Watch out because the IRS is watching 419 Plans

---

     By Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC 

A business owner wants legitimate tax planning ideas. One solution sometimes offered today is a 419(e) plan (419 Welfare Benefit Plan). The local insurance agent or the company’s CPA who may have an insurance sales license, may suggest that the 419 Welfare Benefit Plan will provide shelter from taxes today, the costs of the plan are tax deductible and the plan will provide tax free benefits for the owner when he or she is ready to retire. The concept seems too good to be true.

Watch out because the IRS is watching, and it often says that the plan is too good to be true.

A 419 Welfare Benefit Plan is generally a plan set up in the form of a trust to provide certain benefits to the employees of a company. You will notice that the term trust is used because the large whole life insurance policies that the owner is instructed to buy go into a trust where neither the company nor the business owner actually owns them. The trust owns the policies.

The insurance agent or CPA wants you to set up a 419(e) plan because you are agreeing to buy high dollar life insurance with premiums payable until you retire. That can generate fees of up to 125% of the first year premium as a commission – that’s right; you read that correctly – 125%.

The plan is sold as a win-win for everyone. It is for the insurance company because it locks the business owner into long-term, expensive insurance. It is for the trust administrator (remember: the insurance policies must be put into a trust to make the plan work) because the business owner has to pay a fee every year to administer the plan. But for the business owner? Maybe not so much!

The big sales pitch often is that the contributions are tax deductible to the business and the business can exclude employees. Moreover, the seller promises that the big insurance policies that are paid for with tax free money can be cashed out or transferred from the trust to the business owner at some later date without paying taxes. It is all so easy: no taxes in and no taxes out. Good right?

Unfortunately, it is often too good to be true. The IRS has been actively attacking such 419 Welfare Benefit Plans as TAX SHELTERS. If a transaction is classified as a tax shelter then the salesperson and your CPA are supposed to tell you to file an 8886 form which highlights tax shelters to the IRS. Think of it as a beacon so that the IRS knows who to come pursue for taxes, penalties, interest and listed transaction charges.
The IRS focus on 419(e) plans came up in a case identified as Curcio v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo 2010-115.

The end result was a financial disaster for the company that took the ordinary business deductions for the plan and the individual taxpayers that also took deductions on their personal taxes.
If something goes wrong on one of these plans (as it often does) who does the business owner look to? The insurance company will claim in defense that it simply sold insurance. The agent or the CPA will claim that it was the responsibility of the third party administrator (TPA) to make sure that the plan was solid and lawful. The TPA will claim that the business owner is not the owner of the product and cannot sue because it was in a trust. The business owner is often left facing the IRS on his or her own while paying other professionals to correct the tax situation.
If you are a business person in a 419(e) plan you should contact Lance Wallach.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Lance Wallach
Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, abusive tax shelters, financial, international tax, and estate planning. He writes about 412(i), 419, Section79, FBAR, and captive insurance plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually, writes for over fifty publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows.

Copyright Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC
More information about Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC

Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or le

Reportable Transactions &; 419 Plans Litigation: CJA and associates 419, 412i section 79, audits for scams

419 and 412i Plan Help

Reportable Transactions .com: 419 Plan, 412i Plan

Reportable Transactions .com: 419 Plan, 412i Plan, Welfare benefit plan assistan...: 419 Plan, 412i Plan, Welfare benefit plan assistance, audits & Abusive tax shelters

How to Get Fined $100,000 by the IRS and Lose Your License

How to Get Fined $100,000 by the IRS and Lose Your License

Why You Should Stay Away from Section 79 Life Insurance Plans

---

     By Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC 

I’ve had several calls lately from doctors who are being pitched Section 79 plans and are wondering if these plans are any good. The doctors are being told that Section 79 plans are the best wealth-building tool they can use to reduce their income taxes and create a tax-free retirement income.

Unfortunately for these unsuspecting doctors, what they don’t know is that not only are Section 79 plans not the best wealth-building tool they can use, they are not even a good wealth-building tool. 

I have problems with Section 79 plans for several reasons: 

1. You have to lie to employees to implement them. Most try to exclude workers.

2. The life illustrations given by ignorant or crooked insurance agents are not realistic. Most use today’s historically low lending rates with 2 percent to 3 percent loan spreads on variable loans on EIUL policies (ones that do not have a fixed lending rate). 

3. You have to be a C-corporation to use them. Many agents don’t inform their clients of this.

4. The life policies sold in these plans are so bad that the companies don’t want them sold unless they are in Section 79 plans. (The policies are designed to have poor performance so the deduction is increased.) This is similar to the springing cash value problems with the 412i and 419 plans that got people audited and sued.

5. Another very good reason not to use these plans is because there are better alternatives. 

6. Another reason not to use a Section 79 plan is because when you run the real numbers, the client would be better off not funding the plan, taking his/her money home after taxes, and funding a good no load EIUL policy. 

7. The IRS audits many of them and unless you properly file under IRC 6707A the fines are very large.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Lance Wallach
Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, abusive tax shelters, financial, international tax, and estate planning. He writes about 412(i), 419, Section79, FBAR and captive insurance plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually, writes for more than 50 publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered” and others.

Copyright Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC
More information about Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC go to lancewallach.com

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

Captive Insurance Plans, Want to Get Audited?

---

     By Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC 

The insurance industry have been conjuring ways to make life insurance premiums tax deductible. Over the years we have seen many schemes that have failed IRS scrutiny. Welfare benefit plans set up under I.R.C. section 419, 412(e) plans and Producer Owned Reinsurance Companies (PORCs) are all common examples.

When one scheme fails it isn’t long before a resourceful promoter comes up with a different product. Inevitably promoters find some lawyer or accountant to draft a favorable opinion letter and a new industry is born. In a few years, however, the IRS catches up and declares the arrangement to be a listed transaction and abusive tax shelter. As an expert witness I have never lost a case in this field. It is easy to beat the deep pockets of the insurance companies who provide product to these plans. Even though they have business owners sign fraudulent disclaimers saying that the owners will get their own tax advice. These disclaimers are then used when the inevitable happens, the IRS audits and the business owner sues the insurance company.
The latest entries seeking to find a way to make life insurance premiums deductible is a small business captive insurance company or CIC.

How do they work and what will the IRS do? Great questions.

Congress has long given special tax considerations to life insurance. IRC section 101(a) provides that life insurance death benefits can be paid to the beneficiaries’ tax free. The IRS also allows the investment gains of the policy to grow tax free on whole life policies until retirement. If a whole life policy is held until death, the gains are completely tax free.

Clearly Congress ‘legislative intent is to provide tax breaks on the back end. For some promoters, however, that isn’t enough. Unfortunately the IRS has been very diligent in shutting down life insurance products that provide tax benefits on both ends.
The newest product under scrutiny is a small business captive insurance company. The theory behind these CICs is that the business will form a captive to insure against some type of business risk. The CIC then invests its money by purchasing life insurance on the owner’s life. Even though the money is being invested in personal life insurance policies, promoters suggest that the funding of the captive is an ordinary and reasonable business expense (26 USC sec 162).

On paper, the transaction seems legitimate. The business is insuring itself against some type of risk. The CIC is using life insurance as an investment. While each component may be acceptable under the Internal Revenue Code, the practical reality is that the IRS still views them as a subterfuge and therefore void.

IRC sec. 264(a)(1) states the general proposition that life insurance premiums are not deductible if the taxpayer is a direct or indirect beneficiary under the policy. Notwithstanding the recent popularity of these and similar plans, the IRS has been quite assertive in rebuffing these attempts. To date, the courts usually side with the Service as well.

On paper, CICs are the perfect tax shelter. The business can set up a captive insurance company to insure against a legitimate business risk. That means the premiums are a valid business expense and thus deductible. The captive can exclude over a million dollars a year of premiums. And the captive has the ability to invest its premium money to earn a return.

Where things can get dicey is when the captive invests in life insurance on the business owner’s life. Remember, those dollars are still pre-tax.

It all sounds perfect and there are some promoters out there ready to tell you exactly how perfect and legitimate it really is.
If you think this article ends here, it doesn’t. Before going the captive route – and there are legitimate captives – speak to a good CPA or tax attorney. If created for legitimate insurance purposes, a captive insurance company offers many benefits; including tax minimization, lower insurance costs and even the unavailability of certain types of coverage. Use premiums to purchase life insurance on the owner’s life and trouble will follow.

Why? Here are some reasons.

The IRS looks to see if a transaction is arm’s length, if the purpose is tax avoidance and if there is a legitimate business purpose for the transactions.

Second, the IRS strongly holds on to its policy of no deductions for life insurance premiums. We have seen several 419 welfare benefit plans fail despite great sounding legal opinion letters.

For many years, promoters have marched out slick new products designed to allow individuals to deduct life insurance premiums. Since at least 1995, the IRS has warned that these devices are potential abusive tax shelters and listed transactions. A captive insurance company can be an important and legitimate money saving tool for business. Extreme caution must be used if the captive and its owners decide to invest in certain life insurance contracts, however.

Although deducting life insurance premiums for business owners is still doubtful, a very recent U.S. The tax Court opinion suggests that the courts are willing to be open minded if a captive is properly structured.

In the 2014 Rent-A-Center, Inc. case, a majority of the court ruled that payments by a parent company’s wholly owned subsidiaries to a wholly owned captive were deductible insurance expenses. Previously the Tax Court upheld the IRS’ determination that such expenses were not deductible in “brother sister” captive insurance arrangements.

I have helped hundreds of business owners who have had IRS problems with 419 welfare benefit plans, 412i and section 79 plans. I am just starting to get phone calls on captive insurance plans.

If you are planning to create a captive for the sole purpose of investing in life insurance, contact someone that knows what they are doing and file under IRS code 6707A to reduce fines. Failure to report a listed transaction can involve huge civil penalties. These penalties are in addition to any other tax, interest and penalties attributable to disallowed deductions and accuracy penalties.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Lance Wallach
Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, abusive tax shelters, financial, international tax, and estate planning. He writes about 412(i), 419, Section79, FBAR and captive insurance plans.

Copyright Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC
More information about Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC

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

IRS Issues Final Regulations for Material Advisors, Accountants, Attorneys and Insurance Agents

---

     By Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC 

If you sold, advised on or had anything to do with a listed transaction you will be fined by the IRS. For those that bought listed transactions like, 419 welfare benefit plans or 412i plans, you have been or will also be fined.

On July 30, 2014, the Internal Revenue Service issued final regulations regarding the imposition of penalties under Internal Revenue Code section 6707 against material advisors who fail to file true, complete or timely disclosure returns with respect to reportable or listed transactions. The effective date of the final regulations is July 31, 2014.

Material advisors generally include any advisors who make or provide a tax statement with respect to any reportable or listed transaction, and directly or indirectly receive certain threshold levels of gross income in connection with such advice. Reportable transactions include listed transactions, transactions of interest, section 165 loss transactions, confidential transactions, and contractual protection transactions.

The final regulations make several changes to the proposed regulations that were published in 2008. The changes include:

• The applicable penalty under section 6707 for a transaction qualifying as both reportable and listed is limited to a single penalty, which is the greater of $200,000 or 50 percent of the gross income derived by the material advisor (75 percent if the failure is international). 

• In cases where there is a failure to disclose more than one reportable or listed transaction, a separate section 6707 penalty will be imposed for each transaction. 

• For purposes of computing the penalty in the case of a listed transaction, the gross income derived from the listed transaction only includes fees earned in connection with the listed transaction for which the advisor was a material advisor. 

The final regulations also modify the factors considered by the IRS for rescission of a material advisor penalty. The final regulations now allow consideration of facts and circumstances relating to whether a material advisor’s failure to timely file the Form 8918, Material Advisor Disclosure Statement, was unintentional. However, if an unintentionally delinquent Form 8918 was filed either after the IRS had taken steps to identify the person as a material advisor or after the taxpayer disclosed a reportable transaction on Form 8886, Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement, such a filing will not weigh in favor of rescission.

Lastly, the final regulations include additional examples to help clarify the application of the material advisor penalties.
Attorneys, accountants, financial and investment consultants and others advising on reportable or listed transactions should remain conscious of the applicable gross income thresholds for each type of transaction, as well as the timing of reporting obligations. The severe penalties and narrow provisions for rescission of such penalties require careful planning and awareness of compliance obligations.

Companies should carefully evaluate their proposed investments in plans such as the 419, 412i, section 79 or captive insurance plan with life insurance.. The claimed deductions will be disallowed, and penalties will be assessed for lack of disclosure if the investment is similar to the investments described in Notice 95-34, that is, if the transaction is a listed transaction and Form 8886 is either not filed at all or is not properly filed. The penalties, though perhaps not as severe, are also imposed for reportable transactions, which are defined as transactions having the potential for tax avoidance or evasion.

Insurance agents have been selling such abusive plans since the 1990's. They started as 419A(F)(6) plans and abusive 412i plans. The IRS went after them. They then evolved to single-employer 419(e) plans, which the IRS also went after. The latest scams may be the so-called captive insurance plan and the so-called Section 79 plan.

While captive insurance plans are legitimate for large corporations, they are usually not legitimate for small business owners as a way to obtain a tax deduction. I have not yet seen a legitimate Section 79 plan. Recently, I have sent some of the plan promoters’ materials over to my IRS contacts who were very interested in receiving them. Some of my associates are already trying to help defend some unsuspecting business owners who are being audited by the IRS with respect to these plans.

Similar, though perhaps not as abusive, plans fail after the IRS goes after them. Niche was one example. The company first marketed a 419A(F)(6) plan that the IRS audited. They then marketed a 419(e) plan that the IRS audited. Niche, insurance companies, agents, and many accountants were then sued after their clients lost their deductions, paid fines, interest, and penalties, and then paid huge fines for failure to file properly under 6707A. Niche then went out of business.

Millennium sold 419 plans through insurance companies. They stupidly filed for a private letter ruling to the effect that they were not a listed transaction. They got exactly the opposite: a private letter ruling saying that they were a listed transaction. Then many participants were audited. The IRS disallowed the deductions, imposed penalties and interest, and then assessed large fines for not filing properly under Section 6707A. The result was lawsuits against agents, insurance companies and accountants. Millennium sought bankruptcy protection after a lot of lawsuits.

I have been an expert witness in a lot of the lawsuits in these 419 plans, 412i plans, and the like, and my side has never lost a case. I have received thousands of phone calls over the years from business owners, accountants, angry plan promoters, insurance agents, and other various professionals. In the 1990's, when I started writing for the AICPA and other publications warning about these abusive plans, most people laughed at me, especially the plan promoters.

In 2002, when I spoke at the annual national convention of the American Society of Pension Actuaries in Washington, people took notice. The IRS chief actuary Jim Holland also held a meeting similar to mine on abusive 412i plans. Many IRS agents attended my meeting. I was also invited to IRS headquarters, at the request of the acting IRS commissioner, to meet with high-level IRS officials and Treasury officials to discuss 419 issues in depth, which I did after the meeting.

The IRS then set up task forces and started going after 419 and 412i plans. I have been profusely warning accountants to properly file under 6707A to avoid the large fines, but most do not. Even if they file, if they make a mistake on the forms, the IRS will fine them. Very few accountants have had experience filing the forms, and the IRS instructions are complicated and therefore difficult to follow.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Lance Wallach
Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, abusive tax shelters, financial, international tax, and estate planning. He writes about 412(i), 419, Section79, FBAR and captive insurance plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually, writes for more than 50 publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered” and others.

Copyright Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC
More information about Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC

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

Serving Clients Nationwide

516-938-5007

Lance Wallach Expert Witness

419, 412i, captive insurance and section 79 problems

419, 412i, captive insurance and section 79 problems

---

April 4, 2013     By Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC 

Call (516) 938-5007

---

Sometimes the IRS might disagree with planning you did with other advisors and you need to find help to ensure that your rights are protected, the facts are interpreted accurately and the law applied correctly.

Lance Wallach is among the few in this country who fully understand the mechanics and legal issues surrounding what has become known as "419 Plans," 412i plans, captive insurance and section 79 programs. He wrote the book, that others read for CPE on these subjects. For that reason taxpayers throughout the country seek his services in dealing with the Internal Revenue Service in audits, appeals and in the Tax Court with his associates. As an expert witness Lance Wallach's side has never lost a case. Sometimes it is easy to get your money back with a letter.

Expert Witness

Frankly, not everybody does it right. Whether through ignorance or ill-intent, some folks sell insurance based programs with tax benefits, such as 419 Plans and 412(i) Plans, or promote premium financing or STOLI programs to unsuspecting consumers leaving the consumer to be attacked, either by the IRS or by a turn in the economy, when all goes wrong. But the opposite is also true. Some 419 Plans and 412(i) Plan are very well designed and flawlessly implemented but the IRS just shoots first and aims second. Some legitimate premium financing might miscue. Using Lances knowledge of life insurance and the many ways life insurance has been and can be used in tax and wealth planning, lawyers for both plaintiffs and defendants throughout the US seek Lances services as an expert witness in cases between consumers and those who sold them these programs that develop after the IRS, right or wrong, initiates an audit or the investment goes under water. In looking for an expert witness examine credentials: Use the man that wrote the book on this. Use the man's team that has never lost a case. Why use an attorney or CPA who will learn on the job. Why use an atty. or CPA that learned from one of Lance Wallach's books or conventions. Want to win. Want to be made whole. Want this problem to go away. Google Lance Wallach and anyone else and you decide who is see who is the true expert.

Give us a call and see how we can protect your present and plan for your future.

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

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Lance Wallach
Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, abusive tax shelters, financial, international tax, and estate planning. He writes about 412(i), 419, Section79, FBAR, and captive insurance plans.

Copyright Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC


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

The Dangers of being "listed"

The Dangers of being "listed"

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

Accounting Today: October 25, 2010 

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
($200,000 for a business and $100,000 for an individual) 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 has to be prepared correctly. I only know of two
people in the United States who have filed these forms properly for clients. They tell me that
was after hundreds of hours of research and over fifty phones calls to various IRS
personnel.

The filing instructions for Form 8886 presume a timely filing.  Most people file late and follow
the directions for currently preparing the forms. Then the IRS fines the business owner. The
tax court does not have jurisdiction to abate or lower such penalties imposed by the IRS.
Many business owners adopted 412i, 419, captive insurance and Section 79 plans based
upon representations provided by insurance professionals that the plans were legitimate
plans and were not informed that they were engaging in a listed transaction.
Upon audit, these taxpayers were shocked when the IRS asserted penalties under Section
6707A of the Code in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Numerous complaints from
these taxpayers caused Congress to impose a moratorium on assessment of Section 6707A
penalties.

The moratorium on IRS fines expired on June 1, 2010. The IRS immediately started sending
out notices proposing the imposition of Section 6707A penalties along with requests for
lengthy extensions of the Statute of Limitations for the purpose of assessing tax.  Many of
these taxpayers stopped taking deductions for contributions to these plans years ago, and
are confused and upset by the IRS's inquiry, especially when the taxpayer had previously
reached a monetary settlement with the IRS regarding its deductions.  Logic and common
sense dictate that a penalty should not apply if the taxpayer no longer benefits from the
arrangement.

Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.6011-4(c)(3)(i) provides that a taxpayer has participated in a listed
transaction if the taxpayer's tax return reflects tax consequences or a tax strategy described
in the published guidance identifying the transaction as a listed transaction or a transaction
that is the same or substantially similar to a listed transaction.  Clearly, the primary benefit in
the participation of these plans is the large tax deduction generated by such participation.  It
follows that taxpayers who no longer enjoy the benefit of those large deductions are no
longer "participating ' in the listed transaction.   But that is not the end of the story.
Many taxpayers who are no longer taking current tax deductions for these plans continue to
enjoy the benefit of previous tax deductions by continuing the deferral of income from
contributions and deductions taken in prior years.  While the regulations do not expand on
what constitutes "reflecting the tax consequences of the strategy", it could be argued that
continued benefit from a tax deferral for a previous tax deduction is within the contemplation
of a "tax consequence" of the plan strategy. Also, many taxpayers who no longer make
contributions or claim tax deductions continue to pay administrative fees.  Sometimes,
money is taken from the plan to pay premiums to keep life insurance policies in force.  In
these ways, it could be argued that these taxpayers are still "contributing", and thus still
must file Form 8886.

It is clear that the extent to which a taxpayer benefits from the transaction depends on the
purpose of a particular transaction as described in the published guidance that caused such
transaction to be a listed transaction. Revenue Ruling 2004-20 which classifies 419(e)
transactions, appears to be concerned with the employer's contribution/deduction amount
rather than the continued deferral of the income in previous years.  This language may
provide the taxpayer with a solid argument in the event of an audit.

Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, financial and estate planning, and abusive tax shelters.  He writes about 412(i), 419, and captive
insurance plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually He does expert witness testimony and has never lost a case. Contact
him at 516.938.5007

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.

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

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

by Lance Wallach

Taxpayers who previously adopted 419, 412i, captive insurance or Section 79 plans are in big trouble. In recent years, the IRS has identified many of these arrangements as abusive devices to funnel tax deductible dollars to shareholders and classified these arrangements as “listed transactions.” These plans were sold by insurance agents, financial planners, accountants and attorneys seeking large life insurance commissions. In general, taxpayers who engage in a “listed transaction” must report such transaction to the IRS on Form 8886 every year that they “participate” in the transaction, and the taxpayer does not necessarily have to make a contribution or claim a tax deduction to be deemed to participate. Section 6707A of the Code imposes severe penalties ($200,000 for a business and $100,000 for an individual) for failure to file Form 8886 with respect to a listed transaction. But a taxpayer can also be in trouble if they file incorrectly. I have received numerous phone calls from business owners who filed and still got fined. Not only does

the taxpayer have to file Form 8886, but it has to be prepared correctly. I only know of two people in the United States who have filed these forms properly for clients. They told me that the form was prepared after hundreds of hours of research and over fifty phones calls to various IRS personnel. The filing instructions for Form 8886 presume a timely filing. Most people file late and follow the directions for currently preparing the forms. Then the IRS fines the business owner. The tax court does not have

jurisdiction to abate or lower such penalties imposed by the IRS.

Many business owners adopted 412i, 419, captive insurance and Section 79 plans based upon representations provided by insurance professionals that the plans were legitimate plans and

they were not informed that they were engaging in a listed transaction. Upon audit, these taxpayers were shocked when the IRS asserted penalties under Section 6707A of the Code in the hundreds

of thousands of dollars. Numerous complaints from these taxpayers caused Congress to impose a moratorium on assessment of Section 6707A penalties.

The moratorium on IRS fines expired on June 1, 2010. The IRS immediately started sending out notices proposing the imposition of Section 6707A penalties along with requests for lengthy extensions of the Statute of Limitations for the purpose of assessing tax. Many of these taxpayers stopped taking deductions for contributions to these plans years ago, and are confused and upset by the IRS’s inquiry, especially when the taxpayer had previously reached a monetary settlement with the IRS regarding the deductions

taken in prior years. Logic and common sense dictate that a penalty should not apply if the taxpayer no longer benefits from the arrangement.

Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.6011-4(c)(3)(i) provides that a taxpayer has participated in a listed transaction if the taxpayer’s tax return reflects tax consequences or a tax strategy described in the published guidance identifying the transaction as a listed transaction or a transaction that is the same or substantially

similar to a listed transaction. Clearly, the primary benefit in the participation of these plans is the large tax deduction generated by such participation. It follows that taxpayers who no longer enjoy the benefit of those large deductions are no longer “participating” in the listed transaction.

But that is not the end of the story. Many taxpayers who are no longer taking current tax deductions for these plans continue to enjoy the benefit of previous tax deductions by continuing the deferral of income from contributions and deductions taken in prior years. While the regulations do not expand on what constitutes “reflecting the tax consequences of the strategy,” it could be argued that continued benefit from a tax deferral for a previous tax deduction is within the contemplation of a “tax consequence” of the plan strategy. Also, many taxpayers who no longer make contributions or claim tax deductions continue to pay administrative fees. Sometimes, money is taken from the plan to pay premiums to keep life insurance policies in force. In these ways, it could be argued that these taxpayers are still “contributing,” and thus still must file Form 8886.

It is clear that the extent to which a taxpayer benefits from the transaction depends on the purpose of a particular transaction as described in the published guidance that caused such transaction to be a listed transaction. Revenue Ruling 2004-20, which classifies 419(e) transactions, appears to be concerned with the employer’s contribution/deduction amount rather than the continued deferral of the income in previous years. This language may provide the taxpayer with a solid argument in the event of an audit.

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

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.

419 Plan Help,419 Plan

419 Plan Help,419 Plan

Can You Recover Money from 419 and 412i Plans? - HG.org

Can You Recover Money from 419 and 412i Plans? - HG.org

Welfare Benefit Plan Fraud: What Remedies Are Available? If you’ve been the victim of a 419 Welfare Benefit Plan scheme and now find yourself owing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) taxes on something you were told was going to be tax deductible, it’s important to know what remedies might be available to you.

Remedies for abusive tax shelter schemes

Lance Wallach says that there are remedies for those who have been injured by an insurance company’s abusive tax shelter schemes. He predicts that we’ll see a huge spike in the number of people getting audited by the IRS.

No Shelter Here: Beware of These Insurance Plans | Remodeling

No Shelter Here: Beware of These Insurance Plans | Remodeling

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

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

Captive Insurance Plans, Want to Get Audited? - HG.org

Captive Insurance Plans, Want to Get Audited? - HG.org

The insurance industry have been conjuring ways to make life insurance premiums tax deductible. Over the years we have seen many schemes that have failed IRS scrutiny. Welfare benefit plans set up under I.R.C. section 419, 412(e) plans and Producer Owned Reinsurance Companies (PORCs) are all common examples.

When one scheme fails it isn’t long before a resourceful promoter comes up with a different product. Inevitably promoters find some lawyer or accountant to draft a favorable opinion letter and a new industry is born. In a few years, however, the IRS catches up and declares the arrangement to be a listed transaction and abusive tax shelter. As an expert witness I have never lost a case in this field. It is easy to beat the deep pockets of the insurance companies who provide product to these plans. Even though they have business owners sign fraudulent disclaimers saying that the owners will get their own tax advice. These disclaimers are then used when the inevitable happens, the IRS audits and the business owner sues the insurance company.

The latest entries seeking to find a way to make life insurance premiums deductible is a small business captive insurance company or CIC.

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

Captive Insurance and Other Tax Reduction Strategies - The Good, Bad, and Ugly
http://lancewallach.articlealley.com/captive-insurance-and-other-tax-reduction-strategies--the-good-bad-and-ugly-1074454.html 



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 solutionsranged 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 aboutbenefits. Unfortunately, the high life insurance commissions (often 90% of the contribution, or more) fostered an environment that led to aggressive and noncompliant plans. 



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



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



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



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



The IRS is aware that several large insurance companies are promoting their life insurance policies 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