Showing posts with label 419 Plans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 419 Plans. Show all posts
Small business retirement plans fuel litigation
Dolan Media Newswires
Small business retirement plans fuel
litigation
Small businesses facing audits and
potentially huge tax penalties over certain types of retirement plans are
filing lawsuits against those who marketed, designed and sold the plans. The
412(i) and 419(e) plans were marketed in the past several years as a way for
small business owners to set up retirement or welfare benefits plans while
leveraging huge tax savings, but the IRS put them on a list of abusive tax shelters
and has more recently focused audits on them.
The penalties for such transactions are
extremely high and can pile up quickly - $100,000 per individual and $200,000
per entity per tax year for each failure to disclose the transaction - often
exceeding the disallowed taxes.
There are business owners who owe $6,000
in taxes but have been assessed $1.2 million in penalties. The existing cases
involve many types of businesses, including doctors' offices, dental practices,
grocery store owners, mortgage companies and restaurant owners. Some are trying
to negotiate with the IRS. Others are not waiting. A class action has been
filed and cases in several states are ongoing. The business owners claim that
they were targeted by insurance companies; and their agents to purchase the
plans without any disclosure that the IRS viewed the plans as abusive tax
shelters. Other defendants include financial advisors who recommended the
plans, accountants who failed to fill out required tax forms and law firms that
drafted opinion letters legitimizing the plans, which were used as marketing
tools.
A 412(i) plan is a form of defined benefit
pension plan. A 419(e) plan is a similar type of health and benefits plan.
Typically, these were sold to small, privately held businesses with fewer than
20 employees and several million dollars in gross revenues. What distinguished
a legitimate plan from the plans at issue were the life insurance policies used
to fund them. The employer would make large cash contributions in the form of insurance
premiums, deducting the entire amounts. The insurance policy was designed to
have a "springing cash value," meaning that for the first 5-7 years
it would have a near-zero cash value, and then spring up in value.
Just before it sprung, the owner would
purchase the policy from the trust at the low cash value, thus making a
tax-free transaction. After the cash value shot up, the owner could take
tax-free loans against it. Meanwhile, the insurance agents collected exorbitant
commissions on the premiums - 80 to 110 percent of the first year's premium,
which could exceed $1 million.
Technically, the IRS's problems with the
plans were that the "springing cash" structure disqualified them from
being 412(i) plans and that the premiums, which dwarfed any payout to a
beneficiary, violated incidental death benefit rules.
Under §6707A of the Internal Revenue Code,
once the IRS flags something as an abusive tax shelter, or "listed
transaction," penalties are imposed per year for each failure to disclose
it. Another allegation is that businesses weren't told that they had to file
Form 8886, which discloses a listed transaction.
According to Lance Wallach of Plainview,
N.Y. (516-938-5007), 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 appealable and
must be paid before filing an administrative claim for a refund.
The suits allege misrepresentation, fraud
and other consumer claims. "In street language, they lied," said
Peter Losavio, a plaintiffs' attorney in Baton Rouge, La., who is investigating
several cases. So far they have had mixed results. Losavio said that the
strength of an individual case would depend on the disclosures made and what
the sellers knew or should have known about the risks.
In 2004, the IRS issued notices and
revenue rulings indicating that the plans were listed transactions. But
plaintiffs' lawyers allege that there were earlier signs that the plans ran
afoul of the tax laws, evidenced by the fact that the IRS is auditing plans
that existed before 2004.
"Insurance companies were aware this
was dancing a tightrope," said William Noll, a tax attorney in Malvern,
Pa. "These plans were being scrutinized by the IRS at the same time they
were being promoted, but there wasn't any disclosure of the scrutiny to unwitting
customers."
A defense attorney, who represents
benefits professionals in pending lawsuits, said the main defense is that the
plans complied with the regulations at the time and that "nobody can
predict the future."
An employee benefits attorney who has
settled several cases against insurance companies, said that although the lost
tax benefit is not recoverable, other damages include the hefty commissions -
which in one of his cases amounted to $860,000 the first year - as well as the
costs of handling the audit and filing amended tax returns.
Defying the individualized approach an
attorney filed a class action in federal court against four insurance companies
claiming that they were aware that since the 1980s the IRS had been calling the
policies potentially abusive and that in 2002 the IRS gave lectures calling the
plans not just abusive but "criminal." A judge dismissed the case
against one of the insurers that sold 412(i) plans.
The court said that the plaintiffs failed
to show the statements made by the insurance companies were fraudulent at the
time they were made, because IRS statements prior to the revenue rulings
indicated that the agency may or may not take the position that the plans were
abusive. The attorney, whose suit also names law firm for its opinion letters
approving the plans, will appeal the dismissal to the 5th Circuit.
In a case that survived a similar motion
to dismiss, a small business owner is suing Hartford Insurance to recover a
"seven-figure" sum in penalties and fees paid to the IRS. A trial is
expected in August.
Last July, in response to a letter from members of Congress, the
IRS put a moratorium on collection of §6707A penalties, but only in cases where
the tax benefits were less than $100,000 per year for individuals and $200,000
for entities. That moratorium was recently extended until March 1, 2010.
But tax experts say the audits and penalties continue.
"There's a bit of a disconnect between what members of Congress thought
they meant by suspending collection and what is happening in practice. Clients
are still getting bills and threats of liens," Wallach said.
"Thousands of business owners are being hit with
million-dollar-plus fines. ... The audits are continuing and escalating. I just
got four calls today," he said. A bill has been introduced in Congress to
make the penalties less draconian, but nobody is expecting a magic bullet.
"From what we know, Congress is looking to make the penalties
more proportionate to the tax benefit received instead of a fixed amount."
Lance Wallach can be reached at: LaWallach@aol.com- 516-938-5007- or www.vebaplan.com
419 Welfare BenefitPlan
A business owner wants legitimate tax planning ideas. One solution sometimes offered today is a 419(e) plan (419 Welfare BenefitPlan). The local insurance agent, or the company’s CPA who may have an insurance sales license, may suggest that the 419 Welfare Benefit Plan will provide shelter from taxes today, the costs of the plan are tax deductible and the plan will provide tax free benefits for the owner when he or she is ready to retire. The concept seems too good to be true. Watch out because the IRS is watching, and it often says that the plan is too good to be true.
A 419 Welfare Benefit Plan is generally a plan set up in the form of a trust to provide certain benefits to the employees of a company. You will notice that the term trust is used because the large whole life insurance policies that the owner is instructed to buy go into a trust where neither the company nor the business owner actually owns them. The trust owns the policies.
The insurance agent or CPA wants you to set up a 419(e) plan because you are agreeing to buy high dollar life insurance with premiums payable until you retire. That can generate fees of up to 125% of the first year premium as a commission – that’s right, you read that correctly – 125%.
The plan is sold as a win-win for everyone. It is for the insurance company because it locks the business owner into long-term, expensive insurance. It is for the trust administrator (remember: the insurance policies must be put into a trust to make the plan work) because the business owner has to pay a fee every year to administer the plan. But for the business owner? Maybe not so much!
The big sales pitch often is that the contributions are tax deductible to the business and the business can exclude employees. Moreover, the seller promises that the big insurance policies that is paid for with tax free money can be cashed out or transferred from the trust to the business owner at some later date without paying taxes. It is all so easy: no taxes in and no taxes out. Good right?
Unfortunately, it is often too good to be true. The IRS has been actively attacking such 419 Welfare Benefit Plans as TAX SHELTERS. If a transaction is classified as a tax shelter then the salesperson and your CPA are supposed to tell you to file an 8886 form which highlights tax shelters to the IRS. Think of it as a beacon so that the IRS knows who to come pursue for taxes, penalties, interest and listed transaction charges.
The IRS focus on 419(e) plans came up in a case identified as Curcio v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo 2010-115, which can be found at http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/curcio.TCM.WPD.pdf. The end result was a financial disaster for the company that took the ordinary business deductions for the plan and the individual taxpayers that also took deductions on their personal taxes.
If something goes wrong on one of these plans (as it often does) who does the business owner look to? The insurance company will claim in defense that it simply sold insurance. The agent or the CPA will claim that it was the responsibility of the third party administrator (TPA) to make sure that the plan was solid and lawful. The TPA will claim that the business owner is not the owner of the product and cannot sue because it was in a trust. The business owner is often left facing the IRS on his or her own while paying other professionals to correct the tax situation.
If you are a business person being offered a 419(e) plan as a part of financial and tax planning, then talk to your CPA (so long as he or she is not selling the product) or your trusted attorney to determine if this is a proper product and plan for you and your company.
419 Plans Attacked by IRS
Hg Experts
Legal Experts Directory
By Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC Abusive Tax Shelter, Listed Transaction, Reportable Transaction Expert Witness
Insurance agents and costs attacked. - Enrolled Agents Journal March*April - For years promoters of life insurance companies and agents have tried to find ways of claiming that the premiums paid by business owners were tax deductible. This allowed them to sell policies at a “discount”.
The problem became especially bad a few years ago with all of the outlandish claims about how §§419A(f)(5) and 419A(f)(6) exempted employers from any tax deduction limits. Many other inaccurate statements were made as well, until the IRS finally put a stop to such assertions by issuing regulations and naming such plans as “potentially abusive tax shelters” (or “listed transactions”) that needed to be disclosed and registered. This appeared to put an end to the scourge of such scurrilous promoters, as such plans began to disappear from the landscape.
And what happened to all the providers that were peddling §§419A(f)(5) and (6) life insurance plans a couple of years ago? We recently found the answer: most of them found a new life as promoters of so-called “419(e)” welfare benefit plans.
We recently reviewed several §419(e) plans, and it appears that many of them are nothing more than recycled §419A(f)(5) and §419A(f)(6) plans.
The “Tax Guide” written by one vendor’s attorney is illustrative: he confuses the difference between a “multi-employer trust” (a Taft-Hartley, collectively-bargained plan), a “multiple-employer trust” (a plan with more than one unrelated employer) and a “10-or-more employer trust” (a plan seeking to comply with IRC §419A(f)(6)).
Background: Section 419 of the Internal Revenue Code
Section 419 was added to the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) in 1984 to curb abuses in welfare benefit plan tax deductions. §419(a) does not authorize tax deductions, but provides as follows: “Contributions paid or accrued by an employer to a welfare benefit fund * * * shall not be deductible under this chapter * * *.”. It simply limits the amount that would be deductible under another IRC section to the “qualified cost for the taxable year”. (§419(b))
Section 419(e) of the IRC defines a “welfare benefit fund” as “any fund-- (A) which is part of a plan of an employer, and (B) through which the employer provides welfare benefits to employees or their beneficiaries.” It also defines the term "fund", but excludes from that definition “amounts held by an insurance company pursuant to an insurance contract” under conditions described.
None of the vendors provides an analysis under §419(e) as to whether or not the life insurance policies they promote are to be included or excluded from the definition of a “fund”. In fact, such policies will be included and therefore subject to the limitations of §§419 and 419A.
Errors Commonly Made
Materials from the various plans commonly make several mistakes in their analyses:
1. They claim not to be required to comply with IRC §505 non-discrimination requirements. While it is true that §505 specifically lists “organizations described in paragraph (9) or (20) of section 501(c)”, IRC §4976 imposes a 100% excise tax on any “post-retirement medical benefit or life insurance benefit provided with respect to a key employee” * * * “unless the plan meets the requirements of section 505(b) with respect to such benefit (whether or not such requirements apply to such plan).” (Italics added) Failure to comply with §505(b) means that the plan will never be able to distribute an insurance policy to a key employee without the 100% penalty!
2. Vendors commonly assert that contributions to their plan are tax deductible because they fall within the limitations imposed under IRC §419; however, §419 is simply a limitation on tax deductions. Providers must cite the section of the IRC under which contributions to their plan would be tax-deductible. Many fail to do so. Others claim that the deductions are ordinary and necessary business expense under §162, citing Regs. §1.162-10 in error: there is no mention in that section of life insurance or a death benefit as a welfare benefit.
3. The reason that promoters fail to cite a section of the IRC to support a tax deduction is because, once such section is cited, it becomes apparent that their method of covering only selected key and highly-compensated employees for participation in the plan fails to comply with IRC §414(t) requirements relative to coverage of controlled groups and affiliated service groups.
4. Life insurance premiums could be treated as W-2 wages and deducted under §162 to the extent they were reasonable. Other than that, however, no section of the Internal Revenue Code authorizes tax deductions for a discriminatory life insurance arrangement. IRC §264(a) provides that “[n]o deduction shall be allowed for * * * [p]remiums on any life insurance policy * * * if the taxpayer is directly or indirectly a beneficiary under the policy.” As was made clear in the Neonatology case (Neonatology Associates v. Commissioner, 115 TC 5, 2000), the appropriate treatment of employer-paid life insurance premiums under a putative welfare benefit plan is under §79, which comes with its own nondiscrimination requirements.
5. Some plans claim to impute income for current protection under the PS 58 rules. However, PS58 treatment is available only to qualified retirement plans and split-dollar plans. (Note: none of the 419(e) plans claim to comply with the split-dollar regulations.) Income is imputed under Table I to participants under Group-Term Life Insurance plans that comply with §79. This issue is addressed in footnotes 17 and 18 of the Neonatology case.
6. Several of the plans claim to be exempt from ERISA. They appear to rely upon the ERISA Top-Hat exemption (applicable to deferred compensation plans). However, that only exempts a plan from certain ERISA requirements, not ERISA itself. It is instructive that none of the plans claiming exemption from ERISA has filed the Top-Hat notification with the Dept. of Labor.
7. Some of the plans offer severance benefits as a “welfare benefit”, which approach has never been approved by the IRS. Other plans offer strategies for obtaining a cash benefit by terminating a single-employer trust. The distribution of a cash benefit is a form of deferred compensation, yet none of the plans offering such benefit complies with the IRC §409A requirements applicable to such benefits.
8. Some vendors permit participation by employees who are self-employed, such as sole proprietors, partners or members of an LLC or LLP taxed as a partnership. This issue was also addressed in the Neonatology case where contributions on behalf of such persons were deemed to be dividends or personal payments rather than welfare benefit plan expenses.
[Note: bona fide employees of an LLC or LLP that has elected to be taxed as a corporation may participate in a plan.]
9. Most of the plans fail under §419 itself. §419(c) limits the current tax deduction to the “qualified cost”, which includes the “qualified direct cost” and additions to a “qualified asset account” (subject to the limits of §419A(b)). Under Regs. §1.419-1T, A-6, “the "qualified direct cost" of a welfare benefit fund for any taxable year * * * is the aggregate amount which would have been allowable as a deduction to the employer for benefits provided by such fund during such year (including insurance coverage for such year) * * *.” “Thus, for example, if a calendar year welfare benefit fund pays an insurance company * * * the full premium for coverage of its current employees under a term * * * insurance policy, * * * only the portion of the premium for coverage during [the year] will be treated as a "qualified direct cost" * * *.” (Italics added)
Most vendors pretend that the whole or universal life insurance premium is an appropriate measurement of cost for Key Employees, and those plans that cover rank and file employees use current term insurance premiums as the appropriate measure of cost for such employees. This approach doesn’t meet any set of nondiscrimination requirements applicable to such plans.
10. Some vendors claim that they are justified in providing a larger deduction than the amount required to pay term insurance costs for the current tax year, but, as cited above, the only justification under §419(e) itself is as additions to a qualified asset account and is subject to the limitations imposed by §419A. In addition, §419A adds several additional limitations to plans and contributions, including requirements that:
A. contributions be limited to a safe harbor amount or be certified by an actuary as to the amount of such contributions (§419A(c)(5));
B. actuarial assumptions be “reasonable in the aggregate” and that the actuary use a level annual cost method (§419A(c)(2));
C. benefits with respect to a Key Employee be segregated and their benefits can only be paid from such account (§419A(d));
D. the rules of subsections (b), (c), (m), and (n) of IRC section 414 shall apply to such plans (§419A(h)).
E. the plan comply with §505(b) nondiscrimination requirements (§419A(e)).
Circular 230 Issues
Circular 230 imposes many requirements on tax professionals with respect to tax shelter transactions. A tax practitioner can get into trouble in the promotion of such plans, in advising clients with respect to such transactions and in preparing tax returns. IRC §§6707 and 6707A add a new concept of “reportable transactions” and impose substantial penalties for failure to disclose participation in certain reportable transactions (including all listed transactions).
This is a veritable minefield for tax practitioners to negotiate carefully or avoid altogether. The advisor must exercise great caution and due diligence when presented with any potential contemplated tax reduction or avoidance transaction. Failure to disclose could subject taxpayers and their tax advisors to potentially Draconian penalties.
Summary
Key points of this article include:
• Practitioners need to be able to differentiate between a legitimate §419(e) plan and one that is legally inadequate when their client approaches them with respect to such plan or has the practitioner to prepare his return;
• Many plans incorrectly purport to be exempt from compliance with ERISA, IRC §§414, 505, 79, etc.
• Tax deductions must be claimed under an authorizing section of the IRC and are limited to the qualified direct cost and additions to a qualified asset account as certified by the plan’s actuary.
Conclusion
Irresponsible vendors such as most of the promoters who previously promoted IRC §419A(f)(6) plans were responsible for the IRS’s issuing restrictive regulations under that Section. Now many of the same individuals have elected simply to claim that a life insurance plan is a welfare benefit plan and therefore tax-deductible because it uses a single-employer trust rather than a "10-or-more-employer plan".
This is an open invitation to the IRS to issue new onerous Regulations and more indictments and legal actions against the unscrupulous promoters who feed off of the naivety of clients and the greed of life insurance companies who encourage and endorse (and even own) such plans.
The last line of defense of the innocent client is the accountant or attorney who is asked by a client to review such arrangement or prepare a tax return claiming a deduction for contributions to such a plan. Under these circumstances accountants and attorneys should be careful not to rely upon the materials made available by the plan vendors, but should review any proposed plan thoroughly, or refer the review to a specialist.
A Rose By Any Other Name, or Whatever Happened to All Those 419A(f)(6) Providers? By Ronald H. Snyder, JD, MAAA, EA & Lance Wallach, CLU, ChFC, CIMC.
Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, abusive tax shelters, financial, international tax, and estate planning. He writes about 412(i), 419, Section79, FBAR and captive insurance plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually, writes for more than 50 publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered” and others. 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.
And what happened to all the providers that were peddling §§419A(f)(5) and (6) life insurance plans a couple of years ago? We recently found the answer: most of them found a new life as promoters of so-called “419(e)” welfare benefit plans.
We recently reviewed several §419(e) plans, and it appears that many of them are nothing more than recycled §419A(f)(5) and §419A(f)(6) plans.
The “Tax Guide” written by one vendor’s attorney is illustrative: he confuses the difference between a “multi-employer trust” (a Taft-Hartley, collectively-bargained plan), a “multiple-employer trust” (a plan with more than one unrelated employer) and a “10-or-more employer trust” (a plan seeking to comply with IRC §419A(f)(6)).
Background: Section 419 of the Internal Revenue Code
Section 419 was added to the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) in 1984 to curb abuses in welfare benefit plan tax deductions. §419(a) does not authorize tax deductions, but provides as follows: “Contributions paid or accrued by an employer to a welfare benefit fund * * * shall not be deductible under this chapter * * *.”. It simply limits the amount that would be deductible under another IRC section to the “qualified cost for the taxable year”. (§419(b))
Section 419(e) of the IRC defines a “welfare benefit fund” as “any fund-- (A) which is part of a plan of an employer, and (B) through which the employer provides welfare benefits to employees or their beneficiaries.” It also defines the term "fund", but excludes from that definition “amounts held by an insurance company pursuant to an insurance contract” under conditions described.
None of the vendors provides an analysis under §419(e) as to whether or not the life insurance policies they promote are to be included or excluded from the definition of a “fund”. In fact, such policies will be included and therefore subject to the limitations of §§419 and 419A.
Errors Commonly Made
Materials from the various plans commonly make several mistakes in their analyses:
1. They claim not to be required to comply with IRC §505 non-discrimination requirements. While it is true that §505 specifically lists “organizations described in paragraph (9) or (20) of section 501(c)”, IRC §4976 imposes a 100% excise tax on any “post-retirement medical benefit or life insurance benefit provided with respect to a key employee” * * * “unless the plan meets the requirements of section 505(b) with respect to such benefit (whether or not such requirements apply to such plan).” (Italics added) Failure to comply with §505(b) means that the plan will never be able to distribute an insurance policy to a key employee without the 100% penalty!
2. Vendors commonly assert that contributions to their plan are tax deductible because they fall within the limitations imposed under IRC §419; however, §419 is simply a limitation on tax deductions. Providers must cite the section of the IRC under which contributions to their plan would be tax-deductible. Many fail to do so. Others claim that the deductions are ordinary and necessary business expense under §162, citing Regs. §1.162-10 in error: there is no mention in that section of life insurance or a death benefit as a welfare benefit.
3. The reason that promoters fail to cite a section of the IRC to support a tax deduction is because, once such section is cited, it becomes apparent that their method of covering only selected key and highly-compensated employees for participation in the plan fails to comply with IRC §414(t) requirements relative to coverage of controlled groups and affiliated service groups.
4. Life insurance premiums could be treated as W-2 wages and deducted under §162 to the extent they were reasonable. Other than that, however, no section of the Internal Revenue Code authorizes tax deductions for a discriminatory life insurance arrangement. IRC §264(a) provides that “[n]o deduction shall be allowed for * * * [p]remiums on any life insurance policy * * * if the taxpayer is directly or indirectly a beneficiary under the policy.” As was made clear in the Neonatology case (Neonatology Associates v. Commissioner, 115 TC 5, 2000), the appropriate treatment of employer-paid life insurance premiums under a putative welfare benefit plan is under §79, which comes with its own nondiscrimination requirements.
5. Some plans claim to impute income for current protection under the PS 58 rules. However, PS58 treatment is available only to qualified retirement plans and split-dollar plans. (Note: none of the 419(e) plans claim to comply with the split-dollar regulations.) Income is imputed under Table I to participants under Group-Term Life Insurance plans that comply with §79. This issue is addressed in footnotes 17 and 18 of the Neonatology case.
6. Several of the plans claim to be exempt from ERISA. They appear to rely upon the ERISA Top-Hat exemption (applicable to deferred compensation plans). However, that only exempts a plan from certain ERISA requirements, not ERISA itself. It is instructive that none of the plans claiming exemption from ERISA has filed the Top-Hat notification with the Dept. of Labor.
7. Some of the plans offer severance benefits as a “welfare benefit”, which approach has never been approved by the IRS. Other plans offer strategies for obtaining a cash benefit by terminating a single-employer trust. The distribution of a cash benefit is a form of deferred compensation, yet none of the plans offering such benefit complies with the IRC §409A requirements applicable to such benefits.
8. Some vendors permit participation by employees who are self-employed, such as sole proprietors, partners or members of an LLC or LLP taxed as a partnership. This issue was also addressed in the Neonatology case where contributions on behalf of such persons were deemed to be dividends or personal payments rather than welfare benefit plan expenses.
[Note: bona fide employees of an LLC or LLP that has elected to be taxed as a corporation may participate in a plan.]
9. Most of the plans fail under §419 itself. §419(c) limits the current tax deduction to the “qualified cost”, which includes the “qualified direct cost” and additions to a “qualified asset account” (subject to the limits of §419A(b)). Under Regs. §1.419-1T, A-6, “the "qualified direct cost" of a welfare benefit fund for any taxable year * * * is the aggregate amount which would have been allowable as a deduction to the employer for benefits provided by such fund during such year (including insurance coverage for such year) * * *.” “Thus, for example, if a calendar year welfare benefit fund pays an insurance company * * * the full premium for coverage of its current employees under a term * * * insurance policy, * * * only the portion of the premium for coverage during [the year] will be treated as a "qualified direct cost" * * *.” (Italics added)
Most vendors pretend that the whole or universal life insurance premium is an appropriate measurement of cost for Key Employees, and those plans that cover rank and file employees use current term insurance premiums as the appropriate measure of cost for such employees. This approach doesn’t meet any set of nondiscrimination requirements applicable to such plans.
10. Some vendors claim that they are justified in providing a larger deduction than the amount required to pay term insurance costs for the current tax year, but, as cited above, the only justification under §419(e) itself is as additions to a qualified asset account and is subject to the limitations imposed by §419A. In addition, §419A adds several additional limitations to plans and contributions, including requirements that:
A. contributions be limited to a safe harbor amount or be certified by an actuary as to the amount of such contributions (§419A(c)(5));
B. actuarial assumptions be “reasonable in the aggregate” and that the actuary use a level annual cost method (§419A(c)(2));
C. benefits with respect to a Key Employee be segregated and their benefits can only be paid from such account (§419A(d));
D. the rules of subsections (b), (c), (m), and (n) of IRC section 414 shall apply to such plans (§419A(h)).
E. the plan comply with §505(b) nondiscrimination requirements (§419A(e)).
Circular 230 Issues
Circular 230 imposes many requirements on tax professionals with respect to tax shelter transactions. A tax practitioner can get into trouble in the promotion of such plans, in advising clients with respect to such transactions and in preparing tax returns. IRC §§6707 and 6707A add a new concept of “reportable transactions” and impose substantial penalties for failure to disclose participation in certain reportable transactions (including all listed transactions).
This is a veritable minefield for tax practitioners to negotiate carefully or avoid altogether. The advisor must exercise great caution and due diligence when presented with any potential contemplated tax reduction or avoidance transaction. Failure to disclose could subject taxpayers and their tax advisors to potentially Draconian penalties.
Summary
Key points of this article include:
• Practitioners need to be able to differentiate between a legitimate §419(e) plan and one that is legally inadequate when their client approaches them with respect to such plan or has the practitioner to prepare his return;
• Many plans incorrectly purport to be exempt from compliance with ERISA, IRC §§414, 505, 79, etc.
• Tax deductions must be claimed under an authorizing section of the IRC and are limited to the qualified direct cost and additions to a qualified asset account as certified by the plan’s actuary.
Conclusion
Irresponsible vendors such as most of the promoters who previously promoted IRC §419A(f)(6) plans were responsible for the IRS’s issuing restrictive regulations under that Section. Now many of the same individuals have elected simply to claim that a life insurance plan is a welfare benefit plan and therefore tax-deductible because it uses a single-employer trust rather than a "10-or-more-employer plan".
This is an open invitation to the IRS to issue new onerous Regulations and more indictments and legal actions against the unscrupulous promoters who feed off of the naivety of clients and the greed of life insurance companies who encourage and endorse (and even own) such plans.
The last line of defense of the innocent client is the accountant or attorney who is asked by a client to review such arrangement or prepare a tax return claiming a deduction for contributions to such a plan. Under these circumstances accountants and attorneys should be careful not to rely upon the materials made available by the plan vendors, but should review any proposed plan thoroughly, or refer the review to a specialist.
A Rose By Any Other Name, or Whatever Happened to All Those 419A(f)(6) Providers? By Ronald H. Snyder, JD, MAAA, EA & Lance Wallach, CLU, ChFC, CIMC.
Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, abusive tax shelters, financial, international tax, and estate planning. He writes about 412(i), 419, Section79, FBAR and captive insurance plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually, writes for more than 50 publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered” and others. 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.
While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
Abusive Tax Shelters: Section 79 & 419 Plans Litigation: Section 79 Plan...
Abusive Tax Shelters: Section 79 & 419 Plans Litigation: Section 79 Plan...: Section 79 & 419 Plans Litigation: Section 79 Plans Most people have neve... : Section 79 Plans Most peopl...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)