Showing posts with label 419 plan help. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 419 plan help. Show all posts
Reportable Transactions .com: 419 Plan, 412i Plan
Reportable Transactions .com: 419 Plan, 412i Plan, Welfare benefit plan assistan...: 419 Plan, 412i Plan, Welfare benefit plan assistance, audits & Abusive tax shelters
419 LITIGATION, EXPERT WITNESS, Lance Wallach
419 LITIGATION, EXPERT WITNESS, Lance Wallach: Current issues: 419 Tax Expert Witness Testimony, Abusive Tax Transactions, Captive Life Insurance Problems, IRS Help by Lance Wallach
EP Abusive Tax Transactions - Certain Trust Arrangements Seeking to Qualify for Exemption from Section 419
EP Abusive Tax Transactions - Certain Trust Arrangements Seeking to Qualify for Exemption from Section 419
Notice 95-34 discusses tax problems raised by certain trust arrangements seeking to qualify for exemption from IRC section 419. This transaction involves the claiming of deductions under IRC sections 419 and 419A for contributions to multiple employer welfare benefit funds. In general, an employer may deduct contributions to a welfare benefit fund when paid, but only if the contributions qualify as ordinary and necessary business expenses of the employer and only to the extent allowable under IRC sections 419 and 419A. There are strict limits on the amount of tax-deductible pre-funding permitted for contributions to a welfare benefit fund.
IRC section 419A(f)(6) provides an exemption from IRC sections 419 and 419A for a welfare benefit fund that is part of a 10 or more employer plan. In general, for this exemption to apply, an employer normally cannot contribute more than 10 percent of the total contributions contributed under the plan by all employers, and the plan must not be experience rated with respect to individual employers.
Promoters have offered trust arrangements that are used to provide life insurance, disability, and severance pay benefits. The promoters enroll at least 10 employers in their multiple employer trusts and claim that all employer contributions are tax deductible when paid, relying on the 10-or-more-employer exemption from the limitations under IRC sections 419 and 419A. Often the trusts maintain separate accounting of the assets attributable to each subscribing employer’s contributions.
Notice 95-34 puts taxpayers on notice that deductions for contributions to these arrangements are disallowable for any one of several reasons (e.g., the arrangements may provide deferred compensation, the arrangements may be separate plans for each employer, the arrangements may be experience rated in form or operation, or the contributions may be nondeductible prepaid expenses).
On July 17, 2003, final regulations (T.D. 9079) relating to whether a welfare benefit fund is part of a 10 or more employer plan (as defined in section 419A(f)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code) were published in the Federal Register (68 FR 42254).
In addition, in a case decided by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the contributions to the plan were taxable to the owners of the corporate employers as constructive dividends (Neonatology Associates, P.A., Et Al. v. Commissioner, 299 F.3rd 221 - 3rd Cir. 2002).
Notice 95-34 discusses tax problems raised by certain trust arrangements seeking to qualify for exemption from IRC section 419. This transaction involves the claiming of deductions under IRC sections 419 and 419A for contributions to multiple employer welfare benefit funds. In general, an employer may deduct contributions to a welfare benefit fund when paid, but only if the contributions qualify as ordinary and necessary business expenses of the employer and only to the extent allowable under IRC sections 419 and 419A. There are strict limits on the amount of tax-deductible pre-funding permitted for contributions to a welfare benefit fund.
IRC section 419A(f)(6) provides an exemption from IRC sections 419 and 419A for a welfare benefit fund that is part of a 10 or more employer plan. In general, for this exemption to apply, an employer normally cannot contribute more than 10 percent of the total contributions contributed under the plan by all employers, and the plan must not be experience rated with respect to individual employers.
Promoters have offered trust arrangements that are used to provide life insurance, disability, and severance pay benefits. The promoters enroll at least 10 employers in their multiple employer trusts and claim that all employer contributions are tax deductible when paid, relying on the 10-or-more-employer exemption from the limitations under IRC sections 419 and 419A. Often the trusts maintain separate accounting of the assets attributable to each subscribing employer’s contributions.
Notice 95-34 puts taxpayers on notice that deductions for contributions to these arrangements are disallowable for any one of several reasons (e.g., the arrangements may provide deferred compensation, the arrangements may be separate plans for each employer, the arrangements may be experience rated in form or operation, or the contributions may be nondeductible prepaid expenses).
On July 17, 2003, final regulations (T.D. 9079) relating to whether a welfare benefit fund is part of a 10 or more employer plan (as defined in section 419A(f)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code) were published in the Federal Register (68 FR 42254).
In addition, in a case decided by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the contributions to the plan were taxable to the owners of the corporate employers as constructive dividends (Neonatology Associates, P.A., Et Al. v. Commissioner, 299 F.3rd 221 - 3rd Cir. 2002).
Captive Insurance Plans, Want to Get Audited? - HG.org
Captive Insurance Plans, Want to Get Audited? - HG.org
The insurance industry have been conjuring ways to make life insurance premiums tax deductible. Over the years we have seen many schemes that have failed IRS scrutiny. Welfare benefit plans set up under I.R.C. section 419, 412(e) plans and Producer Owned Reinsurance Companies (PORCs) are all common examples.
When one scheme fails it isn’t long before a resourceful promoter comes up with a different product. Inevitably promoters find some lawyer or accountant to draft a favorable opinion letter and a new industry is born. In a few years, however, the IRS catches up and declares the arrangement to be a listed transaction and abusive tax shelter. As an expert witness I have never lost a case in this field. It is easy to beat the deep pockets of the insurance companies who provide product to these plans. Even though they have business owners sign fraudulent disclaimers saying that the owners will get their own tax advice. These disclaimers are then used when the inevitable happens, the IRS audits and the business owner sues the insurance company.
The latest entries seeking to find a way to make life insurance premiums deductible is a small business captive insurance company or CIC.
The latest entries seeking to find a way to make life insurance premiums deductible is a small business captive insurance company or CIC.
IRS Says Most 419 Plans Are Abusive Tax Shelters
On October 17, 2007, the IRS, in Notice 2007-83, identified as listed transactions certain trust
arrangements involving cash value life insurance policies. Revenue Ruling 2007-65, issued simultaneously,
addressed situations wherein the tax deduction has been disallowed, in whole or in part, for premiums paid on such cash value life insurance policies. These arrangements claim to be welfare benefit plans.
Read more here:
IRS Says Most 419 Plans Are Abusive Tax Shelters
IRS Attacks Business Owners in 419, 412, Section 79 and Captive Insurance Plans Under Section 6707A
Taxpayers who previously adopted 419, 412i, captive
insurance or Section 79 plans are in big trouble.
In recent years, the IRS has identified many of these arrangements as abusive devices to funnel tax deductible dollars to shareholders and classified these arrangements as listed transactions." These plans were sold by insurance agents, financial planners, accountants and attorneys seeking large life insurance commissions. In general, taxpayers who engage in a “listed transaction” must report such transaction to the IRS on Form 8886 every year that they “participate” in the transaction, and you do not necessarily have to make a contribution or claim a tax deduction to participate. Section 6707A of the Code imposes severe penalties for failure to file Form 8886 with respect to a listed transaction. But you are also in trouble if you file incorrectly. I have received numerous phone calls from business owners who filed and still got fined. Not only do you have to file Form 8886, but it also has to be prepared correctly. I only know of two people in the U.S. who have filed these forms properly for clients. They tell me that was after hundreds of hours of research and over 50 phones calls to various IRS personnel. The filing instructions for Form 8886 presume a timely filling. Most people file late and follow the directions for currently preparing the forms. Then the IRS fines the business owner. The tax court does not have jurisdiction to abate or lower such penalties imposed by the IRS.
"Many taxpayers who are no longer taking current tax deductions for these plans continue to enjoy the benefit of previous tax deductions by continuing the deferral of income from contributions and deductions taken in prior years."
Many business owners adopted 412i, 419, captive insurance and Section 79 plans based upon representations provided by insurance professionals that the plans were legitimate plans and were not informed that they were engaging in a listed transaction. Upon audit, these taxpayers were shocked when the IRS asserted penalties under Section 6707A of the Code in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Numerous complaints from these taxpayers caused Congress to impose a moratorium on assessment of Section 6707A penalties.
The moratorium on IRS fines expired on June 1, 2010. The IRS immediately started sending out notices proposing the imposition of Section 6707A penalties along with requests for lengthy extensions of the Statute of Limitations for the purpose of assessing tax. Many of these taxpayers stopped taking deductions for contributions to these plans years ago, and are confused and upset by the IRS’s inquiry, especially when the taxpayer had previously reached a monetary settlement with the IRS regarding its deductions. Logic and common sense dictate that a penalty should not apply if the taxpayer no longer benefits from the arrangement. Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.6011-4(c)(3)(i) provides that a taxpayer has participated in a listed transaction if the taxpayer’s tax return reflects tax consequences or a tax strategy described in the published guidance identifying the transaction as a listed transaction or a transaction that is the same or substantially similar to a listed transaction.
Clearly, the primary benefit in the participation of these plans is the large tax deduction generated by such participation. Many taxpayers who are no longer taking current tax deductions for these plans continue to enjoy the benefit of previous tax deductions by continuing the deferral of income from contributions and deductions taken in prior years. While the regulations do not expand on what constitutes “reflecting the tax consequences of the strategy,” it could be argued that continued benefit from a tax deferral for a previous tax deduction is within the contemplation of a “tax consequence” of the plan strategy. Also, many taxpayers who no longer make contributions or claim tax deductions continue to pay administrative fees. Sometimes, money is taken from the plan to pay premiums to keep life insurance policies in force. In these ways, it could be argued that these taxpayers are still “contributing,” and thus still must file Form 8886.
It is clear that the extent to which a taxpayer benefits from the transaction depends on the purpose of a particular transaction as described in the published guidance that caused such transaction to be a listed transaction. Revenue Ruling 2004-20, which classifies 419(e) transactions, appears to be concerned with the employer’s contribution/deduction amount rather than the continued deferral of the income in previous years. Another important issue is that the IRS has called CPAs material advisors if they signed tax returns containing the plan, and got paid a certain amount of money for tax advice on the plan. The fine is $100,000 for the CPA, or $200,000 if the CPA is incorporated. To avoid the fine, the CPA has to properly file Form 8918.
Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, Wallach is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, financial and estate planning, and abusive tax shelters. He is also a featured writer and has been interviewed on television and financial talk shows including NBC, National Pubic Radio’s All Things Considered and others. Lance authored 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.
Contact him at:
516.938.5007,
wallachinc@gmail.com, or
www.taxadvisorexperts.org, or
www.taxlibrary.us.
International Tax, Transfer Pricing, FBAR Problems
The IRS dedicates enormous resources toward dealing with taxpayers who are involved with any form of transfer pricing. The transfer pricing provisions of IRC 482 address four general types of transactions between commonly owned or controlled parties.
1- Use or transfer of tangible property;
2- Services;
3- Loans;
4- Use or transfer of intangible property (especially cost sharing arrangements) .
Use of tangible property: When one member of a controlled group rents or leases property to another member of the group, the price paid for use of such property must be appropriate for an arm’s length amount. Per Treas. Reg. 1.482-2(c)(2)(i), the arm’s length amount is determined by reference to the amount that would have been charged between independent parties for use of the same or similar property under similar circumstances.
Determination of what is arm’s length for fair rental value transactions:
a) Period of use;
b) Location of use;
c) Owner’s investment in property or rent paid;
d) Expenses of maintaining the property;
e) Type of property;
f) Condition of property.
Transfer of tangible property: When sales or transfers of tangible property are made between related parties (sales of goods), the arm’s length price generally is the price that an unrelated party would pay for similar property under similar circumstances.
Determination of what is arm’s length for inter-company sales: The regulations specify six methods used to determine whether an arm’s length amount has been charged between members of a controlled group. Treas. Reg.1.482-3(a), states that the “best method" should be used to determine arm’s length price. The IRS views the “best method" as the method that produces the most reliable results based on facts and circumstances.
The IRS is well aware of the fact that many transfer-pricing studies are prepared with the intention to validate year-end inter-company cost of sales regardless of whether they are arm’s length just to avoid the IRC 6662 penalties taxpayers would be best served if transfer-pricing studies were prepared by knowledgeable experts in the field.
Inter-company Services: When one member performs services for another member of a controlled group, an arm’s length price is necessary. This includes services such as marketing, management, technical services, or any other type of service. Such services can be provided by one party for the joint benefit of all members, or can be provided between two members of the controlled group.
Determination of what is arm’s length for inter-company services: The arm’s length standard for services between related parties is found in Treas. Reg. 1.482-2(b)(3) which states, “ an arm’s length charge for services rendered shall be the amount which was charged or would have been charged for the same or similar services in independent transactions with or between unrelated parties under similar circumstances considering all relevant facts." The arm’s length charge for services between related parties will depend upon the facts related to the services provided. The pricing rules fall within three categories:
1) An arm’s length charge will be based on the amount that would have been charged by an unrelated party. This generally means that the price should be based on reimbursement of cost, plus a mark-up for profit.
2) An arm’s length charge may be based on only the costs incurred, provided that certain criteria are met.
3) No charge is necessary, if certain criteria are met.
The area that concerns the IRS most with these types of transactions is technical services with regard provided by larger U.S corporations to their foreign CPC’s, which are not charged for these services. In regards to smaller cases, the IRS typically examines management fees in detail to ensure they are arm’s length.
Inter-company Loans: In the context of IRC 482, most of the areas of conflict in this area revolve around interest. When loans are made between members of a controlled group, interest rates charged do not always meet the required arm’s length standard.
Determination of what is arm’s length for inter-company loans: The arm’s length standard for loans between related parties is found in Treas. Reg. 1.482-2(a)(2) which states that “ an arm’s length rate of interest shall be a rate of interest which was charged, or would have been charged, at the time the indebtedness arose, in independent transactions with or between unrelated parties under similar circumstances."
Factors that are listed in Treas. Reg. 1.482-2(a)(2) that should be considered in determining arm’s length interest are:
a) The principle amount and duration of the loan.
b) The security involved.
c) The credit standing of the borrower.
d) The prevailing interest rate where the loan was made.
The regulations provide further guidance in the following areas:
a) Safe harbor rules;
b) Ordering rules;
c) Determination of bona fide indebtedness;
d) Period for which interest is charged.
Transfers of intangible properties: When transfers of intangible property are made between controlled parties, the arm’s length price is often difficult to determine, in part because the property’s value derives from intellectual capital such as ideas, the outcome of research and development or creation of software.
Determination of what is arm’s length for transfer of intangible property: The regulations specify four methods to determine whether an arm’s length amount has been charged between the members of a controlled group with respect to the transfer or use of intangible property. Treas.Reg.1.482-4 (a) states that the “best method" should be used to determine the arm’s length price between related parties. Controlled parties may enter into a qualified cost sharing arrangements to share costs related to developing intangibles. They may also contribute existing intangibles for use in further development or for use in developing new and distinct intangibles.
The following general rules of Treas.Reg.1.482-7 (a) and (b) apply to qualified cost sharing arrangements:
a) Two or more controlled participants agree to share the costs of developing intangibles.
b) Costs are shared based on each participant’s share of reasonably anticipated benefits from the intangibles to be developed.
c) A “buy-in" must be paid to the participant that contributes pre-existing intangible property to the qualified cost sharing arrangement.
As with transfer pricing reports, cost-sharing agreements should be prepared by qualified experts who are knowledgeable in this area. The ideal candidate would probably be someone with decades of experience preferably with the IRS in the international taxation area. Said ideal candidate should also of course be a CPA. If examined by the IRS, the cost sharing agreement will be reviewed in detail. For further guidance refer to the Coordinated Issue Paper utilized as a guideline for the IRS personnel dated June 5th 2009.
2- Services;
3- Loans;
4- Use or transfer of intangible property (especially cost sharing arrangements) .
Use of tangible property: When one member of a controlled group rents or leases property to another member of the group, the price paid for use of such property must be appropriate for an arm’s length amount. Per Treas. Reg. 1.482-2(c)(2)(i), the arm’s length amount is determined by reference to the amount that would have been charged between independent parties for use of the same or similar property under similar circumstances.
Determination of what is arm’s length for fair rental value transactions:
a) Period of use;
b) Location of use;
c) Owner’s investment in property or rent paid;
d) Expenses of maintaining the property;
e) Type of property;
f) Condition of property.
Transfer of tangible property: When sales or transfers of tangible property are made between related parties (sales of goods), the arm’s length price generally is the price that an unrelated party would pay for similar property under similar circumstances.
Determination of what is arm’s length for inter-company sales: The regulations specify six methods used to determine whether an arm’s length amount has been charged between members of a controlled group. Treas. Reg.1.482-3(a), states that the “best method" should be used to determine arm’s length price. The IRS views the “best method" as the method that produces the most reliable results based on facts and circumstances.
The IRS is well aware of the fact that many transfer-pricing studies are prepared with the intention to validate year-end inter-company cost of sales regardless of whether they are arm’s length just to avoid the IRC 6662 penalties taxpayers would be best served if transfer-pricing studies were prepared by knowledgeable experts in the field.
Inter-company Services: When one member performs services for another member of a controlled group, an arm’s length price is necessary. This includes services such as marketing, management, technical services, or any other type of service. Such services can be provided by one party for the joint benefit of all members, or can be provided between two members of the controlled group.
Determination of what is arm’s length for inter-company services: The arm’s length standard for services between related parties is found in Treas. Reg. 1.482-2(b)(3) which states, “ an arm’s length charge for services rendered shall be the amount which was charged or would have been charged for the same or similar services in independent transactions with or between unrelated parties under similar circumstances considering all relevant facts." The arm’s length charge for services between related parties will depend upon the facts related to the services provided. The pricing rules fall within three categories:
1) An arm’s length charge will be based on the amount that would have been charged by an unrelated party. This generally means that the price should be based on reimbursement of cost, plus a mark-up for profit.
2) An arm’s length charge may be based on only the costs incurred, provided that certain criteria are met.
3) No charge is necessary, if certain criteria are met.
The area that concerns the IRS most with these types of transactions is technical services with regard provided by larger U.S corporations to their foreign CPC’s, which are not charged for these services. In regards to smaller cases, the IRS typically examines management fees in detail to ensure they are arm’s length.
Inter-company Loans: In the context of IRC 482, most of the areas of conflict in this area revolve around interest. When loans are made between members of a controlled group, interest rates charged do not always meet the required arm’s length standard.
Determination of what is arm’s length for inter-company loans: The arm’s length standard for loans between related parties is found in Treas. Reg. 1.482-2(a)(2) which states that “ an arm’s length rate of interest shall be a rate of interest which was charged, or would have been charged, at the time the indebtedness arose, in independent transactions with or between unrelated parties under similar circumstances."
Factors that are listed in Treas. Reg. 1.482-2(a)(2) that should be considered in determining arm’s length interest are:
a) The principle amount and duration of the loan.
b) The security involved.
c) The credit standing of the borrower.
d) The prevailing interest rate where the loan was made.
The regulations provide further guidance in the following areas:
a) Safe harbor rules;
b) Ordering rules;
c) Determination of bona fide indebtedness;
d) Period for which interest is charged.
Transfers of intangible properties: When transfers of intangible property are made between controlled parties, the arm’s length price is often difficult to determine, in part because the property’s value derives from intellectual capital such as ideas, the outcome of research and development or creation of software.
Determination of what is arm’s length for transfer of intangible property: The regulations specify four methods to determine whether an arm’s length amount has been charged between the members of a controlled group with respect to the transfer or use of intangible property. Treas.Reg.1.482-4 (a) states that the “best method" should be used to determine the arm’s length price between related parties. Controlled parties may enter into a qualified cost sharing arrangements to share costs related to developing intangibles. They may also contribute existing intangibles for use in further development or for use in developing new and distinct intangibles.
The following general rules of Treas.Reg.1.482-7 (a) and (b) apply to qualified cost sharing arrangements:
a) Two or more controlled participants agree to share the costs of developing intangibles.
b) Costs are shared based on each participant’s share of reasonably anticipated benefits from the intangibles to be developed.
c) A “buy-in" must be paid to the participant that contributes pre-existing intangible property to the qualified cost sharing arrangement.
As with transfer pricing reports, cost-sharing agreements should be prepared by qualified experts who are knowledgeable in this area. The ideal candidate would probably be someone with decades of experience preferably with the IRS in the international taxation area. Said ideal candidate should also of course be a CPA. If examined by the IRS, the cost sharing agreement will be reviewed in detail. For further guidance refer to the Coordinated Issue Paper utilized as a guideline for the IRS personnel dated June 5th 2009.
As an expert witness Lance Wallach's side has never lost a case. People need to be careful of 419 Welfare Benefit Plans, 412i plans, Section 79 plans and Captive Insurance Plans. Most of these plans are sold by insurance agents. If you are in an abusive, listed or similar transaction plan you need to file under IRS 6707a. The participant files form 8886, and the salesmen or accountant who signs the tax returns files form 8918 if they got paid over $10,000. They are called Material Advisors and face a minimum $100,000 fine. Some plans are offshore which could involve FBAR or OVDI filings. If you have money overseas you probably need to file for IRS tax amnesty. If you want to reduce the tax we suggest that you first file and then opt out. For more information Google Lance Wallach.
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.
Transfer Pricing FBAR International Tax Problems By Lance Wallach
Help with Common IRS Problems: IRS Audits 419, 412i, Captive Insurance Plans With Life Insurance, and Section 79 Scams
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 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 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.
The 419 plan 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 419 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 419 Plan owned the insurance contracts.
The McGehee Family Clinic had enrolled in the 419 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 419 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.
Form 8886 & 419 Plans Litigation: Fbar Reports. LAnce Wallach, Expert Witness.
Form 8886 & 419 Plans Litigation: Fbar Reports. LAnce Wallach, Expert Witness.: Fbar-REPORT OF FOREIGN BANK AND FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS
Participated in a Sea Nine VEBA plan_Contact Lance Wallach: Financial Devastation for Clients in 419 Plans
Participated in a Sea Nine VEBA plan_Contact Lance Wallach: Financial Devastation for Clients in 419 Plans: Some of you may remember the bad old days of using 419 welfare benefit plans to help business owners (and doctors specifically) take massi...
Captive Insurance and Other Tax Reduction Strategies – The Good, Bad, and Ugly
Published: 08th September 2009
Views: 777
NSA: Member Link
Your link to accounting, tax and practice management ideas, tools, news and information.
Captive Insurance and Other Tax Reduction Strategies - The Good, Bad, and Ugly
By Lance Wallach May 14, 2008
Every accountant knows that increased cash flow and cost savings are critical for businesses in 2008. 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 lifeinsurance 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 asinvestments 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.
National Society of Accountants
Your link to accounting, tax and practice management ideas, tools, news and information.
Captive Insurance and Other Tax Reduction Strategies - The Good, Bad, and Ugly
By Lance Wallach May 14, 2008
Every accountant knows that increased cash flow and cost savings are critical for businesses in 2008. 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 lifeinsurance 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 asinvestments 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.
National Society of Accountants
How Lance Wallach Can Help You!
Lance Wallach: Expert Witness;
Specializing in the following services:
- IRS audit appeals
- U.S tax appeals
- Multinational taxation consulting
- Incorporating your business
- Recovering losses from insurance companies & brokerage films
- Tax shelter analysis
- Pension plan reviews & evaluations
- 419 & 412i benefit plan analysis
- 419 & 412i plan remediation
- Offshore tax shelter issues
- IRS listed transactions assistance
- Taxes
- Insurance & retirement plan cases
- SSI & Disability Advocates
As an expert witness, Lance Wallach has never lost a case.
Lance Wallach; Expert Witness:
To read more about me, click here!
Sometimes the IRS might disagree with planning you did with other advisors and you need to find help to ensure that your rights are protected, the facts are interpreted accurately and the law applied correctly. Lance Wallach is among the few in this country who fully understand the mechanics and legal issues surrounding what has become known as “419 Plans,” often welfare benefit plans for small companies funded with life insurance. For that reason taxpayers throughout the country seek his services of his ex IRS agents and tax attorney CPAs in dealing with the Internal Revenue Service in audits, appeals and in the Tax Court.
Frankly, not everybody does it right. Whether through ignorance or ill-intent, some folks sell insurance based programs with tax benefits, such as 419 Plans and 412(i) Plans, captive insurance, section 79 scams, or promote premium financing or STOLI programs to unsuspecting consumers leaving the consumer to be eaten alive, either by the IRS or by a turn in the economy, when all goes wrong. But the opposite is also true. One 419 Plan and some 412(i) Plans are very well designed and flawlessly implemented but the IRS just shoots first and aims second. Some legitimate premium financing might miscue. Building off of Lances knowledge of life insurance and the many ways life insurance has been and can be used in tax and wealth planning, lawyers for both plaintiffs and defendants throughout the US seek Lances services as an expert witness in cases between consumers and those who sold them these programs that develop after the IRS, right or wrong, initiates an audit or the investment goes under water. In looking for an expert witness examine the past. As an expert Lance Wallach’s side has never lost a case. Who else can say that?
- 419 Plans
- 412i Plans
- Captive Insurance Plans
- Welfare Benefit Plans
- 419 Plan Problems
- Section 79 Plan
- and more!
To read more about me, click here!
Sometimes the IRS might disagree with planning you did with other advisors and you need to find help to ensure that your rights are protected, the facts are interpreted accurately and the law applied correctly. Lance Wallach is among the few in this country who fully understand the mechanics and legal issues surrounding what has become known as “419 Plans,” often welfare benefit plans for small companies funded with life insurance. For that reason taxpayers throughout the country seek his services of his ex IRS agents and tax attorney CPAs in dealing with the Internal Revenue Service in audits, appeals and in the Tax Court.
Frankly, not everybody does it right. Whether through ignorance or ill-intent, some folks sell insurance based programs with tax benefits, such as 419 Plans and 412(i) Plans, captive insurance, section 79 scams, or promote premium financing or STOLI programs to unsuspecting consumers leaving the consumer to be eaten alive, either by the IRS or by a turn in the economy, when all goes wrong. But the opposite is also true. One 419 Plan and some 412(i) Plans are very well designed and flawlessly implemented but the IRS just shoots first and aims second. Some legitimate premium financing might miscue. Building off of Lances knowledge of life insurance and the many ways life insurance has been and can be used in tax and wealth planning, lawyers for both plaintiffs and defendants throughout the US seek Lances services as an expert witness in cases between consumers and those who sold them these programs that develop after the IRS, right or wrong, initiates an audit or the investment goes under water. In looking for an expert witness examine the past. As an expert Lance Wallach’s side has never lost a case. Who else can say that?
Will A Captive Insurance Plan Save You Money?
Call 5 1 6 - 9 3 8 - 5 0 0 7
Nationwide Assistance
WallachInc@gmail.com
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.
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.
Can You Recover Money from 419 and 412i Plans?
Welfare Benefit Plan Fraud: What Remedies Are Available? If you’ve been the victim of a 419 Welfare Benefit Plan scheme and now find yourself owing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) taxes on something you were told was going to be tax deductible, it’s important to know what remedies might be available to you.
Remedies for abusive tax shelter schemes
Lance Wallach says that there are remedies for those who have been injured by an insurance company’s abusive tax shelter schemes. He predicts that we’ll see a huge spike in the number of people getting audited by the IRS.
Mediating 412(i) & 419 Claims: Can You Really Win?
You can win. However, to do so successfully, a mediator should have the proper background and team– a powerful combination that is sometimes hard to come by.
Having worked in almost every part of the life insurance industry for many years, Lance Wallach Is the Expert on tax shelter schemes involving Internal Revenue Code Sections 412(i) Pension Plans and Internal Revenue Code Section 419 Welfare Benefit Plans.
Unwinding abusive insurance transactions
There are not many firms who do what he does.
412(i) and 419 plans are generated by the insurance industry. So you’ve got to have knowledge about life insurance and the insurance industry first and foremost to understand the appeal of these transactions.
Consequently, that’s why Lance Wallach gets contacted from people all over the country that are at one stage or another in these plans who are trying to get out, get their tax issues taken care of and get their money paid back. He is an expert witness on different ongoing cases –and has never lost a case.
Working in conjunction with attorneys
Our firm will review your case and make an assessment on it for free. When clients hire him they get all the experts at one firm that know the landscape of both 412(1) and 419 plans, and all work together on the case without any conflict of interest.
Recognizing time bombs
There are a small number of promoters of these tax shelter plans across the country and of that small number, only a handful offer bona fide plans. The others are just time bombs waiting to happen for the taxpayer who’s involved in the plan. We can look at those situations very quickly – and in some cases we already know the details of the plan just by hearing the name of the plan – and can advise the client as to the legitimacy of the plan.”
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Lance Wallach
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.
Copyright Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC
More information about Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
Lance Wallach says that there are remedies for those who have been injured by an insurance company’s abusive tax shelter schemes. He predicts that we’ll see a huge spike in the number of people getting audited by the IRS.
Mediating 412(i) & 419 Claims: Can You Really Win?
You can win. However, to do so successfully, a mediator should have the proper background and team– a powerful combination that is sometimes hard to come by.
Having worked in almost every part of the life insurance industry for many years, Lance Wallach Is the Expert on tax shelter schemes involving Internal Revenue Code Sections 412(i) Pension Plans and Internal Revenue Code Section 419 Welfare Benefit Plans.
Unwinding abusive insurance transactions
There are not many firms who do what he does.
412(i) and 419 plans are generated by the insurance industry. So you’ve got to have knowledge about life insurance and the insurance industry first and foremost to understand the appeal of these transactions.
Consequently, that’s why Lance Wallach gets contacted from people all over the country that are at one stage or another in these plans who are trying to get out, get their tax issues taken care of and get their money paid back. He is an expert witness on different ongoing cases –and has never lost a case.
Working in conjunction with attorneys
Our firm will review your case and make an assessment on it for free. When clients hire him they get all the experts at one firm that know the landscape of both 412(1) and 419 plans, and all work together on the case without any conflict of interest.
Recognizing time bombs
There are a small number of promoters of these tax shelter plans across the country and of that small number, only a handful offer bona fide plans. The others are just time bombs waiting to happen for the taxpayer who’s involved in the plan. We can look at those situations very quickly – and in some cases we already know the details of the plan just by hearing the name of the plan – and can advise the client as to the legitimacy of the plan.”
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Lance Wallach
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.
Copyright Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC
More information about Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)