Originally published on Passive Activities and Other Oxymorons on January 31st, 2011.
____________________________________________________________________________
John M. Sanders v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2010-279

I’ve mentioned in a previous post that life insurance has some marvelous income tax benefits.  The build-up in value is tax deferred and becomes income tax free if it is paid by reason of the death of the insured.  Life insurance salesmen will sometimes claim it saves estate taxes.  This is a bit of a fallacy.  The estate tax savings come from having the insurance owned outside the decedent’s estate.  Any appreciating asset would produce the same benefit.  Life insurance does have the merit of providing liquidity exactly when it is needed in some estate plans.  It all kind of makes me feel bad for Mr. Sanders who managed to figure out a way to manufacture taxable income for himself without the cash to pay the taxes.

Mr. Sanders had a $25,000 life insurance policy with New York Life.  He paid $31 per month on the policy from 1979 to 2006.  Between 1990 and 2004 he borrowed $7,136 on the policy.  Under the terms of the policy, interest on loans accrued at 8%. In 2006 he received a letter that the loan amount and accumulated interest was $17,203, which was $517 more than the policy’s surrender value.  Unless he paid $517 the policy would be cancelled.  He didn’t pay the $517 so his policy was cancelled.

He received a 1099-R from New York Life showing a distribution of $17,292.  The taxable amount was $7,175.  That is the gross distribution of $17,292 less premiums of $10,117.  Mr. Sanders found the whole thing a little confusing :

Petitioner testified that he disagrees with the taxable amount shown on the Form 1099-R because he “just did the math basically in my head” and he thinks New York Life’s “mathematics are way off.”

The Tax Court didn’t find much merit in his argument.

These vague contentions do not rise to the level of a “reasonable dispute” so as to impose any burden of production on respondent pursuant to section 6201(d). In any event, stipulated documentation of petitioner’s premium and loan history with New York Life corroborates the information reported on the Form 1099-R.

I have a lot of sympathy for Mr. Sanders.  He paid $10,117 to an insurance company.  He drew out $7,136.  It appears coincidental that the amounts are so close, but he ended up being taxed on the entire withdrawal plus $39.  Of course he had the peace of mind that somebody would be getting $25,000 less the outstanding loan balance in the event of his death.  According to standard valuation tables that comfort would be worth less than $25 a year until Mr. Sanders was in his forties.  We can’t tell from the case how old he was when he started the policy so I don’t think I will go any further with that part of the analysis.

A key fact that does not receive much emphasis is:

Between 1990 and 2004 petitioner borrowed $7,136 against the policy. Insofar as he recalls, he used the proceeds for personal purposes.

So the interest that he wasn’t paying was “personal interest” and not deductible.  When he constructively paid it with a deemed distribution of the cash surrender value of his policy, there was not an offsetting deduction.   He had taxable income because he didn’t pay the interest he incurred for borrowing his own money.  Go figure. This was probably not the outcome that Mr. Sanders expected when he started dutifully paying his $31 per month while we were all worrying about the hostages and cursing the Ayatollah.  I hope somebody from New York Life expressed some sympathy.