Anonymous
map-marker Uniondale, New York

Sue and get all your money back

sold 419 plan that got audited
View full review
3 comments
Guest

lance wallach will help u get all your 419 plan money back google him

Guest
reply icon Replying to comment of Guest-1817601

Grow up!

Guest
reply icon Replying to comment of Guest-1817601

Lance wallach is the best

View more comments (2)
robert s Ubc
map-marker New York, New York

Robin weingast lawsuits

IRS audits 419 welfare benefit plans that robin weingast sold google lance wallach for details

Beta plan and other 419 plans are IRS audit targets. Then the buyer sues the insurance agent that sold the plan to get all their money back. IRS also audits 412i plans and sometimes captive insurance and section 79 plans.

Google lance wallach for articles and details about these plans and IRS audits and lawsuits or try www.lancewallach .com com

or www.taxaudit419.com or vebaplan.com for a lot more info about 419 welfare benefit plans and IRS audits, lawsuits and more. Thanks

View full review
Loss:
$500
18 comments
Guest

Today the IRS issued a press release announcing that it is significantly increasing enforcement actions for syndicated conservation easement donations and that these transactions are a priority compliance area for the agency. In the press release, the IRS stated that examinations of conservation easement donations are being coordinated across the agency.

The IRS also announced that investigations relating to conservation easement deductions had been initiated by the IRS Criminal Investigation Division. Currently, there are more than 80 conservation easement cases pending in Tax Court, and the IRS outlined its commitment to bringing more cases to Tax Court where it believes the deduction should be disallowed.

Guest

Robin is great at selling and really knows insurance, pensions etc, Lance Wallach

Guest

Robin Weingast - 419 IRS lawsuits IRS audits

4 of 5 Robin Weingast Reviews

Jun 18, 2012 by anonymous 397 VIEWS 14 COMMENTS 5/5 REVIEW RATING New York, New York Professional Services 419 Welfare Plan

Google lance wallach for help, as an expert witness his side has never lost a case, get all your money back

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

Guest

IRS tax relief firm, Lance Wallach, speaking: 412i-419 Plans: 412i ...

lancevids.blogspot.com/.../412i-419-plans-412i-419-plans-412i-419.htm...‎

by Lance Wallach - in 49 Google+ circles

3 days ago - sea nine veba 419 help beta plan 419 IRS audits lawsuits ... Employers: Abusive Tax Shelters & 419 Plans Lawsuits: IRS to Audit Sea N....

Help with Common IRS Problems: Beta Plans Abusive Tax Shelters

abusiveplans.blogspot.com/.../help-with-common-irs-problems-beta.html‎ by Lance Wallach - in 49 Google+ circles Feb 19, 2014 - 23 hours ago - Jan 21, 2014 - sea nine veba 419 help beta plan 419 IRS audits lawsuits.

RS to Audit Sea Nine VEBA Participating Employers: ... beta plan images - We Heart It

Cherron Qlr

Robin told me that she is a pension expert and has a lot of clients. I know that she is a hard worker.

Guest

Dolan Media Newswires 01/22/2010 Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel LitigationSmall 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-****), 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."

Guest
reply icon Replying to comment of Guest-575712

NSA: Member Link

Your link to accounting, tax and practice management ideas, tools, news and information.

Captive Insurance and Other Tax Reduction Strategies – The Good, Bad, and Ugly

By Lance Wallach May 14, 2008

Every accountant knows that increased cash flow and cost savings are critical for businesses in 2008. What is uncertain is the best path to recommend to garner these benefits.

Over the past decade business owners have been overwhelmed by a plethora of choices designed to reduce the cost of providing employee benefits while increasing their own retirement savings. The solutions ranged from traditional pension and profit sharing plans to more advanced strategies.

Some strategies, such as IRS section 419 and 412(i) plans, used life insurance as vehicles to bring about benefits. Unfortunately, the high life insurance commissions (often 90% of the contribution, or more) fostered an environment that led to aggressive and noncompliant plans.

The result has been thousands of audits and an IRS task force seeking out tax shelter promotion. For unknowing clients, the tax consequences are enormous. For their accountant advisors, the liability may be equally extreme.

Recently, there has been an explosion in the marketing of a financial product called Captive Insurance. These so called “Captives” are typically small insurance companies designed to insure the risks of an individual business under IRS code section 831(b). When properly designed, a business can make tax-deductible premium payments to a related-party insurance company. Depending on circumstances, underwriting profits, if any, can be paid out to the owners as dividends, and profits from liquidation of the company may be taxed as capital gains.

While captives can be a great cost saving tool, they also are expensive to build and manage. Also, captives are allowed to garner tax benefits because they operate as real insurance companies. Advisors and business owners who misuse captives or market them as estate planning tools, asset protection vehicles, tax deferral or other benefits not related to the true business purpose of an insurance company face grave regulatory and tax consequences.

A recent concern is the integration of small captives with life insurance policies. Small captives under section 831(b) have no statutory authority to deduct life premiums. Also, if a small captive uses life insurance as an investment, the cash value of the life policy can be taxable at corporate rates, and then will be taxable again when distributed. The consequence of this double taxation is to devastate the efficacy of the life insurance, and it extends serious liability to any accountant who recommends the plan or even signs the tax return of the business that pays premiums to the captive.

The IRS is aware that several large insurance companies are promoting their life insurance policies as investments with small captives. The outcome looks eerily like that of the 419 and 412(i) plans mentioned above.

Remember, if something looks too good to be true, it usually is. There are safe and conservative ways to use captive insurance structures to lower costs and obtain benefits for businesses. And, some types of captive insurance products do have statutory protection for deducting life insurance premiums (although not 831(b) captives). Learning what works and is safe is the first step an accountant should take in helping his or her clients use these powerful, but highly technical insurance tools.

Lance Wallach speaks and writes extensively about VEBAs, retirement plans, and tax reduction strategies. He speaks at more than 70 conventions annually, writes for 50 publications, and was the National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year. Contact him at 516.938.5007 or visit www.vebaplan.com.

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

National Society of Accountants

Guest

March 8, 2010

In a speech last May, President Obama said, "Nobody likes paying taxes . . . . And yet, even as most American citizens and businesses meet these responsibilities, there are others who are shirking theirs." He was referring to offshore tax havens and other loopholes that wealthy Americans often exploit to reduce their tax burden. But it doesn't take moving money to Switzerland to avoid paying taxes. If history is any guide, 2010 will be a year in which many Americans use a few simple methods to reduce their tax liability, which could potentially cost the government billions of dollars.

This year is the last before the expiration of tax cuts originally put in place by the Bush administration. If Congress allows these tax cuts to expire, as the president supports, in 2011 the top marginal tax rates will increase from 28, 33, and 35 percent to 31, 36, and 39.6 percent.

Although it is not certain that tax rates will go up, many wealthy Americans are looking at 2010 as the end of the party. "Everybody thinks taxes are going up and tax breaks are being eliminated. Everybody's thinking this, and they're planning for it," says Lance Wallach, a New York author, lecturer, and financial consultant who advises high net-worth clients, including entertainers and athletes. His phone is ringing off the hook with questions from clients about how they can take advantage of this year's rates relative to 2011's.

One of the most popular strategies is moving income from 2011 to this year. Usually, accountants encourage clients to postpone income so there is less income taxed in one year. But in 2010, the incentives have flipped. "This is the exact opposite. Accelerating your income makes 100 percent sense," says Wallach.

Creative maneuvering. This would not be the first year taxpayers have pursued this strategy. In 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president with promises to raise taxes on wealthy Americans, which Congress did in 1993, boosting the top marginal rate from 31 to 39.6 percent. In late 1992, many taxpayers, expecting rates to be higher the next year because of Clinton's victory, moved more income onto 1992's tax return to avoid paying more with the higher rate. Robert Carroll, an economist at a Washington research organization called the Tax Foundation, estimates that about $20 billion was shifted and paid at the 31 percent rate rather than the 39.6 percent—meaning there was about $1.5 billion that the federal government did not collect in revenue.

Something similar could happen this year. "Anyone who has flexibility with income is going to try to shift their income," says Carroll. An example of flexibility would be a business owner who gives himself or herself a bonus in December 2010 rather than January 2011.

There's also an incentive to delay tax deductions. For example, state property and income taxes can be deducted from federal income tax returns. Wallach says he is recommending that clients hold off on paying those taxes until next year, so that the deductions can be cashed in at the higher rate.

Some may choose to delay charitable gifts for the same reason—charitable giving is tax deductible, so some taxpayers may decide to hold off on a gift they would make in 2010 and instead give a larger amount in 2011. "What we know from history, if the taxes go up, people will delay their giving," says Nancy Raybin, chair of the Giving Institute, an association of nonprofit consultants. But Raybin says such delays usually are not significantly damaging to charities because people will often just push a gift forward a few months—from December to January, for example. "If there's a 12-month delay, it could be a problem. But if a donor is just delaying one month, it's not a big problem," she says.

These tax-avoidance strategies will probably be a one-time deal for those who pursue them. A study by economist Austan Goolsbee, currently a member of the Council of Economic Advisers, found that the 1993 drop-off in reported income was temporary. Income bounced back in following years. If tax rates appear to be steady after 2011, accelerating one's income or delaying deductions is no longer advantageous. But taxpayers will continue to look for ways to reduce their liability—they just need the time and money to find the loopholes. Wallach says most of his clients will adjust to higher tax rates with his help. "For the very sophisticated people, there will always be loopholes," he says, such as deducting travel and entertainment expenses. "None of my clients pay more in taxes than a schoolteacher." For issues like these Wallach has various websites including www.taxlibrary.us .

Guest

Customer Login

List Your Company

FOLLOW US Google+

Home

About Us

Testimonials

Expert Witnesses

Find Expert Witnesses

Expert Witness by State

Medical Expert Witnesses

Forensic Experts

Litigation Support

Appraisal

Banking

Case Review Employment

Environmental

Jury Selection

Legal Costs

Management

Marketing

Medical

Technology

Translation

Trial Presentation

Legal Services

Law Firms

Court Reporters

Process Servers

Investigators

Arbitrators

Mediators

Speakers

Publications

By Expert Witnesses

By Medical Expert Witnesses

Marketing for Expert Witness

Information

Guidelines

Guide to Expert Testimony

Forensic Science

Mediation

Submit Article

Sign In

Sign In

List your Company

Premium Listing

Submit Article

Top of Directory

Contact

printsubmit an articlerecent articlesback

FBAR Information

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

By Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC Abusive Tax Shelter, Listed Transaction, Reportable Transaction Expert Witness

Call Lance Wallach at (516) 938-****

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

The willful failure to file the FBAR report or retain records of your foreign accounts can potentially lead to a ten-year prison sentence and fines of up to $500,000. This criminal penalty applies to all US citizens pursuant to 31U.S.C Section S322B and 31 C.F.R. Section 103.S.9.C It may also apply to persons living in the United States who are not citizens.

If you fail to answer the question truthfully on schedule B of your Form 1040 which asks if you “have an interest in or a signature or other authority over a financial account in a foreign country”, then your false statement might be deemed a criminal offense by the IRS per the sections mentioned above if other surrounding facts and circumstances apply.

Our office is headed by a former international tax IRS agent with 37 years experience as a CPA and Associate Professor of accounting. Call our office immediately so you can avoid the dire circumstances described above and deal with the other associated problems.

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

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Lance Wallach

Lance Wallach is a frequent speaker at national conventions and writes for more than 50 publications. He was the National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year.

Copyright Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC

More information about Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC

While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.

HG.org Worldwide Legal Directories

Guest

California Enrolled Agent

January 2, 2009

Abusive 412(i) Retirement Plans Can Get Accountants Fined $200,000

By Lance Wallach & Ira Kaplan

Most insurance agents sell 412(i) retirement plans. The large insurance commissions generate some of the enthusiasm. Unlike other retirement plans, the 412(i) plan must have insurance products as the funding mechanism. This seems to generate enthusiasm among insurance agents. The IRS has been auditing almost all participants in 412(i) plans for the last few years. At first, they thought all 412(i) plans were abusive. Many participants’ contributions were disallowed and there were additional fines of $200,000 per year for the participants. The accountants who signed the tax returns (who the IRS called “material advisors”) were also fined $200,000 with a referral to the Office of Professional Responsibility. For more articles and details, see www.vebaplan.com and www.irs.gov/.

On Friday February 13, 2004, the IRS issued proposed regulations concerning the valuation of insurance contracts in the context of qualified retirement plans.

The IRS said that it is no longer reasonable to use the cash surrender value or the interpolated terminal reserve as the accurate value of a life insurance contract for income tax purposes. The proposed regulations stated that the value of a life insurance contract in the context of qualified retirement plans should be the contract’s fair market value.

The Service acknowledged in the regulations (and in a revenue procedure issued simultaneously) that the fair market value standard could create some confusion among taxpayers. They addressed this possibility by describing a safe harbor position.

When I addressed the American Society of Pension Actuaries Annual National Convention, the IRS chief actuary also spoke about attacking abusive 412(i) pensions.

A “Section 412(i) plan” is a tax-qualified retirement plan that is funded entirely by a life insurance contract or an annuity. The employer claims tax deductions for contributions that are used by the plan to pay premiums on an insurance contract covering an employee. The plan may hold the contract until the employee dies, or it may distribute or sell the contract to the employee at a specific point, such as when the employee retires.

“The guidance targets specific abuses occurring with Section 412(i) plans”, stated Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy Pam Olson. “There are many legitimate Section 412(i) plans, but some push the envelope, claiming tax results for employees and employers that do not reflect the underlying economics of the arrangements.” Or, to put it another way, tax deductions are being claimed, in some cases, that the Service does not feel are reasonable given the taxpayer’s facts and circumstances.

“Again and again, we’ve uncovered abusive tax avoidance transactions that game the system to the detriment of those who play by the rules,” said IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson.

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

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

The sponsor of an abusive plan can expect to be treated more harshly. Although in some situations something can be salvaged, the possibility is definitely on the table of having to treat the plan as if it never existed, which of course triggers the full extent of back taxes, penalties and interest on all contributions that were made, not to mention leaving behind no retirement plan whatsoever. In addition, if the participant did not file Form 8886 and the accountant did not file Form 8918 (to report themselves), they would be fined $200,000.

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 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.

View more comments (17)
Anonymous
map-marker New York, New York

NOVA, Grist Mill Trust, Benistar

FAST PITCH NETWORKING

IRS Hiring Agents in Abusive Transactions Group

Posted: Dec. 10, 2010

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)

www.vebaplan.com for help or google lance wallach

View full review
Loss:
$500
24 comments
Guest

Lance wallach is the best he has never lost a lawsuit as an expert witness

Guest

benistar

Guest

Enrolled Agents Journal March*April 2006

A Rose By Any Other Name, or

Whatever Happened to All Those 419A(f)(6) Providers?

By Ronald H. Snyder, JD, MAAA, EA & Lance Wallach, CLU, ChFC, CIMC

For years promoters of life insurance companies and agents have tried to find ways of claiming that the premiums paid by business owners were tax deductible. This allowed them to sell policies at a “discount”.

The problem became especially bad a few years ago with all of the outlandish claims about how §§419A(f)(5) and 419A(f)(6) exempted employers from any tax deduction limits. Many other inaccurate statements were made as well, until the IRS finally put a stop to such assertions by issuing regulations and naming such plans as “potentially abusive tax shelters” (or “listed transactions”) that needed to be disclosed and registered. This appeared to put an end to the scourge of such scurrilous promoters, as such plans began to disappear from the landscape.

And what happened to all the providers that were peddling §§419A(f)(5) and (6) life insurance plans a couple of years ago? We recently found the answer: most of them found a new life as promoters of so-called “419(e)” welfare benefit plans.

We recently reviewed several §419(e) plans, and it appears that many of them are nothing more than recycled §419A(f)(5) and §419A(f)(6) plans.

The “Tax Guide” written by one vendor’s attorney is illustrative: he confuses the difference between a “multi-employer trust” (a Taft-Hartley, collectively-bargained plan), a “multiple-employer trust” (a plan with more than one unrelated employer) and a “10-or-more employer trust” (a plan seeking to comply with IRC §419A(f)(6)).

Background: Section 419 of the Internal Revenue Code

Section 419 was added to the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) in 1984 to curb abuses in welfare benefit plan tax deductions. §419(a) does not authorize tax deductions, but provides as follows: “Contributions paid or accrued by an employer to a welfare benefit fund * * * shall not be deductible under this chapter * * *.”. It simply limits the amount that would be deductible under another IRC section to the “qualified cost for the taxable year”. (§419(b))

Section 419(e) of the IRC defines a “welfare benefit fund” as “any fund-- (A) which is part of a plan of an employer, and (B) through which the employer provides welfare benefits to employees or their beneficiaries.” It also defines the term "fund", but excludes from that definition “amounts held by an insurance company pursuant to an insurance contract” under conditions described.

None of the vendors provides an analysis under §419(e) as to whether or not the life insurance policies they promote are to be included or excluded from the definition of a “fund”. In fact, such policies will be included and therefore subject to the limitations of §§419 and 419A.

Errors Commonly Made

Materials from the various plans commonly make several mistakes in their analyses:

1. They claim not to be required to comply with IRC §505 non-discrimination requirements. While it is true that §505 specifically lists “organizations described in paragraph (9) or (20) of section 501(c)”, IRC §4976 imposes a 100% excise tax on any “post-retirement medical benefit or life insurance benefit provided with respect to a key employee” * * * “unless the plan meets the requirements of section 505(b) with respect to such benefit (whether or not such requirements apply to such plan).” (Italics added) Failure to comply with §505(b) means that the plan will never be able to distribute an insurance policy to a key employee without the 100% penalty!

2. Vendors commonly assert that contributions to their plan are tax deductible because they fall within the limitations imposed under IRC §419; however, §419 is simply a limitation on tax deductions. Providers must cite the section of the IRC under which contributions to their plan would be tax-deductible. Many fail to do so. Others claim that the deductions are ordinary and necessary business expense under §162, citing Regs. §1.162-10 in error: there is no mention in that section of life insurance or a death benefit as a welfare benefit.

3. The reason that promoters fail to cite a section of the IRC to support a tax deduction is because, once such section is cited, it becomes apparent that their method of covering only selected key and highly-compensated employees for participation in the plan fails to comply with IRC §414(t) requirements relative to coverage of controlled groups and affiliated service groups.

4. Life insurance premiums could be treated as W-2 wages and deducted under §162 to the extent they were reasonable. Other than that, however, no section of the Internal Revenue Code authorizes tax deductions for a discriminatory life insurance arrangement. IRC §264(a) provides that “[n]o deduction shall be allowed for * * * [p]remiums on any life insurance policy * * * if the taxpayer is directly or indirectly a beneficiary under the policy.” As was made clear in the Neonatology case (Neonatology Associates v. Commissioner, 115 TC 5, 2000), the appropriate treatment of employer-paid life insurance premiums under a putative welfare benefit plan is under §79, which comes with its own nondiscrimination requirements.

5. Some plans claim to impute income for current protection under the PS 58 rules. However, PS58 treatment is available only to qualified retirement plans and split-dollar plans. (Note: none of the 419(e) plans claim to comply with the split-dollar regulations.) Income is imputed under Table I to participants under Group-Term Life Insurance plans that comply with §79. This issue is addressed in footnotes 17 and 18 of the Neonatology case.

6. Several of the plans claim to be exempt from ERISA. They appear to rely upon the ERISA Top-Hat exemption (applicable to deferred compensation plans). However, that only exempts a plan from certain ERISA requirements, not ERISA itself. It is instructive that none of the plans claiming exemption from ERISA has filed the Top-Hat notification with the Dept. of Labor.

7. Some of the plans offer severance benefits as a “welfare benefit”, which approach has never been approved by the IRS. Other plans offer strategies for obtaining a cash benefit by terminating a single-employer trust. The distribution of a cash benefit is a form of deferred compensation, yet none of the plans offering such benefit complies with the IRC §409A requirements applicable to such benefits.

8. Some vendors permit participation by employees who are self-employed, such as sole proprietors, partners or members of an LLC or LLP taxed as a partnership. This issue was also addressed in the Neonatology case where contributions on behalf of such persons were deemed to be dividends or personal payments rather than welfare benefit plan expenses.

[Note: bona fide employees of an LLC or LLP that has elected to be taxed as a corporation may participate in a plan.]

9. Most of the plans fail under §419 itself. §419(c) limits the current tax deduction to the “qualified cost”, which includes the “qualified direct cost” and additions to a “qualified asset account” (subject to the limits of §419A(b)). Under Regs. §1.419-1T, A-6, “the "qualified direct cost" of a welfare benefit fund for any taxable year * * * is the aggregate amount which would have been allowable as a deduction to the employer for benefits provided by such fund during such year (including insurance coverage for such year) * * *.” “Thus, for example, if a calendar year welfare benefit fund pays an insurance company * * * the full premium for coverage of its current employees under a term * * * insurance policy, * * * only the portion of the premium for coverage during [the year] will be treated as a "qualified direct cost" * * *.” (Italics added)

Most vendors pretend that the whole or universal life insurance premium is an appropriate measurement of cost for Key Employees, and those plans that cover rank and file employees use current term insurance premiums as the appropriate measure of cost for such employees. This approach doesn’t meet any set of nondiscrimination requirements applicable to such plans.

10. Some vendors claim that they are justified in providing a larger deduction than the amount required to pay term insurance costs for the current tax year, but, as cited above, the only justification under §419(e) itself is as additions to a qualified asset account and is subject to the limitations imposed by §419A. In addition, §419A adds several additional limitations to plans and contributions, including requirements that:

A. contributions be limited to a safe harbor amount or be certified by an actuary as to the amount of such contributions (§419A(c)(5));

B. actuarial assumptions be “reasonable in the aggregate” and that the actuary use a level annual cost method (§419A(c)(2));

C. benefits with respect to a Key Employee be segregated and their benefits can only be paid from such account (§419A(d));

D. the rules of subsections (b), (c), (m), and (n) of IRC section 414 shall apply to such plans (§419A(h)).

E. the plan comply with §505(b) nondiscrimination requirements (§419A(e)).

Circular 230 Issues

Circular 230 imposes many requirements on tax professionals with respect to tax shelter transactions. A tax practitioner can get into trouble in the promotion of such plans, in advising clients with respect to such transactions and in preparing tax returns. IRC §§6707 and 6707A add a new concept of “reportable transactions” and impose substantial penalties for failure to disclose participation in certain reportable transactions (including all listed transactions).

This is a veritable minefield for tax practitioners to negotiate carefully or avoid altogether. The advisor must exercise great caution and due diligence when presented with any potential contemplated tax reduction or avoidance transaction. Failure to disclose could subject taxpayers and their tax advisors to potentially Draconian penalties.

Summary

Key points of this article include:

· Practitioners need to be able to differentiate between a legitimate §419(e) plan and one that is legally inadequate when their client approaches them with respect to such plan or has the practitioner to prepare his return;

· Many plans incorrectly purport to be exempt from compliance with ERISA, IRC §§414, 505, 79, etc.

· Tax deductions must be claimed under an authorizing section of the IRC and are limited to the qualified direct cost and additions to a qualified asset account as certified by the plan’s actuary.

Conclusion

Irresponsible vendors such as most of the promoters who previously promoted IRC §419A(f)(6) plans were responsible for the IRS’s issuing restrictive regulations under that Section. Now many of the same individuals have elected simply to claim that a life insurance plan is a welfare benefit plan and therefore tax-deductible because it uses a single-employer trust rather than a "10-or-more-employer plan".

This is an open invitation to the IRS to issue new onerous Regulations and more indictments and legal actions against the unscrupulous promoters who feed off of the naivety of clients and the greed of life insurance companies who encourage and endorse (and even own) such plans.

The last line of defense of the innocent client is the accountant or attorney who is asked by a client to review such arrangement or prepare a tax return claiming a deduction for contributions to such a plan. Under these circumstances accountants and attorneys should be careful not to rely upon the materials made available by the plan vendors, but should review any proposed plan thoroughly, or refer the review to a specialist.

Ron Snyder practices as an ERISA attorney and Enrolled Actuary in the field of employee benefits.

Lance Wallach speaks and writes extensively about VEBAs retirement plans, and tax reduction strategies. He speaks at more than 70 conventions annually and writes for more than 50 publications. For more information and additional articles on these subjects, call 516-938-**** or visit www.vebaplan.com..

This information 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.

Guest
reply icon Replying to comment of Guest-578385

NSA: Member Link

Your link to accounting, tax and practice management ideas, tools, news and information.

Captive Insurance and Other Tax Reduction Strategies – The Good, Bad, and Ugly

By Lance Wallach May 14, 2008

Every accountant knows that increased cash flow and cost savings are critical for businesses in 2008. What is uncertain is the best path to recommend to garner these benefits.

Over the past decade business owners have been overwhelmed by a plethora of choices designed to reduce the cost of providing employee benefits while increasing their own retirement savings. The solutions ranged from traditional pension and profit sharing plans to more advanced strategies.

Some strategies, such as IRS section 419 and 412(i) plans, used life insurance as vehicles to bring about benefits. Unfortunately, the high life insurance commissions (often 90% of the contribution, or more) fostered an environment that led to aggressive and noncompliant plans.

The result has been thousands of audits and an IRS task force seeking out tax shelter promotion. For unknowing clients, the tax consequences are enormous. For their accountant advisors, the liability may be equally extreme.

Recently, there has been an explosion in the marketing of a financial product called Captive Insurance. These so called “Captives” are typically small insurance companies designed to insure the risks of an individual business under IRS code section 831(b). When properly designed, a business can make tax-deductible premium payments to a related-party insurance company. Depending on circumstances, underwriting profits, if any, can be paid out to the owners as dividends, and profits from liquidation of the company may be taxed as capital gains.

While captives can be a great cost saving tool, they also are expensive to build and manage. Also, captives are allowed to garner tax benefits because they operate as real insurance companies. Advisors and business owners who misuse captives or market them as estate planning tools, asset protection vehicles, tax deferral or other benefits not related to the true business purpose of an insurance company face grave regulatory and tax consequences.

A recent concern is the integration of small captives with life insurance policies. Small captives under section 831(b) have no statutory authority to deduct life premiums. Also, if a small captive uses life insurance as an investment, the cash value of the life policy can be taxable at corporate rates, and then will be taxable again when distributed. The consequence of this double taxation is to devastate the efficacy of the life insurance, and it extends serious liability to any accountant who recommends the plan or even signs the tax return of the business that pays premiums to the captive.

The IRS is aware that several large insurance companies are promoting their life insurance policies as investments with small captives. The outcome looks eerily like that of the 419 and 412(i) plans mentioned above.

Remember, if something looks too good to be true, it usually is. There are safe and conservative ways to use captive insurance structures to lower costs and obtain benefits for businesses. And, some types of captive insurance products do have statutory protection for deducting life insurance premiums (although not 831(b) captives). Learning what works and is safe is the first step an accountant should take in helping his or her clients use these powerful, but highly technical insurance tools.

Lance Wallach speaks and writes extensively about VEBAs, retirement plans, and tax reduction strategies. He speaks at more than 70 conventions annually, writes for 50 publications, and was the National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year. Contact him at 516.938.5007 or visit www.vebaplan.com.

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

National Society of Accountants

Guest
reply icon Replying to comment of Guest-578385

TAX MATTERS

TAX BRIEFS

ABUSIVE INSURANCE PLANS GET RED FLAG

The IRS in Notice 2007-83 identified as listed transactions certain trust arrangements involving cash-value life insurance policies. Revenue Ruling 2007-65, issued simultaneously, addressed situations where the tax deduction has been disallowed, in part or in whole, for premiums paid on such cash-value life insurance policies. Also simultaneously issued was Notice 2007-84, which disallows tax deductions and imposes severe penalties for welfare benefit plans that primarily and impermissibly benefit shareholders and highly compensated employees.

Taxpayers participating in these listed transactions must disclose such participation to the Service by January 15. Failure to disclose can result in severe penalties--- up to $100,000 for individuals and $200,000 for corporations.

Ruling 2007-65 aims at situations where cash-value life insurance is purchased on owner/employees and other key employees, while only term insurance is offered to the rank and file. These are sold as 419(e), 419(f) (6), and 419 plans. Other arrangements described by the ruling may also be listed transactions. A business in such an arrangement cannot deduct premiums paid for cash-value life insurance.

A CPA who is approached by a client about one of these arrangements must exercise the utmost degree of caution, and not only on behalf of the client. The severe penalties noted above can also be applied to the preparers of returns that fail to properly disclose listed transactions.

Prepared by Lance Wallach, CLU, ChFC, CIMC, of Plainview, N.Y.,

516-938-****, a writer and speaker on voluntary employee’s beneficiary associations and other employee benefits.

Journal of Accountancy January 2008

Guest
reply icon Replying to comment of Guest-578385

. IRS Investigation & Curcio v.

Commissioner The IRS contacted CMI in December 2006, asserting that CMI's contributions to the Benistar 419 Plan were not deductible under § 419A(f)(6), and commenced an investigation. (Snyder Aff. Ex. S.) The scope of the investigation eventually expanded to include Jones's individual tax liability for tax years 2003, 2004, and 2005.

(Id. Ex. T; Jones Aff. ¶ 7.) Jones appealed the IRS's determination of his liability for the tax years in question in light of its conclusion that the Benistar 419 Plan did not satisfy the requirements of § 419A(f)(6).

(Doc. No. 34 Ex. D.) After several years of investigation, the IRS determined that the contributions to the Benistar 419 Plan were non-deductible deferred compensation and issued Jones a notice of deficiency on July 17, 2009.

(Id. Ex. P.) In 2010, the Tax Court issued its decision in Curcio v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 201*-115, 2010 WL 213**** (T.C. 2010). Curcio consolidated "three groups of test cases to resolve a number of disputes regarding companies participating in the Benistar § 419 Plan & Trust." Id.

at *2. Carpenter testified over the course of two days as a witness for the taxpayers in Curcio. (See Snyder Aff. Ex.

C.) During his testimony, Carpenter stated that Defendants kept a contribution summary that listed details of each employer and the historical account contributions and premium payments, segregated those records, and ensured that plan participants were current with their contributions before paying the policy premiums for that employer. (Id. Ex. C at 71, 260-61.) In the end, the Tax Court found that "although contributions to the plan were deposited in one account, [the Benistar 419 Plan] maintained spreadsheets that allocated every contribution to an employer and a corresponding underlying policy." Curcio, 2010 WL 213****, at *49.

Although the Tax Court declined to expressly decide the question, it found all the necessary facts that would support a determination that the Benistar 419 Plan did not meet the strictures of § 419A(f)(6). In light of this, Jones and the IRS reached a settlement shortly after Curcio was decided. He and his wife paid the taxes that the IRS determined he owed and an additional $94,279 in penalties and interest. (Jones Aff.

¶ 7.) Jones commenced the instant action in the Hennepin County District Court on July 14, 2011, asserting claims of intentional misrepresentation and violations of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, Minn. Stat. § 325F.69, and the Minnesota False Statement in Advertising Act, Minn. Stat.

§ 325F.67. Defendants removed the action to this Court, and presently before the Court are Defendants' Motions for Sanctions (Doc. No. 13) and Summary Judgment (Docs.

No. 19, 21).

The issues have been fully briefed, and the Court heard oral argument on July 25, 2012. The Motions are ripe for disposition

Guest

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-****), 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."

Guest
reply icon Replying to comment of Guest-575711

NSA: Member Link

Your link to accounting, tax and practice management ideas, tools, news and information.

Captive Insurance and Other Tax Reduction Strategies – The Good, Bad, and Ugly

By Lance Wallach May 14, 2008

Every accountant knows that increased cash flow and cost savings are critical for businesses in 2008. What is uncertain is the best path to recommend to garner these benefits.

Over the past decade business owners have been overwhelmed by a plethora of choices designed to reduce the cost of providing employee benefits while increasing their own retirement savings. The solutions ranged from traditional pension and profit sharing plans to more advanced strategies.

Some strategies, such as IRS section 419 and 412(i) plans, used life insurance as vehicles to bring about benefits. Unfortunately, the high life insurance commissions (often 90% of the contribution, or more) fostered an environment that led to aggressive and noncompliant plans.

The result has been thousands of audits and an IRS task force seeking out tax shelter promotion. For unknowing clients, the tax consequences are enormous. For their accountant advisors, the liability may be equally extreme.

Recently, there has been an explosion in the marketing of a financial product called Captive Insurance. These so called “Captives” are typically small insurance companies designed to insure the risks of an individual business under IRS code section 831(b). When properly designed, a business can make tax-deductible premium payments to a related-party insurance company. Depending on circumstances, underwriting profits, if any, can be paid out to the owners as dividends, and profits from liquidation of the company may be taxed as capital gains.

While captives can be a great cost saving tool, they also are expensive to build and manage. Also, captives are allowed to garner tax benefits because they operate as real insurance companies. Advisors and business owners who misuse captives or market them as estate planning tools, asset protection vehicles, tax deferral or other benefits not related to the true business purpose of an insurance company face grave regulatory and tax consequences.

A recent concern is the integration of small captives with life insurance policies. Small captives under section 831(b) have no statutory authority to deduct life premiums. Also, if a small captive uses life insurance as an investment, the cash value of the life policy can be taxable at corporate rates, and then will be taxable again when distributed. The consequence of this double taxation is to devastate the efficacy of the life insurance, and it extends serious liability to any accountant who recommends the plan or even signs the tax return of the business that pays premiums to the captive.

The IRS is aware that several large insurance companies are promoting their life insurance policies as investments with small captives. The outcome looks eerily like that of the 419 and 412(i) plans mentioned above.

Remember, if something looks too good to be true, it usually is. There are safe and conservative ways to use captive insurance structures to lower costs and obtain benefits for businesses. And, some types of captive insurance products do have statutory protection for deducting life insurance premiums (although not 831(b) captives). Learning what works and is safe is the first step an accountant should take in helping his or her clients use these powerful, but highly technical insurance tools.

Lance Wallach speaks and writes extensively about VEBAs, retirement plans, and tax reduction strategies. He speaks at more than 70 conventions annually, writes for 50 publications, and was the National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year. Contact him at 516.938.5007 or visit www.vebaplan.com.

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

National Society of Accountants

Guest
reply icon Replying to comment of Guest-575711

benistar

Guest

March 8, 2010

In a speech last May, President Obama said, "Nobody likes paying taxes . . . . And yet, even as most American citizens and businesses meet these responsibilities, there are others who are shirking theirs." He was referring to offshore tax havens and other loopholes that wealthy Americans often exploit to reduce their tax burden. But it doesn't take moving money to Switzerland to avoid paying taxes. If history is any guide, 2010 will be a year in which many Americans use a few simple methods to reduce their tax liability, which could potentially cost the government billions of dollars.

This year is the last before the expiration of tax cuts originally put in place by the Bush administration. If Congress allows these tax cuts to expire, as the president supports, in 2011 the top marginal tax rates will increase from 28, 33, and 35 percent to 31, 36, and 39.6 percent.

Although it is not certain that tax rates will go up, many wealthy Americans are looking at 2010 as the end of the party. "Everybody thinks taxes are going up and tax breaks are being eliminated. Everybody's thinking this, and they're planning for it," says Lance Wallach, a New York author, lecturer, and financial consultant who advises high net-worth clients, including entertainers and athletes. His phone is ringing off the hook with questions from clients about how they can take advantage of this year's rates relative to 2011's.

One of the most popular strategies is moving income from 2011 to this year. Usually, accountants encourage clients to postpone income so there is less income taxed in one year. But in 2010, the incentives have flipped. "This is the exact opposite. Accelerating your income makes 100 percent sense," says Wallach.

Creative maneuvering. This would not be the first year taxpayers have pursued this strategy. In 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president with promises to raise taxes on wealthy Americans, which Congress did in 1993, boosting the top marginal rate from 31 to 39.6 percent. In late 1992, many taxpayers, expecting rates to be higher the next year because of Clinton's victory, moved more income onto 1992's tax return to avoid paying more with the higher rate. Robert Carroll, an economist at a Washington research organization called the Tax Foundation, estimates that about $20 billion was shifted and paid at the 31 percent rate rather than the 39.6 percent—meaning there was about $1.5 billion that the federal government did not collect in revenue.

Something similar could happen this year. "Anyone who has flexibility with income is going to try to shift their income," says Carroll. An example of flexibility would be a business owner who gives himself or herself a bonus in December 2010 rather than January 2011.

There's also an incentive to delay tax deductions. For example, state property and income taxes can be deducted from federal income tax returns. Wallach says he is recommending that clients hold off on paying those taxes until next year, so that the deductions can be cashed in at the higher rate.

Some may choose to delay charitable gifts for the same reason—charitable giving is tax deductible, so some taxpayers may decide to hold off on a gift they would make in 2010 and instead give a larger amount in 2011. "What we know from history, if the taxes go up, people will delay their giving," says Nancy Raybin, chair of the Giving Institute, an association of nonprofit consultants. But Raybin says such delays usually are not significantly damaging to charities because people will often just push a gift forward a few months—from December to January, for example. "If there's a 12-month delay, it could be a problem. But if a donor is just delaying one month, it's not a big problem," she says.

These tax-avoidance strategies will probably be a one-time deal for those who pursue them. A study by economist Austan Goolsbee, currently a member of the Council of Economic Advisers, found that the 1993 drop-off in reported income was temporary. Income bounced back in following years. If tax rates appear to be steady after 2011, accelerating one's income or delaying deductions is no longer advantageous. But taxpayers will continue to look for ways to reduce their liability—they just need the time and money to find the loopholes. Wallach says most of his clients will adjust to higher tax rates with his help. "For the very sophisticated people, there will always be loopholes," he says, such as deducting travel and entertainment expenses. "None of my clients pay more in taxes than a schoolteacher." For issues like these Wallach has various websites including www.taxlibrary.us .

View more comments (23)
Anonymous
map-marker New York, New York

419 IRS lawsuits IRS audits

Google lance wallach for help, as an expert witness his side has never lost a case, get all your money back 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.
View full review
25 comments
Guest

Today the IRS issued a press release announcing that it is significantly increasing enforcement actions for syndicated conservation easement donations and that these transactions are a priority compliance area for the agency. In the press release, the IRS stated that examinations of conservation easement donations are being coordinated across the agency.

The IRS also announced that investigations relating to conservation easement deductions had been initiated by the IRS Criminal Investigation Division. Currently, there are more than 80 conservation easement cases pending in Tax Court, and the IRS outlined its commitment to bringing more cases to Tax Court where it believes the deduction should be disallowed.

Guest

VEBA PLAN LLC leverages its years of experience with protecting taxpayers to help its clients navigate the complex world of captive insurance compliance, with its team of former high-ranking IRS executives, key congressional personnel and experienced litigators ensuring that each client has the strongest defense possible in the event of an audit.Doing What's Best For You Or Your ClientWhether You Are A CPA...If your client has a captive, you need to evaluate whether they are compliant or not. The IRS is looking at business owners with captives, as well as the CPAs and financial advisors that serve them.Let us help you and your client.Or A Business Owner...It doesn’t matter if you’re under audit or not, making sure your captive is compliant should be top priority.alliantNational can help lower the risk of the IRS cracking down on your insurance arrangement, and will dramatically improve your case against the agency if you are audited.What Is A Captive Insurance Company?Insurance costs can be a big problem for successful companies.

Oftentimes a company may find that third party insurance is commercially unavailable or the commercial insurance that is available may be overly expensive. A company can put up its own capital to form a wholly owned subsidiary insurance company to solve these problems. These types of subsidiaries are known as captive insurance companies.Captive insurance companies can not only fill in gaps in existing coverage but they also provide deductibles on existing coverage. Contributions to the captive insurance company can also be tax deductions under Internal Revenue Code section 831(b).

Captive insurance companies also provide pricing stability and program control. Small Captives are on the IRS hit list and are being audited. Want to fight IRS and get all your money back from the promoter who sold you the abusive Captive.

As an expert witness Lance Wallach has never lost a case. His partners have decades of experience working for the IRS and tax professors.

Guest

lance wallach for help

Guest

VEBA PLAN LLC leverages its years of experience with protecting taxpayers to help its clients navigate the complex world of captive insurance compliance, with its team of former high-ranking IRS executives, key congressional personnel and experienced litigators ensuring that each client has the strongest defense possible in the event of an audit.Doing What's Best For You Or Your ClientWhether You Are A CPA...If your client has a captive, you need to evaluate whether they are compliant or not. The IRS is looking at business owners with captives, as well as the CPAs and financial advisors that serve them.Let us help you and your client.Or A Business Owner...It doesn’t matter if you’re under audit or not, making sure your captive is compliant should be top priority.alliantNational can help lower the risk of the IRS cracking down on your insurance arrangement, and will dramatically improve your case against the agency if you are audited.What Is A Captive Insurance Company?Insurance costs can be a big problem for successful companies.

Oftentimes a company may find that third party insurance is commercially unavailable or the commercial insurance that is available may be overly expensive. A company can put up its own capital to form a wholly owned subsidiary insurance company to solve these problems. These types of subsidiaries are known as captive insurance companies.Captive insurance companies can not only fill in gaps in existing coverage but they also provide deductibles on existing coverage. Contributions to the captive insurance company can also be tax deductions under Internal Revenue Code section 831(b).

Captive insurance companies also provide pricing stability and program control. Small Captives are on the IRS hit list and are being audited. Want to fight IRS and get all your money back from the promoter who sold you the abusive Captive.

As an expert witness Lance Wallach has never lost a case. His partners have decades of experience working for the IRS and tax professors.

Guest

Abusive Tax Shelter

Guest

Tax practitioners are seeing a rise in IRS audits directed at companies using captive insurance arrangements (captives). While big businesses have long used captives as a way to manage risk, IRS efforts appear to be directed at smaller companies that rely on Sec.

831(b) (small captives with premiums of $1.2 million or less for the tax year qualify for special tax treatment).

For a captive insurance arrangement to qualify as legitimate, the taxpayer must demonstrate that the premiums charged are appropriate and that the need for insurance is real. Companies that create captives to shelter taxable income can expect an audit and hefty penalties. Years ago, the captives industry was marred by widespread fraud. The resurgence of cell captives, which involve a parent company setting up separate cell insurance subsidiaries whose assets are kept separate from each other, has again attracted the IRS’s attention.

According to one expert, the IRS is focused on companies that underwrite their own terrorism policies, which often involve charging premiums that bear no relationship to the actual risk.

The IRS considers such arrangements to be abusive tax shelters. To be considered legitimate insurance, there must be adequate risk shifting and risk distribution (see Rev. Rul. 2008-8).

Captive Insurance Poses Big Tax Risk for Small Businesses

The risks for small businesses that improperly set up captives are huge—the IRS can disallow the deductibility of the premiums.

And an even bigger risk is that, because the IRS believes that some of these arrangements are also abusive tax shelters, it could impose civil penalties under Sec. 6707A of up to $200,000 for failure to disclose a listed transaction.

If a client plans on establishing a captive, a tax adviser should make sure he or she understands the rules or partners with another member firm or tax attorney who does. Past scams were often offered by offshore and internet promoters that possessed official-looking tax opinion letters and polished presentation materials. Unfortunately, those opinions were frequently worthless.

If a client is approached by a promoter, the practitioner should be on high alert and insist the client perform some due diligence on the promoter.

The author has seen several cases where the plan was considered an abusive tax shelter, and, even worse, the money was later stolen. - See more at: http://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2013/dec/clinic-story-05.html#sthash.5KtMxSwe.dpuf

Guest

Tax Shelter Help

Running a business isn't easy. We are here to help you by providing you with useful financial information for your business.

powered by

Robin Weingast - 419 IRS lawsuits IRS audits Review 277667 Jun 18, New York, New York, 419 Welfare Plan @ Pissed Consumer

Robin Weingast - 419 IRS lawsuits IRS audits Review 277667 Jun 18, New York, New York, 419 Welfare Plan @ Pissed Consumer

Posted by Lance Wallach at 8/03/2015 04:39:00 PM No comments: Email This BlogThis!

Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Pinterest 419, Welfare Benefit Plans, - Finance - Taxes 419, Welfare Benefit Plans, - Finance - Taxes Posted by Lance Wallach at 8/03/2015 04:36:00 PM No comments: Email This BlogThis!

Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Pinterest Lance Wallach Leading Expert,emloyee benefit plans,tax resolution,IRS Audits Lance Wallach Leading Expert,emloyee benefit plans,tax resolution,IRS Audits Posted by Lance Wallach at 8/03/2015 04:32:00 PM No comments: Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Pinterest Tax Lawyer IRS Audits Defense Tax Lawyer IRS Audits Defense

Guest

Robin Weingast - 419 IRS lawsuits IRS audits

4 of 5 Robin Weingast Reviews

Jun 18, 2012 by anonymous 430 VIEWS 17 COMMENTS 5/5 REVIEW RATING New York, New York Professional Services 419 Welfare Plan

Google lance wallach for help, as an expert witness his side has never lost a case, get all your money back

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

Guest

Audit & Accounting Financial Planning Tax Practice Accounting Technology Firm & Profession

Videos Slideshows Newsletters Current Issue Web Seminars Reports & Rankings Resources Tax Alpha

The dangers of being 'listed'

A warning for 419, 412i, Sec. 79 and captive insurance plans

10/25/2010 BY LANCE WALLACH Taxpayers who previously adopted 419, 412i, captive insurance or Section 79 plans are in big trouble.

Like what you see? Click here to sign up for Accounting Today's daily newsletter to get the latest news and behind the scenes commentary you won't find anywhere else. In recent years, the Internal Revenue Ser- vice 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 transactions 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 Tax 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. PARTNER INSIGHTS WHAT'S THIS? Corporate Close-Up: Is Sourcing the New Nexus? Nexus Treatment of Non-U.S.

Entities Sales Tax Nexus for Cloud Computing 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 has to be prepared correctly. I only know of two people who have filed these forms properly for clients.

They tell me that that was after hundreds of hours of research and over 50 phone 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.

Guest

Accountants and tax lawyers are seeing a rise in IRS audits directed at companies using captive insurance arrangements. While big businesses have long used captives as a way of managing risk, IRS efforts appear to be directed at smaller companies that rely on section 831(b) of the tax code.

(In July we reported on the resurgence of so-called cell captive insurance arrangements also known as “group captives.”)

To qualify as a legitimate captive insurance arrangement, the taxpayer must demonstrate appropriate premiums and a real need for insurance. Companies that create captives simply to shelter taxable income can expect an audit and hefty penalties. As we previously reported, the captive industry was once marred by widespread fraud. The resurgence of cell captive insurance arrangements has the IRS back on high alert.

According to one expert, the IRS is focussed on companies that underwrite their own terrorism policies.

Often the premiums charged for these plans bears no relationship to actual risk. The IRS considers such arrangements to be abusive tax shelters. To be considered legitimate insurance, there must be adequate risk shifting. (The IRS published a special bulletin on captive insurance arrangements in 2008 for those needing more information.)

Captive Insurance Pose Big Tax Risk For Small Businesses:

The risk for small businesses that improperly set up a captive is huge.

If not properly set up, the IRS can disallow the deductibility of the insurance premiums. Because the Service believes that some of these arrangements are also abusive tax shelters, the IRS could impose civil penalties of $100,000 or more per each year the plan was in effect.

If you plan on establishing a captive insurance company, seek the help of a knowledgable CPA or tax attorney. Past scams usually were offered by offshore and Internet promoters. If approached by a promoter, spend a few dollars more and have the plan reviewed by an independent accountant or lawyer.

Conduct some due diligence on the promoter too. We have seen several cases where not only was the plan considered an abusive tax shelter but the money was gone too. Whatever you do, don’t wait until the IRS finds you or until you discover that your premium refund isn’t coming.If you have questions about your cell captive or captive insurance company, give us a call. We also represent owners of phony welfare benefit plans, 419 and 412 plans.

Our tax and fraud lawyers can help you determine if your plan is legitimate and if not, unwind the transaction and get back your hard earned money. For more information, contact

View more comments (24)
Anonymous
map-marker New York, New York

Section 79 captive inaurance IRS audits

Google lance wallach for articles about IRS audits of 419 412i section 79 and captive insurance plans. You may want to try www.vebaplan.com or www.lancewallach.com for more articles about section 79 captive insurance 419 welfare benefit plan audits or 412i plans. Easy to sue and win or hard to fight the IRS when they come to audit you if you are in a 419 captive insurance section 79 or 419 welfare benefit plan. Lots of lawsuits against insurance companies and agents that sold these plans. Not all are abusive, most are. Buyer beware and careful of the IRS.
View full review
Loss:
$500
25 comments
Guest

VEBA PLAN LLC leverages its years of experience with protecting taxpayers to help its clients navigate the complex world of captive insurance compliance, with its team of former high-ranking IRS executives, key congressional personnel and experienced litigators ensuring that each client has the strongest defense possible in the event of an audit.Doing What's Best For You Or Your ClientWhether You Are A CPA...If your client has a captive, you need to evaluate whether they are compliant or not. The IRS is looking at business owners with captives, as well as the CPAs and financial advisors that serve them.Let us help you and your client.Or A Business Owner...It doesn’t matter if you’re under audit or not, making sure your captive is compliant should be top priority.alliantNational can help lower the risk of the IRS cracking down on your insurance arrangement, and will dramatically improve your case against the agency if you are audited.What Is A Captive Insurance Company?Insurance costs can be a big problem for successful companies.

Oftentimes a company may find that third party insurance is commercially unavailable or the commercial insurance that is available may be overly expensive. A company can put up its own capital to form a wholly owned subsidiary insurance company to solve these problems. These types of subsidiaries are known as captive insurance companies.Captive insurance companies can not only fill in gaps in existing coverage but they also provide deductibles on existing coverage. Contributions to the captive insurance company can also be tax deductions under Internal Revenue Code section 831(b).

Captive insurance companies also provide pricing stability and program control. Small Captives are on the IRS hit list and are being audited. Want to fight IRS and get all your money back from the promoter who sold you the abusive Captive.

As an expert witness Lance Wallach has never lost a case. His partners have decades of experience working for the IRS and tax professors.

Guest

VEBA PLAN LLC leverages its years of experience with protecting taxpayers to help its clients navigate the complex world of captive insurance compliance, with its team of former high-ranking IRS executives, key congressional personnel and experienced litigators ensuring that each client has the strongest defense possible in the event of an audit.Doing What's Best For You Or Your ClientWhether You Are A CPA...If your client has a captive, you need to evaluate whether they are compliant or not. The IRS is looking at business owners with captives, as well as the CPAs and financial advisors that serve them.Let us help you and your client.Or A Business Owner...It doesn’t matter if you’re under audit or not, making sure your captive is compliant should be top priority.alliantNational can help lower the risk of the IRS cracking down on your insurance arrangement, and will dramatically improve your case against the agency if you are audited.What Is A Captive Insurance Company?Insurance costs can be a big problem for successful companies.

Oftentimes a company may find that third party insurance is commercially unavailable or the commercial insurance that is available may be overly expensive. A company can put up its own capital to form a wholly owned subsidiary insurance company to solve these problems. These types of subsidiaries are known as captive insurance companies.Captive insurance companies can not only fill in gaps in existing coverage but they also provide deductibles on existing coverage. Contributions to the captive insurance company can also be tax deductions under Internal Revenue Code section 831(b).

Captive insurance companies also provide pricing stability and program control. Small Captives are on the IRS hit list and are being audited. Want to fight IRS and get all your money back from the promoter who sold you the abusive Captive.

As an expert witness Lance Wallach has never lost a case. His partners have decades of experience working for the IRS and tax professors.

Guest

Taxes

The Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets

JUL 17, 2015 @ 12:54 PM 1,011 VIEWS

Tax Court Drops The Hammer On Employee Welfare Plan

Peter J Reilly

CONTRIBUTOR I focus on the tax issues of individuals, businesses & more FOLLOW ON FORBES (349) Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. TWEET THIS When a Tax Court judge writes “purported” it generally means something like “Liar, liar pants on fire” or bovine excrement.

Northwestern’s conservatism in not getting caught up in the 419 mania is another mark in its favor. For the last two decades Lance Wallach has been a voice crying out in the wilderness on the perils of 419(e) employee welfare plans. Lance is not an attorney, CPA or actuary. A graduate of Baruch College he trained as a financial planner with Mutual Benefit Life and then moved on to New England Life where he was a top producer selling life insurance as part of sophisticated plans.

Now he speaks and serves as an expert witness helping to repair the damage done by insurance companies who promoted abusive tax plans. The Plan That Should Have Stood Up? Somehow or other Lance and I became facebook buds and when I saw the decision in Our Country Home Enterpise Inc, I immediately contacted him. I thought he would view the decision as vindication of his view on these plans.

I was surprised when he told me that he thought the decision was wrong. His assessment of the situation was that Ron Snyder, whose Sterling Plan was about the only 419 plan which should have worked, was too frugal when it came to hiring lawyers to defend the plan. This might be understandable, because being much less aggressive, the plan was not as lucrative for the sponsor and Ron, according to this letter was having trouble getting people to chip in for the defense. Lance told me that he had met with the IRS in 2002 and explained the abuse to them and pointed out the most abusive promoters.

Ron Snyder had come along and had tweaked his plan based on informal IRS feedback making him optimistic that he would be successful in Tax Court. What Can Be Abusive About These Plans? In the extreme version a closely held corporation makes contributions to the plan. Rank and file employees do not get any benefits.

The contributions are deducted by the corporation. The contributions go to fund whole dollar life insurance whose beneficiaries are designated by the principals. The principals are able to access the cash surrender value of the insurance contracts. The beneficiaries do not recognize any income.

What really drove these plans was that they allowed insurance companies to sell much larger policies than people, not motivated by tax savings, would have been willing to buy. Lance indicated that all the major life insurance companies, with the notable exception of Northwestern Mutual promoted the plans. The companies tried to avoid responsibility when the IRS cracked down on them. The Country Home Decision Whatever the merits of the Sterling Plan might have been relative to other 419 plans, the Tax Court came down hard on it.

In Our Country Home Enterprise Inc several taxpayers involved in the Sterling Plan ended up with business entities being denied deductions, individual beneficiaries being required to recognize income and an enhanced 30% accuracy penalty for failing to adequately disclose a listed transaction. Total tax and penalty was over $3 million. The decisions on the small number of taxpayers will be applied to over 40 others. The decision covered plans that were run by C corporations and S corporations with and without life insurance involved.

Recommended by Forbes Treasury To Study Possible Abuses Of Small Captive Insurance Companies Northwestern's Non-Linear Approach To Innovation Northwestern MutualVoice: You're Finally Making More Money. Now What? Small Businesses, MDs, Get Relief From Killer Tax Penalties Actuary In Tax Court Beats Northwestern And IRS On Accuracy Of 1099-R MOST POPULAR Photos: The Most Expensive Home Listing in Every State 2016 +191,273 VIEWS The Hilarious Feminist Backlash To Brazil's Impeachment Fallout MOST POPULAR Photos: Royal India Tour 2016: Prince William and Kate Middleton MOST POPULAR 4 Essential Tips To Becoming A Better Leader I was pretty sure as to how the decision was going to go after reading the first sentence. The deficiencies stem from petitioners’ participation in the Sterling Benefit Plan (Sterling Plan), a purported welfare benefit plan.

The parties have selected these seven cases to serve as test cases for issues related to the Sterling Plan. The parties in approximately 40 other cases pending before the Court have agreed to be bound by one or more of the final decisions in these cases. (Emphasis added) When a Tax Court judge writes “purported” it generally means something like “Liar, liar pants on fire” or bovine excrement. The word “purported” in the first sentence is a sign that things are not going to go well for the taxpayers.

We conclude and hold that petitioners significantly underreported income on their Federal income tax returns for each subject year. In addition, the evidence shows (and we find) that petitioners consciously participated in a plan that, as advertised to them, they should have known (and probably knew) was too good to true. A reasonable person in the position of petitioners also would not have been oblivious to the fact that the judiciary had rejected the use of cash value life insurance to fund welfare benefits in similar settings. There Is More I spoke with Sam Susser, a retired IRS manager.

Sam represented several of the taxpayers on audit. One thing he realized was that many of them were probably required to file From 8886 – Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement. The IRS has been going to town with that one because there is a stiff penalty for not filing it or filing it wrong. That penalty cannot be litigated in Tax Court.

He thinks it likely that that will now be assessed against some of the participants or confirmed if it has already been assessed. And There Is Even More I knew this was an important decision when I saw it if only from being the first regular Tax Court decision of this half of the year. It has not received a lot of coverage yet.

Lance has sent me a lot of material to absorb, so there will probably be a few more posts. Lance indicated that the same promoters have variations of the scheme going under other guises.

Guest

Lance

30

Search Google+

Home

Home

Profile People Photos Collections Communities Events Hangouts Pages Settings Feedback · Tour Help · Region Privacy · Terms · Maps Terms Lance Wallach 2 circles 98 followers|41,993 views Lance Wallach Shared publicly - 8:17 AM L Wallach Captive Insurance Captive Insurance, Lance Wallach Expert Witness, 412i Plans, 419 Problems, Section 79 Plans Section 79, Captive Insurance, IRS Audits and Lawsuits on 419 and 412i Plans - HGExperts.com by Lance Wallach 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 f Section 79, Captive Insurance, IRS Audits and Lawsuits on 419 and 412i Plans - HGExperts.com lwallachcaptiveinsurance.blogspot.com

Guest

Tax practitioners are seeing a rise in IRS audits directed at companies using captive insurance arrangements (captives). While big businesses have long used captives as a way to manage risk, IRS efforts appear to be directed at smaller companies that rely on Sec.

831(b) (small captives with premiums of $1.2 million or less for the tax year qualify for special tax treatment).

For a captive insurance arrangement to qualify as legitimate, the taxpayer must demonstrate that the premiums charged are appropriate and that the need for insurance is real. Companies that create captives to shelter taxable income can expect an audit and hefty penalties. Years ago, the captives industry was marred by widespread fraud. The resurgence of cell captives, which involve a parent company setting up separate cell insurance subsidiaries whose assets are kept separate from each other, has again attracted the IRS’s attention.

According to one expert, the IRS is focused on companies that underwrite their own terrorism policies, which often involve charging premiums that bear no relationship to the actual risk.

The IRS considers such arrangements to be abusive tax shelters. To be considered legitimate insurance, there must be adequate risk shifting and risk distribution (see Rev. Rul. 2008-8).

Captive Insurance Poses Big Tax Risk for Small Businesses

The risks for small businesses that improperly set up captives are huge—the IRS can disallow the deductibility of the premiums.

And an even bigger risk is that, because the IRS believes that some of these arrangements are also abusive tax shelters, it could impose civil penalties under Sec. 6707A of up to $200,000 for failure to disclose a listed transaction.

If a client plans on establishing a captive, a tax adviser should make sure he or she understands the rules or partners with another member firm or tax attorney who does. Past scams were often offered by offshore and internet promoters that possessed official-looking tax opinion letters and polished presentation materials. Unfortunately, those opinions were frequently worthless.

If a client is approached by a promoter, the practitioner should be on high alert and insist the client perform some due diligence on the promoter.

The author has seen several cases where the plan was considered an abusive tax shelter, and, even worse, the money was later stolen. - See more at: http://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2013/dec/clinic-story-05.html#sthash.5KtMxSwe.dpuf

Guest

419e Plan Litigation

419e Plan Litigation

Search SKIP TO CONTENT

UNDERSTANDING 419 LITIGATION HOW INSURANCE COMPANIES SCAM CONSUMERS HAVE YOU SEEN THOSE COMMERCIALS? LANCE WALLACH EXPERT SERVICES ABOUT US

419 LIFE INSURANCE PLANS AND OTHER SCAMS – LARGE IRS FINES – THE IRS RAIDS PLAN PROMOTER BENISTAR, AND WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN TO YOU?

Guest

Be careful when u follow the masses. Sometimes the M is silent. Dont look for someone who will solve all your problems: Look for someone who wont let u face them alone.

Guest

Robin is a great salesperson and has great skills and is smart Lance Wallach she knows her stuff

Guest

robin weingast lawsuits

2 of 5 Robin Weingast Reviews

Issue not resolved

Jun 27, 2012 robert sherman 145 VIEWS 15 COMMENTS $500 LOSSES 5/5 REVIEW RATING New York, New York Financial Services - Consulting, Marketing 419 Welfare Benefit Plan

IRS audits 419 welfare benefit plans that robin weingast sold google lance wallach for details Beta plan and other 419 plans are IRS audit targets. Then the buyer sues the insurance agent that sold the plan to get all their money back.

IRS also audits 412i plans and sometimes captive insurance and section 79 plans. Google lance wallach for articles and details about these plans and IRS audits and lawsuits or try www.lancewallach .com com or www.taxaudit419.com or vebaplan.com for a lot more info about 419 welfare benefit plans and IRS audits, lawsuits and more. Thanks cc62ad1 review #327*** * Helpful? 0 Had the same issue1 Comments15 Report Submit review about this company › Post Comment Anonymous Anonymous Mar 13 IRS tax relief firm, Lance Wallach, speaking: 412i-419 Plans: 412i ...

lancevids.blogspot.com/.../412i-419-plans-412i-419-plans-412i-419.htm...‎ by Lance Wallach - in 49 Google+ circles 3 days ago - sea nine veba 419 help beta plan 419 IRS audits lawsuits ... Employers: Abusive Tax Shelters & 419 Plans Lawsuits: IRS to Audit Sea N.... Help with Common IRS Problems: Beta Plans Abusive Tax Shelters abusiveplans.blogspot.com/.../help-with-common-irs-problems-beta.html‎ by Lance Wallach - in 49 Google+ circles Feb 19, 2014 - 23 hours ago - Jan 21, 2014 - sea nine veba 419 help beta plan 419 IRS audits lawsuits. RS to Audit Sea Nine VEBA Participating Employers: ...

beta plan images - We Heart It 0 0 Reply vebaplan2 vebaplan2 Mar 07, 2013 Plainview, New York Robin told me that she is a pension expert and has a lot of clients. I know that she is a hard worker. 0 0 Reply f f Nov 29, 2012 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...

Show more 0 0 Reply i i › f Feb 04, 2013 Plainview, New York NSA: Member Link Your link to accounting, tax and practice management ideas, tools, news and information. Captive Insurance and Other Tax Reduction Strategies – The Good, Bad, and Ugly By Lance Wallach May 14, 2008 Every accountant knows that increased cash flow and cost savings are critical for businesses in 2008. What is uncertain is the best path to recommend to garner these benefits. Over the past decade business owners have been overwhelmed by a plethora of choices designed to reduce the cost of providing employee benefits while increasing their own retirement savings.

The solutions ranged from traditional pension and profit sharing plans to more advanced strategies. Some strategies, such as IRS section 419 and 412(i) plans, used life insurance as vehicles to bring about benefits. Unfortunately, the high life insurance commissions (often 90% of the contribution, or more) fostered an environment that led to aggressive and noncompliant plans. The result has been thousands of audits and an IRS task force seeking out tax shelter promotion.

For unknowing clients, the tax consequences are enormous. For their accountant advisors, the liability may be equally extreme. Recently, there has been an explosion in the marketing of a financial product called Captive Insurance. These so called “Captives” are typically small insurance companies designed...

Show more 0 0 Reply l l Nov 26, 2012 March 8, 2010 In a speech last May, President Obama said, "Nobody likes paying taxes . . . .

And yet, even as most American citizens and businesses meet these responsibilities, there are others who are shirking theirs." He was referring to offshore tax havens and other loopholes that wealthy Americans often exploit to reduce their tax burden. But it doesn't take moving money to Switzerland to avoid paying taxes. If history is any guide, 2010 will be a year in which many Americans use a few simple methods to reduce their tax liability, which could potentially cost the government billions of dollars. This year is the last before the expiration of tax cuts originally put in place by the Bush administration.

If Congress allows these tax cuts to expire, as the president supports, in 2011 the top marginal tax rates will increase from 28, 33, and 35 percent to 31, 36, and 39.6 percent. Although it is not certain that tax rates will go up, many wealthy Americans are looking at 2010 as the end of the party. "Everybody thinks taxes are going up and tax breaks are being eliminated. Everybody's thinking this, and they're planning for it," says Lance Wallach, a New York author, lecturer, and financial consultant who advises high net-worth clients, including entertainers and athletes.

His phone is ringing off the hook with questions from clients about how they can take advantage of this year's rates relative to 2011's. One of the most popular strategies is...

Guest

sue hartford or other ins cos that sold 419 plans to get your money back google lance wallach who has never lost

View more comments (24)
Anonymous
map-marker New York, New York

Robinweingast

419 welfare benefit IRS audits google lance wallach for help 419 Life Insurance Plans and Other Scams "" Large IRS Fines ""The IRS Raids Plan Promoter Benistar, and What Does All This Mean To You? Posted: Dec. 9By Lance WallachJuly 27, 2007 More Problems for 419 Plans By Lance Wallach, CLU, ChFC, CIMC and Ronald H. Snyder, JD, MAAA, EA For years, life insurance companies and agents have tried to find ways of making life insurance premiums paid by business owners tax deductible. This would allow them to sell policies at a "discount."The problem became acute a few years ago with outlandish claims about how §§419A(f)(5) and (6) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) exempted employers from any tax deduction limitations. Other inaccurate assertions were made as well, until the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) finally put a stop to such egregious misrepresentations in 2002 by issuing regulations and naming such plans as "potentially abusive tax shelters" (or "listed transactions") that needed to be registered and disclosed to the IRS.This appeared to put an end to the scourge of scurrilous promoters, as many such plans disappeared from the landscape.And what happened to the providers that were peddling §§419A(f)(5) and (6) life insurance plans a few years ago? We recently found the answer: Most of them found a new life as promoters of so-called "419(e)" welfare benefit plans.
View full review
Loss:
$500
27 comments
Guest

Today the IRS issued a press release announcing that it is significantly increasing enforcement actions for syndicated conservation easement donations and that these transactions are a priority compliance area for the agency. In the press release, the IRS stated that examinations of conservation easement donations are being coordinated across the agency.

The IRS also announced that investigations relating to conservation easement deductions had been initiated by the IRS Criminal Investigation Division. Currently, there are more than 80 conservation easement cases pending in Tax Court, and the IRS outlined its commitment to bringing more cases to Tax Court where it believes the deduction should be disallowed.

Guest

The IRS has initiated audits of hundreds of taxpayers with captive insurance companies and is also examining practitioners that are assisting CICs with compliance. For those businesses and practitioners found uncompliant with IRS standards, the consequences are severe and could include understatement and negligence penalties, as well as potential unwinding of the captive formation and loss of important tax benefits.

If you or your client's CIC is already facing IRS examination, now is the time to let our experts defend your interests in the following areas:

Audit defense

Substantiation and documentation assistance

Risk assessment of your captive (pooling analysis)

Audit readiness Strategic help on future compliance For those seeking to protect their CIC, don't wait until the IRS starts an examination to ensure you are up to code.

Edmundo Vzm

Robin Weingast & Associates has provided exemplary custom benefits solutions to clients for over 30 years. We are happy to work with our clients and if you are encountering any issues working with us, please contact us immediately and we will sit down with you and address your concerns one by one.

You can reach Robin Weingast & Associates at 516.794.1450 (Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm ET) or any time at rsw@***.com

Guest
reply icon Replying to comment of Edmundo Vzm

VEBA PLAN LLC leverages its years of experience with protecting taxpayers to help its clients navigate the complex world of captive insurance compliance, with its team of former high-ranking IRS executives, key congressional personnel and experienced litigators ensuring that each client has the strongest defense possible in the event of an audit.Doing What's Best For You Or Your ClientWhether You Are A CPA...If your client has a captive, you need to evaluate whether they are compliant or not. The IRS is looking at business owners with captives, as well as the CPAs and financial advisors that serve them.Let us help you and your client.Or A Business Owner...It doesn’t matter if you’re under audit or not, making sure your captive is compliant should be top priority.alliantNational can help lower the risk of the IRS cracking down on your insurance arrangement, and will dramatically improve your case against the agency if you are audited.What Is A Captive Insurance Company?Insurance costs can be a big problem for successful companies.

Oftentimes a company may find that third party insurance is commercially unavailable or the commercial insurance that is available may be overly expensive. A company can put up its own capital to form a wholly owned subsidiary insurance company to solve these problems. These types of subsidiaries are known as captive insurance companies.Captive insurance companies can not only fill in gaps in existing coverage but they also provide deductibles on existing coverage. Contributions to the captive insurance company can also be tax deductions under Internal Revenue Code section 831(b).

Captive insurance companies also provide pricing stability and program control. Small Captives are on the IRS hit list and are being audited. Want to fight IRS and get all your money back from the promoter who sold you the abusive Captive.

As an expert witness Lance Wallach has never lost a case. His partners have decades of experience working for the IRS and as tax professors.

Guest
reply icon Replying to comment of Edmundo Vzm

Today the IRS issued a press release announcing that it is significantly increasing enforcement actions for syndicated conservation easement donations and that these transactions are a priority compliance area for the agency. In the press release, the IRS stated that examinations of conservation easement donations are being coordinated across the agency.

The IRS also announced that investigations relating to conservation easement deductions had been initiated by the IRS Criminal Investigation Division. Currently, there are more than 80 conservation easement cases pending in Tax Court, and the IRS outlined its commitment to bringing more cases to Tax Court where it believes the deduction should be disallowed.

Cherron Qlr

robin was nice enough to call me and explained that she was a pension expert and has a lot of clients. I know that she is a hard worker. :)

Guest
reply icon Replying to comment of Cherron Qlr

VEBA PLAN LLC leverages its years of experience with protecting taxpayers to help its clients navigate the complex world of captive insurance compliance, with its team of former high-ranking IRS executives, key congressional personnel and experienced litigators ensuring that each client has the strongest defense possible in the event of an audit.Doing What's Best For You Or Your ClientWhether You Are A CPA...If your client has a captive, you need to evaluate whether they are compliant or not. The IRS is looking at business owners with captives, as well as the CPAs and financial advisors that serve them.Let us help you and your client.Or A Business Owner...It doesn’t matter if you’re under audit or not, making sure your captive is compliant should be top priority.alliantNational can help lower the risk of the IRS cracking down on your insurance arrangement, and will dramatically improve your case against the agency if you are audited.What Is A Captive Insurance Company?Insurance costs can be a big problem for successful companies.

Oftentimes a company may find that third party insurance is commercially unavailable or the commercial insurance that is available may be overly expensive. A company can put up its own capital to form a wholly owned subsidiary insurance company to solve these problems. These types of subsidiaries are known as captive insurance companies.Captive insurance companies can not only fill in gaps in existing coverage but they also provide deductibles on existing coverage. Contributions to the captive insurance company can also be tax deductions under Internal Revenue Code section 831(b).

Captive insurance companies also provide pricing stability and program control. Small Captives are on the IRS hit list and are being audited. Want to fight IRS and get all your money back from the promoter who sold you the abusive Captive.

As an expert witness Lance Wallach has never lost a case. His partners have decades of experience working for the IRS and as tax professors.

Guest

NSA: Member Link

Your link to accounting, tax and practice management ideas, tools, news and information.

Captive Insurance and Other Tax Reduction Strategies – The Good, Bad, and Ugly

By Lance Wallach May 14, 2008

Every accountant knows that increased cash flow and cost savings are critical for businesses in 2008. What is uncertain is the best path to recommend to garner these benefits.

Over the past decade business owners have been overwhelmed by a plethora of choices designed to reduce the cost of providing employee benefits while increasing their own retirement savings. The solutions ranged from traditional pension and profit sharing plans to more advanced strategies.

Some strategies, such as IRS section 419 and 412(i) plans, used life insurance as vehicles to bring about benefits. Unfortunately, the high life insurance commissions (often 90% of the contribution, or more) fostered an environment that led to aggressive and noncompliant plans.

The result has been thousands of audits and an IRS task force seeking out tax shelter promotion. For unknowing clients, the tax consequences are enormous. For their accountant advisors, the liability may be equally extreme.

Recently, there has been an explosion in the marketing of a financial product called Captive Insurance. These so called “Captives” are typically small insurance companies designed to insure the risks of an individual business under IRS code section 831(b). When properly designed, a business can make tax-deductible premium payments to a related-party insurance company. Depending on circumstances, underwriting profits, if any, can be paid out to the owners as dividends, and profits from liquidation of the company may be taxed as capital gains.

While captives can be a great cost saving tool, they also are expensive to build and manage. Also, captives are allowed to garner tax benefits because they operate as real insurance companies. Advisors and business owners who misuse captives or market them as estate planning tools, asset protection vehicles, tax deferral or other benefits not related to the true business purpose of an insurance company face grave regulatory and tax consequences.

A recent concern is the integration of small captives with life insurance policies. Small captives under section 831(b) have no statutory authority to deduct life premiums. Also, if a small captive uses life insurance as an investment, the cash value of the life policy can be taxable at corporate rates, and then will be taxable again when distributed. The consequence of this double taxation is to devastate the efficacy of the life insurance, and it extends serious liability to any accountant who recommends the plan or even signs the tax return of the business that pays premiums to the captive.

The IRS is aware that several large insurance companies are promoting their life insurance policies as investments with small captives. The outcome looks eerily like that of the 419 and 412(i) plans mentioned above.

Remember, if something looks too good to be true, it usually is. There are safe and conservative ways to use captive insurance structures to lower costs and obtain benefits for businesses. And, some types of captive insurance products do have statutory protection for deducting life insurance premiums (although not 831(b) captives). Learning what works and is safe is the first step an accountant should take in helping his or her clients use these powerful, but highly technical insurance tools.

Lance Wallach speaks and writes extensively about VEBAs, retirement plans, and tax reduction strategies. He speaks at more than 70 conventions annually, writes for 50 publications, and was the National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year. Contact him at 516.938.5007 or visit www.vebaplan.com.

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

National Society of Accountants

Guest
reply icon Replying to comment of Guest-603790

Tracy Sunderlage invested clients money in a Ponzi scheme

Tracy Sunderlage invested clients money in a Ponzi scheme,412i, 419e plans litigation and IRS Audit Experts for abusive insurance based plans deemed reportable or listed transactions by the IRS.Benistar,412i Lawsuits,419 lawsuits,412i Help,419 Help, IRS Audits,412i Problems,412i problems, Expert Witness Lance Wallach,412i Help,419 Help

Guest
reply icon Replying to comment of Guest-954787

VEBA PLAN LLC leverages its years of experience with protecting taxpayers to help its clients navigate the complex world of captive insurance compliance, with its team of former high-ranking IRS executives, key congressional personnel and experienced litigators ensuring that each client has the strongest defense possible in the event of an audit.Doing What's Best For You Or Your ClientWhether You Are A CPA...If your client has a captive, you need to evaluate whether they are compliant or not. The IRS is looking at business owners with captives, as well as the CPAs and financial advisors that serve them.Let us help you and your client.Or A Business Owner...It doesn’t matter if you’re under audit or not, making sure your captive is compliant should be top priority.alliantNational can help lower the risk of the IRS cracking down on your insurance arrangement, and will dramatically improve your case against the agency if you are audited.What Is A Captive Insurance Company?Insurance costs can be a big problem for successful companies.

Oftentimes a company may find that third party insurance is commercially unavailable or the commercial insurance that is available may be overly expensive. A company can put up its own capital to form a wholly owned subsidiary insurance company to solve these problems. These types of subsidiaries are known as captive insurance companies.Captive insurance companies can not only fill in gaps in existing coverage but they also provide deductibles on existing coverage. Contributions to the captive insurance company can also be tax deductions under Internal Revenue Code section 831(b).

Captive insurance companies also provide pricing stability and program control. Small Captives are on the IRS hit list and are being audited. Want to fight IRS and get all your money back from the promoter who sold you the abusive Captive.

As an expert witness Lance Wallach has never lost a case. His partners have decades of experience working for the IRS and as tax professors.

View more comments (26)

Why Trust Reviews on PissedConsumer?

  • Professional auto and live moderation
  • 100% user-generated content
  • Equal opportunity and protection
  • Zero tolerance for fake reviews
  • Verified content
  • PissedConsumer is on the Inc. 5000 list

For more information read Blog article