Reportable Transactions &419 Plans Litigation

419, 412i, Captive And Section 79 Plans Continue To Draw IRS Attention

2012-02-16T10:30:00.001-08:00

By Lance Wallach, Consultant & Expert Witness

Recent court cases have highlighted serious problems in welfare benefit plans issued by Nova Benefit Plans. Recently unsealed IRS criminal case information now raises concerns with other plans as well. If you have any type plan issued by NOVA Benefit Plans, U.S. Benefits Group, Benefit Plan Advisors, Grist Mill trusts, Rex Insurance Service or Benistar, you may have a criminal problem. You may be subject to an audit or in some cases, criminal prosecution.

On November 17th, Fifty-nine pages of search warrant materials were unsealed in the Nova Benefit Plans litigation currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. According to these documents, the IRS believes that Nova is involved in a significant criminal conspiracy involving the crimes of Conspiracy to Impede the IRS and Assisting in the Preparation of False Income Tax Returns.

In 2010, seventy armed IRS Criminal Division special agents raided the offices of Nova Benefit Plans. The IRS has taken other recent criminal enforcement actions in other states including Nebraska and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The IRS has told the court that it believes Nova is promoting abusive "section 419" welfare benefit plans.

The IRS claims that a cooperating witness and several undercover agents "penetrated" Nova to ascertain its internal operations. They say Nova helped their clients violate tax laws by claiming the most minor injuries as permanent disabilities to qualify for special tax treatment. In other words, they would assist clients claim a minor scrape was a disabling and disfiguring permanent injury.

The IRS also claims that Nova assisted clients in backdating documents filed with the IRS.

According to the IRS, Nova's plan was a scam because Nova helped taxpayers claim false disabilities. The Internal Revenue Code says disability payments are tax free if there is a permanent loss of a bodily part or function. A small scrape is a far cry from the loss of an eye."

Nova is not alone in the scam. According to the IRS affidavit, Nova and its principals have also done business as U.S. Benefits Group, Benefit Plan Advisors, Grist Mill trusts, Rex Insurance Service and Benistar.

Anyone who has purchased a plan from Nova or the related entities should immediately get help. If the IRS is correct and these plans are not legitimate, the tax consequences to participants could be very high. In some cases, if clients entered these plans with knowledge of Nova's history or promises to evade taxes, the consequences could involve prison.

As a result of the raid and a cooperating witness, the IRS is believed to have the client lists of Nova, Grist Mill and the others.

The IRS is also auditing other 419 and 412i plans. They are also fining participants a large amount of money for not properly informing on themselves under IRS 6707. If you are in an abusive 419, 412i captive insurance or section 79 plan you must file with the IRS. If you don’t file, or incorrectly fill out the forms, the fines that I am aware of have averaged around $300,000. If someone sold one of these plans, or signed a tax return claiming deductions for one, IRS can call them a material advisor and fine them $100,000. They have to file also. I have been getting a large volume of phone calls from people getting these fines. You need to act before this happens to you.

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.

Help With Common IRS Problems

2012-02-15T12:29:00.000-08:00

Published in Coatings Pro Magazine
Lance Wallach

It is tax time. There are many problems you can run into with the IRS. This article is a generalized overview of some of these confusing issues:

•IRS Penalties
•Unfiled Tax Returns
•IRS Liens
•IRS Audits
•Payroll Tax Problems
•IRS Levies
•Wage Garnishments
•IRS Seizures

When dealing with the IRS, it can seem like they have all the power. That is not always true. As a small business owner--and a taxpayer--it is vital that you know your options and your rights.

IRS Penalties

The IRS penalizes millions of taxpayers each year. In fact, they have so many penalties that it can be hard to understand which penalty they are hitting you with.

The most common penalties are Failure to File and Failure to Pay. Both of these penalties can substantially increase the amount you owe the IRS in a very short period of time.

To make matters worse, the IRS charges interest on penalties. Many taxpayers often find out about IRS problems many years after they have occurred. As a result, the amount owed the IRS is substantially greater due to penalties and the accumulated interest on those penalties. Some IRS penalties can be as high as 75% to 100% of the original taxes owed. Often taxpayers can afford to pay the taxes owed, but the extra penalties make it impossible to pay off the entire balance.

The original goal of the IRS imposing penalties was to punish taxpayers in order to keep them in line. Unfortunately, the penalties have turned into additional sources of income for the IRS. So they are happy to add whatever penalties they can and to pile interest on top of those penalties. Your loss is their gain. It is important to know that under certain circumstances the IRS does abate or forgive penalties. Therefore before you pay the IRS any penalty amounts, you may want to
consider requesting that the IRS abate your penalties.

Unfiled Tax Returns

Many taxpayers fail to file required tax returns for a variety of reasons. What you must understand is that failure to file tax returns may be construed as a criminal act by the IRS--a criminal act punishable by up to one year in jail for each year not filed. Needless to say, its one thing to owe the IRS money but another thing to potentially lose your freedom for failure to file a tax return.

The IRS may file “SFR” (Substitute For Return) Tax Returns on your behalf. This is the IRS’s version of an unfiled tax return. Because SFR Tax Returns are filed in the best interest of the government, the only deductions you’ll see are standard deductions and one personal exemption. You will not get credit for deductions to which you may be entitled, such as exemptions for a spouse or children, interest on your home mortgage and property taxes, cost of any stock or real estate sales, business expenses, etc.

Remember that regardless of what you have heard, you have the right to file your original tax return, no matter how late it is filed.

IRS Liens

The IRS can make your life miserable by filing Federal Tax Liens on your business or
property. Federal Tax Liens are public records indicating that you owe the IRS various taxes. They are filed with the County Clerk in the county from which you or your business operates.

Because they are public records, they will show up on your credit report. This often
makes it difficult to obtain financing on an automobile or a home. Federal Tax Liens can also tie up your personal property, meaning that you cannot sell or transfer that property without a clear title.

Often taxpayers find themselves in a Catch-22 in which they have property that they
would like to borrow against, but because of the Federal Tax Lien, they cannot get a loan. Should a Federal Tax Lien be filed against you, a CPA can help get it lifted.

IRS Audits

The IRS conducts multiple types of audits. They can audit you by mail, in their offices, in your office or home. The location of the audit is a good indication of the severity.

Typically, Correspondence Audits are conducted to locate missing documents in your tax return that have been flagged by IRS computers. These documents usually include W-2s and 1099 income items or interest expense items. This type of audit can typically be handled through the mail with the correct documentation.

The IRS Office Audit--held in IRS offices--is usually conducted by a Tax Examiner who
will request numerous documents and explanations of various deductions. During this
type of audit you may be required to produce all bank records for a period of time so that the IRS can check for unreported income.

The IRS Home or Office Audit--held in your home or office--should be taken very
seriously as these are conducted by IRS Revenue Agents. Revenue Agents receive more
training and learn more auditing techniques than typical Tax Examiners. Of course, all IRS audits should be taken seriously as they often lead to examinations of
other tax years and other tax problems not stated in the original audit letter.

Payroll Tax Problems

The IRS is very aggressive in their collection attempts for past-due payroll taxes. The penalties assessed on delinquent payroll tax deposits or filings can dramatically increase the total amount you owe in just a matter of months.

I believe that it is critical for business owners to have an attorney present in these situations. Your answers to the first five IRS questions may determine whether you stay in business or are liquidated by the IRS. We always advise clients to avoid meeting with any IRS representatives regarding payroll taxes until you have met with a professional to discuss your options.

IRS Levies--Bank and Wage

An IRS Levy is an action taken by the IRS to collect taxes. For example, the IRS can
issue a Bank Levy to obtain the cash in your savings and checking accounts. Or, the IRS can levy your wages or accounts receivable. The person, company, or institution that is served with the levy must comply or face its own IRS problems.

When the IRS levies a bank account, the levy can only be honored on the particular day on which the bank receives the levy. The bank is required to remove whatever amount of money is in your account on that day (up to the amount of the IRS Levy) and send it to the IRS within 21 days unless otherwise notified by the IRS. This type of levy does not affect any future deposits made into your bank account unless the IRS issues another Bank Levy.

An IRS Wage Levy is different. Wage Levies are filed with your employer and remain in
effect until the IRS notifies the employer that the Wage Levy has been released. Most
Wage Levies take so much money from the taxpayer’s paycheck that the taxpayer doesn’t even have enough money remaining to meet basic needs. Both Bank and Wage Levies create difficult situations and should be avoided if possible.

Wage Garnishments

The IRS Wage Garnishment is a very powerful tool used to collect taxes that you owe
through your employer. Once a Wage Garnishment is filed with an employer, the
employer is required to collect a large percentage of each paycheck. The funds that
would have otherwise been paid to the employee will then be paid to the IRS.
The Wage Garnishment stays in effect until the IRS is fully paid or until the IRS agrees to release the garnishment. Having wages garnished can create other debt problems because the amount left over after the IRS takes its cut is often small, so you may have difficulty with bills and other financial obligations.

IRS Seizures

The IRS has extensive powers when it comes to seizures of assets. These powers allow
them to seize personal and business assets to pay off outstanding tax liabilities. Seizures typically occur when taxpayers have been avoiding the IRS.

Similar to levies and garnishments, seizures are one of the IRS’s ultimate invasive
collection tools. They can seize cars, television sets, jewelry, computers, collectibles, business equipment, or anything of value, which can be sold in order to acquire the money the IRS wants to pay off your tax debts. If you are facing a seizure, you have a serious problem.

Hopefully this tax season will begin and end without any of these IRS issues coming into play. But if they do, help is out there. CPAs and attorneys can help you negotiate your rights should it become necessary.

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

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

419 Life Insurance Plans and Other Scams – Large IRS Fines –

2012-02-09T11:52:00.000-08:00

The IRS Raids Plan Promoter Benistar, and What Does All This Mean To You?

Articlebase

Posted: Dec. 9

By Lance Wallach

Recently IRS raided Benistar, which is also known as the Grist Mill Trust, the promoter and operator of one of the better known and more heavily scrutinized of the Section 419 life insurance plans. IRS attacked the Benistar 419 plan, and one of its tactics was to demand the names of all the clients Benistar worked with — so they could be audited by the IRS, Benistar refused to give the names and actually appealed the decision to turn over the names. The appeal was unsuccessful, but Benistar officials still refused to give up the names. Recently, the IRS raided the Benistar office and took hundreds of boxes of information, which included information on clients who were in their 419 plan. In documents filed by Benistar itself, they stated that 35 to 50 armed IRS agents descended upon their office to seize documents.

IRS has visited, and is still visiting most of the other plans and obtaining names of participants, selling insurance agents, accountants, etc. They have a whole task force devoted to auditing 419, 412i and other abusive plans.

It’s important to understand what could happen to unsuspecting business owners if they get involved in plans that are not above board. Their names could be turned over to the IRS, where audits could ensue, and where the outcome could be the payment of back taxes and significant penalties. Then they would be fined another time under Section 6707A for not properly reporting on themselves.

Most 419 life insurance and 412i defined benefit pension plans were sold to successful business owners as plans with large tax deductions where money would grow tax free until needed in retirement. I would speak at national accounting and other conventions talking about the problems with most of these plans. I would be attacked by some attendees who where making large insurance commissions selling the plans. I would try to warn insurance company home office executives, but they too had their heads in the sand because of all the money these plans brought in. Then the IRS got tough and started fining the unsuspecting business owners hundreds of thousands a year for not reporting on themselves for being in the plan. The agents and insurance companies advise against filing. “This is a good plan. We have approval.” Not only were the business owners fined under IRS Code 6707A, but the insurance agents were also fined $100,000 for not reporting on themselves. Accountants who signed tax returns are even being fined 100,000 by IRS. Then the business owners sue the accountants, insurance agents, etc. I have been following these scenarios for a long time. In fact, I have been an expert witness in many of these cases, and my side has never lost.

Most promoters of 419 plans told clients that their plans complied with the laws and, therefore, were not listed tax transactions. Unfortunately, the IRS doesn’t care what a promoter of a tax-avoidance plan says; it makes its own determination and punishes those who don’t comply.

The McGehee Family Clinic, P.A. was recently hit with back taxes and a penalty under Code Sec. 666A in conjunction with a deduction to the Benistar 419 plan

Dr. McGehee's clinic took a deduction for a 419 plan (the Benistar plan) back in 2005. Eventually, the McGhee Family Clinic was audited. After the audit, the doctor was told that the deduction would be disallowed and that back taxes were due. Additionally, Dr. McGehee was hit with a 20 percent accuracy-related penalty under Code Sec. 6662A. Finally, the tax court sustained the IRS's determination that McGehee was subject to the increased 30 percent penalty, because its return did not include a disclosure statement indicating its participation in the Benistar Trust. I think that in addition to the aforementioned fines, IRS will now fine him, both on a corporate and personal level, another $200,000 or more, under IRC 6707A, for not properly disclosing his participation in a listed transaction. There was a moratorium on those fines until June 2010, pending new legislation to reduce them. The fines had been 200,000 per year on the corporate level and $100,000 per year on the personal level. You got the fine even if you made no contributions for the year. All you had to do was to be in the plan. So Dr. McGehee's fine would be a total of $300,000 per year for every year that he and his corporation were in the plan.

IRS also says the fine is not appealable. His fine would be in the million-dollar range and it would be in addition to the back taxes, interest, and penalties already discussed earlier in this paragraph.

Legislation just passed slightly reducing those fines, but you still have to properly file to start the Statute of Limitations running to avoid the fines. IRS is fining people who report on themselves, but make a mistake on the forms. Now that the moratorium on the fines has passed, and so has the new legislation, IRS has aggressively moved to fine unsuspecting business owners hundreds of thousands. This is usually after they get audited, and sometimes reach agreement with IRS. Then another division or department of the IRS imposes a fine under 6707A. I am receiving a lot of phone calls from business owners who this is happening to. Unfortunately, some of these people already had called me. I warned them to properly file under 6707A. Either they did not believe me - it is unbelievable - or their accountant or tax attorney filed incorrectly. Then they called again after being fined.

If you were involved with one of these abusive plans, there are steps that you can take to minimize IRS problems. With respect to filing under Section 6707A, I know the two best people in the country at filing after the fact, which is what you would be doing at this point, and still somehow avoiding the fine. It is an art that both learned through countless hours of research and numerous conversations with IRS personnel. Both have filed dozens of times for clients, after the fact, without the clients being fined. Either may well still be able to help you.

And the right accountant, one with the proper knowledge, experience, and Service contacts, can help with the other IRS problems as well. I recall a case where a CPA I knew and recommended was able to get $300,000 or so in liabilities reduced to three thousand dollars and change. Do not count on a result like this, but help is available.

It’s not worth it!

Stay away from 419 and similar plans like Section 79 plans. Be very careful with 412i plans. Avoid most captive insurance plans.

It’s getting closer to the end of the year. This is when every scammer known to man/woman comes out of the woodwork to sell some fly-by-night tax-deductible plan to clients. Sometimes they come in the form of an accountant, insurance agent-financial planner, or even an attorney. I see this in all of my expert witness cases and when I speak at conventions. I have seen this since the 1990s. I wanted to remind readers that, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

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, writes for over fifty publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Pubic Radio's All Things Considered, and others. Lance has written numerous books including Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams published by John Wiley and Sons, Bisk Education's CPA's Guide to Life Insurance and Federal Estate and Gift Taxation, as well as 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.taxaudit419.com.

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

Lance Wallach
68 Keswick Lane
Plainview, NY 11803
Ph.: (516)938-5007
Fax: (516)938-6330 www.vebaplan.com

National Society of Accountants Speaker of The Year

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

IRS Hiring Agents in Abusive Transactions Group

2012-02-01T09:06:00.001-08:00

FAST PITCH NETWORKING

Posted: Dec. 10

By Lance Wallach

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

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

Job Title: INTERNAL REVENUE AGENT (ABUSIVE TRANSACTIONS GROUP)

Agency: Internal Revenue Service

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

Sub Agency: Internal Revenue Service

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

Who May Be Considered:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should you File, and then Opt Out?

2012-01-31T11:26:00.001-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some of the rules:

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

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

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

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

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

6. Interview? Some audits will include taxpayer interviews.

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

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

2012-01-23T13:21:00.001-08:00

Offshore International Today

IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program Reopens

By Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC

Abusive Tax Shelter, Listed Transaction, Reportable Transaction Expert Witness

Today, the Internal Revenue Service reopened the offshore voluntary disclosure program to help people hiding offshore accounts get current with their taxes. Additionally, the IRS revealed the collection of more than $4.4 billion so far from the two previous international programs.

The Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) was reopened following continued strong interest from taxpayers and tax practitioners after the closure of the 2011 and 2009 programs. The third offshore program comes as the IRS continues working on a wide range of international tax issues and follows ongoing efforts with the Justice Department to pursue criminal prosecution of international tax evasion. This program will remain open indefinitely until otherwise announced.

Lance Wallach and his associates have received thousands of phone calls from concerned clients with questions about the prior programs. Some of Lance’s associates are still very busy helping people with the last program. Not a single person has been audited and most are pleased with the results and are now able to sleep easily without worrying about the IRS. According to Lance, it requires years of experience to obtain a good result from the program.

He suggests using a CPA-certified, ex-IRS agent with lots of international tax experience. While this is not a requirement to file under the program, Lance has heard many horror stories from people who have tried to file by themselves or who have used inexperienced accountants.

“Our focus on offshore tax evasion continues to produce strong, substantial results for the nation’s taxpayers,” said IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman. “We have billions of dollars in hand from our previous efforts, and we have more people wanting to come in and get right with the government. This new program makes good sense for taxpayers still hiding assets overseas and for the nation’s tax system.”

The new program is similar to the 2011 program in many ways, but it has a few key differences. Unlike last year, there is no set deadline for people to apply. However, the terms of the program could change at any time going forward. For example, the IRS may increase penalties in the program for all or some taxpayers or defined classes of taxpayers – or decide to end the program entirely at any point.

“As we've said all along, people need to come in and get right with us before we find you,” Shulman said. “We are following more leads and the risk for people who do not come in continues to increase.”

The third offshore effort accompanies another announcement that Shulman made today, that the IRS has collected $3.4 billion so far from people who participated in the 2009 offshore program. That figure reflects closures of about 95 percent of the cases from the 2009 program. On top of that, the IRS has collected an additional $1 billion from up front payments required under the 2011 program. That number will grow as the IRS processes the 2011 cases.

In all, the IRS has seen 33,000 voluntary disclosures from the 2009 and 2011 offshore initiatives. Since the 2011 program closed last September, hundreds of taxpayers have come forward to make voluntary disclosures. Those who come in after the closing of the 2011 program will be able to be treated under the provisions of the new OVDP program.

The overall penalty structure for the new program is the same for 2011, except for taxpayers in the highest penalty category.

The new program’s penalty framework requires individuals to pay a penalty of 27.5 percent of the highest aggregate balance in foreign bank accounts/entities or the value of foreign assets during the eight full tax years prior to the disclosure. That is up from 25 percent in the 2011 program. Some taxpayers will be eligible for 5 or 12.5 percent penalties; these remain the same in the new program as in 2011.

Participants must file all original and amended tax returns and include payment for back-taxes and interest for up to eight years as well as paying accuracy-related and/or delinquency penalties.

Participants face a 27.5 percent penalty, but taxpayers in limited situations can qualify for a 5 percent penalty. Smaller offshore accounts will face a 12.5 percent penalty. People whose offshore accounts or assets did not surpass $75,000 in any calendar year covered by the new OVDP will qualify for this lower rate. As under the prior programs, taxpayers who feel that the penalty is disproportionate may opt instead to be examined.

The IRS recognizes that its success in offshore enforcement and in the disclosure programs has raised awareness related to tax filing obligations. This includes awareness by dual citizens and others who may be delinquent in filing, but owe no U.S. tax.

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

Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams

2012-01-17T09:28:00.000-08:00

Lance Wallach

Nov 12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The IRS has been cracking down on what it considers to be abusive tax shelters. Many of them are being marketed to small business owners by insurance professionals, financial planners, and even accountants and attorneys. I speak at numerous conventions, for both business owners and accountants. And after I speak, many people who have questions about tax reduction plans that they have heard about always approach me.

I have been an expert witness in many of these 419 and 412(i) lawsuits and I have not lost one of them. If you sold one or more of these plans, get someone who really knows what they are doing to help you immediately. Many advisors will take your money and claim to be able to help you. Make sure they have experience helping agents that have sold these types of plans. Make sure they have experience helping accountants who signed the tax returns. IRS calls them material advisors and fines them $200,000 if they are incorporated or $100,000 if not. Do not let them learn on the job, with your career and money at stake.

Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, abusive tax shelters, financial, international tax, and estate planning. He writes about 412(i), 419, Section79, FBAR, and captive insurance plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually, writes for over fifty publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Pubic Radio’s All Things Considered, and others. Lance has written numerous books including Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams published by John Wiley and Sons, Bisk Education’s CPA’s Guide to Life Insurance and Federal Estate and Gift Taxation, as well as the AICPA best-selling books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots. He does expert witness testimony and has never lost a case. Contact him at 516.938.5007, wallachinc@gmail.com or visit www.taxadvisorexpert.com or www.taxaudit419.com.

Some 419 Insurance Welfare Benefit Plans Continue To Get Accountants Into Trouble

2012-01-16T13:58:00.000-08:00

by: Lance Wallach

Published in: The Finance Toolbox

Popular so-called “419 Insurance Welfare Benefit Plans”, sold by most insurance professionals, are getting accountants and their clients into more and more trouble. A CPA who is approached by a client about one of the abusive arrangements and/or situations to be described and discussed in this article must exercise the utmost degree of caution, not only on behalf of the client, but for his/her own good as well. The penalties noted in this article can also be applied to practitioners who prepare and/or sign returns that fail to properly disclose listed transactions, including those discussed herein.

On October 17, 2007, the IRS issued Notice 2007-83, Notice 2007-84, and Revenue Ruling 2007-65. Notice 2007-83 essentially lists the characteristics of welfare benefit plans that the Service regards as listed transactions. Put simply, to be a listed transaction, a plan cannot rely on the union exception set forth in IRC Section 419A(f)(5),there must be cash value life insurance within the plan and excessive tax deductions for life insurance, in excess of what may be permitted by Sections 419 and 419A, must have been claimed.

In Notice 2007-84, the Service expressed concern with plans that provide all or a substantial portion of benefits to owners and/or key and highly compensated employees. The notice identified numerous specific concerns, among them:

1. The granting of loans to participants
2. Providing deferred compensation
3. Plan terminations that result in the distribution of assets rather than being used post-
retirement, as originally established.
4. Permitting the transfer of life insurance policies to participants.

Alternative tax treatment may well be in the offing for such arrangements, as the IRS intends to re-characterize such arrangements as dividends, non-qualified deferred compensation (under IRC Section 404(a)(5) or Section 409A), split-dollar life insurance arrangements, or disqualified benefits pursuant to Section 4976. Taxpayers participating in these listed transactions should have, in most cases, already disclosed such participation to the Service. Those who have not should do so at the earliest possible moment. Failure to disclose can result in severe penalties – up to $100,000 for individuals and $200,000 for corporations.

Finally, Revenue Ruling 2007-65 focused on 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), 419A (f)(6), and 419 plans. Life insurance premiums are not inherently tax deductible and authority must be found in Section 79 to justify such a deduction. Section 264(a), in fact, specifically disallows tax deductions for life insurance, at least in some cases. And moreover, the Service declared, interposition of a trust does not change the nature of the transaction.

Lance Wallach, CLU, ChFC, CIMC, speaks and writes extensively about financial planning, retirement plans, and tax reduction strategies. He speaks at more than 70 national conventions annually and writes for more than 50 national publications. For more information and additional articles on these subjects, visit www.taxadvisorexperts.org or call 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.

IRS Attacks Business Owners in 419, 412, Section 79 and Captive Insurance Plans Under Section 6707A

2012-01-12T09:02:00.000-08:00

By Lance Wallach

Taxpayers who previously adopted 419, 412i, captive

insurance or Section 79 plans are in big trouble.

In recent years, the IRS has identified many of these arrangements as abusive devices to funnel tax deductible dollars to shareholders and classified these arrangements as listed transactions." These plans were sold by insurance agents, financial planners, accountants and attorneys seeking large life insurance commissions. In general, taxpayers who engage in a “listed transaction” must report such transaction to the IRS on Form 8886 every year that they “participate” in the transaction, and you do not necessarily have to make a contribution or claim a tax deduction to participate. Section 6707A of the Code imposes severe penalties for failure to file Form 8886 with respect to a listed transaction. But you are also in trouble if you file incorrectly. I have received numerous phone calls from business owners who filed and still got fined. Not only do you have to file Form 8886, but it also has to be prepared correctly. I only know of two people in the U.S. who have filed these forms properly for clients. They tell me that was after hundreds of hours of research and over 50 phones calls to various IRS personnel. The filing instructions for Form 8886 presume a timely filling. Most people file late and follow the directions for currently preparing the forms. Then the IRS fines the business owner. The tax court does not have jurisdiction to abate or lower such penalties imposed by the IRS.

"Many taxpayers who are no longer taking current tax deductions for these plans continue to enjoy the benefit of previous tax deductions by continuing the deferral of income from contributions and deductions taken in prior years."

Many business owners adopted 412i, 419, captive insurance and Section 79 plans based upon representations provided by insurance professionals that the plans were legitimate plans and were not informed that they were engaging in a listed transaction. Upon audit, these taxpayers were shocked when the IRS asserted penalties under Section 6707A of the Code in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Numerous complaints from these taxpayers caused Congress to impose a moratorium on assessment of Section 6707A penalties.

The moratorium on IRS fines expired on June 1, 2010. The IRS immediately started sending out notices proposing the imposition of Section 6707A penalties along with requests for lengthy extensions of the Statute of Limitations for the purpose of assessing tax. Many of these taxpayers stopped taking deductions for contributions to these plans years ago, and are confused and upset by the IRS’s inquiry, especially when the taxpayer had previously reached a monetary settlement with the IRS regarding its deductions. Logic and common sense dictate that a penalty should not apply if the taxpayer no longer benefits from the arrangement. Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.6011-4(c)(3)(i) provides that a taxpayer has participated in a listed transaction if the taxpayer’s tax return reflects tax consequences or a tax strategy described in the published guidance identifying the transaction as a listed transaction or a transaction that is the same or substantially similar to a listed transaction.

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

It is clear that the extent to which a taxpayer benefits from the transaction depends on the purpose of a particular transaction as described in the published guidance that caused such transaction to be a listed transaction. Revenue Ruling 2004-20, which classifies 419(e) transactions, appears to be concerned with the employer’s contribution/deduction amount rather than the continued deferral of the income in previous years. Another important issue is that the IRS has called CPAs material advisors if they signed tax returns containing the plan, and got paid a certain amount of money for tax advice on the plan. The fine is $100,000 for the CPA, or $200,000 if the CPA is incorporated. To avoid the fine, the CPA has to properly file Form 8918.

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

Lance Wallach, 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.

Abusive Insurance, Welfare Benefit, and Retirement Plans

2012-01-05T12:15:00.000-08:00

The IRS has various task forces auditing all section 419, section 412(i), and other
plans that tend to be abusive. These plans are sold by most insurance agents. The IRS
is looking to raise money and is not looking to correct plans or help taxpayers. The
fines for being in a listed, abusive, or similar transaction are up to $200,000 per year
(section 6707A), unless you report on yourself. The IRS calls accountants, attorneys,
and insurance agents "material advisors" and also fines them the same amount, again
unless the client's participation in the transaction is reported. An accountant is a material
advisor if he signs the return or gives advice and gets paid. More details can be found on
http://www.irs.gov and http://www.vebaplan.com.

Bruce Hink, who has given me written permission to use his name and circumstances,
is a perfect example of what the IRS is doing to unsuspecting business owners. What
follows is a story about how the IRS fines him $200,000 a year for being in what they
called a listed transaction. Listed transactions can be found at http://www.irs.gov. Also
involved are what the IRS calls abusive plans or what it refers to as substantially similar.
Substantially similar to is very difficult to understand, but the IRS seems to be saying, "If
it looks like some other listed transaction, the fines apply." Also, I believe that the
accountant who signed the tax return and the insurance agent who sold the retirement
plan will each be fined $200,000 as material advisors. We have received many calls
for help from accountants, attorneys, business owners, and insurance agents in similar
situations. Don't think this will happen to you? It is happening to a lot of accountants
and business owners, because most of theses so-called listed, abusive, or substantially
similar plans are being sold by insurance agents.

Recently I came across the case of Hink, a small business owner who is facing $400,000
in IRS penalties for 2004 and 2005 because of his participation in a section 412(i) plan.
(The penalties were assessed under section 6707A.)

In 2002 an insurance agent representing a 100-year-old, well established insurance
company suggested the owner start a pension plan. The owner was given a portfolio of
information from the insurance company, which was given to the company's outside CPA
to review and give an opinion on. The CPA gave the plan the green light and the plan was started.

Contributions were made in 2003. The plan administrator came out with amendments to
the plan, based on new IRS guidelines, in October 2004.

The business owner's insurance agent disappeared in May 2005, before implementing the
new guidelines from the administrator with the insurance company. The business owner
was left with a refund check from the insurance company, a deduction claim on his 2004
tax return that had not been applied, and no agent.

It took six months of making calls to the insurance company to get a new insurance agent
assigned. By then, the IRS had started an examination of the pension plan. Asking
advice from the CPA and a local attorney (who had no previous experience in these
cases) made matters worse, with a "big name" law firm being recommended and over
$30,000 in additional legal fees being billed in three months.

To make a long story short, the audit stretched on for over 2 ½ years to examine a 2-
year-old pension with four participants and the $178,000 in contributions. During the
audit, no funds went to the insurance company, which was awaiting formal IRS approval
on restructuring the plan as a traditional defined benefit plan, which the administrator
had suggested and the IRS had indicated would be acceptable. The $90,000 in 2005
contributions was put into the company's retirement bank account along with the 2004
contributions.

In March 2008 the business owner received a private e-mail apology from the IRS agent
who headed the examination, saying that her hands were tied and that she used to believe
she was correcting problems and helping taxpayers and not hurting people.

The IRS denied any appeal and ruled in October 2008 the $400,000 penalty would stand.
The IRS fine for being in a listed, abusive, or similar transaction is $200,000 per year for
corporations or $100,000 per year for unincorporated entities. The material advisor fine
is $200,000 if you are incorporated or $100,000 if you are not.

Could you or one of your clients be next?

To this point, I have focused, generally, on the horrors of running afoul of the IRS by
participating in a listed transaction, which includes various types of transactions and the
various fines that can be imposed on business owners and their advisors who participate
in, sell, or advice on these transactions. I happened to use, as an example, someone
in a section 412(i) plan, which was deemed to be a listed transaction, pointing out the

truly doleful consequences the person has suffered. Others who fall into this trap, even
unwittingly, can suffer the same fate.

Now let's go into more detail about section 412(i) plans. This is important because these
defined benefit plans are popular and because few people think of retirement plans as
tax shelters or listed transactions. People therefore may get into serious trouble in this
area unwittingly, out of ignorance of the law, and, for the same reason, many fail to take
necessary and appropriate precautions.

The IRS has warned against the section 412(i) defined benefit pension plans, named for
the former code section governing them. It warned against 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 the 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 some 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 the transactions. In
general, IRS auditors divide audited plan into those they consider noncompliant and other
they consider abusive. While the alternatives available to the sponsor of 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 than participants.
Although in some situation 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.

Another plan the IRS is auditing is the section 419 plan. A few listed transactions
concern relatively common employee benefit plans the IRS has deemed tax avoidance
schemes or otherwise abusive. Perhaps some of the most likely to crop up, especially
in small-business returns, are the arrangements purporting to allow the deductibility of
premiums paid for life insurance under a welfare benefit plan or section 419 plan. These
plans have been sold by most insurance agents and insurance companies.

Some of theses abusive employee benefit plans are represented as satisfying section
419, which sets limits on purposed and balances of "qualified asset accounts" for the
benefits, although the plans purport to offer the deductibility of contributions without
any corresponding income. Others attempt to take advantage of the exceptions to qualified asset account limits, such as sham union plans that try to exploit the exception
for the separate welfare benefit funds under collective bargaining agreements provided
by section 419A(f)(5). Others try to take advantage of exceptions for plans serving 10
or more employers, once popular under section 419A(f)(6). More recently, one may
encounter plans relying on section 419(e) and, perhaps, defines benefit sections 412(i)
pension plans.

Sections 419 and 419A were added to the code by the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 in
an attempt to end employers' acceleration of deductions for plan contributions. But it
wasn't long before plan promoters found an end run around the new code sections. An
industry developed in what came to be known as 10-or-more-employer plans.

The IRS steadily added these abusive plans to its designations of listed transactions.
With Revenue Ruling 90-105, it warned against deducting some plan contributions
attributable to compensation earned by plan participants after the end of the tax year.
Purported exceptions to limits of sections 419 and 419A claimed by 10-or-more-
employer benefit funds were likewise prescribed in Notice 95-24 (Doc 95-5046, 95 TNT
98-11). Both positions were designated as listed transactions in 2000.

At that point, where did all those promoters go? Evidence indicates many are now
promoting plans purporting to comply with section 419(e). They are calling a life
insurance plan a welfare benefit plan (or fund), somewhat as they once did, and
promoting the plan as a vehicle to obtain large tax deductions. The only substantial
difference is that theses are now single-employer plans. And again, the IRS has tried
to rein them in, reminding taxpayers that listed transactions include those substantially
similar to any that are specifically described and so designated.

On October 17, 2007, the IRS issues Notices 2007-83 (Doc 2007-23225, 2007 TNT 202-
6) and 2007-84 (Doc 2007-23220, 2007 TNT 202-5). In the former, the IRS identified
some trust arrangements involving cash value life insurance policies, and substantially
similar arrangements, as listed transactions. The latter similarly warned against some
postretirement medical and life insurance benefit arrangements, saying they might be
subject to "alternative tax treatment." The IRS at the same time issued related Rev.
Rul. 2007-65 (Doc 2007-23226, 2007 TNT 202-7) to address situations in which an
arrangement is considered a welfare benefit fund but the employer's deduction for its
contributions to the fund id denied in whole or in part for premiums paid by the trust on
cash value life insurance policies. It states that a welfare benefit fund's qualified direct
cost under section 419 does not include premium amounts paid by the fund for cash value
life insurance policies if the fund is directly or indirectly a beneficiary under the policy,
as determined under sections264(a).

Notice 2007-83 targets promoted arrangements under which the fund trustee purchases

cash value insurance policies on the lives of a business's employee/owners, and
sometimes key employees, while purchasing term insurance policies on the lives of other
employees covered under the plan.

These plans anticipate being terminated and anticipate that the cash value policies will
be distributed to the owners or key employees, with little distributed to other employees.
The promoters claim that the insurance premiums are currently deductible by the business
and that the distributed insurance policies are virtually tax free to the owners. The ruling
makes it clear that, going forward, a business under most circumstances cannot deduct
the cost of premiums paid through a welfare benefit plan for cash value life insurance on
the lives of its employees.

Should a client approach you with one of these plans, be especially cautious, for both
of you. Advise your client to check out the promoter very carefully. Make it clear that
the government has the names of all former section 419A(f)(6) promoters and, therefore,
will be scrutinizing the promoter carefully if the promoter was once active in that area, as
many current section 419(e) (welfare benefit fund or plan) promoters were. This makes
an audit of your client more likely and far riskier.

It is worth noting that listed transactions are subject to a regulatory scheme applicable
only to them, entirely separate from Circular 230 requirements, regulations, and
sanctions. Participation in such a transaction must be disclosed on a tax return, and the
penalties for failure to disclose are severe – up to $100,000 for individuals and $200,000
for corporations. The penalties apply to both taxpayers and practitioners. And the
problem with disclosure, of course, is that it is apt to trigger an audit, in which case even
if the listed transaction was to pass muster, something else may not.

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, writes
for over fifty publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on
television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Pubic Radio's All
Things Considered, and others. Lance has written numerous books including Protecting
Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams published by John Wiley and Sons, Bisk
Education's CPA's Guide to Life Insurance and Federal Estate and Gift Taxation, as
well as 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.taxaudit419.com/TaxHelp.html and www.taxlibrary.us

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.

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

2012-01-04T11:18:00.000-08:00

NCCPAP

November Newsletter

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.

Lance Wallach
68 Keswick Lane
Plainview, NY 11803
Ph.: (516)938-5007
Fax: (516)938-6330 www.vebaplan.com

National Society of Accountants Speaker of The Year

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

No Shelter Here, Backlash on too-good-to-be-true insurance plan

2012-01-03T07:51:00.000-08:00

Remodeling Hanley / Wood

September 2011

By: Lance Wallach

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

Seems Attractive

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

Gotcha

Although small business has taken a recessionary hit and owners may not be spending big sums on insurance now, an IRS task force is auditing people who bought these as early as 2004. There is no statute of limitations.
The IRS also requires participants to file Form 8886 informing the IRS of participation in this “abusive transaction.” Failure to file or to file incorrectly will cost the business owner interest and penalties. Plus, you’ll pay back whatever you claimed for a deduction, and there are additional fines — possibly 70% of the tax benefit you claim in a year. And, if your accountant does not confidentially inform on you, he or she will get fined $100,000 by the IRS. Further, the IRS can freeze assets if you don’t pay and can fine you on a corporate and a personal level despite the type of business entity you have.

Legal Wrangling

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

Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, abusive tax shelters, financial, international tax, and estate planning. He writes about 412(i), 419, Section79, FBAR, and captive insurance plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually, writes for over fifty publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Pubic Radio’s All Things Considered, and others. Lance has written numerous books including Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams published by John Wiley and Sons, Bisk Education’s CPA’s Guide to Life Insurance and Federal Estate and Gift Taxation, as well as the AICPA best-selling books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots. He does expert witness testimony and has never lost a case. Contact him at 516.938.5007, lawallach@aol.com or visit www.taxaudit419.com, www.vebaplan.org, www.section79.plan

This article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as specific legal or financial advice.

Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation

2011-12-29T10:01:00.000-08:00

Maryland Trial Lawyer

Dolan Media Newswires January

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.
There are business owners who owe taxes but have been assessed 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 million.
Technically, the IRS’s problems with the plans were that the “springing cash” structure disqualified them from being 412(i) plans and that the premiums, which dwarfed any payout to a beneficiary, violated incidental death benefit rules.
Under §6707A of the Internal Revenue Code, once the IRS flags something as an abusive tax shelter, or “listed transaction,” penalties are imposed per year for each failure to disclose it. Another allegation is that businesses weren’t told that they had to file Form 8886, which discloses a listed transaction.
According to Lance Wallach of Plainview, N.Y. (516-938-5007), who testifies as an expert in cases involving the plans, the vast majority of accountants either did not file the forms for their clients or did not fill them out correctly.
Because the IRS did not begin to focus audits on these types of plans until some years after they became listed transactions, the penalties have already stacked up by the time of the audits.
Another reason plaintiffs are going to court is that there are few alternatives – the penalties are not appeasable 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 400,000 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.
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.”
Lance Wallach can be reached at: WallachInc@gmail.com
For more information, please visit www.taxadvisorexperts.org Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, abusive tax shelters, financial, international tax, and estate planning. He writes about 412(i), 419, Section79, FBAR, and captive insurance plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually, writes for over fifty publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Pubic Radio’s All Things Considered, and others. Lance has written numerous books including Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams published by John Wiley and Sons, Bisk Education’s CPA’s Guide to Life Insurance and Federal Estate and Gift Taxation, as well as the AICPA best-selling books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots. He does expert witness testimony and has never lost a case. Contact him at 516.938.5007, wallachinc@gmail.com or visit www.taxadvisorexperts.com.

Lance Wallach
68 Keswick Lane
Plainview, NY 11803
Ph.: (516)938-5007
Fax: (516)938-6330 www.vebaplan.com

National Society of Accountants Speaker of The Year

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

Don't Become A Material Advisor

2011-12-28T11:54:00.000-08:00

Accounting Today

JULY 1, 2011

BY LANCE WALLACH

Accountants, insurance professionals and others need to be careful that they don’t become
what the IRS calls material advisors.
If they sell or give advice, or sign tax returns for abusive, listed or similar plans; they risk a
minimum $100,000 fine. Their client will then probably sue them after having dealt with the
IRS.

In 2010, the IRS raided the offices of Benistar in Simsbury, Conn., and seized the retirement
benefit plan administration firm’s files and records. In McGehee Family Clinic, the Tax Court
ruled that a clinic and shareholder’s investment in an employee benefit plan marketed
under the name “Benistar” was a listed transaction because it was substantially similar to
the transaction described in Notice 95-34 (1995-1 C.B. 309). This is at least the second
case in which the court has ruled against the Benistar welfare benefit plan, by denominating
it a listed transaction.

The McGehee Family Clinic enrolled in the Benistar Plan in May 2001 and claimed
deductions for contributions to it in 2002 and 2005. The returns did not include a Form
8886, Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement, or similar disclosure. The IRS
disallowed the latter deduction and adjusted the 2004 return of shareholder Robert Prosser
and his wife to include the $50,000 payment to the plan.

The IRS assessed tax deficiencies and the enhanced 30 percent penalty under Section
6662A, totaling almost $21,000, against the clinic and $21,000 against the Prossers. The
court ruled that the Prossers failed to prove a reasonable cause or good faith exception.

In rendering its decision, the court cited Curcio v. Commissioner, in which the court also
ruled in favor of the IRS. As noted in Curcio, the insurance policies, which were
overwhelmingly variable or universal life policies, required large contributions relative to the
cost of the amount of term insurance that would be required to provide the death benefits
under the arrangement. The Benistar Plan owned the insurance contracts. The excessive
cost of providing death benefits was a reason for the court’s finding in Curcio that tax
deductions had been properly disallowed.

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

Companies should carefully evaluate their proposed investments in plans such as the
Benistar Plan. 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. I only know of two people who have been
successful in properly filing the forms, especially after the fact. If the forms are filled out
incorrectly, they should be amended and corrected Most accountants call me a few years
later when they and their clients get the large fines, either after improperly filling out the
forms or failing to fill them out at all. Unfortunately, by then it is too late. If they don’t call me
then, then they call me when their clients sue them.

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

IRS Audits Focus on Captive Insurance Plans

2011-12-16T10:23:00.000-08:00

April 2011 Edition

By Lance Wallach

The IRS started auditing § 419 plans in the 1990s, and then continued going after § 412(i) and other plans that they considered abusive, listed, or reportable transactions, or substantially similar to such transactions. If an IRS audit disallows the § 419 plan or the § 412(i) plan, not only does the taxpayer lose the deduction and pay interest and penalties, but then the IRS comes back under IRC 6707A and imposes large fines for not properly filing.

Insurance agents, financial planners and even accountants sold many of these plans. The main motivations for buying into one were large tax deductions. The motivation for the sellers of the plans was the very large life insurance premiums generated. These plans, which were vetted by the insurance companies, put lots of insurance on the books. Some of these plans continue to be sold, even after IRS disallowances and lawsuits against insurance agents, plan promoters and insurance companies.

In a recent tax court case, Curcio v. Commissioner (TC Memo 2010-115), the tax court ruled that an investment in an employee welfare benefit plan marketed under the name “Benistar” was a listed transaction in that the transaction in question was substantially similar to the transaction described in IRS Notice 95-34. A subsequent case, McGehee Family Clinic, largely followed Curcio, though it was technically decided on other grounds. The parties stipulated to be bound by Curcio on the issue of whether the amounts paid by McGehee in connection with the Benistar 419 Plan and Trust were deductible. Curcio did not appear to have been decided yet at the time McGehee was argued. The McGehee opinion (Case No. 10-102, United States Tax Court, September 15, 2010) does contain an exhaustive analysis and discussion of virtually all of the relevant issues.

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

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

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

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

Benistar advertised that enrollees should expect to obtain the same type of tax benefits as listed in the transaction described in Notice 95-34. The benefits of enrollment listed in its advertising packet included:

Virtually unlimited deductions for the employer;
Contributions could vary from year to year;
Benefits could be provided to one or more key executives on a selective basis;
No need to provide benefits to rank-and-file employees;
Contributions to the plan were not limited by qualified plan rules and would not interfere with pension, profit sharing or 401(k) plans;
Funds inside the plan would accumulate tax-free;
Beneficiaries could receive death proceeds free of both income tax and estate tax;
The program could be arranged for tax-free distribution at a later date;
Funds in the plan were secure from the hands of creditors.

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

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

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

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

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

Other important facts:

In recent years, some § 412(i) plans have been funded with life insurance using face amounts in excess of the maximum death benefit a qualified plan is permitted to pay. Ideally, the plan should limit the proceeds that can be paid as a death benefit in the event of a participant’s death. Excess amounts would revert to the plan. Effective February 13, 2004, the purchase of excessive life insurance in any plan is considered a listed transaction if the face amount of the insurance exceeds the amount that can be issued by $100,000 or more and the employer has deducted the premiums for the insurance.
A 412(i) plan in and of itself is not a listed transaction; however, the IRS has a task force auditing 412(i) plans.
An employer has not engaged in a listed transaction simply because it is a 412(i) plan.
Just because a 412(i) plan was audited and sanctioned for certain items, does not necessarily mean the plan engaged in a listed transaction. Some 412(i) plans have been audited and sanctioned for issues not related to listed transactions.

Companies should carefully evaluate proposed investments in plans such as the Benistar Plan. The claimed deductions will not be available, and penalties will be assessed for lack of disclosure if the investment is similar to the investments described in Notice 95-34. In addition, under IRC 6707A, IRS fines participants a large amount of money for not properly disclosing their participation in listed, reportable or similar transactions; an issue that was not before the tax court in either Curcio or McGehee. The disclosure needs to be made for every year the participant is in a plan. The forms need to be properly filed even for years that no contributions are made. I have received numerous calls from participants who did disclose and still got fined because the forms were not filled in properly. A plan administrator told me that he assisted hundreds of his participants with filing forms, and they still all received very large IRS fines for not properly filling in the forms.

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

Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the American Institute of CPAs faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, financial and estate planning, and abusive tax shelters. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually and writes for over fifty publications. Lance has written numerous books including Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams published by John Wiley and Sons, Bisk Education's CPA's Guide to Life Insurance and Federal Estate and Gift Taxation, as well as 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. Mr. Wallach may be reached at 516/938.5007, wallachinc@gmail.com, or at www.taxaudit419.com or www.lancewallach.com.

Re-entering The Tax System

2011-08-25T09:52:00.000-07:00

Taxlanta.org July 2011

by Lance Wallach

Taxpayers who have failed to file federal tax returns for three years or more and owe more than $75,000 in tax should find this section particularly interesting. (i.e., pure tax ― no interest, no penalties).

Rule No. 1:

Under no circumstances should you attempt to re-enter the tax system on your own. Tax evasion, failing to file a timely tax return, and perjury are very serious tax crimes, and one mistake can send you to federal prison for a very long time. Your voluntary admission of a tax crime is similar to Pandora’s box; once the lid has been opened there is nothing you can do to get it closed again. The biggest mistake that most people make is hiring advisors that do not specialize in failure-to-file cases and have little or no knowledge of the IRS/Criminal Investigation Division (IRS/CID) procedures and criminal-tax violations.

Rule No. 2

Under no circumstance should you assume that the IRS/CID and the U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) will grant you immunity from prosecution simply because you volunteered to come forward, bare your soul, and beg for forgiveness. The IRS terminated its guaranteed non-prosecution policy for voluntary disclosure of tax crimes in 1961. If you have not filed federal tax returns for three years or more and owe more than $75,000 in back taxes, then you will likely receive a visit from the IRS/CID six to eighteen months after you file your delinquent tax returns. The “reward” you get for filing true and correct delinquent tax returns is that you may be able to avoid additional perjury charges. But you will still have to pay a very large tax liability, which will include interest and a whopping 75% civil tax fraud penalty. Your full disclosure will be appreciated, and under current IRS guidelines you “may” avoid criminal prosecution only if you pay the entire amount due.

Call our office today for a free 3-5 minute consultation with Lance Wallach, the nation’s foremost tax expert, or visit www.experttaxadvisors.org.

Rule No. 3

You must hire the best tax advisors that money can buy. Preferably you will want someone with at least 23 years experience handling failure-to-file cases before the IRS, and preferably this same person will have experience as a former IRS Special Agent. That’s where we come in.

Last year I received over a thousand phone calls from business owners, accountants and other professionals who were in trouble with the IRS over a recent large fine. If you were in what the IRS considers an abusive, listed or similar to transaction, you face a hundred thousand dollar IRS fine under IRS code 6707A. The IRS is attacking thousands of people for either being in, selling, or advising about, various types of plans, which are primarily marketed by insurance professionals.

If you are or were in a 412i, 419, captive insurance, or section 79 plan, you should immediately file under 6707A protectively. If you have already filed you should find someone who knows what he is doing to review the forms. I only know of two people who know how to properly file. The IRS instructions are vague. If a taxpayer files wrong, or fills out the forms wrong he still gets the fine. I have had hundreds of phone calls from people in that situation.

Bad Broker or Bad Luck?

2011-08-23T11:10:00.000-07:00

Legal.com July 2011

By Lance Wallach

You’ve lost money in the market—maybe a substantial amount. Money you thought could be used to plan your future or maybe put your kids through school is now gone. You’re hurt, you’re angry, and we understand. Can you sue your broker, fund manager, or financial advisor? It depends.

The Big Question: Were You a Victim of Fraud or the Market? The big question is whether your broker did anything illegal. You can only sue if what your broker did was beyond just “bad” in the sense of “unfortunate” or even “awful.” Instead, there must have been actual wrongdoing.

Losing money in today’s bad market does not in and of itself give you the right to sue. Sometimes it is just bad luck. After all, investing — even in blue chip investments – carries risks, and the main risk is that the value of your investment could decline. What if your broker gave you bad advice? Again, it will depend on “how bad” the advice was. If your broker recommended investments that were in line with your investor profile and those recommendations were reasonable based on everything your broker knew or should have known, then no – you cannot sue. Well, what kind of bad behavior does leave them liable, you ask? Basically, there are four kinds of bad behavior that may give you the right to sue:

1. Lying or misrepresenting claims;
2. Your broker acting in his interests, not yours, by means of, among others, misrepresentation, churning, unsuitability, and lack of diversification;
3. Not following instructions including claims of unsuitability, lack of diversification, and breach of contract; and,
4. Unreasonable carelessness, like claims of breach of duty and negligence.

Call our office today for a free 3-5 minute consultation with Lance Wallach, the nation’s foremost expert on financial advising, or visit www.financeexperts.org.

There are a number of different claims that can come out of these types of bad behavior, but fundamentally, if your broker didn’t do one or more of these things, there is no claim. To put it another way: if your broker followed your instructions, was always honest with you, and was reasonably careful, then you cannot sue him – even if his advice or your investments went horribly wrong.

So before suing or filing the paperwork for arbitration, take a deep breath and ask yourself if your broker lied, ignored instructions, or was unreasonably careless by putting his own needs and interests instead of yours. If you find yourself answering no to more than a few of these questions, then, sadly, your broker probably acted with the best intentions, and based on what he reasonably knew at the time, there is no liability.

You will notice that we did not answer the question, “What if my broker stole or embezzled money from my account?” That is because the answer is simple – sue them and report them to law enforcement. Theft is theft, whether it’s by your broker, a guy on a street corner with a gun, or that cousin you never really trusted. For example, two common criminal schemes involving investments and securities are the Ponzi scheme and the pyrimad scheme, though these tend to be complex and hidden. Sometimes theft is simpler. But the short answer is that theft is always actionable. For help with this or if you are still not sure, contact our offices today. As an expert witness, my side has never lost a case. I work with attorneys who will usually take these cases on a contingent basis, and who, more importantly, often obtain great results.

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, writes for over fifty publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Pubic Radio’s All Things Considered, and others. Lance has written numerous books including Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams published by John Wiley and Sons, Bisk Education’s CPA’s Guide to Life Insurance and Federal Estate and Gift Taxation, as well as AICPA best-selling books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots. He does expert witness testimony and has never lost a case. Contact him at 516.938.5007, wallachinc@gmail.com or visit www.taxadvisorexpert.com.

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

IRS Auditing 412i, 419e Plans

2011-08-16T11:00:00.000-07:00

Plan Administrator Frustrated With IRS Attacks on 412i, 412e Plans

IRS Auditing 412(i) Plans

The Team Approach to Tax, Financial and Estate Planning

2011-08-12T09:46:00.001-07:00

by Lance Wallach

CPAs are the best and most qualified professionals when it comes to serving their clients needs, but they need to know when and how to coordinate with other experts.

Over the last twenty years we have worked with thousands of practitioners who have decided to add financial services to their practices. They do it for a variety of reasons, but the most common are as follows:

*They don’t want to refer their client elsewhere when they request financial services.

* They want to remain competitive.

*They want to diversify and increase their revenue as opposed to depending solely on tax and accounting revenue.

While helping these professionals add planning and investment services to their core offerings, we have found that they achieve four main benefits after doing so:

1. They are more satisfied with their work.

2. Their clients are more satisfied because they can work with someone they trust to meet financial goals.

3. Their clients give them more referrals.

4. Their incomes increase.

We believe that CPAs are the most appropriate--and perhaps the only--professionals who can provide comprehensive financial services to clients because they understand their clients' tax and financial situations. Their clients trust these practitioners to provide professional advice that is in their best interest. In fact, we believe that tax professionals have an obligation and responsibility to advise their clients, and clients expect their professionals to advise them in these important areas.

With a combination of never-ending tax reform, the Tax Code's significant and complex changes, and the market volatility we've experienced over the past few years, clients need guidance more than ever. Practitioners who provide financial planning and investment advisory services are in a position to advise and assist their clients with these issues.

Practitioners just starting out in this arena may not possess the myriad skill sets and substantive knowledge required to embark on new business ventures.

CPAs who don't have all of the necessary talent in-house may find it easier to associate themselves with strategic "partners" who can provide the proper skill sets, training, technology, support and turnkey solutions in their specialized disciplines and niches, to help identify and meet their clients' financial goals.

Adapted from "The Team Approach to Tax, Financial & Estate Planning," edited by Lance Wallach, with chapters by Katharine Gratwick Baker, Fredda Herz Brown, Dr. Stanly J. Feldman, Ira Kaplan, Joseph W. Maczuga, Roger E. Nauheimer, Roger C. Ochs, Matthew J. O'Connor, Richard Preston, Steve Riley, Carl Lloyd Sheeler, Peter Spero, Paul J. Williams, and Roger M. Winsby. Product 017235.

Lance Wallach, the National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year, speaks and writes extensively about retirement plans, Circular 230 problems and tax reduction strategies. He speaks at more than 40 conventions annually, writes for over 50 publications, is quoted regularly in the press, and has written numerous best-selling AICPA books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Business Hot Spots. Contact him at 516.938.5007 or visit www.vebaplan.com.

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

Reduce Costs, Plan Your Estate, and More with a Captive

2008-07-31T10:07:00.000-07:00

National Society of Accountants
Member Link
July 2008

By LANCE WALLACH, CLU , ChFC

Your clients who are business owners are likely to be approached with information concerning a relatively new financial instrument called captive insurance. The term captive insurance is generic and refers to a broad spectrum of alternative insurance structures with the purpose of providing greater benefits than traditional insurance.

Specifically, captive insurance can help your business clients potentially greatly lower their insurance costs, have more control in managing their insurance, and obtain coverage that might otherwise be unavailable or unaffordable. Some forms of captive insurance allow an insured or its assign to maintain an ownership interest in the underlying insurance company. As with any successful business, an owner of a captive can work with his or her advisors to best manage their insurance company. Another potential benefit is that of business and estate planning.

This author stresses that a captive should never be formed unless the primary reason is business purpose. Captives should never be marketed by advisors as “wealth management” or “estate planning” tools. In fact, improper marketing of an otherwise compliant captive can lead to the loss of the captive’s tax status as an insurance company, resulting in taxation and penalties of nearly one hundred percent of premiums.

Yet it is a fact that a successful captive may be useful in business and estate planning. Ownership of a captive may be facilitated by a partnership or trust which is owned, controlled, or benefits a business owners’ descendants.

As an example, suppose that a business owner (Senior) wants to establish a captive insurance company in order to lower his insurance costs. The insurance company could be owned by a generation skipping trust currently controlled by Senior’s children. The captive’s premiums must be actuarially verifiable and the coverage must be wholly justifiable. The insurance sold by the captive needs to comport with all relevant statutes from both a regulatory and an IRS standpoint. If the captive’s claims are less than actuarially anticipated, it may have retained earnings or profits. Depending on the type of captive insurance company, the tax rate levied on underwriting profits can be as little as zero percent. Over time, the insurance company’s profits may be distributed as capital gains, dividends, or even loans to the beneficiaries of the insurance trust. The captive could even provide a funding source for future business opportunities.
The ultimate effect of a compliant and successful captive could be to transfer a portion of the pre-tax premiums from Senior’s business over to Senior's children, grandchildren, etc., without income, gift, or estate tax. The bottom line for any accountant or wealth advisor is that captives should be looked at as a way to garner significant insurance cost savings with a possibility of secondary benefits.

Again, the author cannot overemphasize the importance that the captive must be designed to and operate as a compliant insurance company. The company must have real losses, real exposure to third party risk, and cannot be in any way an alter ego of or a savings account for the business owner.

Captives can be a tremendous tool in helping businesses lower their insurance costs. This author has seen an example of businesses saving millions of dollars in a few short years by properly using captives. Equally stunning , however, are the adverse tax consequences of an improperly marketed or managed captive. The advisory team chosen for this type of work should have many years of captive insurance experience and, ideally, should be supported by a large regional or national law firm.

Lance Wallach speaks and writes about benefit plans,estate planning, insurance and more. He has authored numerous books, including The CPA's Guide to Life Insurance, published by Bisk CPEasy.He was the National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year. He can be reached at 516 9385007 or lawallach@aol.com. For more articles visit WWW.VEBAPLAN.COM.
The information contained in this article is not intended as legal, accounting, financial, or any other type of advice for any specific individual or entity. You should seek such advice from an appropriate professional.

Life settlement underwriting - the flip side of the coin

2008-07-31T09:31:00.000-07:00

Calfornia Broker Magazine
August 2008

By LANCE WALLACH, CLU, ChFC

Life settlements are fast growing into a staple of the insurance and financial planning world. Most financial professionals have heard of life settlements, which is the sale of a life insurance policy of a senior (age 65 and over) for a lump sum which is greater than the policy’s cash surrender value but less than its death benefit. Policies which are viable for a life settlement are generally those beyond the contestability period wherein the insured has a life expectancy of between 2 and 15 years. Today life settlements are dominated by institutional funders and pension funds.

Despite the continued growth in the life settlements market, the number of insurance or financial professionals that have actually completed a life settlement is surprisingly low. This can be attributed mainly to a lack of in-depth knowledge of life settlements on the part of these professionals. Considering that life settlements are a relatively new option for policy owners, many financial professionals, although having heard of life settlements, have still not had the opportunity to delve into the subject on a deeper level.

Many policy holders come to a juncture wherein they continue to pay life insurance premiums on an unwanted policy in hopes of a gain at maturation, or to recoup some of the investment by trading the policy for its cash surrender value. Corporate policyholders often face additional dilemmas when dealing with departing executives with key-man or split-dollar policies, or insurance purchased as part of a buy-sell agreement.

With a life settlement, the policyholder realizes an amount much greater than the cash surrender value in exchange for the policy’s ownership. Term life insurance policies are also applicable when converted into permanent insurance. Life settlement transactions involving key-man or buy-sell policies can provide businesses with increased cash flow to solve immediate financial problems, while transactions concerning split-dollar policies typically involve retirement planning and charitable giving issues.

In short, life settlements offer policyholders of all kinds an array of options previously unavailable to them.

In a recent advisor survey, nearly half of the respondents had clients who had surrendered a life insurance policy, many of whom might have qualified for a life settlement transaction and subsequent lump sum cash payment.

This article will discuss in depth the underwriting process related to life settlements, which is of paramount importance in the process, just as it is in life insurance itself , although there is a great deal of difference in the process for each respectively.

Settlement amounts are determined by a multitude of factors that arrive at a Net Present Value, which is the present value of future benefits from the death benefit minus the present value of future payments associated with sustaining the policy until maturation. These expenses include premium payments, cost of capital and administrative costs. This calculation enables the purchaser to factor in the desired profit from the investment and propose an offer to the seller of the policy. Due to the fact that the investor will be sustaining the policy premiums until maturation, the life expectancy of the insured becomes critical in assessing the value or sale price of the policy. If the assessment of an insured’s life expectancy is too short, the purchaser will have paid too much and risks a financial loss. By contrast, should the assessment of an insured’s life expectancy be longer than his or her actual life span, the offer to the seller would have been less than it could have been, thus resulting in an undervalued sale for the policy owner. Institutional investors in life settlements generally obtain life expectancy reports from two or more independent LE (life expectancy) providers. Many of the larger institutions investing in life settlements have proprietary underwriting personnel on staff. LE reports can vary significantly based on interpretations, medical data on the insured, and/or the actuarial tables used.

Differences in underwriting methodology

Companies which provide LE reports use actuarial and medical experts who apply probability theory, actuarial methodology and medical analysis in calculating the probable mortality of an insured. Many LE providers employ the services of experienced life insurance underwriters who work in tandem with the actuarial and medical experts. There are a number of companies which provide LE reports. Among those most commonly accepted by institutional investors are: AVS, Fasano, 21st Services, ISC Services and EMSI. These companies specialize in underwriting the senior segment (insureds above the age of 65) and have developed specified methods, underwriting manuals, and mortality tables. The insurance industry customarily employs Reinsurance underwriting manuals as the basis of its ratings for insurability. However, Reinsurance manuals are gauged primarily for insurance applicants up to the age of 65 with insurable impairments up to 500%. These standards reflect the traditional demographic for life insurance. Conversely, life settlement underwriting is geared toward those above the age of 65 and can have impairment ratings much higher than 500%.

In order to cater to this market segment, adaptations were made to these underwriting manuals based on extensive research of current senior mortality data and scrutinized against recent medical advances and the treatment of diseases or disorders often associated with the elderly. In addition to this, companies that provide LE reports also draw from, and factor in, proprietary data accumulated from previous assessments. Generally, a traditional debit and credit methodology is used by the underwriter in determining the overall rating of an insured, resulting in either standard or substandard. Of course, this is an approximation due to the fact that few impairments cause a uniform percentage increase in mortality. Results using the standard debit and credit method produce reasonable and quantifiable results; however, for conditions such as many forms of cancer, the debit and credit methodology does not generate reliable results. This is mainly due to the fact that the impaired mortality curve is significantly different than the standard curve used in the absence of these impairments. Companies that provide LE reports employ different approaches in order to calculate these impairments. Some utilize the debit and credit approach, others apply extra deaths for a limited time span, and still others will use a combination of the two and apply them to the actuarial calculations. For a policy with a high impairment and a short life expectancy, clinical judgment may supersede the actuarial calculation. Life expectancy calculations utilize the underwriting assessment in tandem with the appropriate mortality table; however each life expectancy provider uses its own proprietary mortality tables based on sex, smoker or non-smoker status, impairment and preferred class. The general understanding is that most life expectancy providers use the 2001 VBT (Valuation Basic Table), but it seems that most use a heavily modified version of the 2001 VBT or their own table altogether.

Individuals with medical conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, congestive heart failure and other serious ailments would most likely be declined for a life insurance policy. However, for the purposes of a life settlement, it is possible to estimate the life expectancy of an insured with these medical ailments. For insureds with serious medical conditions, life expectancy assessments often take into account factors that contribute to healthy aging, such as regular physical exercise, social activities, the mental attitude of the insured, and his or her commitment to living a healthy lifestyle. Access to care givers and a support network, are also variables that are taken into consideration. All of these factors can sometimes add a level of complexity to the underwriting process that will affect the final mortality calculation.

Differences in underwriting requirements
When submitting an application for a large life insurance policy on an older individual the application needs to be accompanied by medical data as outlined in the insurance company’s requirement guidelines. This medical data would usually include a physical examination, blood profile, EKG and an Attending Physician’s Statement (APS). Many insurance companies also require functional assessments of an applicant, which include ability to carry out the activities of daily living. Often, financial underwriting is a part of this assessment of insurability. By contrast, life settlement underwriting is based on existing medical data and rarely requires any medical examination, EKGs or blood work. A life settlement application should be accompanied by HIPAA and release of medical information forms. The application is then followed by Attending Physician’s Statements ordered from selected physicians by the company transacting the life settlement, usually a broker or provider. This information is then forwarded to the company or companies providing life expectancy reports on the insured. After review of the attending physician’s statements and medical history, a life expectancy provider will provide a detailed LE report on the insured. Based on the information in the LE report and the profile of the life insurance policy, an institutional investor will prepare an offer on the policy. Occasionally, the company or companies providing the life expectancy report will indicate that additional information from an attending physician may give them further insight into the insured’s life expectancy, which would possibly affect the offers from institutional investors. In such a case, the life settlement broker or provider will order additional information from the appropriate physician(s). In cases where the insured has not seen a physician in two or three years, which would seemingly be a good thing, indicating that the individual is not suffering from any chronic ailments, the company providing a life expectancy report is afforded little current data on which it can effectively base a life expectancy assessment.

The principal difference in underwriting for life insurance and life settlements is that in traditional underwriting as low a mortality rating as possible on any medically impaired risk would be preferred in order to obtain a lower cost of insurance. By contrast, for life settlements a higher impairment rating would result in a shorter life expectancy. Thus, the insured would receive a larger settlement for his or her policy.

Seller beware

With life settlements growing at an astounding rate, there are more and more companies seeking to enter this market. Many states have some form of regulation regarding life settlements, while others are unregulated or pending regulation. Some life settlements, such as those on a variable policy, are considered securities transactions. With all of these different regulatory variables, it is important for insurance and financial professionals to make sure they work with a reputable company to facilitate a life settlement. When considering which life settlement company to work with, most of us look for the obvious: to wit, a company that will facilitate and expedite the policy with professionalism as well as acquire competitive bids from a number of institutional investors. However, perhaps of even greater importance to the professional, is a company that has an infrastructure that enables the record keeping necessary to fulfill regulatory standards, as well as a compliance department that will keep abreast with changing regulatory requirements and reporting. Most importantly, the company should hold the applicable licenses in the states were it conducts life settlement transactions.

Not surprisingly, these various attributes and characteristics tend to coincide with each other. A reputable company will hold all of the applicable licenses needed, or will refrain from activities in states in which it is not licensed. If they have the proper reporting and record keeping capabilities, this is usually overseen by a compliance department that is also responsible for licensing and regulation. Organizations such as these generally have built an infrastructure that has the manpower to process settlements with fastidious precision. Processing large numbers of settlements according to a high standard will give a company a preferred status and leverage with institutional investors, which might even result in higher offers on a given policy.

Be sure to ask the life settlement company if it is licensed and in what states. If they do settlements for variables, ask if these are cleared through a broker dealer and what their relationship to that broker- dealer is. Use the Internet and other tools to research the company you plan on using for a life settlement. The issues may seem trivial today, but fast-forward three years after a life settlement with an unlicensed company that has fallen off the face of the planet and guess who’s left holding the bag.

Lance Wallach, speaks and writes extensively about retirement plans, estate planning, and tax reduction strategies. He speaks at more than 70 conventions annually, writes for more than 50 publications, and was the National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year. Contact him at 516-938-5007 or visit http://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.

The Team Approach to Tax, Financial & Estate Planning

2008-07-31T09:11:00.000-07:00

Publisher: AICPA
By: Lance Wallach, CLU, ChFC, CIMC

Format: Paperback
AICPA Member Price: $69.00

Practitioners just starting out in the financial planning arena may not possess the myriad skill-sets and substantive knowledge required to embark on this new business venture. CPAs who don't have all the necessary talent in-house, may find it easier to align themselves with strategic "partners" who can provide the proper skills, training, technology, support and solutions in their specialized disciplines and niches, to identify and meet their clients' financial goals.

The Team Approach to Tax, Financial & Estate Planning will educate practitioners in the various disciplines and sub-specialties of financial services, that may not be present in every firm, but which are essential to growing a financial services practice. For this team the CPA may choose to bring together outside accountants, attorneys, insurance brokers, real estate agents, appraisers, stockbrokers, management consultants, psychologists, or others.

Each chapter in this guide, written by an expert in his or her field, will introduce the types of professionals needed and how the professional's expertise can enhance the engagement.
This is an excellent, evergreen reference source for the seasoned professional and for the new practitioner.

No. 0172352003 PaperbackTEAM APPROACH TO FINL PLANNING
* Member Price: $69.00 Non-Member Price: $86.25 Your Price: $86.25

* AICPA Member Price

Quantity:

Using Captive Insurance Companies for Savings

2008-07-31T08:27:00.000-07:00

Accounting Today
February 10th, 2008
Financial Planning

By Lance Wallach

Small companies have been copying a method to control insurance costs and reduce taxes that used to be the domain of large businesses: setting up their own insurance companies to provide coverage when they think that outside insurers are charging too much.

Often, they are starting what is called a “captive insurance company” – an insurer founded to write coverage for the company, companies or founders.

Here’s how captive insurers work.
The parent business (your company) creates a captive so that it has a self-funded option for buying insurance, whereby the parent provides the reserves to back the policies. The captive then either retains that risk or pays reinsures to take it. The price for coverage is set by the parent business; reinsurance costs, if any, are a factor.

In the event of a loss, the business pays claims from its captive, or the reinsurer pays the captive.

Captives are overseen by corporate boards and, to keep costs low, are often based in places where there is favorable tax treatment and less onerous regulation – such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, or U.S states like Vermont and South Carolina.

Captives have become very popular risk financing tools that provide maximum flexibility to any risk financing program. And the additional possibility of adding several types of employee benefits is of further strategic value to the owners of captives.

While the employee benefit aspects have not emerged as quickly as had been predicted, there is little doubt that widespread use of captives for employee benefits is just a matter of time. While coverages like long term disability and term life insurance typically require Department of Labor approval, other benefit-related coverages such as medical stop loss can utilize a captive without the department’s approval. Additionally, some midsized corporate owners also view a captive as an integral part of their asset protection and wealth accumulation plans. The opportunities offered by a captive play a critical role in the strategic planning of many corporations.

A captive insurance company would be an insurance subsidiary that is owned by its parent business (es). There are now nearly 5,000 captive insurers worldwide. Over 80 percent of Fortune 500 Companies take advantage of some sort of captive insurance company arrangement. Now small companies can also.

By sharing a large captive, participants are insured under group policies, which provide for insurance coverage that recognizes superior claims experience in the form of experience-rated refunds of premiums, and other profit-sharing options made available to the insured.

A true captive insurance arrangement is where a parent company or some companies in the same economic family (related parties), pay a subsidiary or another member of the family, established as a licensed type of insurance company, premiums that cover the parent company.

In theory, underwriting profits from the subsidiary are retained by the parent. Single-parent captives allow an organization to cover any risk they wish to fund, and generally eliminate the commission-price component from the premiums. Jurisdictions in the U.S. and in certain parts of the world have adopted a series of laws and regulations that allow small non-life companies, taxed under IRC Section 831(b), or as 831(b) companies.

Try Sharing

There are a number of significant advantages that may be obtained through sharing a large captive with other companies. The most important is that you can significantly decrease the cost of insurance through this arrangement.

The second advantage is that sharing a captive does not require any capital commitment and has very low policy fees. The policy application process is similar to that of any commercial insurance company, is relatively straightforward, and aside from an independent actuarial and underwriting review, bears no additional charges.

By sharing a captive, you only pay a pro rata fee to cover all general and administrative expenses. The cost for administration is very low per insured (historically under 60 basis points annually). By sharing a large captive, loans to its insureds (your company) can be legally made. So you can make a tax deductible contribution, and then take back money tax free. Sharing a large captive requires little or no maintenance by the insured and can be implemented in a fraction of the time required for stand alone captives.

If done correctly, sharing a large captive can yield a small company significant tax and cost savings.
If done incorrectly, the results can be disastrous.

Buyer Beware

Stand alone captives are also likely to draw IRS attention. Another advantage of sharing a captive is that IRS problems are less likely if that path is followed, and they can be entirely eliminated as even a possibility by following the technique of renting a captive, which would involve no ownership interest in the captive on the part of the insured. (your company).

Lance Wallach speaks and writes extensively about retirement plans, estate planning and tax reduction strategies. Reach him at (516) 938-5007 or www.vebaplan.com.
The information provided herein is not intended as legal, accounting, financial or any type of advice for any specific individual or other entity. You should contact an appropriate professional for any such advice.

Sid Kess’ Practical Alternatives to Commonly Misused and Abused Small Business Tax Strategies: Insuring Your Client’s Future

2008-07-31T08:13:00.000-07:00

What's new in CPE self-study for April 2008

New and Bestselling AICPA CPE Self-Study Courses
At the AICPA Store you'll find more than 200 titles in a variety of formats to best meet your needs. Get practical guidance. Stay up-to-date on hot topics. Train your staff. Meet CPE reporting deadlines. Get real-time exam results with online grading. Check out this month's picks below. Turn to the AICPA for quality, value and convenience in CPE self-study products. Order today.

Author/Moderator: Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC, CIMC
Publisher: AICPA
Availability: In Stock

A perfect follow-up to “Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots,” this course was created by the renowned Sid Kess. Learn the best strategies for reducing taxes and building, conserving and passing wealth to the next generation while at the same time avoiding abusive strategies.

Objectives:
Identify practical alternatives to abusive tax shelters
Understand how to integrate financial products as part of a retirement plan
Discover how to use innovative retirement and financial programs to improve business and personal financial wealth of your clients
Optimize your value in the planning process between your clients and their financial advisors
Prerequisite: None
Accepted for CFP® credit.

Chapter 1 - Planning for Business Owners Learning Objectives
Introduction
Building the Perfect Retirement Plan
SEP IRA: The Good
SEP IRA: The Bad
SEP IRA: The Ugly
The K
The Double K
Defined Benefit Plans
Adding Survivor Benefits
412(i) Defined Benefit Plan
Cash Balance Plans
VEBAs and 419 Plans
Taxability of Trust Net Income
Taxability of Excess Benefits
Group-Term Life Insurance Plan
Post-Retirement Medical Benefit
Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA) - Commentary
New Development - Welfare Benefit Plans under Section 419(e)
Executive Carve Out Long-Term Care
What Is Long-Term Care?
How Much Does It Cost
Benefits of Long-Term Care Insurance to Employees
Benefits of Long-Term Care Insurance to Employers
Executive Carve Out Long-Term Care
Taxability
Long-Term Care Insurance Premium Deductibility
2007 Eligible Long-Term Care Insurance Premiums Age-Based Deduction Limits

Chapter 2 - Personal Financial Planning
Learning Objectives
Introduction
IRA Planning
RMDs
Stretch IRA
Stretch IRA Example
Stretch IRA Pitfalls
Other Beneficiary Pitfalls
Important Questions Your Client Should Ask Their IRA Custodian
When a Stretch IRA Might Not Make Sense
Taxable Estate
Company Stock
What Investments Should be In Your Client's IRA?
Estate Planning
What Makes a Good Estate Plan?
Minimizing Taxes
Gift Taxes
Generation Skipping Tax (GST)
Estate Division
Insurance Trusts
Pay Estate Taxes at a Discount
Estate Planning Mistakes of the Rich and Famous
Unintended Heirs
Estate Tax Problems
Incapacity
Leaving Money Outright to Children
Pension Plan Beneficiary Problems
Premium Financing as a Tool to Pay Life Insurance Premiums
The Benefits of Premium Financing
Type of Premium Financing Arrangements
Collateral
Interest Rate Risk
General Account Universal Life
Variable Life Insurance
Single Index Life
Multiple Index Life
Premium Financing Components
Loan Options
Process
Repaying Premium Loans
Income Tax Considerations
Gift Tax Considerations
Estate Tax Considerations
Premium Finance Due Diligence
Life Settlements
Life Settlement History
The Life Settlement Market
Life Settlement Case Studies
The Insurance Swapout Process(TM)
Reasons for Using an ISP
Why You Would Not Want to Use an ISP
Important Considerations
Annuities
Types of Annuities
Non-Qualified Funds in a Tax Deferred Annuity
Surrender Charges
Tax Rules
Sales Abuses
Risks
Annuity Checklist

Chapter 3 - Advanced Planning
Learning Objectives
Introduction
Hedge Funds
Availability
Hedge Fund Risks and Disadvantages
Hedge Fund Advantages
Hedge Fund Investing Styles
Relative Value
Event Driven
Long/Short
Tactical Trading
Due Diligence
Returns
Risks
Diversification
Hedge Fund of Funds
Mutual Funds That Follow Hedge Fund Strategies
Tax Implications
Private Placement Variable Universal Life Insurance
Why High Net Worth Investors Use Hedge Funds
Taxation of Life Insurance
PPVUL
Prospect Profile
Practitioner Beware
Conclusion
International Mortgages
How it Works
Loan Features
Other Considerations
Costs
Risks
Frequently Asked Questions

Chapter 4 - Health Insurance Planning
Learning Objectives
Introduction
Health Insurance Basics
Health Savings Accounts
Health Reimbursement Arrangements
Other Health Insurance Arrangements
Self-Funded Plans and Stop-Loss
Limited Coverage and Supplemental Plans
Conclusion
Appendix A - Qualified Medical Expenses - Distributions from an HSA
Appendix B - Health Savings Accounts - Preventive Care, Safe Harbor
Appendix C - Sample Sections of an Actual Health Reimbursement Arrangement Summary Plan Document

Chapter 5 - Ethics Focus: Taxation
Ethics Overview
Recent Developments
Spotlight on Independence in Tax Services
Key Ethical Dilemmas and Judgment Calls
Addressing Ethical Dilemmas
Available Resources

Chapter 6 - Latest Developments
733730

Selling life insurance policies for profit

2008-07-31T07:26:00.000-07:00

Accounting Today
January 8-28 2007

THE BUSINESS NEWSPAPER FOR THE TAX & ACCOUNTING COMMUNITY

By Lance Wallach
________________________

Insurance policies with rising or re-appearing premiums can often cause their owners problems, especially when those owners’ financial needs or obligations change.

Is it a better investment to continue paying a policy that you have already paid into in hopes of a gain at maturation, or to recoup some of the investment by trading the policy for its cash surrender value? Corporate policyholders often face additional dilemmas when dealing with departing executives with key-man or split-dollar policies, or insurance purchased as part of a buy-sell agreement.

Another option is to sell the policy for cash. With a life settlement, the policyholder realizes an amount much greater than the cash surrender value in exchange for the ownership of the policy, thus increasing immediate revenue for companies holding unprofitable policies.

You can also sell term insurance policies. Life-settlement transactions involving key-man or buy-sell policies can provide businesses with increased cash flow to solve immediate financial problems, while transactions concerning split-dollar policies typically involve retirement planning and charitable giving issues.

An individual can also sell their policy for cash. In a recent advisor survey, nearly half of the respondents had clients who had surrendered a life insurance policy, many of whom might have qualified for a life-settlement transaction and subsequent lump-sum cash payment. A primary reason why an accountant should be well-versed in the life-settlements field is the importance of their fiduciaryresponsibility to clients. When providing financial advice and strategic information, being able to identify a way to eliminate an asset that burdens the client with unnecessary expenses can be very helpful. Offering more options can satisfy more clients.

The life-settlement process takes about a month, is confidential, and the proceeds can be used for anything.

A recent settlement example is a 66-year-old male with a $2 million universal life policy with $4,200 of cash surrender value. The owner, who could no longer afford the increasing premiums, was paid $194,992 for the policy.

If one still needs life insurance, but does not want to continue the existing policy, the insurance swapoutsm should be compared to the life-settlement offer for the best results. That involves the exchange of insurance, elimination of taxable “paper” gain, or credit against a new policy of basis in an old one.

The alternatives to the above are keeping unwanted insurance, canceling and paying taxes, or canceling insurance and losing credit for the taxable loss. AT

Lance Wallach, CLU, ChFC, CIMC, speaks and writes extensively about financial planning, retirement plans, and tax reduction strategies. He speaks at more than 70 national conventions annually and writes for more than 50 national publications. For more information and additional articles on these subjects, visit http://www.vebaplan.com/ or call 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.

CPA’s Guide to Life Insurance

2008-07-31T07:20:00.000-07:00

New BISK CPEasy™ CPE Self-Study Course

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

Introduction
The CPA faces a daunting series of roles—those of advisor, practitioner, and consumer. Life insurance can be a powerful tool; improperly wielded, it can lead to malpractice.

The authors hope this text effectively introduces the advisor to basic and also more complex concepts, enabling the advisor to appropriately counsel clients, or at least spot pitfalls and client opportunities. Similarly, the authors hope the practitioner who is licensed and sells insurance is aware of the myriad options available and which best help the client. Finally, the authors hope the CPA as consumer gains an understanding of the important concepts that can help the CPA on a personal level.

This text and corresponding video was a daunting challenge—how to encapsulate the complex field of life insurance and its applications into an understandable and useful reference. The authors hope this was accomplished.

Program Learning Objectives
Upon successful completion of this program, the user should:

· Understand the basics of life insurance
· Have a general understanding in determining insurance needs
· Be aware of the major pros and cons of each type of insurance
· Be familiar with business related insurance
· Be familiar with “split-dollar insurance”
· Be familiar with foundational estate planning issues
· Understand how life insurance is used to protect the estate
· Understand basic buy-sell agreement theory (estate planning for the business)
· Understand basics about various retirement plans
· Understand alternatives to cashing out or terminating a policy
· Be familiar with how products are illustrated
· Have a general understanding of annuities
· Be aware of trouble areas

Prerequisite: None
Formats: Online, Software, Text $109.00/6 CPE Credit Hours
Formats: Audio w/text $119.00/8 CPE Credit Hours
Formats: DVD w/text $179.00/8 CPE Credit Hours

Bisk Education Inc. (831) 621-6200
Bisk@Bisk.com

Get a Large Deduction With a 412(e)(3) Retirement Plan

2008-07-31T07:16:00.000-07:00

California Broker Magazine
June 2008

by Lance Wallach

Successful business owners need big deductions and benefits, which can only be accomplished through a defined benefit plan. Any business can use a 412(e)(3) plan to provide benefits and reduce taxes substantially. The 412(e)(3) plan allows the owner to get the largest legal deduction. At 45, an owner could deduct more than $200,000 per year for himself and more than $300,000 per year at age 55.

Most accountants have never heard of these types of plans, which were defined by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 and are regulated by the IRS and the Dept. of Labor.

The best fit is with companies that have highly taxed owners, but few employees, such as doctors, commercial real estate salespeople, consultants, and other small business owners. A larger business would be better off with a cash balance plan, which also allows owners and key employees to make large contributions. A 412(e)(3) is easy to administer and simple to explain. Other benefits can include asset protection and the ability to deduct life insurance.

Care must be taken with respect to who administers the plan. There have been abuses with the operation of some of these plans and the IRS has disallowed deductions for some abuses. It is important to know whom you are dealing with and that the administrator has the experience and integrity to run the plan correctly. Just because an insurance company may be involved does not make the operation of the plan legitimate.

There are many benefits of using a 412(e)(3) plan. In addition to the large tax deduction, the plan can even be combined with a 401k. This may be the ideal tax deduction for the profitable small business owner or professional.

Lance Wallach, speaks and writes extensively about retirement plans, estate planning, and tax reduction strategies. He speaks at more than 70 conventions annually, writes for more than 50 publications, and was the National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year. Contact him at 516-938-5007 or visit http://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.

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

2008-07-28T08:52:00.000-07:00

National Society Of Accountants
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 http://www.vebaplan.com/.