Important FBAR and International Tax Information For 2012

By Lance Wallach

For individual tax returns (Forms 1040) due to be filed in 2012 (due this year by April 17, 2012, unless extended), the IRS has issued new Form 8938,"Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets," requiring the disclosure of certain foreign accounts and assets.

Whether an individual is required to file this form is complicated, but basically this applies to the following assets if owned in 2011:
Financial accounts   in foreign financial institutions.
Any stock or   securities issued by foreign corporations or entities, any interest in a   foreign partnership, trust or estate, as well as any financial instrument or   contract issued by a foreign person, and foreign pension plans and deferred   compensation arrangements (but not foreign social security).  You are   not, however, required to report foreign assets (1) if the assets are held in   a U.S. brokerage account; (2) if you are required to disclose the asset on   certain other tax form such as Form 3520 or Form 5471; or (3) if such assets   (other than stock) are used in your trade or business.

Whether you have to file Form 8938 depends on the total value of such foreign assets at year end as well as the highest value at any point in the year.  For U.S. citizens and residents filing joint tax returns, you must file Form 8938 if the year-end value of the foreign assets is $100,000 or more or, if the value at any time during the year exceeded $150,000.  On joint returns, all foreign-based assets owned by the spouses are considered in determining these thresholds.  For married spouses filing separately and for unmarried persons, the thresholds are $50,000 (year end) and $75,000 (high value during the year).

There are different rules regarding certain persons who live abroad.  There are also rules regarding valuation of certain assets.  These are spelled out in greater detail in the Form 8938 instructions.

If required, Form 8938 is to be filed with your Federal Income Tax Return (Form 1040).  Currently only individuals having filing requirements must fill out the Form 8938, but it is expected that this will be extended to corporations, partnerships and trusts in the future.

The IRS may impose penalties for failure to file Form 8938 if you lack reasonable cause or willfully neglected to file.  In addition, if you underpay your tax as a result of a transaction involving an undisclosed foreign financial asset, the penalty for such failure may be 40 percent of the underpayment (instead of the normal 20 percent).  In addition, the statute of limitations for assessing tax may be extended if you fail to file the form.

It is important to note that Form 8938 is in addition to the annual Foreign Bank Account Form or "FBAR," which has different filing requirements.  The FBAR,  generally is required if you have ownership or signature authority over one or more foreign bank accounts with a value of over $10,000 on any date in the prior year.  The FBAR is not part of your income tax return, but is filed separately and must be received by the Department of Treasury in Detroit by June 30 (timely mailing does not apply to that form).

Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, financial and estate planning, and abusive tax shelters.  He writes about 412(i), 419, and captive insurance plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually, writes for over fifty publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Public Radio's All Things Considered, and others. Lance has written numerous books including Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams published by John Wiley and Sons, Bisk Education's CPA's Guide to Life Insurance and Federal Estate and Gift Taxation, as well as AICPA best-selling books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots. He does expert witness testimony and has never lost a case. Contact him at 516.938.5007, wallachinc@gmail.com or visit www.taxaudit419.com and www.taxlibrary.us

The information provided herein is not intended as legal, accounting, financial or any type of advice for any specific individual or other entity. You should contact an appropriate professional for any such advice.

412i Tax Shelter Fraud Litigation - How It Works

Lance Wallach

 

PARTIES:

Typically, these transactions will include an Insurance company, accountant, tax attorney, and a promoter (someone with an insurance background, perhaps an actuary, who knows how to structure the policy itself). These groups will use insurance brokerages and sub-agents (licensed in the various states) to sell the policies themselves. 

INSURANCE COMPANIES

AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY® INDIANAPOLIS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY®

HARTFORD LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY® PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY®

 BANKERS LIFE and OTHERS®?

4121iHOW THESE PLANS WORK:

In the late 1990’s, the individuals and groups above devised a scheme to sell abusive tax shelters under the auspices of Section 412(i) of the tax code. A 412(i) is a defined benefit pension plan. It provides specific retirement benefits to participants once they reach retirement and must contain assets sufficient to pay those benefits. A 412(i) plan differs from other defined benefit pension plans in that it must be funded exclusively by the purchase of individual life insurance products. To create a 412(i) plan, there must be a trust to hold the assets. The employer funds the plan by making cash contributions to the trust, and the Code allows the employer to take a tax deduction in the amount of the contributions, i.e. the entire amount.

The trust uses the contributed funds to purchase some combination of life insurance products (insurance or annuities) for the plan. As the plan participants retire, the trust will usually sell the policies for their present cash value and purchase annuities with the proceeds. The revenue stream from the annuities pays the specified retirement benefit to plan participants.

These defendants (with the aid and knowledge of the insurance companies) used the traditional structure and sold life insurance policies with excessively high premiums. The trust then uses the large cash contributions to pay high insurance premiums and the employer takes a deduction for the sum of those large contributions. As you might expect, these policies were designed with excessively high fees or “loads” which provided exorbitant commissions to the insurance companies and the agents who sold the products.

The policies that were sold were termed Springing Cash Value Policies. They had no cash value for the first 5-7 years, after which they had significant cash value. Under this scheme, after 5-7 years, and just before the cash value sprung, the participant purchases the policy from the trust for the policy’s surrender value. In theory, you have a tax free transaction.

The IRS does not recognize the tax benefit of such a plan and has repeatedly issued announcements indicating that such plans are contrary to federal tax laws and regulations.

               

I am not an attorney but I learned some of the above information from attorney’s Mr. Ford’s website.

Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, financial and estate planning, and abusive tax shelters. He writes about 412(i), 419, and captive insurance plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually, writes for over fifty publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Public Radio's All Things Considered, and others. Lance has written numerous books including Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams published by John Wiley and Sons, Bisk Education's CPA's Guide to Life Insurance and Federal Estate and Gift Taxation, as well as AICPA best-selling books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots. He does expert witness testimony and has never lost a case. Contact him at 516.938.5007, wallachinc@gmail.com or visit www.taxaudit419.com and www.taxlibrary.us

The information provided herein is not intended as legal, accounting, financial or any type of advice for any specific individual or other entity. You should contact an appropriate professional for any such advice.

Help With Common Tax Problems

Published in Coatings Pro Magazine

It is tax time. There are many problems you can run into with the IRS. This article is a generalized overview of some of these confusing issues:

• IRS Penalties
• Unfiled Tax Returns
• IRS Liens
• IRS Audits
• Payroll Tax Problems
• IRS Levies
• Wage Garnishments
• IRS Seizures

When dealing with the IRS, it can seem like they have all the power. That is not always true. As a small business owner--and a taxpayer--it is vital that you know your options and your rights.

IRS Penalties

The IRS penalizes millions of taxpayers each year. In fact, they have so many penalties that it can be hard to understand which penalty they are hitting you with.

The most common penalties are Failure to File and Failure to Pay. Both of these penalties can substantially increase the amount you owe the IRS in a very short period of time.

To make matters worse, the IRS charges interest on penalties. Many taxpayers often find out about IRS problems many years after they have occurred. As a result, the amount owed the IRS is substantially greater due to penalties and the accumulated interest on those penalties. Some IRS penalties can be as high as 75% to 100% of the original taxes owed. Often taxpayers can afford to pay the taxes owed, but the extra penalties make it impossible to pay off the entire balance.

The original goal of the IRS imposing penalties was to punish taxpayers in order to keep them in line. Unfortunately, the penalties have turned into additional sources of income for the IRS. So they are happy to add whatever penalties they can and to pile interest on top of those penalties. Your loss is their gain.
It is important to know that under certain circumstances the IRS does abate, or forgive, penalties. Therefore before you pay the IRS any penalty amounts, you may want to consider requesting that the IRS abate your penalties.

Unfiled Tax Returns

Many taxpayers fail to file required tax returns for a variety of reasons. What you must understand is that failure to file tax returns may be construed as a criminal act by the IRS--a criminal act punishable by up to one year in jail for each year not filed. Needless to say, its one thing to owe the IRS money but another thing to potentially lose your freedom for failure to file a tax return.

The IRS may file “SFR” (Substitute For Return) Tax Returns on your behalf. This is the IRS’s version of an unfiled tax return. Because SFR Tax Returns are filed in the best interest of the government, the only deductions you’ll see are standard deductions and one personal exemption. You will not get credit for deductions to which you may be entitled, such as exemptions for a spouse or children, interest on your home mortgage and property taxes, cost of any stock or real estate sales, business expenses, etc.

Remember that regardless of what you have heard, you have the right to file your original tax return, no matter how late it is filed.

IRS Liens

The IRS can make your life miserable by filing Federal Tax Liens on your business or property. Federal Tax Liens are public records indicating that you owe the IRS various taxes. They are filed with the County Clerk in the county from which you or your business operates.

Because they are public records, they will show up on your credit report. This often makes it difficult to obtain financing on an automobile or a home. Federal Tax Liens can also tie up your personal property, meaning that you cannot sell or transfer that property without a clear title.

Often taxpayers find themselves in a Catch-22 in which they have property that they would like to borrow against, but because of the Federal Tax Lien, they cannot get a loan. Should a Federal Tax Lien be filed against you, a CPA can help get it lifted.

IRS Audits

The IRS conducts multiple types of audits. They can audit you by mail, in their offices, in your office or home. The location of the audit is a good indication of the severity.

Typically, Correspondence Audits are conducted to locate missing documents in your tax return that have been flagged by IRS computers. These documents usually include W-2s and 1099 income items or interest expense items. This type of audit can typically be handled through the mail with the correct documentation.

The IRS Office Audit--held in IRS offices--is usually conducted by a Tax Examiner who will request numerous documents and explanations of various deductions. During this type of audit you may be required to produce all bank records for a period of time so that the IRS can check for unreported income.

The IRS Home or Office Audit--held in your home or office--should be taken very seriously as these are conducted by IRS Revenue Agents. Revenue Agents receive more training and learn more auditing techniques than typical Tax Examiners.
Of course, all IRS audits should be taken seriously as they often lead to examinations of other tax years and other tax problems not stated in the original audit letter.

Payroll Tax Problems

The IRS is very aggressive in their collection attempts for past-due payroll taxes. The penalties assessed on delinquent payroll tax deposits or filings can dramatically increase the total amount you owe in just a matter of months.

I believe that it is critical for business owners to have an attorney present in these situations. Your answers to the first five IRS questions may determine whether you stay in business or are liquidated by the IRS. We always advise clients to avoid meeting with any IRS representatives regarding payroll taxes until you have met with a professional to discuss your options.

IRS Levies--Bank and Wage

An IRS Levy is an action taken by the IRS to collect taxes. For example, the IRS can issue a Bank Levy to obtain the cash in your savings and checking accounts. Or, the IRS can levy your wages or accounts receivable. The person, company, or institution that is served with the levy must comply or face its own IRS problems.

When the IRS levies a bank account, the levy can only be honored on the particular day on which the bank receives the levy. The bank is required to remove whatever amount of money is in your account on that day (up to the amount of the IRS Levy) and send it to the IRS within 21 days unless otherwise notified by the IRS. This type of levy does not affect any future deposits made into your bank account unless the IRS issues another Bank Levy.

An IRS Wage Levy is different. Wage Levies are filed with your employer and remain in effect until the IRS notifies the employer that the Wage Levy has been released. Most Wage Levies take so much money from the taxpayer’s paycheck that the taxpayer doesn’t even have enough money remaining to meet basic needs.
Both Bank and Wage Levies create difficult situations and should be avoided if possible.

Wage Garnishments

The IRS Wage Garnishment is a very powerful tool used to collect taxes that you owe through your employer. Once a Wage Garnishment is filed with an employer, the employer is required to collect a large percentage of each paycheck. The funds that would have otherwise been paid to the employee will then be paid to the IRS.
The Wage Garnishment stays in effect until the IRS is fully paid or until the IRS agrees to release the garnishment. Having wages garnished can create other debt problems because the amount left over after the IRS takes its cut is often small, so you may have difficulty with bills and other financial obligations.

IRS Seizures

The IRS has extensive powers when it comes to seizures of assets. These powers allow them to seize personal and business assets to pay off outstanding tax liabilities. Seizures typically occur when taxpayers have been avoiding the IRS.

Similar to levies and garnishments, seizures are one of the IRS’s ultimate invasive collection tools. They can seize cars, television sets, jewelry, computers, collectibles, business equipment, or anything of value, which can be sold in order to acquire the money the IRS wants to pay off your tax debts. If you are facing a seizure, you have a serious problem.

Hopefully this tax season will begin and end without any of these IRS issues coming into play. But if they do, help is out there. CPAs and attorneys can help you negotiate your rights should it become necessary.

The information provided herein is not intended as legal, accounting, financial or any type of advice for any specific individual or other entity. You should contact an appropriate professional for any such advice.

Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, abusive tax shelters, financial, international tax, and estate planning. He writes about 412(i), 419, Section79, FBAR, and captive insurance plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually, writes for over fifty publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Public Radio’s All Things Considered, and others. Lance has written numerous books including Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams published by John Wiley and Sons, Bisk Education’s CPA’s Guide to Life Insurance and Federal Estate and Gift Taxation, as well as the AICPA best-selling books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots. He does expert witness testimony and has never lost a case. Contact him at 516.938.5007, wallachinc@gmail.com or visit www.taxadvisorexpert.com.

Meltdown

Published by John Wiley & Sons
Lance Wallach

Muhammad Ali: Superman don’t need no seat belt.

Flight Attendant: Superman don’t need no plane, neither.
The U.S. financial system meltdown has grimly scythed decades of accumulated business profit, investment, and personal wealth. As we have seen, investors undervalued their own rationality and overvalued chaotic wealth management schemes masquerading as complex asset management in a global economy. Investors dumped business earnings, pension assets, and personal funds into investment portfolios without due diligence as to the logic and structural soundness of those investments and their strategic economic orientation.
Counterintuitively, many wealthy investors and business owners took leaps of faith with hard-won assets into complex investment schemes they didn’t understand because returns were bountiful. The hard work processes by which investors grew their businesses or their wealth did not seem to apply to strategically marketed programs devised by Wall Street wizards. “The wizards must be smarter and more inventive” was the mantra. It was an era where not paying attention yielded robust earnings.
The Party’s Over
The charlatans have now been revealed and returning to earth awash in lost assets has been a hard lesson learned for many business and personal investors. Fear of any kind of strategy beyond the most basic principles of accounting math has turned financial markets into rigid, ossified institutions. Credit is tight; doubt is rampant. But fear need not overtake common sense. If one is strategically poised to act, there are methods to reap opportunities even within the constant inhalation of a bad news economy.
There are ways to maximize wealth assets through sound tax strategies aimed at reducing exposure to IRS audits, while freeing liquidity for further investment income growth. Part of the picture is understanding what the U.S. government has and has not done in the financial sector.
The U.S. government failed to regulate its own legislative loosening of the credit and investment markets. The government allowed financial businesses that previously dealt in single issue items, such as credit allocation (banks), insurance (insurance companies), and tax protection (accounting firms) to become full-service investment/banking/insurance hundred-headed hydras. With the ability to manipulate different asset classes, many of these businesses grew astronomically by forging new markets out of fringe niches and clients they previously would not have pursued.
Much of the growth was built on Ponzi-type schemes of trading one asset class for another, rebundling (while claiming it was an asset protection maneuver), and charging transaction and management fees for transferring and translating assets into different holding tanks. Ethical portfolio diversity became a joke.
Forensic auditors will spend years trying to unravel the origination of lost portfolios and their mutation into worthless products that propped up marketing schemes.
We All Know the Result
Because the government was involved in allowing multipurpose financial institutions to pursue growth by any means necessary, the government now stands confused, dazed, and unable to act under the fallout from the variety and volume of reckless financial transactions it helped perpetuate. In fact, it is throwing more money into the hollow house called Wall Street, assuming that the perpetrators will suddenly ethically encumber themselves and fix the problem.
Meanwhile, the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC), the so-called regulatory agency of the U.S. financial system, is like a lost orphan, its budget miniscule in comparison to the largesse tossed to the big dog bankers and their pals. Shouldn’t the budget allocation be the opposite until we have reviewed and identified the malfeasance that brought down the system?
There is another looming storm on the horizon that could swamp any economic lifeboats sent out into the water by the government. There is the potential for a catastrophic failure of retirement funds in the United States, affecting nearly one-third of the pension plans existent. With baby boomers set to retire in massive numbers, such a failure would further erode a weak, destabilized economy.
In 2006 Congress passed the Pension Protection Act, mandating that companies with defined benefit pension programs be fully funded, as measured by the ability to pay out money to all retirees should the latter decide to withdraw their accrued assets. Of the 500 largest U.S. companies, more than 200 do not meet the Pension Protection Act standard in 2009.
Standard & Poor’s 1500 Index of corporations reveals how dire the situation has become: The Index corporations moved from a $60 billion pension plan surplus at the end of 2007 to $409 billion deficit before the end of 2008. Defined benefit pensions (usually, where an employee payroll deduction is matched by the company into the employee’s retirement fund) at these companies are part of a potential nightmare scenario even in good economic times, and we are entering an undefined period of economic uncertainty and groping in the dark.
When revenues decline in an economic crunch, payroll must be met at salaries that haven’t declined. In the worst situation, a company may have to decide between meeting payroll and matching payroll-defined pension requirements. Corporate pension funds are troubled and clearly face the problem of underfunding. Many of the corporate pension funds invest their money conservatively. There are, however, a group of pension fund managers who have not invested conservatively or wisely and they are the first wave of a larger pension fund tsunami that could catapult the U.S. economy into a stunning freefall.
The snowball rolls downhill: jobs are cut, stocks consistently trend downward, reducing a company’s investment stream, destabilizing the stock market and the company’s ability to remain productive or even solvent.
Public pension funds and federal retirement accounts hold approximately $3.5 trillion in their accounts. There is another $1 trillion in unionized corporate workers who are part of the management team deciding fund investments. Together, these funded retirement vehicles cover approximately 27 million Americans and account for more than 30 percent of the U.S. retirement pension fund system. A failure of 30 percent of the system would be catastrophic to United States and international markets and to the personal retirement benefits of the invested potential pensioners.


Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the American Institute of CPAs faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, financial and estate planning, and abusive tax shelters. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually and writes for over fifty publications. Lance has written numerous books including Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams published by John Wiley and Sons, Bisk Education's CPA's Guide to Life Insurance and Federal Estate and Gift Taxation, as well as AICPA best-selling books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots. He does expert witness testimony and has never lost a case. Mr. Wallach may be reached at 516/938.5007, wallachinc@gmail.com, or at www.taxaudit419.com or www.lancewallach.com.

The information provided herein is not intended as legal, accounting, financial or any type of advice for any specific individual or other entity. You should contact an appropriate professional for any such advice.

Captive Insurance and Other Tax Reduction Strategies – The Good, Bad, and Ugly

By Lance Wallach May 14th


Every accountant knows that increased cash flow and cost savings are critical for businesses. What is uncertain is the best path to recommend to garner these benefits.

Over the past decade business owners have been overwhelmed by a plethora of choices designed to reduce the cost of providing employee benefits while increasing their own retirement savings. The solutions ranged from traditional pension and profit sharing plans to more advanced strategies.

Some strategies, such as IRS section 419 and 412(i) plans, used life insurance as vehicles to bring about benefits. Unfortunately, the high life insurance commissions (often 90% of the contribution, or more) fostered an environment that led to aggressive and noncompliant plans.

The result has been thousands of audits and an IRS task force seeking out tax shelter promotion. For unknowing clients, the tax consequences are enormous. For their accountant advisors, the liability may be equally extreme.

Recently, there has been an explosion in the marketing of a financial product called Captive Insurance. These so called “Captives” are typically small insurance companies designed to insure the risks of an individual business under IRS code section 831(b). When properly designed, a business can make tax-deductible premium payments to a related-party insurance company. Depending on circumstances, underwriting profits, if any, can be paid out to the owners as dividends, and profits from liquidation of the company may be taxed as capital gains.

While captives can be a great cost saving tool, they also are expensive to build and manage. Also, captives are allowed to garner tax benefits because they operate as real insurance companies. Advisors and business owners who misuse captives or market them as estate planning tools, asset protection vehicles, tax deferral or other benefits not related to the true business purpose of an insurance company face grave regulatory and tax consequences.

A recent concern is the integration of small captives with life insurance policies. Small captives under section 831(b) have no statutory authority to deduct life premiums. Also, if a small captive uses life insurance as an investment, the cash value of the life policy can be taxable at corporate rates, and then will be taxable again when distributed. The consequence of this double taxation is to devastate the efficacy of the life insurance, and it extends serious liability to any accountant who recommends the plan or even signs the tax return of the business that pays premiums to the captive.

The IRS is aware that several large insurance companies are promoting their life insurance policies as investments with small captives. The outcome looks eerily like that of the 419 and 412(i) plans mentioned above.

Remember, if something looks too good to be true, it usually is. There are safe and conservative ways to use captive insurance structures to lower costs and obtain benefits for businesses. And, some types of captive insurance products do have statutory protection for deducting life insurance premiums (although not 831(b) captives). Learning what works and is safe is the first step an accountant should take in helping his or her clients use these powerful, but highly technical insurance tools.



Lance Wallach speaks and writes extensively about VEBAs, retirement plans, and tax reduction strategies. He speaks at more than 70 conventions annually, writes for 50 publications, and was the National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year. Contact him at 516.938.5007 or visit www.vebaplan.com.
The information provided herein is not intended as legal, accounting, financial or any other type of advice for any specific individual or other entity. You should contact an appropriate professional for any such advice.

IRS Audits 419, 412i, Captive Insurance Plans With Life Insurance, and Section 79 Scams

By Lance Wallach June 2011

The IRS started auditing 419 plans in the ‘90s, and then continued going after 412i and other plans that they considered abusive, listed, or reportable transactions, or substantially similar to such transactions.

In a recent Tax Court Case, Curcio v. Commissioner (TC Memo 2010-115), the Tax Court ruled that an investment in an employee welfare benefit plan marketed under the name “Benistar” was a listed transaction in that the transaction in question was substantially similar to the transaction described in IRS Notice 95-34. A subsequent case, McGehee Family Clinic, largely followed Curcio, though it was technically decided on other grounds. The parties stipulated to be bound by Curcio on the issue of whether the amounts paid by McGehee in connection with the Benistar 419 Plan and Trust were deductible. Curcio did not appear to have been decided yet at the time McGehee was argued. The McGehee opinion (Case No. 10-102) (United States Tax Court, September 15, 2010) does contain an exhaustive analysis and discussion of virtually all of the relevant issues.

Taxpayers and their representatives should be aware that the Service has disallowed deductions for contributions to these arrangements. The IRS is cracking down on small business owners who participate in tax reduction insurance plans and the brokers who sold them. Some of these plans include defined benefit retirement plans, IRAs, or even 401(k) plans with life insurance.

In order to fully grasp the severity of the situation, one must have an understanding of Notice 95-34, which was issued in response to trust arrangements sold to companies that were designed to provide deductible benefits such as life insurance, disability and severance pay benefits. The promoters of these arrangements claimed that all employer contributions were tax-deductible when paid, by relying on the 10-or-more-employer exemption from the IRC § 419 limits. It was claimed that permissible tax deductions were unlimited in amount.

In general, contributions to a welfare benefit fund are not fully deductible when paid. Sections 419 and 419A impose strict limits on the amount of tax-deductible prefunding permitted for contributions to a welfare benefit fund. Section 419A(F)(6) provides an exemption from Section 419 and Section 419A for certain “10-or-more employers” welfare benefit funds. In general, for this exemption to apply, the fund must have more than one contributing employer, of which no single employer can contribute more than 10% of the total contributions, and the plan must not be experience-rated with respect to individual employers.

According to the Notice, these arrangements typically involve an investment in variable life or universal life insurance contracts on the lives of the covered employees. The problem is that the employer contributions are large relative to the cost of the amount of term insurance that would be required to provide the death benefits under the arrangement, and the trust administrator may obtain cash to pay benefits other than death benefits, by such means as cashing in or withdrawing the cash value of the insurance policies. The plans are also often designed so that a particular employer’s contributions or its employees’ benefits may be determined in a way that insulates the employer to a significant extent from the experience of other subscribing employers. In general, the contributions and claimed tax deductions tend to be disproportionate to the economic realities of the arrangements.

Benistar advertised that enrollees should expect to obtain the same type of tax benefits as listed in the transaction described in Notice 95-34. The benefits of enrollment listed in its advertising packet included:
• Virtually unlimited deductions for the employer;
• Contributions could vary from year to year;
• Benefits could be provided to one or more key executives on a selective basis;
• No need to provide benefits to rank-and-file employees;
• Contributions to the plan were not limited by qualified plan rules and would not interfere with pension, profit sharing or 401(k) plans;
• Funds inside the plan would accumulate tax-free;
• Beneficiaries could receive death proceeds free of both income tax and estate tax;
• The program could be arranged for tax-free distribution at a later date;
• Funds in the plan were secure from the hands of creditors.
The Court said that the Benistar Plan was factually similar to the plans described in Notice 95-34 at all relevant times. In rendering its decision the court heavily cited Curcio, in which the court also ruled in favor of the IRS. As noted in Curcio, the insurance policies, overwhelmingly variable or universal life policies, required large contributions relative to the cost of the amount of term insurance that would be required to provide the death benefits under the arrangement. The Benistar Plan owned the insurance contracts.

Following Curcio, as the Court has stipulated, the Court held that the contributions to Benistar were not deductible under section 162(a) because participants could receive the value reflected in the underlying insurance policies purchased by Benistar—despite the payment of benefits by Benistar seeming to be contingent upon an unanticipated event (the death of the insured while employed). As long as plan participants were willing to abide by Benistar’s distribution policies, there was no reason ever to forfeit a policy to the plan. In fact, in estimating life insurance rates, the taxpayers’ expert in Curcio assumed that there would be no forfeitures, even though he admitted that an insurance company would generally assume a reasonable rate of policy lapses.

The McGehee Family Clinic had enrolled in the Benistar Plan in May 2001 and claimed deductions for contributions to it in 2002 and 2005. The returns did not include a Form 8886,Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement, or similar disclosure.

The IRS disallowed the latter deduction and adjusted the 2004 return of shareholder Robert Prosser and his wife to include the $50,000 payment to the plan. The IRS also assessed tax deficiencies and the enhanced 30% penalty totaling almost $21,000 against the clinic and $21,000 against the Prossers. The court ruled that the Prossers failed to prove a reasonable cause or good faith exception.


More you should know:

• In recent years, some section 412(i) plans have been funded with life insurance using face amounts in excess of the maximum death benefit a qualified plan is permitted to pay. Ideally, the plan should limit the proceeds that can be paid as a death benefit in the event of a participant’s death. Excess amounts would revert to the plan. Effective February 13, 2004, the purchase of excessive life insurance in any plan is considered a listed transaction if the face amount of the insurance exceeds the amount that can be issued by $100,000 or more and the employer has deducted the premiums for the insurance.
• A 412(i) plan in and of itself is not a listed transaction; however, the IRS has a task force auditing 412i plans.
• An employer has not engaged in a listed transaction simply because it is a 412(i) plan.
• Just because a 412(i) plan was audited and sanctioned for certain items, does not necessarily mean the plan engaged in a listed transaction. Some 412(i) plans have been audited and sanctioned for issues not related to listed transactions.


Companies should carefully evaluate proposed investments in plans such as the Benistar Plan. The claimed deductions will not be available, and penalties will be assessed for lack of disclosure if the investment is similar to the investments described in Notice 95-34. In addition, under IRC 6707A, IRS fines participants a large amount of money for not properly disclosing their participation in listed, reportable or similar transactions; an issue that was not before the Tax Court in either Curcio or McGehee. The disclosure needs to be made for every year the participant is in a plan. The forms need to be properly filed even for years that no contributions are made. I have received numerous calls from participants who did disclose and still got fined because the forms were not filled in properly. A plan administrator told me that he assisted hundreds of his participants file forms, and they still all received very large IRS fines for not properly filling in the forms.

IRS has been attacking all 419 welfare benefit plans, many 412i retirement plans, captive insurance plans with life insurance in them and Section 79 plans.

Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, abusive tax shelters, financial, international tax, and estate planning. He writes about 412(i), 419, Section79, FBAR, and captive insurance plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually, writes for over fifty publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Pubic Radio’s All Things Considered, and others. Lance has written numerous books including Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams published by John Wiley and Sons, Bisk Education’s CPA’s Guide to Life Insurance and Federal Estate and Gift Taxation, as well as the AICPA best-selling books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots. He does expert witness testimony and has never lost a case. Contact him at 516.938.5007, lawallach@aol.com or visit www.vebaplan.com.

The information provided herein is not intended as legal, accounting, financial or any type of advice for any specific individual or other entity. You should contact an appropriate professional for any such advice.

419, 412i, section 79, captive insurance, IRS audits, lawsuits

www.taxaudit419.com

Dolan Media Newswires 01/22/2010
Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation
Small businesses facing audits and potentially huge tax penalties over certain types of retirement plans are filing lawsuits against those who marketed, designed and sold the plans. The 412(i) and 419(e) plans were marketed in the past several years as a way for small business owners to set up retirement or welfare benefits plans while leveraging huge tax savings, but the IRS put them on a list of abusive tax shelters and has more recently focused audits on them.
The penalties for such transactions are extremely high and can pile up quickly - $100,000 per individual and $200,000 per entity per tax year for each failure to disclose the transaction - often exceeding the disallowed taxes.
There are business owners who owe $6,000 in taxes but have been assessed $1.2 million in penalties. The existing cases involve many types of businesses, including doctors' offices, dental practices, grocery store owners, mortgage companies and restaurant owners. Some are trying to negotiate with the IRS. Others are not waiting. A class action has been filed and cases in several states are ongoing. The business owners claim that they were targeted by insurance companies; and their agents to purchase the plans without any disclosure that the IRS viewed the plans as abusive tax shelters. Other defendants include financial advisors who recommended the plans, accountants who failed to fill out required tax forms and law firms that drafted opinion letters legitimizing the plans, which were used as marketing tools.
A 412(i) plan is a form of defined benefit pension plan. A 419(e) plan is a similar type of health and benefits plan. Typically, these were sold to small, privately held businesses with fewer than 20 employees and several million dollars in gross revenues. What distinguished a legitimate plan from the plans at issue were the life insurance policies used to fund them. The employer would make large cash contributions in the form of insurance premiums, deducting the entire amounts. The insurance policy was designed to have a "springing cash value," meaning that for the first 5-7 years it would have a near-zero cash value, and then spring up in value.
Just before it sprung, the owner would purchase the policy from the trust at the low cash value, thus making a tax-free transaction. After the cash value shot up, the owner could take tax-free loans against it. Meanwhile, the insurance agents collected exorbitant commissions on the premiums - 80 to 110 percent of the first year's premium, which could exceed $1 million.
Technically, the IRS's problems with the plans were that the "springing cash" structure disqualified them from being 412(i) plans and that the premiums, which dwarfed any payout to a beneficiary, violated incidental death benefit rules.
Under §6707A of the Internal Revenue Code, once the IRS flags something as an abusive tax shelter, or "listed transaction," penalties are imposed per year for each failure to disclose it. Another allegation is that businesses weren't told that they had to file Form 8886, which discloses a listed transaction.
According to Lance Wallach of Plainview, N.Y. (516-938-5007), who testifies as an expert in cases involving the plans, the vast majority of accountants either did not file the forms for their clients or did not fill them out correctly.
Because the IRS did not begin to focus audits on these types of plans until some years after they became listed transactions, the penalties have already stacked up by the time of the audits.
Another reason plaintiffs are going to court is that there are few alternatives - the penalties are not appealable and must be paid before filing an administrative claim for a refund.

The suits allege misrepresentation, fraud and other consumer claims. "In street language, they lied," said Peter Losavio, a plaintiffs' attorney in Baton Rouge, La., who is investigating several cases. So far they have had mixed results. Losavio said that the strength of an individual case would depend on the disclosures made and what the sellers knew or should have known about the risks.
In 2004, the IRS issued notices and revenue rulings indicating that the plans were listed transactions. But plaintiffs' lawyers allege that there were earlier signs that the plans ran afoul of the tax laws, evidenced by the fact that the IRS is auditing plans that existed before 2004.
"Insurance companies were aware this was dancing a tightrope," said William Noll, a tax attorney in Malvern, Pa. "These plans were being scrutinized by the IRS at the same time they were being promoted, but there wasn't any disclosure of the scrutiny to unwitting customers."
A defense attorney, who represents benefits professionals in pending lawsuits, said the main defense is that the plans complied with the regulations at the time and that "nobody can predict the future."
An employee benefits attorney who has settled several cases against insurance companies, said that although the lost tax benefit is not recoverable, other damages include the hefty commissions - which in one of his cases amounted to $860,000 the first year - as well as the costs of handling the audit and filing amended tax returns.
Defying the individualized approach an attorney filed a class action in federal court against four insurance companies claiming that they were aware that since the 1980s the IRS had been calling the policies potentially abusive and that in 2002 the IRS gave lectures calling the plans not just abusive but "criminal." A judge dismissed the case against one of the insurers that sold 412(i) plans.
The court said that the plaintiffs failed to show the statements made by the insurance companies were fraudulent at the time they were made, because IRS statements prior to the revenue rulings indicated that the agency may or may not take the position that the plans were abusive. The attorney, whose suit also names law firm for its opinion letters approving the plans, will appeal the dismissal to the 5th Circuit.
In a case that survived a similar motion to dismiss, a small business owner is suing Hartford Insurance to recover a "seven-figure" sum in penalties and fees paid to the IRS. A trial is expected in August.
Last July, in response to a letter from members of Congress, the IRS put a moratorium on collection of §6707A penalties, but only in cases where the tax benefits were less than $100,000 per year for individuals and $200,000 for entities. That moratorium was recently extended until March 1, 2010.

But tax experts say the audits and penalties continue. "There's a bit of a disconnect between what members of Congress thought they meant by suspending collection and what is happening in practice. Clients are still getting bills and threats of liens," Wallach said.

"Thousands of business owners are being hit with million-dollar-plus fines. ... The audits are continuing and escalating. I just got four calls today," he said. A bill has been introduced in Congress to make the penalties less draconian, but nobody is expecting a magic bullet.

"From what we know, Congress is looking to make the penalties more proportionate to the tax benefit received instead of a fixed amount."