IRS Clarifies Legality of 419(e) Plans

Subscribe Archive  Editorial Calendar  Advertise with Us
July 15	The Newspaper of the NYSSCPA	Vol. 10, No.13

---

By Lance Wallach, CLU, ChFC, CIMC, and Ron Snyder, JD, EA

Following the U.S. Congress’ lead, on April 10 the IRS issued final regulations under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code. If the rules seemed unclear before, they are crystal clear now: Most of the so-called “419(e)” plans as well as the remaining 419A(f)(6) plans are in violation of the law and subject to hefty penalties.
A 419(e) plan is a benefit plan that generally seeks to make the purchase of life insurance tax-deductible to employers. While the concept is appealing, most of the existing arrangements have permitted the plans to transfer the insurance policies to the participants upon retirement.
The Purpose of 409A
Code Section 409A was enacted into law on Oct. 10, 2004, to provide some uniformity and to impose several requirements upon nonqualified deferred compensation plans and similar arrangements. The new rules imposed include a required written plan agreement; a limit of payments to death, disability or retirement; a substantial risk of forfeiture to avoid immediate taxation to the employee; and timing limitations on benefit distributions.
Congress drafted Section 409A broadly to include any payment to an employee after the year for which it was paid or after termination of employment, unless the payment falls under one of the named exceptions. Exceptions include payments within 75 days, COBRA benefits, de minimis cash-outs paid in the year of termination of employment, etc.
409A Applicability to Welfare Benefits
Section 409A does not apply to welfare benefits. In fact, several forms of welfare benefits are specifically excluded under 409A. However, such excluded arrangements do not permit transfer of property to the participant except for death, disability and payments made upon retirement in accordance with the 409A rules.
Most of the existing 419(e) and 419A(f)(6) welfare benefit plans do not comply with the 409A rules relative to transfers of insurance policies or cash payments other than upon death.
Compliance and Effective Dates
Significant penalties apply for noncompliance with Section 409A. In addition to having compensation included in income, tax penalties equal to the IRS underpayment rate plus 1 percent from the time the compensation should have been included in income, plus 20 percent of the compensation amount, apply. Additional penalties may apply for failure to report the arrangement appropriately.
When Section 409A was added, employers and consultants scrambled to comply because the rules were effective for years beginning after 2004 for all arrangements entered into after Oct. 3, 2004. Existing arrangements were given until the end of 2005 to comply. However, the IRS granted an extension for compliance for employers who made a “good-faith” effort to comply with the rules. Under the Final Regulations, plans have until Dec. 31, 2007, to be in full compliance.
Effect on CPAs, Plan Sponsors and Others
Under Circular 230 standards a CPA or attorney who advises his or her client about participating in a noncompliant welfare benefit plan may be liable for fines and other sanctions. The authors expect that opinion letters relative to such welfare benefit plans have either been withdrawn or will be shortly, and we admonish professionals to review carefully all communications with clients relative to such plans. The IRS has recently been successful in imposing huge fines on several law firms for blessing questionable transactions.
Sponsors of 419 plans have two choices: totally eliminate distributions from their plans (except medical reimbursements or death benefits), or comply with Code Section 409A and the regulations thereunder.
Employers have until Dec. 31 to be in compliance. Employers who have adopted 419 plans must choose immediately whether to remain in their current 419 plan, cancel their participation in such arrangement and have their benefits distributed by Dec. 31, or transfer to a plan that is fully compliant with the new rules.


Lance Wallach, CLU, ChFC, CIMC, can be reached at 516-938-5007 or lawallach@aol.com. Ron Snyder, JD, is an enrolled actuary.

 Lance Wallach, CLU, ChFC, CIMC, speaks and writes extensively about financial planning, retirement plans, and tax reduction strategies.  He is an American Institute of CPA’s course developer and instructor and has authored numerous bestselling books about abusive tax shelters, IRS crackdowns and attacks and other tax matters. He speaks at more than 20 national conventions annually and writes for more than 50 national publications.  For more information and additional articles on these subjects, visit www.vebaplan.com, www.taxlibrary.us, lawyer4audits.com or call 516-938-5007.
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. 

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

WebCPA

The dangers of being "listed"

Accounting Today: October 25, 2010
By: Lance Wallach

Taxpayers who previously adopted 419, 412i, captive insurance or Section 79 plans are in
big trouble.

In recent years, the IRS has identified many of these arrangements as abusive devices to
funnel tax deductible dollars to shareholders and classified these arrangements as "listed transactions."

These plans were sold by insurance agents, financial planners, accountants and attorneys
seeking large life insurance commissions. In general, taxpayers who engage in a "listed
transaction" must report such transaction to the IRS on Form 8886 every year that they
"participate" in the transaction, and you do not necessarily have to make a contribution or
claim a tax deduction to participate.  Section 6707A of the Code imposes severe penalties
($200,000 for a business and $100,000 for an individual) for failure to file Form 8886 with
respect to a listed transaction.

But you are also in trouble if you file incorrectly.  

I have received numerous phone calls from business owners who filed and still got fined. Not
only do you have to file Form 8886, but it has to be prepared correctly. I only know of two
people in the United States who have filed these forms properly for clients. They tell me that
was after hundreds of hours of research and over fifty phones calls to various IRS
personnel.

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

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

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

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

Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the
AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, financial
and estate planning, and abusive tax shelters.  He writes about 412(i), 419, and captive
insurance plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually, 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 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 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.

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

California Enrolled Agent

January 2

By Lance Wallach & Ira Kaplan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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