Showing posts with label 419 Help. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 419 Help. Show all posts

Similarities and Differences Between IRC Section 419A(f)(6) and IRC Section 419(e) Plans CPA’s Guide to Life Insurance

Author/Moderator: Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC, CIMC

Below is an excerpt from one of Lance Wallach’s new books.



Similarities and Differences Between IRC Section 419A(f)(6) and IRC Section 419(e) Plans


                        One popular type of listed transaction is the so-called “welfare benefit plan,” which once relied on IRC §419A(f)(6) for its authority to claim tax deductions, but now more commonly relies on IRC §419(e).  The IRC §419A(f)(6) plans used to claim that the section completely exempted business owners from all limitations on how much tax could be deducted.  In other words, it was claimed, tax deductions were unlimited.  These plans featured large amounts of life insurance and accompanying large com­missions, and were thus aggressively pushed by insurance agents, financial planners, and sometimes even accountants and attorneys.  Not to mention the insurance companies themselves, who put millions of dollars in premiums on the books and, when confronted with questions about the outlandish tax claims made in marketing these plans, claimed to be only selling product, not giving opinions on tax questions.

How Hartford Life and Other Insurance Companies Tricked their Agents and Got People in Trouble with the IRS - HG.org

How Hartford Life and Other Insurance Companies Tricked their Agents and Got People in Trouble with the IRS - HG.org



Agents from Hartford and other insurance companies were shown ways to sell large life insurance policies. This “Welfare Benefit Trust 419 plan or 412i plan should be shown to their profitable small business owners as a cure for paying too much taxes.


A Welfare Benefit Trust 419 plan essentially works like this:



• The business provides a fringe benefit for their employees, such as health insurance and life insurance.

• The benefit is established in the name of a trust and funded with a cash value life insurance policy

• Here is the gravy: the entire amount deposited into the trust (insurance policy) is tax deductible to the company,and

• The owners of the company can withdraw the cash value from the policy in later years tax-free.
Read more by clicking the link above!

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

Doctors and Captive Insurance

Doctors were an easy target. Why was this? What is the difference between God and a Doctor? God does not think that he is a Doctor. I hope that did not offend anyone, but it is a good reason why Doctors are an easy target for life insurance agents.
Many of these deals are tax shelters. Doctors are drawn to tax shelters like ants to a picnic, and there is no shortage of tax shelter promoters who love selling to physicians.

Every year, October announces the start of tax shelter season. Every year there is a hot tax shelter that it seems everyone is selling to doctors.

Click Here For Your Free Consulation

Lance Wallach - www.businessvaluationssite.com

http://www.youtube.com/v/S7U41G-uaFQ?autohide=1&version=3&attribution_tag=jwAdxKKGy335ldNMdnak1Q&feature=share&autoplay=1&autohide=1&showinfo=1

Life Insurance Fraud Lawline.com Continuing Legal Education

http://www.youtube.com/v/bKAs4gV9KdQ?version=3&autohide=1&autohide=1&autoplay=1&attribution_tag=YDwqu7LW_nafEftIlEOJXw&showinfo=1&feature=share

Winter 2010

IRS Attacks Business Owners in 419, 412, Section 79 and Captive Insurance Plans 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 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

Life Insurance Fraud Lawline.com Continuing Legal Education

http://www.youtube.com/v/bKAs4gV9KdQ?version=3&autohide=1&autohide=1&autoplay=1&attribution_tag=YDwqu7LW_nafEftIlEOJXw&showinfo=1&feature=share

Life Insurance, Listed, Abusive, IRS, Audits. 419 Plans Lawline.com Cont...

http://www.youtube.com/v/8-PCT6uSpUQ?version=3&autohide=1&showinfo=1&autohide=1&autoplay=1&feature=share&attribution_tag=cbZvpv-pQ5K65Pq86TBVTg

Life Insurance, Listed, Abusive, IRS, Audits. 419 Plans Lawline.com Cont...

http://www.youtube.com/v/8-PCT6uSpUQ?version=3&autohide=1&showinfo=1&autohide=1&autoplay=1&feature=share&attribution_tag=cbZvpv-pQ5K65Pq86TBVTg

The IRS has attacked 412i, 419 plans for years. As a result promoters are now promoting section 79 and captive insurance plans. They are just starting to be attacked by the IRS.

 A 412(i) plan differs from other defined benefit pension plans in that it must be funded exclusively by the purchase of individual life insurance products.

In the late 1990's brokers and promoters such as Kenneth Hartstein, Dennis Cunning, and others began selling 412(i) plans designed with policies created and sold through agents of Pacific Life, Hartford, Indianapolis life, and American General. These plans were sold or administered through companies such as Economic Concepts, Inc., Pension Professionals of America, Pension Strategies, L.L.C. and others.

These plans were very lucrative for the brokers, promoters, agents, and insurance companies. In addition to the costs associated with adminstering the plans, the policies of insurance had high commissions. If they were cancelled within a few years of purchace the had very little cash value.

These plans were often described as Pendulum Plans, or other similar names. In theory, the plans would work as follows. After the plan was set up, the plan would purchase a life insurance policy insuring the life of an individual. The plan would have very little (and high surrender charges) for 5 or more years. The Corporation would pay the premium on the policy and take a deduction for the entire amount. In year 5, when the policy had little or no cash value, the plan would transfer the policy to the individual, who would take it at a greatly reduced basis. Subsequently, the policy would spring up with cash value, thus the name springing cash value policy. The insured would have  cash value which he could withdraw almost tax free .

Attorney Richard Smith at the law firm of Bryan Cave issued tax opinion letters opinion which stated that the design of many of the plans met the requirements of section 412(i) of the tax code.

In the early 2000s, IRS officials began questioning the insurance representatives, brokers, promoters, and their attorneys and giving speeches at benefits conferences wherein they took the position that these plans were in violation of both the letter and spirit of the Internal Revenue Code. When I spoke at the annual national convention of the American Society of Pension Actuarys  in 2002 I heard such a speech given by Jim Holland, IRS chief actuary.

In February 2004, the IRS issued guidance on 412(i) and began the process of making plans "listed transactions." Taxpayers involved in listed transaction are required to report them to the IRS. These transactions are to be reported using a form 8886. The failure to file a form 8886 subjects individual to penalties of very large amounts, and failure of insurance agents, accountants and others to file 8918 results in a $100,000  fine.
In late 2005, the IRS began obtaining information from advisors and actively auditing plans and more recently, levying section 6707 penalties. First the IRS would audit the business owner and deny the deduction. The business owner would also owe interest and penalities. Then another unit of the IRS would assess large additional fines for failure to properly file, or failure to file 8886 forms. The directions for these forms is very complicated, expecially if the forms are filed after the fact. Many business owners still got fined even if they filed the forms. If the forms were not filled in exactly right a fine was still assessed.

The IRS's response to these 412(i) plans was predictable.  They made it clear that the IRS would not be gentle and even indicated that potential criminal liability existed. The IRS made speeches and people like me wrote articles about the problems.

Insurance company representatives attended these conferences and heard the IRS warnings. Many of them ignored them.

Neither the brokers, promoters, or Insurance companies relayed this information to their clients and insureds at this time. When I would speak about the problems of 412i and 419 plans I would be attacked by promoters and salesmen. When I testified againt a springing cash value policy in my first court case I was challenged by the defendants attorney as not being an expert. The judge allowed the jury to hear whether I was indeed an expert. The result was a huge loss for the defense.


On February 13, 2004, the IRS issued a press release, two revenue rulings, and proposed regulations to shut down abusive transactions involving specifically designed life insurance policies in retirement plans, section 412(i) plans and 419 plans etc.


In October of 2005, the IRS invited those who sponsored 412(i) plans that were treated as listed transactions to enter a settlement program in which the taxpayer would recind the plan and pay the income taxes it would have paid had it not engaged in the plan, plus interest and reduced penalties.


MDL stands for Multidistrict Litigation. It was created by Congress in 1968 – 28 U.S.C. §1407.

The act created an MDL Panel of judges to determine whether civil actions pending in different federal districts involve one or more common questions of fact such that the actions should be transferred to one federal district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. In theory, the purposes of this transfer or “centralization” process are to avoid duplication of discovery, to prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and to conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. Transferred actions which are not resolved in the MDL are remanded to their originating court or district by the Panel for trial. Lots of people who were audited sued the insurance companys, agents, accountants and others.

Then, Pacific Life, Hartford Life & Annuity moved for summary judgment in the MDL. The court granted the motions in part, and denied the motions in part. Specifically, the court dealt with the issue of the disclaimers contained within the policies and signed by various policyholders.

Applying California law in evauating the disclosures and disclaimers, the Court ruled that the California Plaintiffs failed to raise issues of material fact that they reasonably relied on representations by Hartford and Pacific Life regarding the tax and legal issues related to their 412(i) plans.

Conversely, the court ruled that pursuant to Wisconsin law, the disclaimers were unenforceable. The court came to similar conclusion when applying Texas law to the Plaintiffs claims.

Plaintiffs have been more successful in suing 419 plan promoters, insurance companys, accountants ,etc. I have been an expert witness and my side has never lost a case.


I have been speaking with my IRS contacts about the newest abusive tax shelter trends, captives and section 79 plans. They have started auditing participants in these plans. The IRS has not yet decided if the plans are listed, abusive or similar to. I think that captive insurance companies and section 79 plans may become the next 412 and 419 problem for unsuspecting companies. Designed under IRS Code 831(b), these captive insurance companies are designed to insure the risks of an individual business. In theory and if properly designed, the premiums are deducted when paid to a related company, and depending on claims, profits can be paid out as dividends and when liquidated, the proceeds are taxed at capital gains rates.

The problem with Captives is that they are expensive to set up and operate. Captives must be opetate as a true risk assuming entity, not simply a tax avoidance vehicle. Some variations are to rent a cell captives that can work for a lot less money.
The IRS is looking into the sale of life insurance to fund Captives. They are also looking at most section 79 plans. This sounds very familiar.

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.

 google lance wallach for more or www.taxaudit419.com

412i-419 Plans: 412i 419e IRS audits, 6707a penalties, form 8886 l...

412i-419 Plans: 412i 419e IRS audits, 6707a penalties, form 8886 l...

412i-419 Plans: IRS Audits & 419 Plans Litigation: FBAR/OVDI LANCE...

412i-419 Plans: IRS Audits & 419 Plans Litigation: FBAR/OVDI LANCE...: IRS Audits & 419 Plans Litigation: FBAR/OVDI LANCE WALLACH: If You Have or Had Money ... : FBAR/OVDI LANCE WALLACH: If You Have or Had M...

412i-419 Plans: What the other attorney firms wish they had!

412i-419 Plans: What the other attorney firms wish they had!: 419-Litigation.com is proud to announce that we have, as part of our 419 litigation team, Lance Wallach, the nation's foremost expert ...

412i-419 Plans: Captive Insurance and Other Tax Reduction Strategi...

412i-419 Plans: Captive Insurance and Other Tax Reduction Strategi...: NSA: Member Link By Lance Wallach May Ev...

412i-419 Plans: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THENORTHE...

412i-419 Plans: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHE...
: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) TRACY L. SUNDE...

412i-419 Plans: What the other attorney firms wish they had!

412i-419 Plans: What the other attorney firms wish they had!: 419-Litigation.com is proud to announce that we have, as part of our 419 litigation team, Lance Wallach, the nation's foremost expert ...