IRS Hiring Agents in Abusive Transactions Group

FAST PITCH NETWORKING

  Posted: Dec. 10

  By Lance Wallach

Here it is. Here is your proof of my predictions. Perhaps you didn’t believe me when I told you the IRS was coming after what it has deemed “abusive transactions,” but here it is, right from the IRS’s own job posting. If you were involved with a 419e, 412i, listed transaction, abusive tax shelter, Section 79, or captive, and you haven’t yet approached an expert for help with your situation, you had better do it now, before the notices start piling up on your desk.

A portion of the exact announcement from the Department of the Treasury:

Job Title: INTERNAL REVENUE AGENT (ABUSIVE TRANSACTIONS GROUP)

Agency: Internal Revenue Service

Open Period: Monday, October 18, 2010 to Monday, November 01, 2010

Sub Agency: Internal Revenue Service

Job Announcement Number: 11PH1-SBB0058-0512-12/13

Who May Be Considered:

·        IRS employees on Career or Career Conditional Appointments in the competitive service

·        Treasury Office of Chief Counsel employees on Career or Career Conditional Appointments or with prior competitive status

·        IRS employees on Term Appointments with potential conversion to a Career or Career Conditional Appointment in the same line of work

According to the job description, the agents of the Abusive Transactions Group will be conducting examinations of individuals, sole proprietorships, small corporations, partnerships and fiduciaries. They will be examining tax returns and will “determine the correct tax liability, and identify situations with potential for understated taxes.”

These agents will work in the Small Business/Self Employed Business Division (SB/SE) which provides examinations for about 7 million small businesses and upwards of 33 million self-employed and supplemental income taxpayers. This group specifically goes after taxpayers who generally have higher incomes than most taxpayers, need to file more tax forms, and generally need to rely more on paid tax preparers.” Their examinations can contain “special audit features or anticipated accounting, tax law, or investigative issues,” and look to make sure that, for example, specialty returns are filed properly.

The fines are severe. Under IRC 6707A, fines are up to $200,000 annually for not properly disclosing participation in a listed transaction. There was a moratorium on those fines until June 2010, pending new legislation to reduce them, but the new law virtually guarantees you will be fined. The fines had been $200,000 per year on the corporate level and $100,000 per year on the personal level. You got the fine even if you made no contributions for the year. All you had to do was to be in the plan and fail to properly disclose your participation.

You can possibly still avoid all this by properly filing form 8886 IMMEDIATELY with the IRS. Time is especially of the essence now. You MUST file before you are assessed the penalty. For months the Service has been holding off on actually collecting from people that they assessed because they did not know what Congress was going to do. But now they do know, so they are going to move aggressively to collection with people they have already assessed. There is no reason not to now. This is especially true because the new legislation still does not provide for a right of appeal or judicial review. The Service is still judge, jury, and executioner. Its word is absolute as far as determining what is a listed transaction.

So you have to file form 8886 fast, but you also have to file it properly. The Service treats forms that are incorrectly filed as if they were never filed. You get fined for filing incorrectly, or for not filing at all. The Statute of Limitations does not begin unless you properly file. That means IRS can come back to get you any time in the future unless you file properly.

If you don’t want these new IRS Agents, or any other IRS agents for that matter, to be earning their paychecks by coming after you, make sure you have done all you can to ensure that you have filed properly by reaching out for expert help today.

Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, financial and estate planning, and abusive tax shelters. He writes about 412(i), 419, and captive insurance plans. He gives expert witness testimony and his side has never lost a case. Contact him at 516.938.5007, wallachinc@gmail.com or visit www.taxadvisorexperts.org or www.taxaudit419.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

Announced February 8, 2011, the IRS 2011 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative (OVDI) program is a welcome but conditional amnesty allowing taxpayers with foreign accounts to come clean and get into compliance with the IRS.  The program runs through Sept.  9, 2011.

There’s been discussion of “opting out” of the program to take your chances in audit, but it’s a topic fraught with danger.  Now, however, there is guidance about opting out of the program that makes much of it transparent. Because of this late date it is recommended that you properly file FBARs and the 90-day request for amnesty extension. This is the first important step. If the forms are not done properly, you will have extensive problems and will not have to think about opting out. If your forms are properly done and filed, then your situation should be discussed with someone who is experienced in these matters.

Under the OVDI, taxpayers are subject to a penalty of 25 percent of the highest aggregate account balance on their undisclosed account(s) between 2003 and 2010.  If the value was less than $75,000 at all times during those years, the penalty is only 12.5 percent.

These account balance penalties are in lieu of all other penalties that may apply, including FBAR and offshore-related information return penalties.  Plus, participants are required to pay taxes and interest on any monies (such as interest income on foreign accounts) they previously failed to report.  Finally, they must pay an accuracy-related penalty equal to 20 percent of the underpayment of tax, plus interest.

Opting out of the program can make sense for some, though it involves taking your chances with an IRS examination. Someone should represent you with extensive experience in this. We always suggest they should at least be a CPA with years of experience in international tax. It’s even better if you use one that was with the international tax division of the IRS for a number of years. The IRS has published a separate guide detailing the rules and procedures for opting out. 

Here are some of the rules: 

1.      IRS Summary.  The IRS employee who has been handling your case summarizes it, agreeing or disagreeing with your view of penalties, and listing how extensive an audit he or she recommends.

2.      Program Status Report.  Before you can opt out, the IRS sends a letter reporting on the status of your disclosure and what you still must submit.  If you’ve given enough data, the IRS will calculate what you would owe under the OVDI.  You should provide any missing items within 30 days.

3.      Taxpayer Submission.  Within 20 days, the taxpayer opts out in writing and makes a written case what penalties should apply and why. 

4.      Central Committee.  A Committee of IRS Managers reviews the summary and decides how extensive an audit to conduct.  The IRS says “the taxpayer is not to be punished (or rewarded) for opting out.”   The Committee also decides whether to assign your case for a normal civil audit or to assign it for a criminal exam. 

5.      Written Warning.  The IRS sends another letter explaining that opting out must be in writing and is irrevocable.  You have 20 days thereafter to opt out in writing.

6.      Interview?  Some audits will include taxpayer interviews.

Bottom Line?  The “opt out” procedure is helpful but still a bit daunting.  If you are considering it, make sure you get some solid advice from an experienced person who, in my opinion, should have worked for the IRS and is a CPA about the nature of your case. This is just one of the many options that should be discussed with your advisor. There are many other strategies that you may want to utilize. Your advisor should be aware of all your options, and should explain them. If not, consider engaging someone else. Remember, the penalties can be very large, especially if your advisor is not skilled at this. There is even the potential for criminal prosecution.  See taxadvisorexpert.com for the latest information in this area or to contact one of our professionals today.

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, international tax, and other subjects. He writes about FBAR, OVDI, international taxation, captive insurance plans and other topics. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually, writes for more than 50 publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered” and others. Lance has written numerous books including “Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams,” published by John Wiley and Sons, Bisk Education’s “CPA’s Guide to Life Insurance and Federal Estate and Gift Taxation,” as well as the AICPA best-selling books, including “Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps” and “Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots.” He does expert witness testimony and has never lost a case. Contact him at 516.938.5007, lawallach@aol.com,lanwalla@aol.com or visit www.taxadvisorexpert.com.

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

Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams

Posted: Nov 12, 2010

Parts of this article are from the book published by John Wiley and Sons, Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams, authored by Lance Wallach.

Every financial expert out there knows that bad faith and bad planning can take down even the biggest firms, wiping out millions of dollars of value in an instant. Whether it's internal fraud, a scammer, or an incompetent planner that takes your client's cash, the bottom line is: The money is gone and the loss should have been prevented.

Filled with authoritative advice from financial expert Lance Wallach, Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence, and Scams equips you as an accountant, attorney, or financial planner with the weaponry you need to detect bad investments before they happen and protect your clients' wealth - as well as your own.

Sharp and savvy in its frank, often humorous, and authoritative examination of financial fraud and mismanagement, you'll learn about the dysfunctional sectors in the financial industry and:

• Protecting your retirement assets
• Asset protection basics
• Shifting the risk equation: insurance maneuvers
• Reevaluating existing insurance
• What financial advisors and insurance agents "forget" to tell their clients
• The truth about variable annuities
• What you must know about life settlements
• The smart way to approach college funding

The news for the past two years has been filled with gloom and dangers: Swindles, Bernie Madoff, rip-offs, and the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. But the party's over, and with that era done, it's more important than ever for you to perform the due diligence on all financial maneuvers affecting the money you oversee and provide your clients with assurance in the form of practical solutions for risk and asset management.

A pragmatic blueprint for identifying trouble spots you can expect and immediately useful solutions, Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence, and Scams equips you with the resources, strategies, and tools you need to effectively protect your clients from frauds and financial scammers.

Herewith is an excerpt from Lance Wallach's book, Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams:

The IRS has been 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, many people who have questions about tax reduction plans that they have heard about always approach me.

I have been an expert witness in many 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. Make sure they have experience helping accountants who signed the tax returns. IRS calls them material advisors and fines them $200,000 if they are incorporated or $100,000 if not. Do not let them learn on the job, with your career and money at stake.

Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC, is a leading speaker on accounting and taxation topics and the author of numerous AICPA CPE exam publications.  In addition to developing CPE courses, he is also a member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, and has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Bloomberg Financial News, NBC, National Public Radio's All Things Considered, and other radio talk shows.  You may contact him at 516.938.5007, wallachinc@gmail.com or visit his website www.taxaudit419.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.

Section 79, Captive Insurance,419, 412i Plans, Don't go to Arbitration Sue

Thomas, Francis, Edward, and Dolores Ehlen¹("the Ehlens") are employees of Ehlen Floor Covering, Inc. ("Ehlen Floor"). In 2002, Ehlen Floor created a 412(I) employee benefit pension plan, the Ehlen Floor Coverings Retirement Plan ("the Plan"), with the help of advisors and administrators. IPS, a corporation specializing in pension plan design and administration for small businesses, took over as the Plan administrator at the start of 2003. As part of the commencement of IPS's services, Edward Ehlen, in his capacity as president of Ehlen Floor, signed an Arbitration Addendum ("AA") attached to an Administrative Services Agreement ("the Agreement") between IPS and Ehlen Floor. The AA called for arbitration of "any claim arising out of the rendition or lack of rendition of services under [the] [A]greement." The Agreement provided a list of available services that IPS could provide, such as performing annual reviews of the Plan, making amendments, and preparing annual report forms. The Agreement also stated that Ehlen Floor would indicate in Section VI of the Agreement which of the available services it desired for IPS to actually perform. There is no Section VI in the Agreement, nor is there any testimony or evidence that plaintiffs ever viewed a Section VI of the Agreement.

Shortly after IPS stepped in as administrator of the Plan, it became aware that the Plan was not in compliance with several Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") rules and regulations. IPS contends that it drafted an amendment to correct these flaws, but the amendment was never officially adopted. In 2004, the IRS promulgated new rules explaining that it would consider 412(i) plans with beneficiary payout limitations to be listed transactions², possibly subject to serious penalties. The rule required any plans that could be considered listed transactions to file Form 8886 to avoid potential penalties. IPS drafted another amendment to the Plan after determining that the Plan would likely be classified as a listed transaction under the new rules. Ehlen Floor was not informed about the pre-rule tax problems, the existence of the new rule, the additional filing requirements that the new rule imposed, or the drafting of the new amendment. The IRS instigated an audit on March 6, 2006, found the Plan to be non-compliant, and ultimately assessed significant penalties against Ehlen Floor.

In August 2007, plaintiffs filed a complaint in state court against a number of parties involved with the creation and initial administration of the Plan, asserting claims of negligence, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, negligent supervision, breaches of fiduciary duties, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The case was removed to federal court on the basis of preemption under ERISA. In May 2009, as requested by the court, plaintiffs recast their complaints as federal matters in their Second Amended Complaint, but plaintiffs contested the removal and argued against federal jurisdiction. IPS was added as a defendant in the Second Amended Complaint. IPS then moved to compel arbitration of the dispute, claiming that the terms of the AA govern the matter. The district court denied the motion. IPS appeals; plaintiffs cross-appeal to challenge the existence of federal jurisdiction.

II. STANDARD

Innovative Pension Strategies, Inc. ("IPS") appeals the district court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration and stay plaintiffs' claims against it. Plaintiffs cross-appeal, disputing the preemption of their claims under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and alleging a lack of federal jurisdiction. We find that jurisdiction is proper and affirm the district court's denial of IPS's motion to compel arbitration.

We therefore affirm the district court's denial of IPS's motion to compel arbitration and to stay plaintiffs' claims against it.

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.

Remodeling   Hanley / Wood

No Shelter Here                                                                                                                                   September 2011

Backlash on too-good-to-be-true insurance plan

By: Lance Wallach

During the past few years, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has fined many business owners hundreds of thousands of dollars for participating in several particular types of insurance plans.

The 412(i), 419, captive insurance, and section 79 plans were marketed as a way for small-business owners to set up retirement, welfare benefit plans, or other tax-deductible programs while leveraging huge tax savings, but the IRS put most of them on a list of abusive tax shelters, listed transactions, or similar transactions, etc., and has more recently focused audits on them. Many accountants are unaware of the issues surrounding these plans, and many big-name insurance companies are still encouraging participation in them.

Seems Attractive

The plans are costly up-front, but your money builds over time, and there’s a large payout if the money is removed before death. While many business owners have retirement plans, they also must care for their employees. With one of these plans, business owners are not required to give their workers anything.

Gotcha

Although small business has taken a recessionary hit and owners may not be spending big sums on insurance now, an IRS task force is auditing people who bought these as early as 2004. There is no statute of limitations.

The IRS also requires participants to file Form 8886 informing the IRS of participation in this “abusive transaction.” Failure to file or to file incorrectly will cost the business owner interest and penalties. Plus, you’ll pay back whatever you claimed for a deduction, and there are additional fines — possibly 70% of the tax benefit you claim in a year. And, if your accountant does not confidentially inform on you, he or she will get fined $100,000 by the IRS. Further, the IRS can freeze assets if you don’t pay and can fine you on a corporate and a personal level despite the type of business entity you have.

Legal Wrangling

Currently, small businesses facing audits and potentially huge tax penalties over these plans are filing lawsuits against those who marketed, designed, and sold the plans. Find out promptly if you have one of these plans and seek advice from a knowledgeable accountant to help you properly file Form 8886.

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.taxadvisorexpert.com. www.taxaudit419.com

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

Article Biz                                                                                                       June 2011

Lance Wallach

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. Listed designated as listed in published IRS material available to the general public or transactions that are substantially similar to the specific listed transactions. A reportable transaction is defined simply as one that has the potential for tax avoidance or evasion.

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

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

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

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

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

Benistar advertised that enrollees should expect to obtain the same type of tax benefits as listed in the transaction described in Notice 95-34. The benefits of enrollment listed in its advertising packet included:
Virtually unlimited deductions for the employer;
Contributions could vary from year to year;
Benefits could be provided to one or more key executives on a selective basis;
No need to provide benefits to rank-and-file employees;
Contributions to the plan were not limited by qualified plan rules and would not interfere with pension, profit sharing or 401(k) plans;
Funds inside the plan would accumulate tax-free;
Beneficiaries could receive death proceeds free of both income tax and estate tax;
The program could be arranged for tax-free distribution at a later date;
Funds in the plan were secure from the hands of creditors.

The Court said that the Benistar Plan was factually similar to the plans described in Notice 95-34 at all relevant times.

In rendering its decision the court heavily cited Curcio, in which the court also ruled in favor of the IRS. As noted in Curcio, the insurance policies, overwhelmingly variable or universal life policies, required large contributions relative to the cost of the amount of term insurance that would be required to provide the death benefits under the arrangement. The Benistar Plan owned the insurance contracts.

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

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

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

More you should know:

In recent years, some section 412(i) plans have been funded with life insurance using face amounts in excess of the maximum death benefit a qualified plan is permitted to pay. Ideally, the plan should limit the proceeds that can be paid as a death benefit in the event of a participant’s death. Excess amounts would revert to the plan. Effective February 13, 2004, the purchase of excessive life insurance in any plan makes the plan 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 in a 412(i) plan.
Just because a 412(i) plan was audited and sanctioned for certain items, does not necessarily mean the plan is a listed transaction. Some 412(i) plans have been audited and sanctioned for issues not related to listed transactions.

Companies should carefully evaluate proposed investments in plans such as the Benistar Plan. The claimed deductions will not be available, and penalties will be assessed for lack of disclosure if the investment is similar to the investments described in Notice 95-34. In addition, under IRC 6707A, IRS fines participants a large amount of money for not properly disclosing their participation in listed or 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 prepared properly. A plan administrator told me that he assisted hundreds of his participants file forms, and they still all received very large IRS fines for not properly filling in the forms.

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

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

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

Financial Author Lance Wallach Testifies About Tax Cap Ballot

Farmingville, NY - Brookhaven Town Councilman Panico presented a series of expert witnesses supporting the merits of a tax cap during the public hearing of the proposed tax cap. Offering expert testimony on the cap included Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy, Former Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi, Suffolk County Legislator Ed Romaine, Suffolk County Legislator John Kennedy, Suffolk County Legislator Tom Muratore, Town of Brookhaven Tax Receiver Lou Marcoccia, financial author and expert Lance Wallach, Long Islanders for Educational Reform Andrea Vecchio, and economist Dr. Thomas Conoscenti.

The tax cap resolution, at its core, is to ensure that taxpayers do not suffer an increased burden because elected officials fail to moderate spending. This measure does not simply limit the increase in property taxes to 4% rather, it simply ensures that all voters have a say in any increase above 4%. “This returns to our core American values of “No taxation without representation” commented Councilman Panico.

Suffolk County has had a similar tax cap on the books for decades and has been consistently rated extremely well by the bond rating agencies. Ultimately, the financial decisions will be made by elected officials, and this tax cap will surely act as a sound responsible guideline to be followed that protects the taxpayer from inordinate increases.

“While we are fortunate that the Brookhaven Town’s property tax has remained relatively reasonable, that may not always be the case and is not a reason to forgo its moderation. Again, because this is a fairly guaranteed source of revenue, imposing self governance now on the property tax rate of growth ensures that future boards will be less inclined to increase the property tax to garner revenue for “pet projects” which would not otherwise be supported by traditional “fee based” revenue structures.”

“On August 4, 2009 late Councilman Keith Romaine initially sponsored a resolution to set a pubic hearing to consider enacting a similar tax cap law. It is unfortunate that for reasons that are still unclear and unknown, he never got the public hearing to simply consider the measure and present experts to discuss the pros and cons of such a proposal.

Although, I am proud that even though months later this public hearing was set, and this resolution was adopted to set a tax cap proposal on the ballot for November, there is no doubt in my mind that this public hearing should have been set back on that fateful day of August 4th, 2009,” concluded Councilman Panico.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dolan Media Newswires                                 01/22/2010  

Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation

Small businesses facing audits and potentially huge tax penalties over certain types of retirement plans are filing lawsuits against those who marketed, designed and sold the plans. The 412(i) and 419(e) plans were marketed in the past several years as a way for small business owners to set up retirement or welfare benefits plans while leveraging huge tax savings, but the IRS put them on a list of abusive tax shelters and has more recently focused audits on them.

The penalties for such transactions are extremely high and can pile up quickly - $100,000 per individual and $200,000 per entity per tax year for each failure to disclose the transaction - often exceeding the disallowed taxes.

There are business owners who owe $6,000 in taxes but have been assessed $1.2 million in penalties. The existing cases involve many types of businesses, including doctors' offices, dental practices, grocery store owners, mortgage companies and restaurant owners. Some are trying to negotiate with the IRS. Others are not waiting. A class action has been filed and cases in several states are ongoing. The business owners claim that they were targeted by insurance companies; and their agents to purchase the plans without any disclosure that the IRS viewed the plans as abusive tax shelters. Other defendants include financial advisors who recommended the plans, accountants who failed to fill out required tax forms and law firms that drafted opinion letters legitimizing the plans, which were used as marketing tools.

A 412(i) plan is a form of defined benefit pension plan. A 419(e) plan is a similar type of health and benefits plan. Typically, these were sold to small, privately held businesses with fewer than 20 employees and several million dollars in gross revenues. What distinguished a legitimate plan from the plans at issue were the life insurance policies used to fund them. The employer would make large cash contributions in the form of insurance premiums, deducting the entire amounts. The insurance policy was designed to have a "springing cash value," meaning that for the first 5-7 years it would have a near-zero cash value, and then spring up in value.

Just before it sprung, the owner would purchase the policy from the trust at the low cash value, thus making a tax-free transaction. After the cash value shot up, the owner could take tax-free loans against it. Meanwhile, the insurance agents collected exorbitant commissions on the premiums - 80 to 110 percent of the first year's premium, which could exceed $1 million.

Technically, the IRS's problems with the plans were that the "springing cash" structure disqualified them from being 412(i) plans and that the premiums, which dwarfed any payout to a beneficiary, violated incidental death benefit rules.

Under §6707A of the Internal Revenue Code, once the IRS flags something as an abusive tax shelter, or "listed transaction," penalties are imposed per year for each failure to disclose it. Another allegation is that businesses weren't told that they had to file Form 8886, which discloses a listed transaction.

According to Lance Wallach of Plainview, N.Y. (516-938-5007), who testifies as an expert in cases involving the plans, the vast majority of accountants either did not file the forms for their clients or did not fill them out correctly.

Because the IRS did not begin to focus audits on these types of plans until some years after they became listed transactions, the penalties have already stacked up by the time of the audits.

Another reason plaintiffs are going to court is that there are few alternatives - the penalties are not appealable and must be paid before filing an administrative claim for a refund.

The suits allege misrepresentation, fraud and other consumer claims. "In street language, they lied," said Peter Losavio, a plaintiffs' attorney in Baton Rouge, La., who is investigating several cases. So far they have had mixed results. Losavio said that the strength of an individual case would depend on the disclosures made and what the sellers knew or should have known about the risks.

In 2004, the IRS issued notices and revenue rulings indicating that the plans were listed transactions. But plaintiffs' lawyers allege that there were earlier signs that the plans ran afoul of the tax laws, evidenced by the fact that the IRS is auditing plans that existed before 2004.

"Insurance companies were aware this was dancing a tightrope," said William Noll, a tax attorney in Malvern, Pa. "These plans were being scrutinized by the IRS at the same time they were being promoted, but there wasn't any disclosure of the scrutiny to unwitting customers."

A defense attorney, who represents benefits professionals in pending lawsuits, said the main defense is that the plans complied with the regulations at the time and that "nobody can predict the future."

An employee benefits attorney who has settled several cases against insurance companies, said that although the lost tax benefit is not recoverable, other damages include the hefty commissions - which in one of his cases amounted to $860,000 the first year - as well as the costs of handling the audit and filing amended tax returns.

Defying the individualized approach an attorney filed a class action in federal court against four insurance companies claiming that they were aware that since the 1980s the IRS had been calling the policies potentially abusive and that in 2002 the IRS gave lectures calling the plans not just abusive but "criminal." A judge dismissed the case against one of the insurers that sold 412(i) plans.

The court said that the plaintiffs failed to show the statements made by the insurance companies were fraudulent at the time they were made, because IRS statements prior to the revenue rulings indicated that the agency may or may not take the position that the plans were abusive. The attorney, whose suit also names law firm for its opinion letters approving the plans, will appeal the dismissal to the 5th Circuit.

In a case that survived a similar motion to dismiss, a small business owner is suing Hartford Insurance to recover a "seven-figure" sum in penalties and fees paid to the IRS. A trial is expected in August.

Last July, in response to a letter from members of Congress, the IRS put a moratorium on collection of §6707A penalties, but only in cases where the tax benefits were less than $100,000 per year for individuals and $200,000 for entities. That moratorium was recently extended until March 1, 2010.

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

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

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

 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

 Health Care Pay-To-Play Payoff

We recently discussed one of the motivations Big Labor has for seeing a drastic health care bill pass, which is to eventually drive health care employees into public-sector unions. Intense scrutiny of the pending legislation unveiled another bone thrown to Big Labor in the current version of the bill, to the tune of $10 billion.

Union VEBAs (voluntary employee benefit associations) are in trouble. Lance Wallach, a New York-based VEBA expert, recently said of the UAW VEBA , if the funds “don’t get something, they’re out of business in 12 years.” That something would come in the guise of a so-called reinsurance provision in the health care bill. $10 billion would be earmarked to pay some claims for early retirees covered by employers and VEBAs.

---------------

For further examples of Lance Wallach's media presence please visit www.lancewallach.com

California Broker, June 2011

Employee Retirement Plans

By Lance Wallach

412i, 419, Captive Insurance and Section 79 Plans; Buyer Beware

The 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.  IRS is aggressively auditing various plans and calling them “listed transactions,” “abusive tax shelters,” or “reportable transactions,” participation in any of which must be disclosed to the Service.  The result has been IRS audits, disallowances, and huge fines for not properly reporting under IRC 6707A.  

In a recent tax court case, Curico v. Commissioner (TC Memo 2010-115), the Tax Court ruled that an investment in an employee welfare benefit plan marketed under the name “Benistar” was a listed transaction.  It was substantially similar to the transaction described in IRS Notice 95-34.  A subsequent case, McGehee Family Clinic, largely followed Curico, though it was technically decided on other grounds.  The parties stipulated to be bound by Curico regarding whether the amounts paid by McGehee in connection with the Benistar 419 Plan and Trust were deductible.  Curico 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.  Click here to read full article.

  NCCPAP November 2010 Newsletter 2010

Business Owners in 419, 412i, Section 79 and Captive Insurance Plans Will Probably Be Fined by the IRS Under Section 6707A

by Lance Wallach

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 the taxpayer does not necessarily have to make a contribution or claim a tax deduction to be deemed to participate. Section 6707A of the Code imposes severe penalties ($200,000 for a business and $100,000 for an individual) for failure to file Form 8886 with respect to a listed transaction. But a taxpayer can also be in trouble if they file incorrectly. I have received numerous phone calls from business owners who filed and still got fined. Not only does

the taxpayer have to file Form 8886, but it has to be prepared correctly. I only know of two people in the United States who have filed these forms properly for clients. They told me that the form was prepared after hundreds of hours of research and over fifty phones calls to various IRS personnel. The filing instructions for Form 8886 presume a timely filing. 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 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

they 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 the deductions

taken in prior years. 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. It follows that taxpayers who no longer enjoy the benefit of those large deductions are no longer “participating” in the listed transaction.

But that is not the end of the story. 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. This language may provide the taxpayer with a solid argument in the event of an audit.

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