Reportable Transactions and 419 Plans Litigation - Welfare benefit, Medical, Retirement plan benefit and design, Pension specialists, 412i Lawsuits, 419 lawsuits, IRS Audits, 412i Problems, Expert Witness Lance Wallach
Showing posts with label Section 79 Plans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Section 79 Plans. Show all posts
Be Fined by the IRS Under Section 6707A Business Owners in 419, 412i, Section 79 and Captive Insurance Plans
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.
Reportable Transactions .com: IRS Audits 419, 412i, Captive Insurance Plans With...
Reportable Transactions .com: IRS Audits 419, 412i, Captive Insurance Plans With...: By Lance Wallach June 2011 The IRS started aud...
419 412i captive insurance section 79 scams IRS audits lawsuits. Comments .... in accordance with federal laws which require the disclosure of foreign accounts and certain abusive tax avoidance transactions. ... google lance wallach for more.
...
Tax Laws; Providing Guidance for. Businesses, Attorneys, CPAs & Insurance professionals ... "Our expert witness, Lance Wallach has never lost a case!" ...
419 412i captive insurance section 79 scams IRS ... - Goodreads
www.goodreads.com/.../1567545-419-412i-captive-insurance...
Goodreads
www.lawyer4audits.com/
Reportable Transactions &419 Plans Litigation
financialchfc.blogspot.com/
Bryan Cave Llp (National Law Firm That Provided Generic Tax Opinion Letters) ... As an expert witness Lance Wallach's side has never lost a case. ... Business Owners in 419, 412i, Section 79 and Captive Insurance Plans Will Probably Be ...Tax Shelter Penalty Cases Hurt Thousands of Small Business Owners
kmjradiolance3.blogspot.com/2012/.../tax-shelter-penalty-cases-hurt.htm...
Jul 1, 2012 - If you are, or were in a 412i, 419, captive insurance or section 79 plan ... Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year ... We asked Help with Common IRS Problems: Section 79 Plans: The Team Approach to Tax, Financ...
Help with Common IRS Problems: Section 79 Plans: The Team Approach to Tax, Financ...: Section 79 Plans: The Team Approach to Tax, Financial and Estate Pla... : by Lance Wallach CPAs are the best and most qualified professio...
Large IRS Fines Continue For 419, 412i, Captive Insurance and Section79 Plans
Lance Wallach battles IRS Audits Every Day
By Lance Wallach
Taxpayers must report certain transactions to the IRS under Section 6707A of the Tax Code, which was enacted in 2004 to help detect, deter, and shut down abusive tax shelter activities. For example, reportable transactions may include being in a 419,412i, or other insurance plan sold by insurance agents for tax deduction purposes. Other abusive transactions could include captive insurance and section 79 plans, which are usually sold by insurance agents for tax deductions. Taxpayers must disclose their participation in these and other transactions by filing a Reportable Transactions Disclosure Statement (Form 8886) with their income tax returns. People that sell these plans are called material advisors and must also file 8918 forms properly. Failure to report the transactions could result in very large penalties. Accountants who sign tax returns, which have these deductions, can also be called material advisors and should also file forms 8918 properly.
The IRS has fined hundreds of taxpayers who did file under 6707A. They said that they did not fill out the forms properly, or did not file correctly. The plan administrator or a 412i advised over 200 of his clients how to file. They were then all fined by the IRS for filling out the forms wrong. The fines averaged about $500,000 per taxpayer.
A report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) found that the procedures for documenting and assessing the Section 6707A penalty were not sufficient or formalized, and cases often are not fully developed.
TIGTA evaluated the IRS’s effectiveness in identifying, developing, and applying the Section 6707A penalty. Based on its review of 114 assessed Section 6707A penalties, TIGTA determined that many of these files were incomplete or did not contain sufficient audit evidence. TIGTA also found a need for better coordination between the IRS’s Office of Tax Shelter Analysis and other functions.
The Section 6707A penalty is a stand-alone penalty and does not require an associated income tax examination; therefore, it applies regardless of whether the reportable transaction results in an understatement of tax. TIGTA determined that, in most cases, the Section 6707A penalty was substantially higher than additional tax assessments taxpayers received from the audit of underlying tax returns. I have had phone calls from taxpayers that contributed less than $100,000 to a listed transaction and were fined over $500,000. I have had phone calls from taxpayers that went into 419, or 412i plans but made no contributions and were fined a large amount of money for being in a listed transaction and not properly filing forms under IRC section 6707A. The IRS claims that the fines are non-a
Section 79 Plans: WHAT IS A SECTION 79 PLAN?
Section 79 Plans: WHAT IS A SECTION 79 PLAN?: Section 79 plans are commonly known for the $50,000 free term life insurance they can provide for employees. Less commonly known is tha...
IRS is looking at transfer pricing, FBAR and international tax. FBAR International Tax Problems Transfer Pricing and the IRS - By Lance Wallach - The IRS dedicates enormous resources toward dealing with taxpayers who are involved with any form of transfer pricing. The transfer pricing provisions of IRC 482 address four general types of transactions between commonly owned or controlled parties: 1- Use or transfer of tangible property; 2- Services; 3- Loans; 4- Use or transfer of intangible property (especially cost sharing arrangements). Use of tangible property: When one member of a controlled group rents or leases property to another member of the group, the price paid for use of such property must be appropriate for an arm’s length amount. Per Treas. Reg. 1.482-2(c)(2)(i), the arm’s length amount is determined by reference to the amount that would have been charged between independent parties for use of the same or similar property under similar circumstances. Determination of what is arm’s length for fair rental value transactions: a) Period of use; b) Location of use; c) Owner’s investment in property or rent paid; d) Expenses of maintaining the property; e) Type of property; f) Condition of property . Transfer of tangible property: When sales or transfers of tangible property are made between related parties (sales of goods), the arm’s length price generally is the price that an unrelated party would pay for similar property under similar circumstances. Determination of what is arm’s length for inter-company sales: The regulations specify six methods used to determine whether an arm’s length amount has been charged between members of a controlled group. Treas. Reg.1.482-3(a), states that the “best method" should be used to determine arm’s length price. The IRS views the “best method" as the method that produces the most reliable results based on facts and circumstances. The IRS is well aware of the fact that many transfer-pricing studies are prepared with the intention to validate year-end inter-company cost of sales regardless of whether they are arm’s length just to avoid the IRC 6662 penalties taxpayers would be best served if transfer-pricing studies were prepared by knowledgeable experts in the field. Inter-company Services: When one member performs services for another member of a controlled group, an arm’s length price is necessary. This includes services such as marketing, management, technical services, or any other type of service. Such services can be provided by one party for the joint benefit of all members, or can be provided between two members of the controlled group. Determination of what is arm’s length for inter-company services: The arm’s length standard for services between related parties is found in Treas. Reg. 1.482-2(b)(3) which states, “ an arm’s length charge for services rendered shall be the amount which was charged or would have been charged for the same or similar services in independent transactions with or between unrelated parties under similar circumstances considering all relevant facts." The arm’s length charge for services between related parties will depend upon the facts related to the services provided. The pricing rules fall within three categories: 1) An arm’s length charge will be based on the amount that would have been charged by an unrelated party. This generally means that the price should be based on reimbursement of cost, plus a mark-up for profit. 2) An arm’s length charge may be based on only the costs incurred, provided that certain criteria are met. 3) No charge is necessary, if certain criteria are met. The area that concerns the IRS most with these types of transactions is technical services with regard provided by larger U.S corporations to their foreign CPC’s, which are not charged for these services. In regards to smaller cases, the IRS typically examines management fees in detail to ensure they are arm’s length. Inter-company Loans: In the context of IRC 482, most of the areas of conflict in this area revolve around interest. When loans are made between members of a controlled group, interest rates charged do not always meet the required arm’s length standard. Determination of what is arm’s length for inter-company loans: The arm’s length standard for loans between related parties is found in Treas. Reg. 1.482-2(a)(2) which states that “ an arm’s length rate of interest shall be a rate of interest which was charged, or would have been charged, at the time the indebtedness arose, in independent transactions with or between unrelated parties under similar circumstances." Factors that are listed in Treas. Reg. 1.482-2(a)(2) that should be considered in determining arm’s length interest are: a) The principle amount and duration of the loan; b) The security involved; c) The credit standing of the borrower; d) The prevailing interest rate where the loan was made. The regulations provide further guidance in the following areas: a) Safe harbor rules; b) Ordering rules; c) Determination of bona fide indebtedness; d) Period for which interest is charged. Transfers of intangible properties: When transfers of intangible property are made between controlled parties, the arm’s length price is often difficult to determine, in part because the property’s value derives from intellectual capital such as ideas, the outcome of research and development or creation of software. Determination of what is arm’s length for transfer of intangible property: The regulations specify four methods to determine whether an arm’s length amount has been charged between the members of a controlled group with respect to the transfer or use of intangible property. Treas. Reg.1.482-4 (a) states that the “best method" should be used to determine the arm’s length price between related parties. Controlled parties may enter into a qualified cost sharing arrangements to share costs related to developing intangibles. They may also contribute existing intangibles for use in further development or for use in developing new and distinct intangibles. The following general rules of Treas. Reg.1.482-7 (a) and (b) apply to qualified cost sharing arrangements: a) Two or more controlled participants agree to share the costs of developing intangibles. b) Costs are shared based on each participant’s share of reasonably anticipated benefits from the intangibles to be developed. c) A “buy-in" must be paid to the participant that contributes pre-existing intangible property to the qualified cost sharing arrangement. As with transfer pricing reports, cost-sharing agreements should be prepared by qualified experts who are knowledgeable in this area. The ideal candidate would probably be someone with decades of experience preferably with the IRS in the international taxation area. Said ideal candidate should also of course be a CPA. If examined by the IRS, the cost sharing agreement will be reviewed in detail. For further guidance refer to the Coordinated Issue Paper utilized as a guideline for the IRS personnel dated June 5th 2009. As an expert witness Lance Wallach's side has never lost a case. People need to be careful of 419 Welfare Benefit Plans, 412i plans, Section 79 plans and Captive Insurance Plans. Most of these plans are sold by insurance agents. If you are in an abusive, listed or similar transaction plan you need to file under IRS 6707a. The participant files form 8886, and the salesmen or accountant who signs the tax returns files form 8918 if they got paid over $10,000. They are called Material Advisors and face a minimum $100,000 fine. Some plans are offshore which could involve FBAR or OVDI filings. If you have money overseas you probably need to file for IRS tax amnesty. If you want to reduce the tax we suggest that you first file and then opt out. For more information Google Lance Wallach. 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 is looking at transfer pricing, FBAR and international tax. FBAR International Tax Problems Transfer Pricing and the IRS - By Lance Wallach - The IRS dedicates enormous resources toward dealing with taxpayers who are involved with any form of transfer pricing.
The transfer pricing provisions of IRC 482 address four general types of transactions between commonly owned or controlled parties:
1- Use or transfer of tangible property;
2- Services;
3- Loans;
4- Use or transfer of intangible property (especially cost sharing arrangements).
Use of tangible property: When one member of a controlled group rents or leases property to another member of the group, the price paid for use of such property must be appropriate for an arm’s length amount. Per Treas. Reg. 1.482-2(c)(2)(i), the arm’s length amount is determined by reference to the amount that would have been charged between independent parties for use of the same or similar property under similar circumstances.
Determination of what is arm’s length for fair rental value transactions:
a) Period of use;
b) Location of use;
c) Owner’s investment in property or rent paid;
d) Expenses of maintaining the property;
e) Type of property;
f) Condition of property .
Transfer of tangible property: When sales or transfers of tangible property are made between related parties (sales of goods), the arm’s length price generally is the price that an unrelated party would pay for similar property under similar circumstances.
Determination of what is arm’s length for inter-company sales: The regulations specify six methods used to determine whether an arm’s length amount has been charged between members of a controlled group. Treas. Reg.1.482-3(a), states that the “best method" should be used to determine arm’s length price. The IRS views the “best method" as the method that produces the most reliable results based on facts and circumstances. The IRS is well aware of the fact that many transfer-pricing studies are prepared with the intention to validate year-end inter-company cost of sales regardless of whether they are arm’s length just to avoid the IRC 6662 penalties taxpayers would be best served if transfer-pricing studies were prepared by knowledgeable experts in the field.
Inter-company Services: When one member performs services for another member of a controlled group, an arm’s length price is necessary. This includes services such as marketing, management, technical services, or any other type of service. Such services can be provided by one party for the joint benefit of all members, or can be provided between two members of the controlled group.
Determination of what is arm’s length for inter-company services: The arm’s length standard for services between related parties is found in Treas. Reg. 1.482-2(b)(3) which states, “ an arm’s length charge for services rendered shall be the amount which was charged or would have been charged for the same or similar services in independent transactions with or between unrelated parties under similar circumstances considering all relevant facts." The arm’s length charge for services between related parties will depend upon the facts related to the services provided. The pricing rules fall within three categories:
1) An arm’s length charge will be based on the amount that would have been charged by an unrelated party. This generally means that the price should be based on reimbursement of cost, plus a mark-up for profit.
2) An arm’s length charge may be based on only the costs incurred, provided that certain criteria are met.
3) No charge is necessary, if certain criteria are met.
The area that concerns the IRS most with these types of transactions is technical services with regard provided by larger U.S corporations to their foreign CPC’s, which are not charged for these services. In regards to smaller cases, the IRS typically examines management fees in detail to ensure they are arm’s length.
Inter-company Loans: In the context of IRC 482, most of the areas of conflict in this area revolve around interest. When loans are made between members of a controlled group, interest rates charged do not always meet the required arm’s length standard.
Determination of what is arm’s length for inter-company loans: The arm’s length standard for loans between related parties is found in Treas. Reg. 1.482-2(a)(2) which states that “ an arm’s length rate of interest shall be a rate of interest which was charged, or would have been charged, at the time the indebtedness arose, in independent transactions with or between unrelated parties under similar circumstances."
Factors that are listed in Treas. Reg. 1.482-2(a)(2) that should be considered in determining arm’s length interest are:
a) The principle amount and duration of the loan;
b) The security involved;
c) The credit standing of the borrower;
d) The prevailing interest rate where the loan was made.
The regulations provide further guidance in the following areas:
a) Safe harbor rules;
b) Ordering rules;
c) Determination of bona fide indebtedness;
d) Period for which interest is charged.
Transfers of intangible properties: When transfers of intangible property are made between controlled parties, the arm’s length price is often difficult to determine, in part because the property’s value derives from intellectual capital such as ideas, the outcome of research and development or creation of software.
Determination of what is arm’s length for transfer of intangible property: The regulations specify four methods to determine whether an arm’s length amount has been charged between the members of a controlled group with respect to the transfer or use of intangible property. Treas. Reg.1.482-4 (a) states that the “best method" should be used to determine the arm’s length price between related parties. Controlled parties may enter into a qualified cost sharing arrangements to share costs related to developing intangibles. They may also contribute existing intangibles for use in further development or for use in developing new and distinct intangibles.
The following general rules of Treas. Reg.1.482-7 (a) and (b) apply to qualified cost sharing arrangements:
a) Two or more controlled participants agree to share the costs of developing intangibles.
b) Costs are shared based on each participant’s share of reasonably anticipated benefits from the intangibles to be developed.
c) A “buy-in" must be paid to the participant that contributes pre-existing intangible property to the qualified cost sharing arrangement.
As with transfer pricing reports, cost-sharing agreements should be prepared by qualified experts who are knowledgeable in this area. The ideal candidate would probably be someone with decades of experience preferably with the IRS in the international taxation area. Said ideal candidate should also of course be a CPA. If examined by the IRS, the cost sharing agreement will be reviewed in detail. For further guidance refer to the Coordinated Issue Paper utilized as a guideline for the IRS personnel dated June 5th 2009.
As an expert witness Lance Wallach's side has never lost a case. People need to be careful of 419 Welfare Benefit Plans, 412i plans, Section 79 plans and Captive Insurance Plans. Most of these plans are sold by insurance agents. If you are in an abusive, listed or similar transaction plan you need to file under IRS 6707a. The participant files form 8886, and the salesmen or accountant who signs the tax returns files form 8918 if they got paid over $10,000. They are called Material Advisors and face a minimum $100,000 fine. Some plans are offshore which could involve FBAR or OVDI filings. If you have money overseas you probably need to file for IRS tax amnesty. If you want to reduce the tax we suggest that you first file and then opt out. For more information Google Lance Wallach.
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.
The transfer pricing provisions of IRC 482 address four general types of transactions between commonly owned or controlled parties:
1- Use or transfer of tangible property;
2- Services;
3- Loans;
4- Use or transfer of intangible property (especially cost sharing arrangements).
Use of tangible property: When one member of a controlled group rents or leases property to another member of the group, the price paid for use of such property must be appropriate for an arm’s length amount. Per Treas. Reg. 1.482-2(c)(2)(i), the arm’s length amount is determined by reference to the amount that would have been charged between independent parties for use of the same or similar property under similar circumstances.
Determination of what is arm’s length for fair rental value transactions:
a) Period of use;
b) Location of use;
c) Owner’s investment in property or rent paid;
d) Expenses of maintaining the property;
e) Type of property;
f) Condition of property .
Transfer of tangible property: When sales or transfers of tangible property are made between related parties (sales of goods), the arm’s length price generally is the price that an unrelated party would pay for similar property under similar circumstances.
Determination of what is arm’s length for inter-company sales: The regulations specify six methods used to determine whether an arm’s length amount has been charged between members of a controlled group. Treas. Reg.1.482-3(a), states that the “best method" should be used to determine arm’s length price. The IRS views the “best method" as the method that produces the most reliable results based on facts and circumstances. The IRS is well aware of the fact that many transfer-pricing studies are prepared with the intention to validate year-end inter-company cost of sales regardless of whether they are arm’s length just to avoid the IRC 6662 penalties taxpayers would be best served if transfer-pricing studies were prepared by knowledgeable experts in the field.
Inter-company Services: When one member performs services for another member of a controlled group, an arm’s length price is necessary. This includes services such as marketing, management, technical services, or any other type of service. Such services can be provided by one party for the joint benefit of all members, or can be provided between two members of the controlled group.
Determination of what is arm’s length for inter-company services: The arm’s length standard for services between related parties is found in Treas. Reg. 1.482-2(b)(3) which states, “ an arm’s length charge for services rendered shall be the amount which was charged or would have been charged for the same or similar services in independent transactions with or between unrelated parties under similar circumstances considering all relevant facts." The arm’s length charge for services between related parties will depend upon the facts related to the services provided. The pricing rules fall within three categories:
1) An arm’s length charge will be based on the amount that would have been charged by an unrelated party. This generally means that the price should be based on reimbursement of cost, plus a mark-up for profit.
2) An arm’s length charge may be based on only the costs incurred, provided that certain criteria are met.
3) No charge is necessary, if certain criteria are met.
The area that concerns the IRS most with these types of transactions is technical services with regard provided by larger U.S corporations to their foreign CPC’s, which are not charged for these services. In regards to smaller cases, the IRS typically examines management fees in detail to ensure they are arm’s length.
Inter-company Loans: In the context of IRC 482, most of the areas of conflict in this area revolve around interest. When loans are made between members of a controlled group, interest rates charged do not always meet the required arm’s length standard.
Determination of what is arm’s length for inter-company loans: The arm’s length standard for loans between related parties is found in Treas. Reg. 1.482-2(a)(2) which states that “ an arm’s length rate of interest shall be a rate of interest which was charged, or would have been charged, at the time the indebtedness arose, in independent transactions with or between unrelated parties under similar circumstances."
Factors that are listed in Treas. Reg. 1.482-2(a)(2) that should be considered in determining arm’s length interest are:
a) The principle amount and duration of the loan;
b) The security involved;
c) The credit standing of the borrower;
d) The prevailing interest rate where the loan was made.
The regulations provide further guidance in the following areas:
a) Safe harbor rules;
b) Ordering rules;
c) Determination of bona fide indebtedness;
d) Period for which interest is charged.
Transfers of intangible properties: When transfers of intangible property are made between controlled parties, the arm’s length price is often difficult to determine, in part because the property’s value derives from intellectual capital such as ideas, the outcome of research and development or creation of software.
Determination of what is arm’s length for transfer of intangible property: The regulations specify four methods to determine whether an arm’s length amount has been charged between the members of a controlled group with respect to the transfer or use of intangible property. Treas. Reg.1.482-4 (a) states that the “best method" should be used to determine the arm’s length price between related parties. Controlled parties may enter into a qualified cost sharing arrangements to share costs related to developing intangibles. They may also contribute existing intangibles for use in further development or for use in developing new and distinct intangibles.
The following general rules of Treas. Reg.1.482-7 (a) and (b) apply to qualified cost sharing arrangements:
a) Two or more controlled participants agree to share the costs of developing intangibles.
b) Costs are shared based on each participant’s share of reasonably anticipated benefits from the intangibles to be developed.
c) A “buy-in" must be paid to the participant that contributes pre-existing intangible property to the qualified cost sharing arrangement.
As with transfer pricing reports, cost-sharing agreements should be prepared by qualified experts who are knowledgeable in this area. The ideal candidate would probably be someone with decades of experience preferably with the IRS in the international taxation area. Said ideal candidate should also of course be a CPA. If examined by the IRS, the cost sharing agreement will be reviewed in detail. For further guidance refer to the Coordinated Issue Paper utilized as a guideline for the IRS personnel dated June 5th 2009.
As an expert witness Lance Wallach's side has never lost a case. People need to be careful of 419 Welfare Benefit Plans, 412i plans, Section 79 plans and Captive Insurance Plans. Most of these plans are sold by insurance agents. If you are in an abusive, listed or similar transaction plan you need to file under IRS 6707a. The participant files form 8886, and the salesmen or accountant who signs the tax returns files form 8918 if they got paid over $10,000. They are called Material Advisors and face a minimum $100,000 fine. Some plans are offshore which could involve FBAR or OVDI filings. If you have money overseas you probably need to file for IRS tax amnesty. If you want to reduce the tax we suggest that you first file and then opt out. For more information Google Lance Wallach.
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.
Backlash on too-good-to-be-true insurance plan
No Shelter Here September 2011
By: Lance Wallach
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, financial and estate planning, and abusive tax shelters. www.taxaudit419.com, www.vebaplan.org, and www.section79plan.org
This article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as specific legal or financial advice.
Be Fined by the IRS Under Section 6707A Business Owners in 419, 412i, Section 79 and Captive Insurance Plans Will Probably
NCCPAP
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.
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.
Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation
Maryland Trial Lawyer
Dolan Media Newswires JanuarySmall 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 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.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.
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.
Re-entering The Tax System
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.
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.taxadvisorexpert.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)