This is why we blog: another “net disability exclusion” story


 

 

A reader writes:

Sir,  your post on “IRS Denies Military Retirement Net Disability Exclusion” could not have been more timely. I am a retired warrant officer working for the military, and recently there was an ad in the base newspaper stating “You may be entitled to a refund from the IRS”. It had the typical pitch as you had stated. I had just submitted all the required documents for them to input the data and I just didn’t have a warm and fuzzy feeling about it. So this morning I went on the Web to conduct my own research. Lo & behold I happened to open your article which was very detailed and easy to understand. I sent the tax consultant your website and pulled my documents. I also notified several retirees (who have already processed their paperwork) to let them know about the problems that you had stated. It is now my intent to send this info to the base newspaper to see if they can run an article for veterans to be aware of this issue.

Thank you for posting this! I’ll always remember that if things sound too good to be true then more than likely they’re not true.

Case in point,

I’ve watched the search results for that post, and it’s been climbing rapidly up the rankings. In less than two weeks it’s already on Google’s first page for the phrase “net disability exclusion”, and it’s at the top of the second page for the unquoted phrase . I hope this followup post helps spread the word– again.

Here’s another link from a 2010 MOAA article by CFP Shane Ostrom that explains the issue in a different way. The net disability exclusion applies to a service-rated disability (and a disability retirement from that service). It does not apply to military retirements based on years of service for veterans who may also have a disability rating from the VA. A service-rated disability is different from a VA disability rating. They’re covered under different sections of the tax code, and the tax benefit can only be taken once.

If you have a VA disability rating then your tax benefit comes from the reduced taxable pension amount on your DFAS 1099-R. You’re only eligible to claim “net disability exclusion” benefits for your disability rating if your service retired you for a medical disability which rendered you unfit for duty.

There’s another situation where you may have to file an amended tax return. (This also adds more confusion to the issue.) If you retired from the military (based on years of service) and the VA later approved your application for a disability rating, then you’re entitled to claim that deduction on the military retirement payments you’ve already received before your VA rating was approved. You do that by filing an amended tax return for the previous years of retirement. You may also have to correct your 1099-R for the current tax year, because it takes a while for the VA to notify DFAS of your disability rating. In future tax years, the DFAS 1099-R will already reflect the VA disability rating and you won’t have to revise your numbers.

Clear? Not so much. Unfortunately it’s all in the tax code, which admittedly is a difficult read. To make this situation even more confusing, the IRS has been slow to catch up with the rising number of tax returns incorrectly claiming this exclusion. This has given the (also incorrect) impression that the exclusion was approved by the IRS. Even more unfortunately for those military retirees who have recently filed for the exclusion, the IRS is now well aware of the mistake and has programmed their computers to flag it. If you inappropriately claimed this exclusion for tax year 2011 then the IRS has probably already notified you.

Getting back to the title of this post: this is why we blog. This is why we wrote the book. We’re sharing what we’ve learned about financial independence, and we’re trying to help others avoid the pitfalls.

If your base newspaper has been running an ad for the net disability exclusion, then please let them know that I’ll be happy to talk with them about the issue. If you’re seeing this advertising on Oahu, then I’ll contact them.

 

Related articles:
IRS denies military retirement “net disability exclusion”
MOAA’s “Tax Season Brings Out the Wild Emails”

 

Does this post help?

Sign up for more free tips on financial independence and military retirement by e-mail, Facebook, or Twitter!

Posted in Entrepreneurship | Leave a comment

Book review: “Abundance”


 

 

 

Did you ever read a book that makes you feel as if your head’s going to explode from all the new concepts? I don’t mean the U.S. Navy’s S5W Reactor Plant Manual, but Joe Dominguez’ “Your Money or Your Life” certainly qualifies.

I’d like to thank my friend John again for sending me a copy of Abundance. He’s an inquisitive Navy retiree who travels and talks with people and learns new things. He could even be mistaken for the stereotypical New England skeptic, as opposed to my stereotypical cynical nuclear engineer. We have somewhat pragmatic expectations of life and have learned to question most of what we read, but this book has filled both of us with optimism for the future of the human race and our environment.

It’s written by Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler. The first is the founder of the X Prize foundation and the second is a science journalist. They’ve both done well for themselves and the royalties probably won’t make a significant difference in their lives. I think they’re both mature enough to have stopped chasing the limelight, too. It’s possible that they’ve written this book solely to spread the word so that more people will get interested in these projects.

The book’s been out for a few months and it’s a bestseller, so you can find a copy at your local library. (John, I’m passing your copy on to my daughter!) While you’re on the library’s waiting list you can download the first chapter on the book’s website. You might keep coming back to these to check the authors’ predictions, though, so in my opinion it’s even worth (*gasp*) buying a copy.

Diamandis & Kotler reaffirm all the media’s scary facts about today’s world population, environmental abuses, Third World poverty, and lack of resources. But then they go on to claim that there’s plenty for everyone if we can just figure out how to obtain it more efficiently.

They use the analogy of aluminum. In the early 1800s, the metal was so difficult to obtain that it was more valuable than gold. (Napoleon III once threw a dinner party using gold utensils, but he reserved aluminum utensils for his VIP guests.) Chemists began figuring out extraction methods soon after that but the process was difficult enough to keep the price high.

Ironically, aluminum is the third-most common element in the earth’s crust, after oxygen and silicon. However, it has a strong affinity for the latter two and is almost always present as bauxite, a clay-like compound of the three elements. Aluminum may have been common, but it wasn’t easy to separate from bauxite.

By the mid-1800s, cumbersome chemical processes had raised the extraction yield enough to drop aluminum’s price by 90%. However, it was still expensive and in very short supply. By the late 1800s, though, these complicated chemical extraction methods had been set aside in favor of the new high-tech process of electrolysis. Industrial electrolysis quickly scaled up to make aluminum so abundant that it had almost no value.

Diamandis and Kotler apply this analogy to nearly every other natural resource and technology that’s currently regarded as too scarce or too difficult. A modern analogy is energy. In the late 1990s oil cost roughly $10-$20 per barrel, and analysts forecast years of low prices. Yet only a decade later, during the Great Recession, oil surged to over $140/barrel and even today remains over $100/barrel. In the meantime, however, natural gas discoveries and extraction methods have dropped those prices enough that utilities are retooling electrical generation plants to use natural gas instead of oil. Natural gas is so cheap that even coal shipments have dropped.

These three hydrocarbon fuels are the obsessive focus of most of today’s extraction and power-generation industry (and its apparently unpredictable economics). Meanwhile the amount of sunlight falling on the earth’s surface is roughly 5000 time greater than the worldwide power that’s extracted from oil, natural gas, and coal combined. A century of infrastructure has been bought & built to pay for “conventional” energy generation, and the industries are rightfully striving to extract every penny of revenue from their capital investments. However, the prices of photovoltaic panels have dropped over 70% in the last three years. What if these miners, drillers, and refiners are spending all their time and money to pursue the wrong resource? What if the utility companies could invest in modern electrical grids to handle a web of PV power production instead of the existing huge funnel of generation & distribution? Instead of spending gazillions of dollars on utility plants (and charging customers for the funding to build new ones), why not subsidize their customers’ own generation systems that will save money for both the customers and the producers?

Water is another example– over 95% of it is salty. Instead of depleting the fresh-water aquifers with deeper wells, perhaps it makes more sense to recycle what we have and to desalinate the rest of our needs. We’ve been drilling bigger & deeper wells for millennia instead of redirecting our efforts into different extraction methods. We haven’t even begun to tap the ocean’s potential, and in Hawaii I’m keenly aware of the ocean’s potential.

Better tech is also closer than we think. Over the last five decades, computing power and electronics have improved at an exponential rate. It’s not just progress like Moore’s Law— or comparing a 1980s desktop PC to an iPhone 4S— but dozens of other technologies from materials science to medical diagnosis to vaccines. Computing power is a common example but Dean Kamen’s “Slingshot” water purifier also shows how decades of engineering development will make clean water cheap for everyone. Ironically of the world’s largest water sellers, Coca-Cola, is partnering with Kamen on production. Coke is a pretty pragmatic corporation itself, so maybe Kamen is on to something.

The “problem” with this exponential rate of progress is that we humans have trouble perceiving it and projecting its potential. Psychologists have shown for decades that human brains and senses aren’t equipped to deal with our own achievements, let alone our future. We tend to extrapolate linearly instead of exponentially, and we leap to conclusions with heuristics instead of through analysis. Our senses and our brains even find patterns where none exist, and those patterns aren’t graphed on exponential axes. The future is accelerating and new achievements are closer than we think, but it’s difficult for us to perceive the rate of change. Our brains are already struggling to cope with these concepts, but we’re also overwhelmed with negative (even hysterical) media images and a bias for projecting existing problems far into the future. However, the solutions are at hand, and they’re going to continue to surprise us with their results.

The authors go on for over 350 pages of projects, accomplishments, and predictions (with end notes and other documentation). If your brain is afflicted with TL;DR then watch the 15-minute TED video. Some of the projects are still in the concept stage or require extensive integration of existing tech, while other systems are well on their way to becoming as cheap as aluminum. Even more interesting is that the economics of collaboration and development are also becoming as cheap as aluminum. The Internet has put information into the hands of African farmers to boost their standard of living out of the 19th century, and it’s also greatly reduced the cost of innovation. Financial independence is at hand for much of the world, not just the 1%.

I could blather on for another thousand words myself, but I think you get the point. Read the book. It’s not only fascinating, but it’ll also fill you with hope.

 

Related articles:
Book review: “You Are NOT So Smart.”
Book review: “All The Money In The World”
Book review: “The Mindset List”

 

Does this post help?

Sign up for more free tips on financial independence and military retirement by e-mail, Facebook, or Twitter!

Posted in Reviews | 5 Comments

IRS Denies Military Retirement “Net Disability Exclusion”


One of the book’s contributors alerted me to this problem. Some military retirees (or their tax preparers) are incorrectly applying the net disability exclusion to their pensions. This error has floated around the Internet since at least 1999 and it’s already introduced a number of veterans to their friendly IRS tax auditors.

Here’s a typical pitch from one of the websites helping to “spread the word” about the net disability exclusion:

The Veteran’s Tax Package, if you qualify, is a calculation that allows the taxpayer to receive an additional tax refund on amended returns with both the Internal Revenue and state taxing authorities. If you have a disability rating that has been confirmed by letter from the Veteran’s Administration and/or receive retired military pay from any branch in the military and pay taxes each year due to a high tax liability you more than likely qualify. This process is known as the Net Disability Exclusion per the Internal Revenue Code 1.122-1.

Note that tricky “if you qualify” disclaimer.

There’s also an official-looking PDF being spread by e-mail, with “instructions” on how to “calculate” the exclusion:

NET DISABILITY EXCLUSION OF MILITARY RETIRED PAY FOR FEDERAL AND STATE INCOME TAX

The QUALIFICATIONS – (1) receiving retired pay from one of the military services based on either length of service and/or medical disability: (2) waiving part of one’s retirement pay in order to receive VA disability for a service-connected disability; and/or) waiving/withholding additional retirement pay to pay for Survival Benefit Plan premiums. FYI – The ability to amend based on this regulation ceases for the tax year that the retiree becomes 65, but you can still file for those years up to your 65th birthday.

AUTHORITY – NET DISABILITY EXCLUSION COMPUTED UNDER TREASURY REGULATION 1.122-1(d).

THE COMPUTATION – Take your taxable retired income per the 1099R (for the tax year involved), and the amount of retired pay you waived in order to receive VA compensation for a service-connected disability, and then add any amounts that were withheld for SBP payments. The sum of this computation is your gross retired pay (GRP) for that year. Then divide your GRP by the percent of active duty pay (# of years of Title 10 Service times 2.5%) you are entitled to receive as “retired pay.” This computation provides your Adjusted GRP (AGRP) . Next, multiply your AGRP by your percent of VA disability – this provides the amount that should be excluded as disability retired pay (IAW Treasury Reg 1.122-1(d)); then subtract the amount of retired pay actually waived to receive VA disability compensation. The result of this computation is the “Net Disability Exclusion” (NDE) to be entered on Line 1, Column B of your Form 1040X. Now compute the amount of tax owed by referring to the tax tables for the applicable year. Be sure to provide a statement explaining the basis for all your computations (e.g., years of service, VA disability percentage, etc., and cite Treasury Reg 1.122-1(d)).

I’ve been doing my own taxes for over 30 years, and I thought I was pretty good at researching the IRS regulations. I’d never heard of this exclusion before, but I’m not receiving disability benefits and I’m not intimately familiar with VA programs. I thought this was something that had grown out of the wars or other recent changes to veteran’s benefits. Heck, the exclusion’s being promoted with websites and e-mails and PDFs of sample tax returns. Looks like a great deal!

I can completely understand how thousands of military retirees would claim this exclusion. However, most of them would be wrong.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of military retirees are not eligible for the net disability exclusion. This urban legend is based on an incorrect interpretation of a regulation that handles a completely different issue: military retirements due to medical disability rendering the servicemember unfit for duty. That’s different from a retirement based on years of service, even if the military retiree is receiving VA compensation for a service-connected disability.

Some veterans have been (erroneously) claiming this exclusion for several years, which led others to believe that the IRS agrees with the exclusion. It gives this urban legend an extra sheen of credibility, but the reality is that the IRS computers and agents didn’t notice the problem until it became widespread. After inquiries by experienced tax preparers and CPAs, the IRS is now flagging this exclusion. Veterans who have been incorrectly taking the exclusion (some for years) are currently facing audits, back taxes, interest, and penalties.

Let me say that again: the “net disability exclusion” only applies to servicemembers who have been retired for medical disability (unfit for duty), not those who retired for eligibility by years of service.

WARNING: Long tax discussion follows. Read it only if you want to. If you understand that you’re probably not eligible to take the net disability exclusion, then you can stop reading here. If your tax accountant tries to use the net disability exclusion, please refer them to the following text.

DISCLAIMER: I used to read nuclear reactor plant manuals for a living, and I’m a tax geek, but I’m not a CPA. The following section includes links to CPA interpretations of the tax code along with an IRS letter that clarifies the net disability exclusion. If your tax accountant is trying to claim the net disability exclusion then they need to understand these references and your type of military retirement.

I find it very difficult to read the official Income Tax Regulations on the U.S. Government Printing Office website, but here’s a quote from a more user-friendly format of 1.122-1(d):

(d) Examples with respect to the Retired Serviceman’s Family Protection Plan. The rules discussed in this section relating to the Retired Serviceman’s Family Protection Plan (10 U.S.C. 1431) may be illustrated by the following examples:

Hmm. I suspect that some of you younger readers are wondering what the heck a “Retired Serviceman’s Family Protection Plan” is.

It turns out that this tax regulation promulgates rules for reducing the taxable amount of military retired pay when receiving disability benefits and when paying for survivor benefits insurance. The RSFPP is a predecessor of today’s Survivor Benefits Program, and the regulation allowed military retirees to exclude the premiums paid for those programs from their taxable income. This situation occurred around 1966, over 50 years ago.

The first three examples of 1.122-1(d) contain scenarios for figuring out how much income could be excluded for paying RSFPP or SBP premiums. This is the regulation that allows military retirees to exclude these premiums from their taxable income, but today the Defense Finance and Accounting Service already takes care of that exclusion on the retiree 1099-R tax form. Another discussion of this situation is in this January 2012 article of the Enrolled Agent Journal.

A separate situation of those first three examples applies when a servicemember retires from the military and files a disability claim with the VA. As thousands of veterans are all too keenly aware, VA determination of a claim can take more than two years before awarding compensation retroactive to the date of eligibility. The problem is that a military retiree has already paid taxes on that portion of their pension which has now been replaced by tax-free VA compensation.

In that situation, military retirees file amended tax returns for the earlier years in which their VA compensation was retroactively awarded. The amendment reduces their retired pay by the amount of the compensation, which reduces their taxable income and entitles them to a refund of the taxes they paid. For the current tax year (where DFAS has already paid some pension that would be incorrectly taxed) the retiree reduces the amount of their retired pay by the VA compensation and includes a copy of the VA disability award letter. In future tax years, the DFAS 1099-R will report the correct amount of retired pay which has been reduced by VA disability compensation. This was a one-time correction, and no further exclusions are made. More details are explained in this Military.com article by Tom Philpott, including guidance from MOAA’s Steve Strobridge.

However, the next three examples of 1.122-1(d) cover a different scenario: military retirement because of disability (unfit for duty) rather than eligibility by years of service. In this situation (which applies to very few military retirees) a veteran’s retired pay can be calculated by either percentage of disability or by years of service. Some of this pay can be excluded under Tax Regulations 104(a)(4) and 105(d) permitted by Title 10 Section 1403 of the U.S. Code.

In other words, these IRS regulations cover disability retirements when the servicemember is unfit for duty. That’s what the IRS means by “net disability exclusion”. Examples (4)-(6) do not apply to military retirees who retired under eligibility by years of service and have waived a portion of their retirement pay to receive the VA’s disability compensation. They only apply to military disability retirements.

However, the last three examples of 1.122-1(d) just mention sections 104(a)(4) and 105(d) of the tax regulations without any further explanation. It’s easy to overlook those caveats and to only focus on the bottom line that allows a big fat net disability exclusion. As the improper use of this exclusion began to spread, at least one CPA pointed out that many net disability exclusions were based on an incorrect interpretation of a memorandum issued by the IRS Chief Counsel in 1999. The IRS letter was promulgated after a query for assistance was submitted to clarify the issue.

The question submitted to the IRS was:

… a taxpayer retired from the armed forces and receives military retired pay based on years of service from the Department of Defense (DOD). The taxpayer was not retired for disability but subsequently applied to the Veterans Administration (VA) for disability benefits under Title 38 of the U.S. Code. The VA determined that the taxpayer had a 10% disability and he elected to waive his DOD years of service retirement benefits to the extent of his VA benefits so that he could receive the VA benefits tax free. The taxpayer also elected to reduce his DOD retirement under the Survivor Benefit Plan.

The IRS letter clarifies the net disability exclusion:

… the taxpayer in the instant case was retired for years of service, not for disability. No part of his retired pay was “received for personal injury or sickness” as required under section 104(a)(4)1.

… Unlike the taxpayer in Example (4) [of Treasury Reg 1.122-1(d)], however, his gross retired pay should not be further reduced under section 104(a)(4) because it was not “received for personal injury or sickness,” a prerequisite to that exclusion. Moreover, to the extent sections 104(b)(2)(D) and 104(b)(4) may create an exception for amounts previously received as service retirement (which correspond to the VA disability payments), the exception would not be applicable in this case because the taxpayer filed a waiver equal to the amount of his VA compensation. Because the taxpayer has already reduced his taxable retired pay by the amount of the VA benefits, he should not be entitled to a second exclusion of 10% of his base pay under section 104(a)(4) on account of the same VA disability determination.

So what happens if you improperly claim the net disability exclusion? Here’s what the IRS and the state of California are doing to one retiree:

My 2005 thru 2010 net disability exclusion (NDE) requests were previously approved and refunds awarded. But now the IRS has determined they want over $15,000 … returned to them. Not only this, because most states accept/enforce IRS policy, my state (CA) now wants back $5000 based on IRS NDE denial.

If you’ve taken the net disability exclusion in the past and you now realize that you aren’t eligible, then you’re already subject to paying those back taxes. The IRS will eventually catch up to you and expect you to pay all those years of accumulated penalties and interest. If you delay correcting the mistake then you’ll only end up paying more money. Seek professional help from a tax preparer or CPA who’s familiar with military retirements and disability compensation. Take them through this post and its links, and then file amended returns for all of the years in which you improperly took the exclusion.

Don’t get suckered by this military version of an urban legend. The “net disability exclusion” does not apply to most military retirees, even if they were told by tax professionals that it seems legitimate.

Related articles:
Military-related tax links
Survivor Benefit Plan

Posted in Money Management & Personal Finance | 7 Comments

Book review: “You Are NOT So Smart.”


 

 

 

 

After you’ve spent a few months learning about financial independence, you wonder why people think this is so hard. All you have to do is track your expenses, create a spending plan, save money, invest in a diversified portfolio of low-cost index funds, and rebalance once in a while until you reach your goal. Easy!

But then the little problems start popping up. You’re not saving as much money as you thought. You feel like you’ve cut enough spending, and you “can’t” earn more. How can you save if you can’t earn more? You’re always running out of money before the next payday. You know you need a plan, but you just can’t get started. You had a bad day and you “deserve” to treat yourself to something nice. You can’t decide what to invest in, let alone choose the allocations to use for assets. The financial markets terrify you. It seems like everybody but you is getting rich from stocks. You really like a company’s products, but its stock keeps going down. Your brother-in-law makes you feel stupid at family gatherings for not investing in ostrich farms. You know you’re supposed to rebalance and sell some of your Apple stock, but it keeps going up. It seems as if everybody but you has new cars, nice houses, and fancy vacations. Financial independence probably isn’t all it’s hyped up to be, anyhow. Besides, if you retired early then what would you do all day?!?

Welcome to the fields of behavioral economics and investor psychology. While you’re planning to save and invest, your emotional side is comparing your status to everyone else around you and feeling bad about it. You suffer the pain of a loss much more strongly than you feel the pleasure of a gain, and that feeling of pleasure lasts for a much shorter time than the pain. You have trouble perceiving the person you’ll become in the future, so you tend to favor enjoying yourself in the present.

What in the world is going on here? What’s wrong with us?

It turns out that humans have evolved much more slowly than the technology and the environment that we’ve created for ourselves. As we sit at our computers with a cup of coffee, our brains are more highly optimized to scan the Serengeti Plain and work with the rest of our tribe to bring down an antelope while avoiding predators. We’ve created a whole internal library of survival routines based on speed and reflexes, not so much on thinking. We’ve also developed a set of procreation routines that quickly figure out our relative social position in our tribe and optimize our chances of passing on our genes. Then after a few years of parenting, well… we’ve pretty much outlived our utility to society.

We can’t force our brains to develop to the same degree as the 21st-century Internet. But we can be more aware of our shortcomings, and the repeated doses of humility couldn’t hurt either.

You Are Not So Smart” was published in late 2011. It’s based on the blog posts of writer David McRaney, a journalist who’s fascinated by psychology. He started the blog in late 2009 because he’d been doing a lot of television work and he missed good ol’ fashioned writing. Each post takes hours of research, verification, documentation, and… hard-core descriptive writing. After more than two years, the blog is only a couple dozen posts. It created a media buzz, though, and the publishing industry has learned to keep an eye on the blogosphere. Eventually an agent connected McRaney with an editor.

The book is 48 short essays describing different psychological “issues” that researchers have discovered with the way we perceive our world. Not all of the blog made it into the book, and the book has far more new material that’s not on the blog– so read them both. I recommend subscribing to the blog with an RSS feed and meanwhile reading its older posts every week or so. It’s a lot of material, it’s going to mess with your head, and it’s going to change the way you see your world. It’s all good.

As you learn how not-so-smart we really are, you wonder how we survived to adulthood. The reality is that our brains work very hard to make patterns of our perceptions and to draw conclusions from our experiences. Whether any of it makes sense to begin with is a problem for the philosophers and the priests, but our brains merrily keep writing a script that may or may not resemble the facts.

Most of our thoughts and our actions are still driven by emotional reflexes. We’re especially good at seeing patterns and making fast judgments. When we’re strolling in the woods and our eyes notice that a bush appears to have a tiger hiding in it, our senses and the primitive segments of our brains are sounding the alarm and flooding our bodies with chemicals. We know that these woods don’t have any tigers (well, not since the morning newspaper, anyway– how’s the zoo?) but logic is no help right now. We survived by seeking the worst case in every situation and then making a snap decision to fight or flee. Sure, you look pretty silly if you jump away from an oleander bush in the local park, but your brain is rewarding itself for saving your life. If your highly logical cerebral cortex had halted your walk to stare at the bush until you’d parsed out its features, perhaps poking around in it a little to test your analysis, then you’d be tiger food.

Unfortunately for our potential powers of logic and analysis, the primitive parts of our brain do this all the time. We notice a few features of a situation or a few aspects of a problem, we create a pattern, and we quickly leap to conclusions. These heuristics dramatically speed up our processing and our actions, and they still might save our lives if there really was a tiger in that bush, but otherwise they’re just plain wrong.

Wrong? No problem, we’ll change our memories! When we make mistakes, we keep re-writing our internal script to boost our morale. In prehistoric times the sad, introspective guys never got the hot chicks. They died without passing on their DNA. The rest of us evolved to fool ourselves into procreating and evolving our morale-boosting genes. When we realize that we’ve missed something, or that we formed the wrong conclusion, our brains literally change our own memories of those events to make them seem less “wrong” than they actually were.

Yeah, I know, you’re skeptical. Yet experiment after experiment has demonstrated this in the lab, and now medical researchers can see the effect taking place during real-time MRI scans. Your memory really is partly fiction, but you feel pretty good about it and you’re looking forward to editing experiencing those new memories.

So how in the world can we save for financial independence when our prehistoric brains keep getting in the way?

Self-awareness is the first step. “You Are Not So Smart” can’t keep us from behaving the way we’ve evolved to behave, but it can make us more alert to our flaws. Instead of being paralyzed by investment choices and decision fatigue, you’ll learn how to make one or two important decisions and then put those plans on autopilot. Instead of believing the illusion of control, you’ll learn to optimize the few aspects of investing that you really can control. Instead of avoiding all of the risks (and missing out on the rewards), you’ll learn how to design a portfolio that’s able to minimize losses while maximizing returns. Then you’ll figure out what rules you want to follow in your system and you’ll stop agonizing over the decisions. You’ll also learn how to assess your progress and feel good about it, even if you have to give yourself a pep talk once in a while. Sometimes re-writing the script to change your view of the world is a good thing.

Best of all, the book will make you humble about your actual capabilities. You have never perceived your own tragic flaws so clearly, and you’ll learn how to compensate for their effects. You’ll develop a little inner voice to help you question your instinctive responses to life’s situations, and you’ll stop being so hard on yourself for making all those mistakes. In fact, this book will give you the tools to do an even better job of rewriting the script of your life! At least you’ll recognize what’s happening and (hopefully) intercede before it’s too late. Or you’ll keep trying again until you get it right.

Does this really work? You bet: the U.S. Navy’s submarine force is living proof. We train and drill relentlessly, often far past the point of diminishing returns. Whenever mistakes are made at operating a sub’s nuclear reactor, submariners are unhappy experts at sitting down and talking it out in an “incident critique”. We have to, because we’re required to explain to the four-star admiral at Naval Reactors exactly what happened and how we’re going to make sure it doesn’t happen again. (We’re responsible for delivering the bad news before someone else discovers it.) NR has read a lot of those letters over the last 60 years, and they can sense delusional thinking a mile away. “Gee, something must’ve broken” just doesn’t cut it. We have to “identify the root cause of the incident”, and “material failure” is only running at about 5% in the NR database. “Operator error”, however, is way up there in the 80%-90% range. The nuclear inspectors visit subs every year (sometimes more often) to review all of their records (comparing them to the rulebooks) and to watch them run their training. The inspectors don’t even attempt to tell the crew why they’re screwed up or how to fix their program. They just dispassionately record the deficiencies and estimate where that crew ranks compared to the rest of the force. Then they let the commanding officer figure out the “why” and “how” of the corrections.

Brutal? It’s the most humbling experience you could ever have. Effective? Judge for yourself. There hasn’t been an SL-1 reactor accident or a Fukushima or a Chernobyl, not even a Three Mile Island, in the submarine force yet. There have been many mistakes and a few close calls, but (so far) we’ve been able to engineer the designs for safety and redundancy while making sure that we’re not fooling ourselves too badly. We’ve also learned that Murphy’s Law works overtime in our lives, and we try to give ourselves plenty of room for mistakes. We’ve trained ourselves to seek criticism (even to enjoy it) and to question nearly everything we do.

Heck, somebody at Naval Reactors is probably reading McRaney’s book right now and taking notes.  I’m glad I’m out of uniform.

But nukes are all too human. We still eat too much of the wrong kinds of food, and we don’t exercise enough. We put too much pressure on ourselves and we misbehave in lots of other ways. (Just ask my spouse or my daughter.) The difference is that we’re hyper-aware of it, even if we’re not fixing our behavior or the problems that lead to it.

I don’t know as much about the other military services, but I bet there’s a similar practice/critique cycle at work in all of them. Aviators and infantry would go extinct pretty quickly if they didn’t figure out how they’re fooling themselves and learn how to modify their behavior.

If you’re a servicemember or a veteran (or if you live with one) then you can apply those same skills in your personal life. You’ve seen it in training and operations. You’ve experienced it, and maybe you were even in charge of executing the program. You can figure out how to make it work for you in your career, your investments, and your goal of financial independence. “You Are Not So Smart” will show you the flaws and give you the tools to cope with them.

Oh, and those six-pack abs you’ve always wished for? If you don’t have them yet, then this book will show you why it’s all your fault. You’re going to have to re-write your own script to start exercising more and eating better food. The good news is that you can start today, and you can try as many times as you need to get it right.

Related articles:
“You Are Not So Smart”: Coffee
Book review: “All The Money In The World”
Book review: Stop Acting Rich
Book Review: Liz Weston’s “The 10 Commandments of Money”
Book review: Leaving the military for “The Corner Office”

Does this post help?

Sign up for more free tips on financial independence and military retirement by e-mail, Facebook, or Twitter!

Posted in Reviews | 1 Comment

Forensic Geriatric Finances


Today’s post revisits the subject of caring for the financial independence of your loved ones. There’s nothing here about military retirement, but I’m very glad that our aggressive savings and low-cost lifestyle have enabled us to retire from military service without a bridge career. As all too many of us Baby Boomers are finding out, eldercare can be its own full-time job.

It’s been 16 months since my Dad has moved into his care facility. His Alzheimer’s symptoms reached mid-stage and he could no longer live independently. My brother (the guardian) and I (conservator) have spent most of that time pursuing guardian & conservator appointments, shutting down Dad’s apartment, figuring out his finances, and getting caught up on old business. (See the other links at the bottom of this post.) In the middle of that we shifted our focus to dealing with multiple myeloma and chemotherapy. It looks like things are finally settling down. Dad’s happy, the oncologist is in “wait and see” mode, and I have Dad’s finances almost where they should be.

So last month I started going through a three-foot stack of his files. 16 months ago (while Dad was in the hospital) I’d given his file drawers (a ten-foot stack) a quick once-over and pulled out the most important ones. I threw out about five feet of 20th-century stock analysis and spreadsheets. I boxed up the rest of the files for “later”, and now I’m going through them page by page. Luckily half of the box turned out to be all of Dad’s tax returns dating back to 1953– including supporting documentation. Most of those folders hadn’t been touched in decades.

These “less important” history files turned out to be more important than I thought. They had fascinating names like “Old Medicare receipts”, but they also had mis-filed papers. It never occurred to me that my father would make mistakes with his incredibly neat filing system.

Dad’s an electrical engineer, and he handled Alzheimer’s for nearly three years of independence with rigorous calendars & checklists. Even though these days he wakes up disoriented every morning, his wall calendar catches his eye and he reads his note to himself about where he is and what’s happening that day. It’s sort of a short-term memory re-boot… every morning. So I thought he’d been filing his papers in the right places, but that must have stopped soon after the Alzheimer’s got started. I guess that’s another one of my conservator’s blind spots.

One of the papers is a note on an osteopath’s stationery dated June 2009. Dad was probably referred by his primary doctor during his treatment for high blood pressure. The osteopath’s note covered all sorts of dementia causes and advised various things to do (or avoid). The doctor said that dementia is particularly difficult to diagnose in high-functioning people (that’s my Dad), and the doc wanted to do followup tests. Dad made his own notes on the osteopath’s diagnosis, and then added a memo to make another appointment in September 2009. But it was filed in the wrong folder, and I bet Dad either forgot about it or decided that he was tired of being a “lab rat”. We know that a couple of months later Dad wrote us letters that he could no longer use his computer, and that news started our countdown timer on his independent living. If he’d filed the osteopath’s note in the right place then he might have started treatment with Aricept or Namenda. But he didn’t. We never knew about it.

Another mis-filed form in the Medicare folder is a blood test from April 2010. The lab noted that his white & red blood cell counts were low along with his platelets. The memo asked Dad to come in for more tests, but there’s no evidence that he ever did. I don’t know whether this test was showing signs of multiple myeloma way back in early 2010, over a year before Dad was diagnosed with it. But the tests might have reflected lab errors or malnutrition instead of myeloma. I forwarded the lab results to his oncologist.

Most disturbing of all was a mis-filed form from his Medicare supplemental insurance company… for life insurance.

Dad’s Medicare supplemental insurance (“Medigap”) policy comes from a branch of Bankers Life and Casualty in his old town. Dad’s “Old Medicare receipts” folder had a bunch of letters from various agents over the years, introducing themselves or turning Dad’s Medigap business over to a new agent. Then in March 2010, an agent sent Dad a “Life Insurance Buyer’s Guide” pamphlet with an application. I can’t tell whether Dad started the conversation or whether the agent contacted him first, but somebody (other than Dad) actually filled out his application for a $92K life insurance policy.

The application’s not accurate or complete, but it named us sons as beneficiaries. It was signed by Dad and witnessed by two agents. It has a policy number and it’s listed as “Single premium whole life insurance”. The application summary printout said it cost $67,636.94 to obtain $92,380 of coverage.

You might say that I became a bit agitated. By March 2010 Dad was showing clear signs of Alzheimer’s as witnessed by two doctors (and us two sons). However, even a year later he was still carrying on social conversations with lawyers who thought he was competent, and he actually passed two mini-mental state exams with flying colors. So I could believe that his social skills made him seem competent… especially to an insurance agent seeking a big commission.

But $67K?!? That’s not a premium, that’s fraud. I searched all over Dad’s records for large withdrawals or mutual fund sales to pay that fee, and I couldn’t find a thing.

So I wrote to the insurance agent, included my conservator’s appointment letter, and asked for more information about the policy.

The original agent was no longer at that branch, but a different agent wrote back with new one-page computer summary. It turns out that the premium was actually $6763.69. (So for a while I had no idea where the “$67,636.94” came from.) The coverage was still the same. The policy was paid up with that single premium, so I only learned about it by finding the application in his medical file. I never would have received any other bills or correspondence from Bankers Life.

It’s hard to prove that anybody took advantage of Dad. If anyone is getting ripped off, it’s the insurance company. Dad could’ve bluffed his way through the whole application, especially if they filled it out for him. Even if the insurance agents were taking advantage of Dad for a commission, I think it’d be impossible to make a legal case out of it. The last thing I’d want to do is hire another lawyer, and even if Dad did get cajoled into spending over $6700 then eventually his estate is going to collect $92K.

However, I still couldn’t find any record of that $6763.69 payment. My remaining worry was that the money to pay the premium might have come from a bank or a brokerage account that I hadn’t found yet. Or even worse, what if it came from a safe deposit box? Dad’s financial files had looked pretty accurate until I started going through them one page at a time. What if he’d started opening new accounts, forgotten about them, and mis-filed the paperwork– or never filed it at all?!?

So I shared my concerns with the agent and asked whether they had any record of how Dad had paid for the policy. The mystery payment cleared up pretty quickly once the mail got back to Hawaii: the new life insurance policy was bought from a 1035 exchange of old whole-life policies.

Over four decades ago, Dad purchased four separate whole-life policies on my brother and me. (The first I learned about this was in March 2011 when Dad was in the hospital. I found the policies in his “In case of death” files.) I don’t know much about life insurance– I’ve only ever had military term life insurance and I don’t carry any today. The 1960s company was “State Mutual Life Assurance”, which eventually morphed into “First Allmerica Financial”.

However, we know how that whole life insurance turned out. From Dad’s files, in the late 1970s the dividends began to fall short of the premiums and Dad let the difference accrue as loans against the cash value. In the ’80s the tax laws changed (the interest on the loans was no longer tax-deductible) so Dad paid in more money to keep the policies current. He had four thick files of correspondence with SMA/Allmerica asking every year for more money to pay the premiums, Dad grudgingly paying the extra, and both sides bickering over the cash value. It takes a lot to get my Dad upset, but judging from his letters this company succeeded more than once.

Over the years the four policies grew to a total cash value of about $65K and an insured value of just over $98K. By 2010 (when he did the 1035 exchange) I’d already achieved financial independence. My brother is close too, so I’m not sure how Dad felt about keeping these policies going. My opinion is that neither of us sons needed Dad’s life insurance, but Dad didn’t talk about it with us.

We still don’t know who started the conversation in 2010, and that insurance agent has moved on so we may never know. However, interest rates were still dropping and the old policies may have needed more paid-in premiums, so I bet Dad was pretty happy to do a 1035. The application listed their cash value at $67,636.94 (I recognized that number!), and the agent recorded a one-time premium of $6763.69. Their “net surrender value” was a little over $62K and the insured value is now $92K. Those numbers don’t make much math sense, but that’s what’s on the one-page database printout summary.

I don’t know why Dad kept the old policies in force for so long, but I’m sure some of his motive was “sunk costs“. By 2010, as his Alzheimer’s symptoms took hold, I can understand how he’d think a 1035 would solve all his problems. He probably felt that he didn’t need the cash, because by this point he wasn’t even spending his pension. Maybe he wanted my brother and me to have enough money to take care of death expenses. I wish he’d talked about it.

I mailed a query letter to First Allmerica, and they confirmed the 1035 exchange.

Dad’s old tax returns are also a valuable resource for hunting missing assets. I looked through 10 years of 1099s and confirmed that he’d only had one other checking account at another bank. He mentioned in an old letter that he’d closed it in early 2004, so I’m feeling pretty confident that we’ve found all his assets… and this time I really mean it.

His 2010 tax return also included four 1099-Rs from First Allmerica for the 1035 event. None of that was considered taxable.

All this from a sheet of paper in the wrong folder.  At least we had a starting point.

I learned that insurance companies are required to turn over inactive policies to the state in which they were purchased. The National Association of Unclaimed Property Administrators runs a database that links to the state’s websites. I’ve gone through this search several times, along with the Treasury Hunt website for government bonds. We haven’t found anything yet.

The account search paid another unexpected dividend. It’s been 16 months since Dad used either of his credit cards, and both have expired. I have the new cards and I have not activated them, but the accounts are still active. I’ve never needed to do anything with them, so I’ve never looked at them before. When I went through their online account histories looking for a $6763.69 premium charge, I realized that one of the accounts is a Chase “rewards” card with 17,000+ points on it. I clicked on the “Redeem rewards” link and I was able to claim a $150 cash rebate plus a $10 gift certificate.

Another asset-management tip that needs to be added to the conservator’s manual. Somebody should write a book…

 

Related articles:
Book report: “The 36-Hour Day”
Geriatric financial lessons learned
Geriatric financial management update
Geriatric financial management
More on caring for an elder’s finances
Financial lessons learned from caring for an elderly parent

 

Does this post help?

Sign up for more free tips on financial independence and military retirement by e-mail, Facebook, or Twitter!

Posted in Military Life & Family | 2 Comments