Showing posts with label abusive retirement plans. Show all posts

Will A Captive Insurance Plan Save You Money?

Call 5 1 6 - 9 3 8 - 5 0 0 7
Nationwide Assistance
WallachInc@gmail.com

Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation

Maryland Trial Lawyer
Dolan Media Newswires January

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.

There are business owners who owe taxes but have been assessed 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 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 appeasable 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 400,000 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.

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.”

Lance Wallach can be reached at: WallachInc@gmail.com

For more information, please visit www.taxadvisorexperts.org 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, wallachinc@gmail.com or visit www.taxadvisorexperts.com.

Lance Wallach
68 Keswick Lane
Plainview, NY 11803
Ph.: (516)938-5007
Fax: (516)938-6330 www.vebaplan.com

National Society of Accountants Speaker of The Year

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.

Material Advisors & 419 Plans Litigation: 419, 412i, Captive And Section 79 Plans Continue T...

Material Advisors & 419 Plans Litigation: 419, 412i, Captive And Section 79 Plans Continue T...: By Lance Wallach, Consultant & Expert Witness Recent court cases have highlighted serious problems in welfare ben...

ShareThis

TAX / EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

Abusive Insurance and Retirement Plans

Single–employer section 419 welfare benefit plans are the latest incarnation in insurance deductions the IRS deems abusive

BY LANCE WALLACH

SEPTEMBER 2008

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Some of the listed transactions CPA tax practitioners are most likely to encounter are employee benefit insurance plans that the IRS has deemed abusive. Many of these plans have been sold by promoters in conjunction with life insurance companies.

As long ago as 1984, with the addition of IRC §§ 419 and 419A, Congress and the IRS took aim at unduly accelerated deductions and other perceived abuses. More recently, with guidance and a ruling issued in fall 2007, the Service declared as abusive certain trust arrangements involving cash-value life insurance and providing post-retirement medical and life insurance benefits.

The new "more likely than not" penalty standard for tax preparers under IRC § 6694 raises the stakes for CPAs whose clients may have maintained or participated in such a plan. Failure to disclose a listed transaction carries particularly severe potential penalties.

Lance Wallach, CLU, ChFC, CIMC, is the author of the AICPA’s The Team Approach to Tax, Financial and Estate Planning. He can be reached at lawallach@aol.com or on the Web at, www.vebaplan.comor 516-938-5007. The information in this article is not intended as accounting, legal, financial or any other type of advice for any specific individual or other entity. You should consult an appropriate professional for such advice.

Many of the listed transactions that can get your clients into trouble with the IRS are exotic shelters that relatively few practitioners ever encounter. When was the last time you saw someone file a return as a Guamanian trust (Notice 2000-61)? On the other hand, a few listed transactions concern relatively common employee benefit plans the IRS has deemed tax-avoidance schemes or otherwise abusive. Perhaps some of the most likely to crop up, especially in small business returns, are arrangements purporting to allow deductibility of premiums paid for life insurance under a welfare benefit plan.

Some of these abusive employee benefit plans are represented as satisfying section 419 of the Code, which sets limits on purposes and balances of “qualified asset accounts” for such benefits, but purport to offer deductibility of contributions without any corresponding income. Others attempt to take advantage of exceptions to qualified asset account limits, such as sham union plans that try to exploit the exception for separate welfare benefit funds under collective-bargaining agreements provided by IRC § 419A(f)(5). Others try to take advantage of exceptions for plans serving 10 or more employers, once popular under section 419A(f)(6). More recently, one may encounter plans relying on section 419(e) and, perhaps, defined-benefit pension plans established pursuant to the former section 412(i) (still so-called, even though the subsection has since been redesignated section 412(e)(3)). See section below, “ Defined-Benefit 412(i) Plans Under Fire.”

PROMOTERS AND THEIR BEST-LAID PLANS
Sections 419 and 419A were added to the Code by the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 in an attempt to end employers’ acceleration of deductions for plan contributions. But it wasn’t long before plan promoters found an end run around the new Code sections. An industry developed in what came to be known as 10-or-more-employer plans. The promoters of these plans, in conjunction with life insurance companies who just wanted premiums on the books, would sell people on the idea of tax-deductible life insurance and other benefits, and especially large tax deductions. It was almost, “How much can I deduct?” with the reply, “How much do you want to?” Adverse court decisions (there were a few) and other law to the contrary were either glossed over or explained away.

The IRS steadily added these abusive plans to its designations of listed transactions. With Revenue Ruling 90-105, it warned against deducting certain plan contributions attributable to compensation earned by plan participants after the en 419A claimed by 10-or-more-employer benefit funds were likewise proscribed in Notice 95-34. Both positions were designated listed transactions in 2000.

At that point, where did all those promoters go? Evidence indicates many are now promoting plans purporting to comply with section 419(e). They are calling a life insurance plan a welfare benefit plan (or fund), somewhat as they once did, and promoting the plan as a vehicle to obtain large tax deductions. The only substantial difference is that these are now single-employer plans. And again, the IRS has tried to rein them in, reminding that listed transactions include those substantially similar to any that are specifically described and so designated.

On Oct. 17, 2007, the IRS issued notices 2007-83 and 2007-84. In the former, the IRS identified certain trust arrangements involving cash-value life insurance policies, and substantially similar arrangements, as listed transactions. The latter similarly warned against certain post-retirement medical and life insurance benefit arrangements, saying they might be subject to “alternative tax treatment.” The IRS at the same time issued related Revenue Ruling 2007-65 to address situations where an arrangement is considered a welfare benefit fund but the employer’s deduction for its contributions to the fund is denied in whole or in part for premiums paid by the trust on cashvalue life insurance policies. It states that a welfare benefit fund’s qualified direct cost under section 419 does not include premium amounts paid by the fund for cash-value life insurance policies if the fund is directly or indirectly a beneficiary under the policy, as determined under section 264(a).

Notice 2007-83 is aimed at promoted arrangements under which the fund trustee purchases cash-value insurance policies on the lives of a business’s employee/owners, and sometimes key employees, while purchasing term insurance policies on the lives of other employees covered under the plan. These plans anticipate being terminated and that the cash-value policies will be distributed to the owners or key employees, with very little distributed to other employees. The promoters claim that the insurance premiums are currently deductible by the business, and that the distributed insurance policies are virtually tax-free to the owners. The ruling makes it clear that, going forward, a business under most circumstances cannot deduct the cost of premiums paid through a welfare benefit plan for cash-value life insurance on the lives of its employees. The IRS may challenge the claimed tax benefits of these arrangements for various reasons:

Some or all of the benefits or distributions provided to or for the benefit of employee/owners or key employees may be disqualified benefits for purposes of the 100% excise tax under section 4976.

Whenever the property distributed from a trust has not been properly valued by the taxpayer, the IRS said in Notice 2007-84 that it intends to challenge the value of the distributed property, including life insurance policies.

Under the tax benefit rule, some or all of an employer’s deductions in an earlier year may have to be included in income in a later year if an event occurs that is fundamentally inconsistent with the premise on which the deduction was based.

An employer’s deductions for contributions to an arrangement that is properly characterized as a welfare benefit fund are subject to the limitations and requirements of the rules in sections 419 and 419A, including reasonable actuarial assumptions and nondiscrimination. Further, a taxpayer cannot obtain a deduction for reserves for post-retirement medical or life benefits unless the employer intends to use the contributions for that purpose.

The arrangement may be subject to the rules for split-dollar arrangements, depending on the facts and circumstances.

Contributions on behalf of an employee/owner may be characterized as dividends or as nonqualified deferred compensation subject to section 404(a)(5), section 409A or both, depending on the facts and circumstances.

THE HIGHER RISKS FOR PRACTITIONERS UNDER NEW PENALTIESThe updated Circular 230 regulations and the new law (IRC § 6694, preparer penalties) make it more important for CPAs to understand what their clients are deducting on tax returns. A CPA may not prepare a tax return unless he or she has a reasonable belief that the tax treatment of every position on the return would more likely than not be sustained on its merits. Proposed regulations issued in June 2008 spell out many new implications of these changes introduced by the Small Business and Work Opportunity Act of 2007.

The CPA should study all the facts and, based on that study, conclude that there is more than a 50% likelihood (“more likely than not”) that, if the IRS challenges the tax treatment, it will be upheld. As an alternative, there must be a reasonable basis for each position on the tax return, and each position needs to be adequately disclosed to the IRS. The reasonable-basis standard is not satisfied by an arguable claim. A CPA may not take into account the possibility that a return will not be audited by the IRS, or that an issue will not be raised if there is an audit.

It is worth noting that listed transactions are subject to a regulatory scheme applicable only to them, entirely separate from Circular 230 requirements, regulations and sanctions. Participation in such a transaction must be disclosed on a tax return, and the penalties for failure to disclose are severe—up to $100,000 for individuals and $200,000 for corporations. The penalties apply to both taxpayers and practitioners. And the problem with disclosure, of course, is that it is apt to trigger an audit, in which case even if the listed transaction were to pass muster, something else may not.

NEED FOR CAUTION
Should a client approach you with one of these plans, be especially cautious, for both of you. Advise your client to check out the promoter very carefully. Make it clear that the government has the names of all former 419A(f)(6) promoters and, therefore, will be scrutinizing the promoter carefully if the promoter was once active in that area, as many current 419(e) (welfare benefit fund or plan) promoters were. This makes an audit of your client far riskier and more likely.

DEFINED-BENEFIT 412(i) PLANS UNDER FIRE

The IRS has warned against so-called section 412(i) defined-benefit pension plans, named for the former IRC section governing them. It warned against certain trust arrangements it deems abusive, some of which may be regarded as listed transactions. Falling into that category can result in taxpayers having to disclose such participation under pain of penalties, potentially reaching $100,000 for individuals and $200,000 for other taxpayers. Targets also include some retirement plans.

One reason for the harsh treatment of 412(i) plans is their discrimination in favor of owners and key, highly compensated employees. Also, the IRS does not consider the promised tax relief proportionate to the economic realities of these transactions. In general, IRS auditors divide audited plans into those they consider noncompliant and others they consider abusive. While the alternatives available to the sponsor of a noncompliant plan are problematic, it is frequently an option to keep the plan alive in some form while simultaneously hoping to minimize the financial fallout from penalties.

The sponsor of an abusive plan can expect to be treated more harshly. Although in some situations something can be salvaged, the possibility is definitely on the table of having to treat the plan as if it never existed, which of course triggers the full extent of back taxes, penalties and interest on all contributions that were made, not to mention leaving behind no retirement plan whatsoever.

Material Advisors & 419 Plans Litigation: Lance Wallach National Society of Accountants Spea...