Showing posts with label section 79 plan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label section 79 plan. Show all posts
Disability and Lawsuits - Lance Wallach: Servicers for 419, 419e, 412i, Section 79, captive...
Disability and Lawsuits - Lance Wallach: Servicers for 419, 419e, 412i, Section 79, captive...: Servicers for 419, 419e, 412i, Section 79, captive insurance, listed transactions
Lance Wallach, Expert Witness, Section 79 Plan
Lance Wallach, Expert Witness, Section 79 Plan: Section 79 plans can cause people huge problems that Lance Wallach knows how to fix. Section 79 Problems, IRS, Audits, 419 412i, expert witness services
Lance Wallach Expert Witness, Section 79, IRS
Lance Wallach Expert Witness, Section 79, IRS: Lance Wallach, Expert Witness, Section 79 plans, Section 79 Problems, Section 79, IRS, Tax, Lance Wallach Expert Witness, Audits, 419 412i
Section 79 Plans: 412IPLANS.ORG
Section 79 Plans: 412IPLANS.ORG: 412IPLANS.ORG
Friday, May 16, 2014
Section 79 Plans: 412IPLANS.ORG
Section 79 Plans: 412IPLANS.ORG: 412IPLANS.ORG
#11
Thanks for all of the responses. I definitely didn't feel like the structure would be legitimate but wanted more substantial information to back up my assumption.
Springing Cash Value was very helpful.
The agent still lists revenue rulings 2005-25 to back this structure and the sale from the PSP to ilit for the PERC value, and saying that the PERC value of the policy at the end of year three is 10% of the original one time premium (he has the PERC from the insurance company). Basically, after the fact that the PSP is not being established for a business purposes, I still do not trust his sales value.
#12
Doesn't add up if you read the Rev Proc (not ruling). PERC is premium, earnings and REASONABLE charges for mortality and expense. Then you hit it with the surrender factor, which is probably 70% based on the quote below. for the policy to be worth 10 cents on the dollar in year 3 the supposedly reasonable mortality and expense charges would have to have consumed all earnings and 85% of the principal. If this is true, the charges are certainly not reasonable.
From Rev Proc 2005-25:
(2) Qualified plans. In the case of a distribution or sale from a qualified plan, if the contract provides for explicit surrender charges, the Average Surrender Factor is the unweighted average of the applicable surrender factors over the 10 years beginning with the policy year of the distribution or sale. For this purpose, the applicable surrender factor for a policy year is equal to the greater of 0.70 and a fraction, the numerator of which is the projected amount of cash that would be available if the policy were surrendered on the first day of the policy year (or, in the case of the policy year of the distribution or sale, the amount of cash that was actually available on the first day of that policy year) and the denominator of which is the projected (or actual) PERC amount as of that same date. The applicable surrender factor for a year in which there is no surrender charge is 1.00. A surrender charge is permitted to be taken into account under section 3.04 of this revenue procedure only if it is contractually specified at issuance and expressed in the form of nonincreasing percentages or amounts.
#13
#14
May have something to do with how he has structured the insurance. The first two years have insurance of about $6 million and then the insurance drops to $1.5 million. It's a weird illustration, and my friend was presented an email from the insurance company verifying the low Perc value, which is what they are quoting as the sale price from the qualified plan to the ILIT.
I think this sentence in 2005-25 may help me explain why this doesn't work as well "If the insurance contract has not been inforce for some time, the value of the contract is best established through the sale of the particular insurance contract by the insurance company (iei. as the premiums paid for that contract)." It also says "at no time are these rules to be interpreted in a manner that allows the use of these formulas to understate the FMV of the life insurance contracts and associated distributes and transfers."
Even though I dont quite follow the math behind the sales value 2005-25 sets out, i'm pretty sure common sense point me that those two sentences are very relevant in this transaction.
#15
- Registered
- 3,051 posts
Registered User
Posted 06 July 2010 - 11:04 AM
I'd also think the client, and the client's tax counsel, should take note of the "recurring and substantial" contribution requirement for a profit sharing plan, found in 1.401-1(b)(2). This whole arrangement seems improper to me.
#11 
- Registered
- 4 posts
Registered User
Posted 07 July 2010 - 12:11 PM
Bird, on Jul 1 2010, 07:45 PM, said:
QuoteTEN PERCENT of the premium? How can this possibly comply with the FMV guidance in Rev Proc 2005-25? Ask the insurance company for a calculation of the FMV pursuant to the Rev Proc.
Amen. Google "springing cash value" while you're at it.
Thanks for all of the responses. I definitely didn't feel like the structure would be legitimate but wanted more substantial information to back up my assumption.
Springing Cash Value was very helpful.
The agent still lists revenue rulings 2005-25 to back this structure and the sale from the PSP to ilit for the PERC value, and saying that the PERC value of the policy at the end of year three is 10% of the original one time premium (he has the PERC from the insurance company). Basically, after the fact that the PSP is not being established for a business purposes, I still do not trust his sales value.
#12
- Registered
- 144 posts
Registered User
Posted 07 July 2010 - 01:03 PM
GTigers, on Jul 7 2010, 10:11 AM, said:
The agent still lists revenue rulings 2005-25 to back this structure and the sale from the PSP to ilit for the PERC value, and saying that the PERC value of the policy at the end of year three is 10% of the original one time premium (he has the PERC from the insurance company). Basically, after the fact that the PSP is not being established for a business purposes, I still do not trust his sales value.
Doesn't add up if you read the Rev Proc (not ruling). PERC is premium, earnings and REASONABLE charges for mortality and expense. Then you hit it with the surrender factor, which is probably 70% based on the quote below. for the policy to be worth 10 cents on the dollar in year 3 the supposedly reasonable mortality and expense charges would have to have consumed all earnings and 85% of the principal. If this is true, the charges are certainly not reasonable.
From Rev Proc 2005-25:
(2) Qualified plans. In the case of a distribution or sale from a qualified plan, if the contract provides for explicit surrender charges, the Average Surrender Factor is the unweighted average of the applicable surrender factors over the 10 years beginning with the policy year of the distribution or sale. For this purpose, the applicable surrender factor for a policy year is equal to the greater of 0.70 and a fraction, the numerator of which is the projected amount of cash that would be available if the policy were surrendered on the first day of the policy year (or, in the case of the policy year of the distribution or sale, the amount of cash that was actually available on the first day of that policy year) and the denominator of which is the projected (or actual) PERC amount as of that same date. The applicable surrender factor for a year in which there is no surrender charge is 1.00. A surrender charge is permitted to be taken into account under section 3.04 of this revenue procedure only if it is contractually specified at issuance and expressed in the form of nonincreasing percentages or amounts.
I'm addicted to placebos. I could quit, but it wouldn't matter.
#13
- Registered
- 96 posts
Registered User
Posted 07 July 2010 - 03:54 PM
VebaGuru is correct Agents cant use the plans below, so now they are up to new scams, like section 79 and probably the plan described.
PRODUCERSWEB.com
For Smart Advisors
Get Sued
By Lance Wallach Wednesday, April 8, 2009
The IRS is cracking down on what it considers to be abusive tax shelters. Many of them are being marketed to small business owners by insurance professionals, financial planners and even accountants and attorneys. I speak at numerous conventions, for both business owners and accountants. And after I speak, I am always approached by many people who have questions about tax reduction plans that they have heard about. Below are the most common.
419 tax reduction insurance plans
These come in various versions, and most of them have or will get the participant audited and the salesman sued. They purportedly allow the business owner to make a large tax-deductible contribution, and some or all of the contribution pays for a life insurance product. The IRS has been disallowing most versions of these plans for years, yet they continue to be sold. After everyone gets into trouble and the insurance agents get sued, the promoters of the abusive versions sometimes change the name of their company and call the plan something else. The insurance companies whose policies are sold are legitimate companies. What usually is not legitimate is the way that most of the plans are operated. There can also be a $200,000 IRS fine facing the insurance agent who sold the plan if Form 8918 has not been properly filed. I've reviewed hundreds of these forms for agents and have yet to see one that was filled out correctly.
When the IRS audits a participant in one of these plans, the tax deductions are lost. There is also the interest and large penalties to consider. The business owner can also be facing a $200,000-a-year fine if he did not properly file Form 8886. Most of these forms have been filled out improperly. In my talks with the IRS, I was told that the IRS considers not filling out Form 8886 properly almost the same as not filing at all.
412(i) retirement plans
The IRS has been auditing participants in these types of retirement plans. While there is generally nothing wrong with many of the newer plans, the IRS considered most of the older abusive plans. Forms 8918 and 8886 are also required for abusive 412(i) plans.
I have been an expert witness in a lot of these 419 and 412(i) lawsuits and I have not lost one of them. If you sold one or more of these plans, get someone who really knows what they are doing to help you immediately. Many advisors will take your money and claim to be able to help you. Make sure they have experience helping agents that have sold these types of plans. Don't let them learn on the job, with your career and money at stake.
Do not wait for IRS to come and get you, or for your client to sue you. Time is of the essence. Most insurance professionals need help to correct their improperly completed Form 8918 or to fill it out properly in the first place. If you have not previously filled out the form it is late, and therefore you should immediately seek assistance. There are plenty of legitimate tax reduction insurance plans out there. Just make sure that you know the history of the people with whom you conduct business.
Remember, if something looks too good to be true, it usually is. Be careful.
Lance Wallach, the National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year, speaks and writes extensively about retirement plans, Circular 230 problems and tax reduction strategies. He speaks at more than 40 conventions annually, writes for over 50 publications, is quoted regularly in the press, and has written numerous best-selling AICPA books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Business Hot Spots. 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.
PRODUCERSWEB.com
For Smart Advisors
Get Sued
By Lance Wallach Wednesday, April 8, 2009
The IRS is cracking down on what it considers to be abusive tax shelters. Many of them are being marketed to small business owners by insurance professionals, financial planners and even accountants and attorneys. I speak at numerous conventions, for both business owners and accountants. And after I speak, I am always approached by many people who have questions about tax reduction plans that they have heard about. Below are the most common.
419 tax reduction insurance plans
These come in various versions, and most of them have or will get the participant audited and the salesman sued. They purportedly allow the business owner to make a large tax-deductible contribution, and some or all of the contribution pays for a life insurance product. The IRS has been disallowing most versions of these plans for years, yet they continue to be sold. After everyone gets into trouble and the insurance agents get sued, the promoters of the abusive versions sometimes change the name of their company and call the plan something else. The insurance companies whose policies are sold are legitimate companies. What usually is not legitimate is the way that most of the plans are operated. There can also be a $200,000 IRS fine facing the insurance agent who sold the plan if Form 8918 has not been properly filed. I've reviewed hundreds of these forms for agents and have yet to see one that was filled out correctly.
When the IRS audits a participant in one of these plans, the tax deductions are lost. There is also the interest and large penalties to consider. The business owner can also be facing a $200,000-a-year fine if he did not properly file Form 8886. Most of these forms have been filled out improperly. In my talks with the IRS, I was told that the IRS considers not filling out Form 8886 properly almost the same as not filing at all.
412(i) retirement plans
The IRS has been auditing participants in these types of retirement plans. While there is generally nothing wrong with many of the newer plans, the IRS considered most of the older abusive plans. Forms 8918 and 8886 are also required for abusive 412(i) plans.
I have been an expert witness in a lot of these 419 and 412(i) lawsuits and I have not lost one of them. If you sold one or more of these plans, get someone who really knows what they are doing to help you immediately. Many advisors will take your money and claim to be able to help you. Make sure they have experience helping agents that have sold these types of plans. Don't let them learn on the job, with your career and money at stake.
Do not wait for IRS to come and get you, or for your client to sue you. Time is of the essence. Most insurance professionals need help to correct their improperly completed Form 8918 or to fill it out properly in the first place. If you have not previously filled out the form it is late, and therefore you should immediately seek assistance. There are plenty of legitimate tax reduction insurance plans out there. Just make sure that you know the history of the people with whom you conduct business.
Remember, if something looks too good to be true, it usually is. Be careful.
Lance Wallach, the National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year, speaks and writes extensively about retirement plans, Circular 230 problems and tax reduction strategies. He speaks at more than 40 conventions annually, writes for over 50 publications, is quoted regularly in the press, and has written numerous best-selling AICPA books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Business Hot Spots. 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.
Lance Wallach, CLU, ChFC, CIMC, speaks and writes extensively about VEBAs, retirement plans, and tax reduction strategies. He speaks at more than 50 national conventions annually and writes for more than 30 publications. For more information and additional articles on these subjects, visit www.vebaplan.com or call 516-938-5007.
#14
- Registered
- 4 posts
Registered User
Posted 07 July 2010 - 04:38 PM
Jim Norman, on Jul 7 2010, 02:03 PM, said:
GTigers, on Jul 7 2010, 10:11 AM, said:The agent still lists revenue rulings 2005-25 to back this structure and the sale from the PSP to ilit for the PERC value, and saying that the PERC value of the policy at the end of year three is 10% of the original one time premium (he has the PERC from the insurance company). Basically, after the fact that the PSP is not being established for a business purposes, I still do not trust his sales value.
Doesn't add up if you read the Rev Proc (not ruling). PERC is premium, earnings and REASONABLE charges for mortality and expense. Then you hit it with the surrender factor, which is probably 70% based on the quote below. for the policy to be worth 10 cents on the dollar in year 3 the supposedly reasonable mortality and expense charges would have to have consumed all earnings and 85% of the principal. If this is true, the charges are certainly not reasonable.
May have something to do with how he has structured the insurance. The first two years have insurance of about $6 million and then the insurance drops to $1.5 million. It's a weird illustration, and my friend was presented an email from the insurance company verifying the low Perc value, which is what they are quoting as the sale price from the qualified plan to the ILIT.
I think this sentence in 2005-25 may help me explain why this doesn't work as well "If the insurance contract has not been inforce for some time, the value of the contract is best established through the sale of the particular insurance contract by the insurance company (iei. as the premiums paid for that contract)." It also says "at no time are these rules to be interpreted in a manner that allows the use of these formulas to understate the FMV of the life insurance contracts and associated distributes and transfers."
Even though I dont quite follow the math behind the sales value 2005-25 sets out, i'm pretty sure common sense point me that those two sentences are very relevant in this transaction.
#15
- Registered
- 96 posts
Registered User
Posted 12 July 2010 - 01:47 PM
I was an expert witness in a Federal Court case on point. The Plaintiffs, my side won a lot of money. They went into a similar scam. Lance Wallach
Help with Common IRS Problems: Section 79 Plans: 412IPLANS.ORG
Help with Common IRS Problems: Section 79 Plans: 412IPLANS.ORG: Section 79 Plans: 412IPLANS.ORG : 412IPLANS.ORG Registered User Registered 3,051 posts Posted 06 July 2010 - 11:04 AM I'd al...
419 Plan
419 Plan
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Section 79 Plans: WHAT IS A SECTION 79 PLAN?
Section 79 Plans: WHAT IS A SECTION 79 PLAN?: Section 79 plans are commonly known for the $50,000 free term life insurance they can provide for employees. Less commonly known is tha...
26 U.S. Code § 412 - Minimum funding standards
(a) Requirement to meet minimum funding standard
(1) In general
A plan to which this section applies shall satisfy the minimum funding standard applicable to the plan for any plan year.
(2) Minimum funding standard
For purposes of paragraph (1), a plan shall be treated as satisfying the minimum funding standard for a plan year if—
(A) in the case of a defined benefit plan which is not a multiemployer plan, the employer makes contributions to or under the plan for the plan year which, in the aggregate, are not less than the minimum required contribution determined under section 430 for the plan for the plan year,
(b) Liability for contributions
(2) Joint and several liability where employer member of controlled group
If the employer referred to in paragraph (1) is a member of a controlled group, each member of such group shall be jointly and severally liable for payment of such contributions.
(3) Multiemployer plans in critical status
Paragraph (1) shall not apply in the case of a multiemployer plan for any plan year in which the plan is in critical status pursuant to section 432. This paragraph shall only apply if the plan sponsor adopts a rehabilitation plan in accordance with section 432(e) and complies with such rehabilitation plan (and any modifications of the plan).
(c) Variance from minimum funding standards
(1) Waiver in case of business hardship
(A) In general
If—
(i) an employer is (or in the case of a multiemployer plan, 10 percent or more of the number of employers contributing to or under the plan are) unable to satisfy the minimum funding standard for a plan year without temporary substantial business hardship (substantial business hardship in the case of a multiemployer plan), and
(ii) application of the standard would be adverse to the interests of plan participants in the aggregate,
the Secretary may, subject to subparagraph (C), waive the requirements of subsection (a) for such year with respect to all or any portion of the minimum funding standard. The Secretary shall not waive the minimum funding standard with respect to a plan for more than 3 of any 15 (5 of any 15 in the case of a multiemployer plan) consecutive plan years [1]
(B) Effects of waiver
If a waiver is granted under subparagraph (A) for any plan year—
(2) Determination of business hardship
For purposes of this subsection, the factors taken into account in determining temporary substantial business hardship (substantial business hardship in the case of a multiemployer plan) shall include (but shall not be limited to) whether or not—
(3) Waived funding deficiency
For purposes of this section and part III of this subchapter, the term “waived funding deficiency” means the portion of the minimum funding standard under subsection (a) (determined without regard to the waiver) for a plan year waived by the Secretary and not satisfied by employer contributions.
(4) Security for waivers for single-employer plans, consultations
(A) Security may be required
(i) In general Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the Secretary may require an employer maintaining a defined benefit plan which is a single-employer plan (within the meaning of section 4001(a)(15) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) to provide security to such plan as a condition for granting or modifying a waiver under paragraph (1).
(ii) Special rules Any security provided under clause (i) may be perfected and enforced only by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or at the direction of the Corporation, by a contributing sponsor (within the meaning of section 4001(a)(13) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), or a member of such sponsor’s controlled group (within the meaning of section 4001(a)(14) of such Act).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
No comments: