Showing posts with label section 6707A. Show all posts
Showing posts with label section 6707A. Show all posts
6707A Penalties & 419 Plans Litigation: Audit Lottery, Captive insurance, 419, 412i, Secti...
6707A Penalties & 419 Plans Litigation: Audit Lottery, Captive insurance, 419, 412i, Secti...: The audit lottery is a gambit in which taxpayers claim tax benefits to which they are not entitled in the hope that the IRS will never audit...
If you purchased a 412(i) defined-benefit plan in the past as a tax deduction, you could be in a world of trouble.
Why 412(i) Plans Are being audited by the IRS and insurance agents are
being sued
by Lance Wallach
The older 412i plans were abusive tax shelter. Below is one of the abusive. There were many others but this is one example. If a physician- investor puts $250,000 into a 412(i) plan every year for 5 years as a tax-deductible expense, they'll eventually fund $1.25 million over that period. The cash surrender value (CSV) of the policy at the end of the 5th year will be $250,000. The physician-investor will then purchase the life policy from the 412(i) plan for that $250,000 CSV and think they got a great deal since the cash account value (CAV) of the policy is really $1.1 million. After waiting for surrender charges in the life policy to evaporate, they will take income tax–free loans from the policy.
Buying a policy with a low CSV and a high CAV seems like a steal of a deal since the investor only pays 20% of the value of the asset when they purchase it out of the 412(i)plan. This was supposed to save the investor 80% of the tax on that money. If this sounds too good to be true, it didn't to many physician-investors who allowed insurance agents to sell them 412(i) plans. After looking at the plan, the IRS eventually shut it down. Ironically, the beginning of the end of 412(i) plans started on Friday, Feb. 13, 2004.
IRS Revenue Procedure 2004-16 basically states that the fair market value of a life insurance policy that comes out of a 412(i) defined-benefit plan should be based on the premiums paid and not on the CSV or internal reserve value of the insurance company. How will this affect a recently implemented 412(i) plan? The investor will not be able to purchase the life policy from the 412(i) plan for the CSV, which is 80% lower than the premiums paid. Instead, they will have to use the premiums paid as the value (minus minor term costs), which basically destroys the tax-favorable nature of a 412(i) plan.
In addition, Revenue Procedure 2004-20 states that the IRS doesn't want excess life insurance purchased inside a 412(i) plan. In this case, the IRS is referring to insurance contracts where the death benefits exceed the death benefits provided to the employee's beneficiaries under the terms of the plan, whereby the balance of the proceeds revert to the plan as a return on investment. IRS Revenue Procedure 2004-20 also states that if excess death benefits are purchased, those deductions will be disallowed in the current tax year and will be spread out, if allowable, over future years. Furthermore, any nondeductible premiums will be subject to a 10% excise tax.
Finally, Revenue Ruling 2004-21 says that a qualified plan cannot discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees by buying life policies for non-highly compensated employees that aren't inherently equal. Note: The word inherently seems to indicate that the IRS has no idea how to define certain standards or rules in their attempt to give final guidance to taxpayers. As is the case with a lot of revenue rulings and regulations on advanced tax topics, the IRS doesn't always know how to give guidance on what should be done. Instead, it tries to muddy the waters and scare investors so that certain tax plans aren't used due to uncertainty about the law.
In Oct. 2002 I spoke at the annual National Society of Pension Actuaries convention about plans. The IRS chief actuary also warned about 412i plans. This was not the first warning about these plans. Most in the industry knew that IRS would be coming after the participants in these plans long before that convention. In spite of that insurance company's promoters and agents continued to sell the scams to unsuspecting business owners. The insurance company's had the purchasers sign fraudulent disclaimers saying that they would get their own tax advice. The insurance companies had a duty to disclose the fact that there were potential IRS problems with these 412i scams, but they did not, thereby making the disclaimers fraudulent. The reason for the disclaims was to try to protect the insurance company's from potential lawsuits when the buyers were audited by the IRS.
We have helped may fight the IRS audits. As an expert witness my side has never lost a case. Most lawsuits however against insurance company's and agents are lost. The inexperienced attorneys lose based on the disclaimers that the clients signed. The attorneys fail to prove that those disclaimers were fraudulent.
by Lance Wallach
The older 412i plans were abusive tax shelter. Below is one of the abusive. There were many others but this is one example. If a physician- investor puts $250,000 into a 412(i) plan every year for 5 years as a tax-deductible expense, they'll eventually fund $1.25 million over that period. The cash surrender value (CSV) of the policy at the end of the 5th year will be $250,000. The physician-investor will then purchase the life policy from the 412(i) plan for that $250,000 CSV and think they got a great deal since the cash account value (CAV) of the policy is really $1.1 million. After waiting for surrender charges in the life policy to evaporate, they will take income tax–free loans from the policy.
Buying a policy with a low CSV and a high CAV seems like a steal of a deal since the investor only pays 20% of the value of the asset when they purchase it out of the 412(i)plan. This was supposed to save the investor 80% of the tax on that money. If this sounds too good to be true, it didn't to many physician-investors who allowed insurance agents to sell them 412(i) plans. After looking at the plan, the IRS eventually shut it down. Ironically, the beginning of the end of 412(i) plans started on Friday, Feb. 13, 2004.
IRS Revenue Procedure 2004-16 basically states that the fair market value of a life insurance policy that comes out of a 412(i) defined-benefit plan should be based on the premiums paid and not on the CSV or internal reserve value of the insurance company. How will this affect a recently implemented 412(i) plan? The investor will not be able to purchase the life policy from the 412(i) plan for the CSV, which is 80% lower than the premiums paid. Instead, they will have to use the premiums paid as the value (minus minor term costs), which basically destroys the tax-favorable nature of a 412(i) plan.
In addition, Revenue Procedure 2004-20 states that the IRS doesn't want excess life insurance purchased inside a 412(i) plan. In this case, the IRS is referring to insurance contracts where the death benefits exceed the death benefits provided to the employee's beneficiaries under the terms of the plan, whereby the balance of the proceeds revert to the plan as a return on investment. IRS Revenue Procedure 2004-20 also states that if excess death benefits are purchased, those deductions will be disallowed in the current tax year and will be spread out, if allowable, over future years. Furthermore, any nondeductible premiums will be subject to a 10% excise tax.
Finally, Revenue Ruling 2004-21 says that a qualified plan cannot discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees by buying life policies for non-highly compensated employees that aren't inherently equal. Note: The word inherently seems to indicate that the IRS has no idea how to define certain standards or rules in their attempt to give final guidance to taxpayers. As is the case with a lot of revenue rulings and regulations on advanced tax topics, the IRS doesn't always know how to give guidance on what should be done. Instead, it tries to muddy the waters and scare investors so that certain tax plans aren't used due to uncertainty about the law.
In Oct. 2002 I spoke at the annual National Society of Pension Actuaries convention about plans. The IRS chief actuary also warned about 412i plans. This was not the first warning about these plans. Most in the industry knew that IRS would be coming after the participants in these plans long before that convention. In spite of that insurance company's promoters and agents continued to sell the scams to unsuspecting business owners. The insurance company's had the purchasers sign fraudulent disclaimers saying that they would get their own tax advice. The insurance companies had a duty to disclose the fact that there were potential IRS problems with these 412i scams, but they did not, thereby making the disclaimers fraudulent. The reason for the disclaims was to try to protect the insurance company's from potential lawsuits when the buyers were audited by the IRS.
We have helped may fight the IRS audits. As an expert witness my side has never lost a case. Most lawsuits however against insurance company's and agents are lost. The inexperienced attorneys lose based on the disclaimers that the clients signed. The attorneys fail to prove that those disclaimers were fraudulent.
Another issue was the failure of the participants in the
412i scams failure to properly file under 6707a to avoid horrendous fines for
being in listed transactions and not telling the IRS. You can still avoid the fine by
filing properly.
412i Plans attacked by IRS, lawsuits
Published by HG Experts.com
April 24, 2012 By Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC
IRS has been attacking abusive 412i plans for years.
Business men have been suing the insurance agents who sold the plans.
The IRS has attacked 412i, 419 plans for years. As a result
promoters are now promoting section 79 and captive insurance plans. They are
just starting to be attacked by the IRS.
A 412(i) plan differs from other defined benefit pension plans in that it must be funded exclusively by the purchase of individual life insurance products.
In the late 1990's brokers and promoters such as Kenneth Hartstein, Dennis Cunning, and others began selling 412(i) plans designed with policies created and sold through agents of Pacific Life, Hartford, Indianapolis life, and American General. These plans were sold or administered through companies such as Economic Concepts, Inc., Pension Professionals of America, Pension Strategies, L.L.C. and others.
These plans were very lucrative for the brokers, promoters, agents, and insurance companies. In addition to the costs associated with adminstering the plans, the policies of insurance had high commissions. If they were cancelled within a few years of purchace the had very little cash value.
These plans were often described as Pendulum Plans, or other similar names. In theory, the plans would work as follows. After the plan was set up, the plan would purchase a life insurance policy insuring the life of an individual. The plan would have very little (and high surrender charges) for 5 or more years. The Corporation would pay the premium on the policy and take a deduction for the entire amount. In year 5, when the policy had little or no cash value, the plan would transfer the policy to the individual, who would take it at a greatly reduced basis. Subsequently, the policy would spring up with cash value, thus the name springing cash value policy. The insured would have cash value which he could withdraw almost tax free .
Attorney Richard Smith at the law firm of Bryan Cave issued tax opinion letters opinion which stated that the design of many of the plans met the requirements of section 412(i) of the tax code.
In the early 2000s, IRS officials began questioning the insurance representatives, brokers, promoters, and their attorneys and giving speeches at benefits conferences wherein they took the position that these plans were in violation of both the letter and spirit of the Internal Revenue Code. When I spoke at the annual national convention of the American Society of Pension Actuarys in 2002 I heard such a speech given by Jim Holland, IRS chief actuary.
In February 2004, the IRS issued guidance on 412(i) and began the process of making plans "listed transactions." Taxpayers involved in listed transaction are required to report them to the IRS. These transactions are to be reported using a form 8886. The failure to file a form 8886 subjects individual to penalties of very large amounts, and failure of insurance agents, accountants and others to file 8918 results in a $100,000 fine.
In late 2005, the IRS began obtaining information from advisors and actively auditing plans and more recently, levying section 6707 penalties. First the IRS would audit the business owner and deny the deduction. The business owner would also owe interest and penalities. Then another unit of the IRS would assess large additional fines for failure to properly file, or failure to file 8886 forms. The directions for these forms is very complicated, expecially if the forms are filed after the fact. Many business owners still got fined even if they filed the forms. If the forms were not filled in exactly right a fine was still assessed.
The IRS's response to these 412(i) plans was predictable. They made it clear that the IRS would not be gentle and even indicated that potential criminal liability existed. The IRS made speeches and people like me wrote articles about the problems.
Insurance company representatives attended these conferences and heard the IRS warnings. Many of them ignored them.
Neither the brokers, promoters, or Insurance companies relayed this information to their clients and insureds at this time. When I would speak about the problems of 412i and 419 plans I would be attacked by promoters and salesmen. When I testified againt a springing cash value policy in my first court case I was challenged by the defendants attorney as not being an expert. The judge allowed the jury to hear whether I was indeed an expert. The result was a huge loss for the defense.
On February 13, 2004, the IRS issued a press release, two revenue rulings, and proposed regulations to shut down abusive transactions involving specifically designed life insurance policies in retirement plans, section 412(i) plans and 419 plans etc.
In October of 2005, the IRS invited those who sponsored 412(i) plans that were treated as listed transactions to enter a settlement program in which the taxpayer would recind the plan and pay the income taxes it would have paid had it not engaged in the plan, plus interest and reduced penalties.
MDL stands for Multidistrict Litigation. It was created by Congress in 1968 – 28 U.S.C. §1407.
The act created an MDL Panel of judges to determine whether civil actions pending in different federal districts involve one or more common questions of fact such that the actions should be transferred to one federal district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. In theory, the purposes of this transfer or “centralization” process are to avoid duplication of discovery, to prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and to conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. Transferred actions which are not resolved in the MDL are remanded to their originating court or district by the Panel for trial. Lots of people who were audited sued the insurance companys, agents, accountants and others.
Then, Pacific Life, Hartford Life & Annuity moved for summary judgment in the MDL. The court granted the motions in part, and denied the motions in part. Specifically, the court dealt with the issue of the disclaimers contained within the policies and signed by various policyholders.
Applying California law in evauating the disclosures and disclaimers, the Court ruled that the California Plaintiffs failed to raise issues of material fact that they reasonably relied on representations by Hartford and Pacific Life regarding the tax and legal issues related to their 412(i) plans.
Conversely, the court ruled that pursuant to Wisconsin law, the disclaimers were unenforceable. The court came to similar conclusion when applying Texas law to the Plaintiffs claims.
Plaintiffs have been more successful in suing 419 plan promoters, insurance companys, accountants ,etc. I have been an expert witness and my side has never lost a case.
I have been speaking with my IRS contacts about the newest abusive tax shelter trends, captives and section 79 plans. They have started auditing participants in these plans. The IRS has not yet decided if the plans are listed, abusive or similar to. I think that captive insurance companies and section 79 plans may become the next 412 and 419 problem for unsuspecting companies. Designed under IRS Code 831(b), these captive insurance companies are designed to insure the risks of an individual business. In theory and if properly designed, the premiums are deducted when paid to a related company, and depending on claims, profits can be paid out as dividends and when liquidated, the proceeds are taxed at capital gains rates.
The problem with Captives is that they are expensive to set up and operate. Captives must be opetate as a true risk assuming entity, not simply a tax avoidance vehicle. Some variations are to rent a cell captives that can work for a lot less money.
The IRS is looking into the sale of life insurance to fund Captives. They are also looking at most section 79 plans. This sounds very familiar.
A 412(i) plan differs from other defined benefit pension plans in that it must be funded exclusively by the purchase of individual life insurance products.
In the late 1990's brokers and promoters such as Kenneth Hartstein, Dennis Cunning, and others began selling 412(i) plans designed with policies created and sold through agents of Pacific Life, Hartford, Indianapolis life, and American General. These plans were sold or administered through companies such as Economic Concepts, Inc., Pension Professionals of America, Pension Strategies, L.L.C. and others.
These plans were very lucrative for the brokers, promoters, agents, and insurance companies. In addition to the costs associated with adminstering the plans, the policies of insurance had high commissions. If they were cancelled within a few years of purchace the had very little cash value.
These plans were often described as Pendulum Plans, or other similar names. In theory, the plans would work as follows. After the plan was set up, the plan would purchase a life insurance policy insuring the life of an individual. The plan would have very little (and high surrender charges) for 5 or more years. The Corporation would pay the premium on the policy and take a deduction for the entire amount. In year 5, when the policy had little or no cash value, the plan would transfer the policy to the individual, who would take it at a greatly reduced basis. Subsequently, the policy would spring up with cash value, thus the name springing cash value policy. The insured would have cash value which he could withdraw almost tax free .
Attorney Richard Smith at the law firm of Bryan Cave issued tax opinion letters opinion which stated that the design of many of the plans met the requirements of section 412(i) of the tax code.
In the early 2000s, IRS officials began questioning the insurance representatives, brokers, promoters, and their attorneys and giving speeches at benefits conferences wherein they took the position that these plans were in violation of both the letter and spirit of the Internal Revenue Code. When I spoke at the annual national convention of the American Society of Pension Actuarys in 2002 I heard such a speech given by Jim Holland, IRS chief actuary.
In February 2004, the IRS issued guidance on 412(i) and began the process of making plans "listed transactions." Taxpayers involved in listed transaction are required to report them to the IRS. These transactions are to be reported using a form 8886. The failure to file a form 8886 subjects individual to penalties of very large amounts, and failure of insurance agents, accountants and others to file 8918 results in a $100,000 fine.
In late 2005, the IRS began obtaining information from advisors and actively auditing plans and more recently, levying section 6707 penalties. First the IRS would audit the business owner and deny the deduction. The business owner would also owe interest and penalities. Then another unit of the IRS would assess large additional fines for failure to properly file, or failure to file 8886 forms. The directions for these forms is very complicated, expecially if the forms are filed after the fact. Many business owners still got fined even if they filed the forms. If the forms were not filled in exactly right a fine was still assessed.
The IRS's response to these 412(i) plans was predictable. They made it clear that the IRS would not be gentle and even indicated that potential criminal liability existed. The IRS made speeches and people like me wrote articles about the problems.
Insurance company representatives attended these conferences and heard the IRS warnings. Many of them ignored them.
Neither the brokers, promoters, or Insurance companies relayed this information to their clients and insureds at this time. When I would speak about the problems of 412i and 419 plans I would be attacked by promoters and salesmen. When I testified againt a springing cash value policy in my first court case I was challenged by the defendants attorney as not being an expert. The judge allowed the jury to hear whether I was indeed an expert. The result was a huge loss for the defense.
On February 13, 2004, the IRS issued a press release, two revenue rulings, and proposed regulations to shut down abusive transactions involving specifically designed life insurance policies in retirement plans, section 412(i) plans and 419 plans etc.
In October of 2005, the IRS invited those who sponsored 412(i) plans that were treated as listed transactions to enter a settlement program in which the taxpayer would recind the plan and pay the income taxes it would have paid had it not engaged in the plan, plus interest and reduced penalties.
MDL stands for Multidistrict Litigation. It was created by Congress in 1968 – 28 U.S.C. §1407.
The act created an MDL Panel of judges to determine whether civil actions pending in different federal districts involve one or more common questions of fact such that the actions should be transferred to one federal district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. In theory, the purposes of this transfer or “centralization” process are to avoid duplication of discovery, to prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and to conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. Transferred actions which are not resolved in the MDL are remanded to their originating court or district by the Panel for trial. Lots of people who were audited sued the insurance companys, agents, accountants and others.
Then, Pacific Life, Hartford Life & Annuity moved for summary judgment in the MDL. The court granted the motions in part, and denied the motions in part. Specifically, the court dealt with the issue of the disclaimers contained within the policies and signed by various policyholders.
Applying California law in evauating the disclosures and disclaimers, the Court ruled that the California Plaintiffs failed to raise issues of material fact that they reasonably relied on representations by Hartford and Pacific Life regarding the tax and legal issues related to their 412(i) plans.
Conversely, the court ruled that pursuant to Wisconsin law, the disclaimers were unenforceable. The court came to similar conclusion when applying Texas law to the Plaintiffs claims.
Plaintiffs have been more successful in suing 419 plan promoters, insurance companys, accountants ,etc. I have been an expert witness and my side has never lost a case.
I have been speaking with my IRS contacts about the newest abusive tax shelter trends, captives and section 79 plans. They have started auditing participants in these plans. The IRS has not yet decided if the plans are listed, abusive or similar to. I think that captive insurance companies and section 79 plans may become the next 412 and 419 problem for unsuspecting companies. Designed under IRS Code 831(b), these captive insurance companies are designed to insure the risks of an individual business. In theory and if properly designed, the premiums are deducted when paid to a related company, and depending on claims, profits can be paid out as dividends and when liquidated, the proceeds are taxed at capital gains rates.
The problem with Captives is that they are expensive to set up and operate. Captives must be opetate as a true risk assuming entity, not simply a tax avoidance vehicle. Some variations are to rent a cell captives that can work for a lot less money.
The IRS is looking into the sale of life insurance to fund Captives. They are also looking at most section 79 plans. This sounds very familiar.
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.
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
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)