Showing posts with label 419 Welfare Benefit Plan Audits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 419 Welfare Benefit Plan Audits. Show all posts

Investment News - Lance Wallach - 412i and 419 plan litigatation

       Investment News
    Five-year-old change in tax has left some small businesses and certain benefit plans subject to IRS fines; the advisors who sold these plans may pay the price.

    Financial advisors who have sold certain types of retirement and other benefit plans to small businesses might soon be facing a wave of lawsuits — unless Congress decides to take action soon.

    For years, advisors and insurance brokers have sold the 412(i) plan, a type of defined-benefit pension plan, and the 419 plan, a health and welfare plan, to small businesses as a way of providing such benefits to their employees, while also receiving a tax break.

    However, in 2004, Congress changed the law to require that companies file with the Internal Revenue Service if they had these plans in place. The law change was intended to address tax shelters, particularly those set up by large companies.

    Many companies and financial advisors didn't realize that this was a cause for concern, however, and now employers are receiving a great deal of scrutiny from the federal government, according to experts.

    The IRS has been aggressive in auditing these plans. The fines for failing to notify the agency about them are $200,000 per business per year the plan has been in place and $100,000 per individual.

    So advisors who sold these plans to small businesses are now slowly starting to become the target of litigation from employers who are subject to these fines.

    “There is a slew of litigation already against advisors that sold these plans,” said Lance Wallach, an expert on 412(i) and 419 plans. “I get calls from lawyers every week asking me to be an expert witness on these cases.”  

    Mr. Wallach declined to cite any specific suits. But one advisor who has been selling 412(i) plans for years said his firm is already facing six lawsuits over the sale of such plans and has another two pending. “My legal and accounting bills last year were $864,000,” said the advisor, who asked not to be identified. “And if this doesn't get fixed, everyone and their uncle will sue us.”

    Currently, the IRS has instituted a moratorium on collecting these fines until the end of the year in the hope that Congress will address the issue.

    In a Sept. 24 letter to Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., Charles Boustany Jr., R-La., and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, IRS Commissioner Douglas H. Shulman wrote: “I understand that Congress is still considering this issue and that a bipartisan, bicameral bill may be in the works … To give Congress time to address the issue, I am writing to extend the suspension of collection enforcement action through Dec. 31.”

    But with so much of Congress' attention on health care reform at the moment, experts are worried that the issue may go unresolved indefinitely.

    If Congress doesn't amend the statute, and clients find themselves having to pay these fines, they will absolutely go after the advisors that sold these plans to them.
Investment News - Lance Wallach - 412i and 419 plan litigatation

Amazon.com: IRS Secrets You Should Know eBook: Lance Wallach: Books

Lance Wallach

National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, Wallach is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, financial and estate planning, and abusive tax shelters.

He is also a featured writer and has been interviewed on television and financial talk shows including NBC, National Pubic Radio's All Things Considered and others,Lance authored 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 Trap.
Testimonials...
"Mr. Wallach, thanks so much for taking the

time to talk to me ..today about VEBAs.

Any information you can send me would be

helpful. Hopefully, we can work together in

the future as interest in VEBAs increase."
Corman G. Franklin

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy

U.S. Department of Labor






Protect your clients – and yourself – from all kinds of financial chicanery and stupidity with this vital new book
It doesn't matter if a financial error was made because of malice or ignorance – the end result is that you lose money. Luckily, you don't have to sit idly and take it. If you have Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams, you can identify and avoid the dysfunctional sectors of the financial industry, steer clear of the fallout from the Madoff Era, and guide your clients to real, healthy, sustainable returns. This powerful book
  • Pinpoints dysfunctional sectors within the financial industry and offers advice against frauds and scammers
  • Shows how a team approach to asset management can ward off financial predators
  • Offers practical strategies and tools to combat client risk for Risk and Asset Management
Offering insightful information to protect your clients from all sorts of frauds and incompetence, this essential guide equips you with tips and techniques to spot the red flags of fraud and prevent it before it starts.








IRS Secrets You Should Know



Including



Tax, Insurance, and Cost Reduction Strategies for Small Business



Just one of these ideas from the book will save you thousands:



IRS red flags and how to audit proof your tax return

Why your retirement plan is an audit target: how to upgrade it

The only way to deduct estate and business succession plan costs

Turn your life insurance into a tax deduction

Reduce health insurance, workers’ comp and other insurance costs

Discover the only deductible benefit plan where money comes out tax free, even before retirement

Protect assets from creditors while obtaining a tax deduction

Why the IRS has turned your accountant into a tax collector, and what to do about this

Seven best new tax reduction ideas

Use a captive insurance company to reduce taxes and costs



And much more!!!



Books can be purchased here

Amazon.com: Lance Wallach: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle

IRS Audits 419, 412i, Captive Insurance Plans With Life Insurance, and Section 79 Scams

IRS Audits 419, 412i, Captive Insurance Plans With Life Insurance, and Section 79 Scams
By Lance Wallach                                                                                          June 2011


The IRS started auditing 419 plans in the ‘90s, and then continued going after 412i and other plans that they considered abusive, listed, or reportable transactions, or substantially similar to such transactions.

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

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

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

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

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

The 419 plan advertised that enrollees should expect to obtain the same type of tax benefits as listed in the transaction described in Notice 95-34. The benefits of enrollment listed in its advertising packet included:
Virtually unlimited deductions for the employer;
Contributions could vary from year to year;
Benefits could be provided to one or more key executives on a selective basis;
No need to provide benefits to rank-and-file employees;
Contributions to the plan were not limited by qualified plan rules and would not interfere with pension, profit sharing or 401(k) plans;
Funds inside the plan would accumulate tax-free;
Beneficiaries could receive death proceeds free of both income tax and estate tax;
The program could be arranged for tax-free distribution at a later date;
Funds in the plan were secure from the hands of creditors.
The Court said that the 419 Plan was factually similar to the plans described in Notice 95-34 at all relevant times. In rendering its decision the court heavily cited Curcio, in which the court also ruled in favor of the IRS. As noted in Curcio, the insurance policies, overwhelmingly variable or universal life policies, required large contributions relative to the cost of the amount of term insurance that would be required to provide the death benefits under the arrangement. The 419 Plan owned the insurance contracts.

The McGehee Family Clinic had enrolled in the 419 Plan in May 2001 and claimed deductions for contributions to it in 2002 and 2005. The returns did not include a Form 8886,Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement, or similar disclosure.

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


More you should know:

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


Companies should carefully evaluate proposed investments in plans such as the 419 Plan. The claimed deductions will not be available, and penalties will be assessed for lack of disclosure if the investment is similar to the investments described in Notice 95-34. In addition, under IRC 6707A, IRS fines participants a large amount of money for not properly disclosing their participation in listed, reportable or similar transactions; an issue that was not before the Tax Court in either Curcio or McGehee. The disclosure needs to be made for every year the participant is in a plan. The forms need to be properly filed even for years that no contributions are made. I have received numerous calls from participants who did disclose and still got fined because the forms were not filled in properly. A plan administrator told me that he assisted hundreds of his participants file forms, and they still all received very large IRS fines for not properly filling in the forms.

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

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

FBAR Offshore Bank Accounts and Foreign Income Attacked by IRS

You may want to think about participation in the IRS' offshore tax amnestyprogram (called the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative). Do you want to play audit roulette with the IRS?  Some clients think they are too small to be prosecuted. They are wrong.
To the average businessperson, only the guys with tens of millions secretly stashed in Swiss bank accounts get prosecuted. Don't tell that to Michael Schiavo. He was just prosecuted for hiding money in a Swiss account back in 2003. How much money does the IRS say he hid? A whopping $90,000. That's it.
But wait, there is more to the story. Schiavo attempted to do a quiet disclosure during the 2009 amnesty but instead of filling out the amnesty paperwork, he simply trusted that by coming forward voluntarily he could avoid criminal prosecution. He was wrong on all counts. Nothing is too small for the IRS, and nothing is too old.

Lance Wallach - www.taxaudit419.com

Using VEBAs For Employer-Owners | LifeHealthPro

Imagine a program that allows large, flexible, tax-deductible contributions to accumulate and compound on a tax-deferred basis. Distributions are received at any age without penalties, regardless of the amount. Assets are protected from creditors' claims. There are income and estate tax-free survivor benefits. The program is fully insured and, by a favorable Letter of Determination, the Internal Revenue Service has granted a tax exemption to the Section 501(c)(9) trust.
The program also can acquire tax-deductible life insurance, provide funds to pay estate taxes and provide tax-deductible educational benefits for children.
These are some of the benefits of a Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association (VEBA). VEBAs are tax-exempt trusts (or nonprofit corporations) that are described in Section 501(c)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. They require a letter of determination from the IRS granting tax exempt trust status. If the statutory requirements are met and the IRS issues a favorable Letter Of Determination, then, in general, the qualified cost of contributions by an employer to the VEBA that are ordinary and necessary expenses, are deductible for federal income tax purposes.

Should you File, and then Opt Out?

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

Read the whole thing here

Will Your Municipal Bond or Your Life Insurance Company Still Have Value Next Year?

Investor protection with municipal bonds is so spotty that there is potential for much mischief. 



Disclosure, that bedrock of fair securities markets, is the heart of the problem facing municipal investors. Municipal issuers often don't file the most basic reports outlining their operating results or material changes in their financial conditions. 



Even though hospitals, cities and states that borrow money are required by their bond covenants to make such filings, nondisclosure among the nearly 60,000 issuers is common. 

To keep reading, click here

Insurance Agents: Help for those who sold 419 and 412i plans.

Insurance Agents: Help for those who sold 419 and 412i plans.



Our team of experienced consulting "tax attorneys", CPAs, and "insurance experts" specializing in 412i" and "419 "IRS 
audits
" that resulted from plans you sold to your clients, mainly "419 plans", "412i plans", "captive insurance" plans 
and 
"Section 79" plans as well as other similar "employee benefit plans" or "welfare benefit plans" that the IRS is 
targeting as
 "abusive tax shelters".

Our firm has been successful in
 "defending life insurance agents" and "material advisors" who have participated in 
the sale of these
 "benefit plans".

Lance Wallach on 419, 412i, and more

Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC Expert Witness - HG.org

Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC Expert Witness - HG.org

IRS Audits 419, 412i, Captive Insurance Plans With Life Insurance, and Section 79 Scams


The IRS started auditing 419 plans in the ‘90s, and then continued going after 412i and other plans that they considered abusive, listed, or reportable transactions, or substantially similar to such transactions.

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

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

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

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

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

The 419 plan advertised that enrollees should expect to obtain the same type of tax benefits as listed in the transaction described in Notice 95-34. The benefits of enrollment listed in its advertising packet included:
Virtually unlimited deductions for the employer;
Contributions could vary from year to year;
Benefits could be provided to one or more key executives on a selective basis;
No need to provide benefits to rank-and-file employees;
Contributions to the plan were not limited by qualified plan rules and would not interfere with pension, profit sharing or 401(k) plans;
Funds inside the plan would accumulate tax-free;
Beneficiaries could receive death proceeds free of both income tax and estate tax;
The program could be arranged for tax-free distribution at a later date;
Funds in the plan were secure from the hands of creditors.
The Court said that the 419 Plan was factually similar to the plans described in Notice 95-34 at all relevant times. In rendering its decision the court heavily cited Curcio, in which the court also ruled in favor of the IRS. As noted in Curcio, the insurance policies, overwhelmingly variable or universal life policies, required large contributions relative to the cost of the amount of term insurance that would be required to provide the death benefits under the arrangement. The 419 Plan owned the insurance contracts.

The McGehee Family Clinic had enrolled in the 419 Plan in May 2001 and claimed deductions for contributions to it in 2002 and 2005. The returns did not include a Form 8886,Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement, or similar disclosure.

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


You Should Also Know:

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


Companies should carefully evaluate proposed investments in plans such as the 419 Plan. The claimed deductions will not be available, and penalties will be assessed for lack of disclosure if the investment is similar to the investments described in Notice 95-34. In addition, under IRC 6707A, IRS fines participants a large amount of money for not properly disclosing their participation in listed, reportable or similar transactions; an issue that was not before the Tax Court in either Curcio or McGehee. The disclosure needs to be made for every year the participant is in a plan. The forms need to be properly filed even for years that no contributions are made. I have received numerous calls from participants who did disclose and still got fined because the forms were not filled in properly. A plan administrator told me that he assisted hundreds of his participants file forms, and they still all received very large IRS fines for not properly filling in the forms.

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

 Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the 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.

Reportable Transactions &; 419 Plans Litigation: CJA and associates 419, 412i section 79, audits for scams

419 and 412i Plan Help

EP Abusive Tax Transactions - Certain Trust Arrangements Seeking to Qualify for Exemption from Section 419


Notice 95-34 discusses tax problems raised by certain trust arrangements seeking to qualify for exemption from IRC section 419. This transaction involves the claiming of deductions under IRC sections 419 and 419A for contributions to multiple employer welfare benefit funds. In general, an employer may deduct contributions to a welfare benefit fund when paid, but only if the contributions qualify as ordinary and necessary business expenses of the employer and only to the extent allowable under IRC sections 419 and 419A.  There are strict limits on the amount of tax-deductible pre-funding permitted for contributions to a welfare benefit fund.
IRC section 419A(f)(6) provides an exemption from IRC sections 419 and 419A for a welfare benefit fund that is part of a 10 or more employer plan. In general, for this exemption to apply, an employer normally cannot contribute more than 10 percent of the total contributions contributed under the plan by all employers, and the plan must not be experience rated with respect to individual employers.
Promoters have offered trust arrangements that are used to provide life insurance, disability, and severance pay benefits. The promoters enroll at least 10 employers in their multiple employer trusts and claim that all employer contributions are tax deductible when paid, relying on the 10-or-more-employer exemption from the limitations under IRC sections 419 and 419A. Often the trusts maintain separate accounting of the assets attributable to each subscribing employer’s contributions.
Notice 95-34 puts taxpayers on notice that deductions for contributions to these arrangements are disallowable for any one of several reasons (e.g., the arrangements may provide deferred compensation, the arrangements may be separate plans for each employer, the arrangements may be experience rated in form or operation, or the contributions may be nondeductible prepaid expenses).
On July 17, 2003, final regulations (T.D. 9079) relating to whether a welfare benefit fund is part of a 10 or more employer plan (as defined in section 419A(f)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code) were published in the Federal Register (68 FR 42254).




In addition, in a case decided by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the contributions to the plan were taxable to the owners of the corporate employers as constructive dividends (Neonatology Associates, P.A., Et Al. v. Commissioner, 299 F.3rd 221 - 3rd Cir. 2002).

Similarities and Differences Between IRC Section 419A(f)(6) and IRC Section 419(e) Plans CPA’s Guide to Life Insurance


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

Below is an excerpt from one of Lance Wallach’s new books.



Similarities and Differences Between IRC Section 419A(f)(6) and IRC Section 419(e) Plans


                        One popular type of listed transaction is the so-called “welfare benefit plan,” which once relied on IRC §419A(f)(6) for its authority to claim tax deductions, but now more commonly relies on IRC §419(e).  The IRC §419A(f)(6) plans used to claim that the section completely exempted business owners from all limitations on how much tax could be deducted.  In other words, it was claimed, tax deductions were unlimited.  These plans featured large amounts of life insurance and accompanying large com­missions, and were thus aggressively pushed by insurance agents, financial planners, and sometimes even accountants and attorneys.  Not to mention the insurance companies themselves, who put millions of dollars in premiums on the books and, when confronted with questions about the outlandish tax claims made in marketing these plans, claimed to be only selling product, not giving opinions on tax questions.

IRS Attacks Business Owners, Accountants, Lawsuits over 412(i)/419 and Similar Insurance Based Plans

A 412(i) plan is a “defined benefit plan” – a retirement plan, a pension plan that claims to offer very large tax deductions. It is funded with annuity and life insurance products.

Late 1990's/early 2000's, agents sold life insurance, and annuity policies to fund such plans. 

Type of policy typically had high surrender charges, depressed cash value in early years - premiums paid by employer

After premiums funded for a few years, employee purchases policy for the current depressed cash surrender value

After policy purchased, surrender charges dramatically reduced, cash value “springs” to a high level 

Employee could then borrow from high value policy for tax-free cash flow. They were called springing cash value policies.

Not all policies were of that type.

In 1995 IRS issued IRS notice 9534 warning that they would come after 419 plans. In 2004/2005, IRS began investigating and issued regulations deeming such plans as abusive tax shelters - began nationwide audits of such plans. 

Plaintiffs in these matters are typically professional groups (doctors, dentists, small business owners) audited by the IRS - plans deemed abusive tax shelters – subject to substantial fees and penalties. Participants must file under IRS 6707A to avoid additional large fines. Material advisors, people that sold the plans and accountants that gave tax advice and got paid also get fined a minimum of $100,000 if they do not properly file and tell on their client.

Professionals then file suit against insurance companies and agents claiming they were misled in the sale of these plans and policies. 

Allegations typically: 

defendants represented that policies used to fund plans would be valid and subject to favorable future tax consequences

To Date - Mixed Results for Carriers:

1. Breach of contract 

Claim dismissed - contract never promised to satisfy § 412 requirements, specifically stated that it did not guarantee any future tax consequences. Zarrella v. Pacific Life, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (S.D. FL March 29, 2011) (Florida law) 

Claim allowed to proceed - allegations pled existence of written and oral contracts promising tax benefits. Chau v. Aviva Life, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54828 (N.D. Tex May 20, 2011) (applying Washington law).

2. Negligence 

Claim dismissed because carrier is under no duty to advise its insured’s regarding tax consequences of transactions. Zarrella v. Pacific Life, (S.D. FL March 29, 2011).

3. Fraud/Misrepresentation 

A. Future statements: 

alleged misrepresentations made before the IRS pronouncements calling into question tax benefits of the various plans generally dismissed on grounds: 

(i) statements were not false when made, or 

(ii) statements were mere opinions or predictions that are not actionable. 

Berry v. Indianapolis Life, 608 F. Supp. 2d 785 (N.D. Tex. 2009, August 26, 2010) 

Zarrella v. Pacific Life, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (S.D. FL March 29, 2011) 

Chau v. Aviva Life, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54828 (N.D. Tex May 20, 2011) 

Courts generally determine that statements made by agents prior to 2004/2005 are “forward-looking” statements or “opinions” and that “as a matter of law, any representation or prediction by any alleged agent as to how the IRS would treat the 412(i) plans and finding thereof in the future is either an unactionable opinion or was unjustifiably relied upon.” Berry v. Indianapolis Life 

To Date - Mixed Results for Carriers:

B. “Disclaimer of Reliance” defense – results mixed 

Typically, in the plan documents, participant agrees he is not relying on carrier’s representations regarding the validity of the plan or its tax benefits - instead relying on own independent tax advisor

Cal. law – signed disclosure statements by plaintiffs preclude reasonable reliance on representations as a matter of law - claim dismissed. 

Berry v. Indianapolis Life 

Omni Home v. Hartford Life, 2008 Dist. LEXIS 35259 (S.D. Cal. April 29, 2008). 

Texas and Wisconsin law – disclosure documents do not preclude reliance as a matter of law. Berry v. Indianapolis Life

To date, success in dismissing claims depends upon the different courts, and applicable governing law.

Note: If alleged misrepresentations made after applicable IRS pronouncement, then representations are not predictions or opinions, but rather statements regarding the existing state of the law – probably allowed to proceed.
Source

Section 79 Help from Lance Wallach

Section 79 Help from Lance Wallach

412i, 419, Captive Insurance and Section 79 Plans

412i, 419, Captive Insurance and Section 79 Plans

Abusive tax shelters 419e 412i section 79 plans

Abusive tax shelters 419e 412i section 79 plans

What to do if you have a 419 Plan - HG.org

What to do if you have a 419 Plan - HG.org