help taxpayers feel more prepared when it is time to meet.

Taxpayers whose cases are assigned to a revenue officer will now be able to schedule face-to-face meetings at a set place and time, with the necessary information and documents in hand to reach resolution of their cases more quickly and eliminate the burden of multiple future meetings.

There will be situations where the IRS simply must appear in person, of course:

The IRS noted there will still be extremely limited situations where unannounced visits will occur. These rare instances include service of summonses and subpoenas; and also sensitive enforcement activities involving seizure of assets, especially those at risk of being placed beyond the reach of the government.

These situations should be a fraction of the number under the previous policy, however.

There Is No Tax Relief If You Are Robbed

 

Some tax items have been around for so long that perhaps it would be best to leave them alone.

I’ll give you an example: employees deducting business mileage on their car.

Seems sensible. You tax someone on their work income. That someone incurs expenses to perform that work. Fairness and equity tell you that one should be able to offset the expenses of generating the income against such income.

The Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) did away with that deduction, however. Mind you, the TCJA itself expires in 2025, so we may see this deduction return for 2026.

There are reasons why Congress eliminated the deduction, we are told. They increased the standard deduction, for example, and one could not claim the mileage anyway if one’s itemized deductions were less than the standard deduction. True statement.

Still, it seems to me that Congress could have left the deduction intact. Many if not most would not use it (because of the larger standard deduction), but the high-mileage warriors would still have the deduction if they needed it.

Here’s another:  a tree falls on your house. Or you get robbed.

This has been a tax break since Carter had liver pills.

Used to be.

Back to the TCJA. Personal casualty and theft losses are deductible only if the loss results from a federally declared disaster.

Reread what I just said.

What does theft have to do with a federally declared disaster?

Nothing, of course.

I would make more sense to simply say that the TCJA did away with theft loss deductions.

Let’s talk about the Gomas case.

Dennis and Suzanne Gomas were retired and living their best life in Florida. Mr. G’s brother died, and in 2010 he inherited a business called Feline’s Pride. The business sold pet food online.

OK.

The business was in New York.

We are now talking about remote management. There are any numbers of ways this can go south.

His business manager in New York must have binged The Sopranos, as she was stealing inventory, selling customer lists, not supervising employees, and on and on.

Mr. G moved the business to Florida. His stepdaughter (Anderson) started helping him.

Good, it seems.

By 2015 Mr. G was thinking about closing the business but Anderson persuaded him to keep it open. He turned operations over to Anderson, although the next year (2016) he formally dissolved the company. Anderson kept whatever remained of the business.

In 2017 Anderson prevailed on the G’s to give her $20,000 to (supposedly) better run the business.

I get it. I too am a parent.

Anderson next told the Gs that their crooked New York business manager and others had opened merchant sub-accounts using Mr. G’s personal information. These reprobates were defrauding customers, and the bank wanted to hold the merchant account holder (read: Mr. G) responsible.

          COMMENT: Nope. Sounds wrong. Time to lawyer up.

Anderson convinced the G’s that she had found an attorney (Rickman), and he needed $125,000 at once to prevent Mr. G’s arrest.

COMMENT: For $125 grand, I am meeting with Rickman.

The G’s gave Anderson the $125,000.

But the story kept on.

There were more business subaccounts. Troubles and tribulations were afoot and abounding. It was all Rickman could do to keep Mr. G out of prison. Fortunately, the G’s had Anderson to help sail these treacherous and deadly shoals.

The G’s never met Rickman. They were tapping all their assets, however, including retirement accounts. They were going broke.

Anderson was going after that Academy award. She managed to drag in friends of the family for another $200 grand or so. That proved to be her downfall, as the friends were not as inclined as her parents to believe. In fact, they came to disbelieve. She had pushed too far.

The friends reached out to Rickman. Sure enough, there was an attorney named Rickman, but he did not know and was not representing the G’s. He had no idea about the made-up e-mail address or merchant bank or legal documents or other hot air.

Anderson was convicted to 25 years in prison.

Good.

The G’s tried to salvage some tax relief out of this. For example, in 2017 they had withdrawn almost $1.2 million from their retirement accounts, paying about $410 grand in tax.

Idea: let’s file an amended return and get that $410 grand back.

Next: we need a tax Code-related reason. How about this: we send Anderson a 1099 for $1.1 million, saying that the monies were sent to her for expenses supposedly belonging to a prior business.

I get it. Try to show a business hook. There is a gigantic problem as the business had been closed, but you have to swing the bat you are given.

The IRS of course bounced the amended return.

Off to Court they went.

You might be asking: why didn’t the G’s just say what really happened – that they were robbed?

Because the TCJA had done away with the personal theft deduction. Unless it was presidentially-declared, I suppose.

So, the G’s were left bobbing in the water with much weaker and ultimately non-persuasive arguments to power their amended return and its refund claim.

Even the judge was aghast:

Plaintiffs were the undisputed victims of a complicated theft spanning around two years, resulting in the loss of nearly $2 million dollars. The thief — Mrs. Gomas’s own daughter and Mr. Gomas’s stepdaughter — was rightly convicted and is serving a lengthy prison sentence. The fact that these elderly Plaintiffs are now required to pay tax on monies that were stolen from them seems unjust.

Here is Court shade at the IRS:

In view of the egregious and undisputed facts presented here, it is unfortunate that the IRS is unwilling — or believes it lacks the authority — to exercise its discretion and excuse payment of taxes on the stolen funds.

There is even some shade for Congress:

It is highly unlikely that Congress, when it eliminated the theft loss deduction beginning in 2018, envisioned injustices like the case before this Court. Be that as it may, the law is clear here and it favors the IRS. Seeking to avoid an unjust outcome, Plaintiffs have attempted to recharacterize the facts from what they really are — a theft loss — to something else. Established law does not support this effort. The Court is bound to follow the law, even where, as here, the outcome seems unjust.

To be fair, Congress changed the law. The change was unfair to the G’s, but the Court could not substitute penumbral law over actual law.

The G’s were hosed.

Seriously, Congress should have left theft losses alone. The reason is the same as for employee mileage. The Code as revised for TCJA would make most of the provision superfluous, but at least the provision would exist for the most extreme or egregious situations.

COMMENT: I for one am hopeful that the IRS and G's will resolve this matter administratively. This is not a complementary tale for the IRS, and – frankly – they have other potentially disastrous issues at the moment. It is not too late, for example, for the IRS and G’s to work out an offer in compromise, a partial pay or a do-not-collect status. This would allow the IRS to resolve the matter quietly. Truthfully, they should have already done this and avoided the possible shockwaves from this case.

Our case this time was Gomas v United States, District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Case 8:22-CV-01271.

Income And Cancellation of Bank Debt

 

There is a basic presumption in the tax Code that any accession to “wealth” is income. It isn’t much of a leap for the tax Code to then say that all income is taxable unless otherwise excluded.

Let’s next look at “wealth.” I propose a working definition as follows:

          Assets (A) = Liabilities (L) + Wealth (W)

A little algebra shows the following:

          A – L = W

Here is spiff on the above: do you have wealth if your liabilities go down?

Let’s look at the Katrina White case.

Katrina started a business in 2015. She took out a business loan for $15,000. She leased space for her business, signing a three-year lease.

The business did not work out. The family lent her $8 grand, but there was no way to save it. She had repaid the bank less than a grand when her remaining debt of $14,433 was discharged. The bank sent her a 1099, of course, as all American life events can apparently be reduced to a 1099.

Katrina never made a payment on the lease. Since rent was late for more than two months, the entire lease became due and payable. That fiasco totaled $21,700.

 She filed her return.

The IRS said she left out income of $14,433.

How?

Let’s go through it.

Katrina said that her wealth (that is, A – L = W) was as follows when the business failed:                 

Real property		28,500
Personal property		3,560
		32,060
Student loans		5,294
Utilities		961
Utilities, estimated		2,500
Furniture loan		1,120
Judgements		8,128
Bank loan		14,433
Lease breach		21,700
Family loan		7,800
		61,936
Net wealth		(29,876)

The IRS wasn’t buying this. They argued that:

·      The estimated utilities were a no go.

·      The family loan wasn’t really a “loan.”

·      While we are at it, the lease breach wasn’t really a loan, as the landlord had no intention of enforcing the debt.

The IRS math was as follows:

Real property		28,500
Personal property		3,560
		32,060
Student loans		5,294
Utilities		961
Furniture loan		1,120
Judgements		8,128
Bank loan		14,433
		29,936
Net wealth		2,124

The matter went to Tax Court.

The Court pointed out the obvious: Katrina signed a valid and binding lease contract. Perhaps the landlord decided that there was nothing there to pursue, but it cannot be argued that she had an enforceable debt.

The Court saw the following:

Real property		28,500
Personal property		3,560
		32,060
Student loans		5,294
Utilities		961
Furniture loan		1,120
Judgements		8,128
Bank loan		14,433
Lease breach		21,700
		51,636
Net wealth		(19,576)

Let’s recap our numbers:

Wealth per Katrina was          ($29,876)

Wealth per the IRS was              $2,124

Wealth per the Court was        ($19,576)

Remember what we said at the beginning, that all income is taxable unless there is an exception?  Well, there is an exception for cancellation of debt. Several, in fact, but today we are concerned with only one: insolvency. The Code says that one does not have income to the extent that one is insolvent.

What is insolvency?

Go back to the formula: A – L = W.

To the extent that “W” is negative, one is insolvent. Another way of saying it is that one has more debts than assets.

So, who showed negative “W”?

Well, Katrina did. So did the Court.

Katrina was insolvent. That was an exception to cancellation of indebtedness income. Katrina did not have taxable income. The IRS lost.

Our case this time was Katrina White v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2023.-77.