Can You Recover Money from 419 and 412i Plans? - HG.org

Can You Recover Money from 419 and 412i Plans? - HG.org



Welfare Benefit Plan Fraud: What Remedies Are Available? If you’ve been the victim of a 419 Welfare Benefit Plan scheme and now find yourself owing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) taxes on something you were told was going to be tax deductible, it’s important to know what remedies might be available to you.



Remedies for abusive tax shelter schemes

Lance Wallach says that there are remedies for those who have been injured by an insurance company’s abusive tax shelter schemes. He predicts that we’ll see a huge spike in the number of people getting audited by the IRS.

Being Listed

Being "listed" A warning for 419, 412i, Sec.79 and captive insurance  Accounting Today: October 25, 2010  By: Lance Wallach Taxpayers who previously adopted 419, 412i, captive insurance or Section 79 plans are in big trouble. In recent years, the IRS has identified many of these arrangements as abusive devices to funnel tax deductible dollars to shareholders and classified these arrangements as "listed transactions." These plans were sold by insurance agents, financial planners, accountants and attorneys seeking large life insurance commissions. In general, taxpayers who engage in a "listed transaction" must report such transaction to the IRS on Form 8886 every year that they "participate" in the transaction, and you do not necessarily have to make a contribution or claim a tax deduction to participate.  Section 6707A of the Code imposes severe penalties ($200,000 for a business and $100,000 for an individual) for failure to file Form 8886 with respect to a listed transaction. But you are also in trouble if you file incorrectly. I have received numerous phone calls from business owners who filed and still got fined. Not only do you have to file Form 8886, but it has to be prepared correctly. I only know of two people in the United States who have filed these forms properly for clients. They tell me that was after hundreds of hours of research and over fifty phones calls to various IRS personnel. The filing instructions for Form 8886 presume a timely filing.  Most people file late and follow the directions for currently preparing the forms. Then the IRS fines the business owner. The tax court does not have jurisdiction to abate or lower such penalties imposed by the IRS. Many business owners adopted 412i, 419, captive insurance and Section 79 plans based upon representations provided by insurance professionals that the plans were legitimate plans and were not informed that they were engaging in a listed transaction. Upon audit, these taxpayers were shocked when the IRS asserted penalties under Section 6707A of the Code in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Numerous complaints from these taxpayers caused Congress to impose a moratorium on assessment of Section 6707A penalties. The moratorium on IRS fines expired on June 1, 2010. The IRS immediately started sending out notices proposing the imposition of Section 6707A penalties along with requests for lengthy extensions of the Statute of Limitations for the purpose of assessing tax.  Many of these taxpayers stopped taking deductions for contributions to these plans years ago, and are confused and upset by the IRS's inquiry, especially when the taxpayer had previously reached a monetary settlement with the IRS regarding its deductions.  Logic and common sense dictate that a penalty should not apply if the taxpayer no longer benefits from the arrangement. Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.6011-4(c)(3)(i) provides that a taxpayer has participated in a listed transaction if the taxpayer's tax return reflects tax consequences or a tax strategy described in the published guidance identifying the transaction as a listed transaction or a transaction that is the same or substantially similar to a listed transaction.  Clearly, the primary benefit in the participation of these plans is the large tax deduction generated by such participation.  It follows that taxpayers who no longer enjoy the benefit of those large deductions are no longer "participating ' in the listed transaction.   But that is not the end of the story. Many taxpayers who are no longer taking current tax deductions for these plans continue to enjoy the benefit of previous tax deductions by continuing the deferral of income from contributions and deductions taken in prior years.  While the regulations do not expand on what constitutes "reflecting the tax consequences of the strategy", it could be argued that continued benefit from a tax deferral for a previous tax deduction is within the contemplation of a "tax consequence" of the plan strategy. Also, many taxpayers who no longer make contributions or claim tax deductions continue to pay administrative fees.  Sometimes, money is taken from the plan to pay premiums to keep life insurance policies in force.  In these ways, it could be argued that these taxpayers are still "contributing", and thus still must file Form 8886. It is clear that the extent to which a taxpayer benefits from the transaction depends on the purpose of a particular transaction as described in the published guidance that caused such transaction to be a listed transaction. Revenue Ruling 2004-20 which classifies 419(e) transactions, appears to be concerned with the employer's contribution/deduction amount rather than the continued deferral of the income in previous years.  This language may provide the taxpayer with a solid argument in the event of an audit. Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, financial and estate planning, and abusive tax shelters.  He writes about 412(i), 419, and captive insurance plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually He does expert witness testimony and has never lost a case. Contact him at 516.938.5007 The information provided herein is not intended as legal, accounting, financial or any other type of advice for any specific individual or other entity.  You should contact an appropriate professional for any such advice.

IRS Issues Final Regulations for Material Advisors, Accountants, Attorneys and Insurance Agents

---

     By Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC 

If you sold, advised on or had anything to do with a listed transaction you will be fined by the IRS. For those that bought listed transactions like, 419 welfare benefit plans or 412i plans, you have been or will also be fined.

On July 30, 2014, the Internal Revenue Service issued final regulations regarding the imposition of penalties under Internal Revenue Code section 6707 against material advisors who fail to file true, complete or timely disclosure returns with respect to reportable or listed transactions. The effective date of the final regulations is July 31, 2014.

Material advisors generally include any advisors who make or provide a tax statement with respect to any reportable or listed transaction, and directly or indirectly receive certain threshold levels of gross income in connection with such advice. Reportable transactions include listed transactions, transactions of interest, section 165 loss transactions, confidential transactions, and contractual protection transactions.

The final regulations make several changes to the proposed regulations that were published in 2008. The changes include:

• The applicable penalty under section 6707 for a transaction qualifying as both reportable and listed is limited to a single penalty, which is the greater of $200,000 or 50 percent of the gross income derived by the material advisor (75 percent if the failure is international).

• In cases where there is a failure to disclose more than one reportable or listed transaction, a separate section 6707 penalty will be imposed for each transaction.

• For purposes of computing the penalty in the case of a listed transaction, the gross income derived from the listed transaction only includes fees earned in connection with the listed transaction for which the advisor was a material advisor.

The final regulations also modify the factors considered by the IRS for rescission of a material advisor penalty. The final regulations now allow consideration of facts and circumstances relating to whether a material advisor’s failure to timely file the Form 8918, Material Advisor Disclosure Statement, was unintentional. However, if an unintentionally delinquent Form 8918 was filed either after the IRS had taken steps to identify the person as a material advisor or after the taxpayer disclosed a reportable transaction on Form 8886, Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement, such a filing will not weigh in favor of rescission.

Lastly, the final regulations include additional examples to help clarify the application of the material advisor penalties.
Attorneys, accountants, financial and investment consultants and others advising on reportable or listed transactions should remain conscious of the applicable gross income thresholds for each type of transaction, as well as the timing of reporting obligations. The severe penalties and narrow provisions for rescission of such penalties require careful planning and awareness of compliance obligations.

Companies should carefully evaluate their proposed investments in plans such as the 419, 412i, section 79 or captive insurance plan with life insurance.. The claimed deductions will be disallowed, and penalties will be assessed for lack of disclosure if the investment is similar to the investments described in Notice 95-34, that is, if the transaction is a listed transaction and Form 8886 is either not filed at all or is not properly filed. The penalties, though perhaps not as severe, are also imposed for reportable transactions, which are defined as transactions having the potential for tax avoidance or evasion.

Insurance agents have been selling such abusive plans since the 1990's. They started as 419A(F)(6) plans and abusive 412i plans. The IRS went after them. They then evolved to single-employer 419(e) plans, which the IRS also went after. The latest scams may be the so-called captive insurance plan and the so-called Section 79 plan.

While captive insurance plans are legitimate for large corporations, they are usually not legitimate for small business owners as a way to obtain a tax deduction. I have not yet seen a legitimate Section 79 plan. Recently, I have sent some of the plan promoters’ materials over to my IRS contacts who were very interested in receiving them. Some of my associates are already trying to help defend some unsuspecting business owners who are being audited by the IRS with respect to these plans.

Similar, though perhaps not as abusive, plans fail after the IRS goes after them. Niche was one example. The company first marketed a 419A(F)(6) plan that the IRS audited. They then marketed a 419(e) plan that the IRS audited. Niche, insurance companies, agents, and many accountants were then sued after their clients lost their deductions, paid fines, interest, and penalties, and then paid huge fines for failure to file properly under 6707A. Niche then went out of business.

Millennium sold 419 plans through insurance companies. They stupidly filed for a private letter ruling to the effect that they were not a listed transaction. They got exactly the opposite: a private letter ruling saying that they were a listed transaction. Then many participants were audited. The IRS disallowed the deductions, imposed penalties and interest, and then assessed large fines for not filing properly under Section 6707A. The result was lawsuits against agents, insurance companies and accountants. Millennium sought bankruptcy protection after a lot of lawsuits.

I have been an expert witness in a lot of the lawsuits in these 419 plans, 412i plans, and the like, and my side has never lost a case. I have received thousands of phone calls over the years from business owners, accountants, angry plan promoters, insurance agents, and other various professionals. In the 1990's, when I started writing for the AICPA and other publications warning about these abusive plans, most people laughed at me, especially the plan promoters.

In 2002, when I spoke at the annual national convention of the American Society of Pension Actuaries in Washington, people took notice. The IRS chief actuary Jim Holland also held a meeting similar to mine on abusive 412i plans. Many IRS agents attended my meeting. I was also invited to IRS headquarters, at the request of the acting IRS commissioner, to meet with high-level IRS officials and Treasury officials to discuss 419 issues in depth, which I did after the meeting.

The IRS then set up task forces and started going after 419 and 412i plans. I have been profusely warning accountants to properly file under 6707A to avoid the large fines, but most do not. Even if they file, if they make a mistake on the forms, the IRS will fine them. Very few accountants have had experience filing the forms, and the IRS instructions are complicated and therefore difficult to follow.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Lance Wallach
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.

Copyright Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC
More information about Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC

Disclaimer: 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.

Serving Clients Nationwide

516-938-5007

Lance Wallach Expert Witness

IRS Criminal Investigation Department Audits Section 79, Captive Insurance, 412i and 419 Scams

IRS Criminal Investigation (CI) has developed a nationally coordinated program to combat these abusive tax schemes. CI's primary focus is on the identification and investigation of the tax scheme promoters as well as those who play a substantial or integral role in facilitating, aiding, assisting, or furthering the abusive tax scheme, such as accountants or lawyers. Just as important is the investigation of investors who knowingly participate in abusive tax schemes.

First the IRS started auditing § 419 plans in the 1990s, and then continued going after § 412(i) and other plans that they considered abusive, listed, or reportable transactions, or substantially similar to such transactions. If an IRS audit disallows the § 419 plan or the § 412(i) plan, not only does the taxpayer lose the deduction and pay interest and penalties, but then the IRS comes back under IRC 6707A and imposes large fines for not properly filing.

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=35505

Abusive Tax Shelters again on the IRS “Dirty Dozen” List of Tax Scams for the 2015 Filing Season

The IRS is committed to stopping complex tax avoidance schemes and the people who create and sell them," said IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. "The vast majority of taxpayers pay their fair share, and we are warning everyone to watch out for people peddling tax shelters that sound too good to be true.”

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

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

These plans were sold by insurance agents, financial planners, accountants and attorneys seeking large life insurance commissions. In general, taxpayers who engage in a "listed transaction" must report such transaction to the IRS on Form 8886 every year that they "participate" in the transaction, and you do not necessarily have to make a contribution or claim a tax deduction to participate.

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=35501

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 .com: 419 Plan, 412i Plan

Reportable Transactions .com: 419 Plan, 412i Plan, Welfare benefit plan assistan...: 419 Plan, 412i Plan, Welfare benefit plan assistance, audits & Abusive tax shelters

Abusive Insurance, Welfare Benefit, and Retirement Plans

Abusive Insurance, Welfare Benefit, and Retirement Plans
The IRS has various task forces auditing all section 419, section 412(i), and other
plans that tend to be abusive. These plans are sold by most insurance agents. The IRS
is looking to raise money and is not looking to correct plans or help taxpayers. The
fines for being in a listed, abusive, or similar transaction are up to $200,000 per year
(section 6707A), unless you report on yourself. The IRS calls accountants, attorneys,
and insurance agents "material advisors" and also fines them the same amount, again
unless the client's participation in the transaction is reported. An accountant is a material
advisor if he signs the return or gives advice and gets paid. More details can be found on
http://www.irs.gov and http://www.vebaplan.com.

Bruce Hink, who has given me written permission to use his name and circumstances,
is a perfect example of what the IRS is doing to unsuspecting business owners. What
follows is a story about how the IRS fines him $200,000 a year for being in what they
called a listed transaction. Listed transactions can be found at http://www.irs.gov. Also
involved are what the IRS calls abusive plans or what it refers to as substantially similar.
Substantially similar to is very difficult to understand, but the IRS seems to be saying, "If
it looks like some other listed transaction, the fines apply." Also, I believe that the
accountant who signed the tax return and the insurance agent who sold the retirement
plan will each be fined $200,000 as material advisors. We have received many calls
for help from accountants, attorneys, business owners, and insurance agents in similar
situations. Don't think this will happen to you? It is happening to a lot of accountants
and business owners, because most of theses so-called listed, abusive, or substantially
similar plans are being sold by insurance agents.

Recently I came across the case of Hink, a small business owner who is facing $400,000
in IRS penalties for 2004 and 2005 because of his participation in a section 412(i) plan.
(The penalties were assessed under section 6707A.)

In 2002 an insurance agent representing a 100-year-old, well established insurance
company suggested the owner start a pension plan. The owner was given a portfolio of
information from the insurance company, which was given to the company's outside CPA
to review and give an opinion on. The CPA gave the plan the green light and the plan

was started.

Contributions were made in 2003. The plan administrator came out with amendments to
the plan, based on new IRS guidelines, in October 2004.

The business owner's insurance agent disappeared in May 2005, before implementing the
new guidelines from the administrator with the insurance company. The business owner
was left with a refund check from the insurance company, a deduction claim on his 2004
tax return that had not been applied, and no agent.

It took six months of making calls to the insurance company to get a new insurance agent
assigned. By then, the IRS had started an examination of the pension plan. Asking
advice from the CPA and a local attorney (who had no previous experience in these
cases) made matters worse, with a "big name" law firm being recommended and over
$30,000 in additional legal fees being billed in three months.

To make a long story short, the audit stretched on for over 2 ½ years to examine a 2-
year-old pension with four participants and the $178,000 in contributions. During the
audit, no funds went to the insurance company, which was awaiting formal IRS approval
on restructuring the plan as a traditional defined benefit plan, which the administrator
had suggested and the IRS had indicated would be acceptable. The $90,000 in 2005
contributions was put into the company's retirement bank account along with the 2004
contributions.

In March 2008 the business owner received a private e-mail apology from the IRS agent
who headed the examination, saying that her hands were tied and that she used to believe
she was correcting problems and helping taxpayers and not hurting people.

The IRS denied any appeal and ruled in October 2008 the $400,000 penalty would stand.
The IRS fine for being in a listed, abusive, or similar transaction is $200,000 per year for
corporations or $100,000 per year for unincorporated entities. The material advisor fine
is $200,000 if you are incorporated or $100,000 if you are not.

Could you or one of your clients be next?

To this point, I have focused, generally, on the horrors of running afoul of the IRS by
participating in a listed transaction, which includes various types of transactions and the
various fines that can be imposed on business owners and their advisors who participate
in, sell, or advice on these transactions. I happened to use, as an example, someone
in a section 412(i) plan, which was deemed to be a listed transaction, pointing out the

truly doleful consequences the person has suffered. Others who fall into this trap, even
unwittingly, can suffer the same fate.

Now let's go into more detail about section 412(i) plans. This is important because these
defined benefit plans are popular and because few people think of retirement plans as
tax shelters or listed transactions. People therefore may get into serious trouble in this
area unwittingly, out of ignorance of the law, and, for the same reason, many fail to take
necessary and appropriate precautions.

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

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

The sponsor of an abusive plan can expect to be treated more harshly than participants.
Although in some situation something can be salvaged, the possibility is definitely on
the table of having to treat the plan as if it never existed, which of course triggers the full
extent of back taxes, penalties, and interest on all contributions that were made – not to
mention leaving behind no retirement plan whatsoever.

Another plan the IRS is auditing is the section 419 plan. A few listed transactions
concern relatively common employee benefit plans the IRS has deemed tax avoidance
schemes or otherwise abusive. Perhaps some of the most likely to crop up, especially
in small-business returns, are the arrangements purporting to allow the deductibility of
premiums paid for life insurance under a welfare benefit plan or section 419 plan. These
plans have been sold by most insurance agents and insurance companies.

Some of theses abusive employee benefit plans are represented as satisfying section
419, which sets limits on purposed and balances of "qualified asset accounts" for the
benefits, although the plans purport to offer the deductibility of contributions without
any corresponding income. Others attempt to take advantage of the exceptions to

qualified asset account limits, such as sham union plans that try to exploit the exception
for the separate welfare benefit funds under collective bargaining agreements provided
by section 419A(f)(5). Others try to take advantage of exceptions for plans serving 10
or more employers, once popular under section 419A(f)(6). More recently, one may
encounter plans relying on section 419(e) and, perhaps, defines benefit sections 412(i)
pension plans.

Sections 419 and 419A were added to the code by the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 in
an attempt to end employers' acceleration of deductions for plan contributions. But it
wasn't long before plan promoters found an end run around the new code sections. An
industry developed in what came to be known as 10-or-more-employer plans.

The IRS steadily added these abusive plans to its designations of listed transactions.
With Revenue Ruling 90-105, it warned against deducting some plan contributions
attributable to compensation earned by plan participants after the end of the tax year.
Purported exceptions to limits of sections 419 and 419A claimed by 10-or-more-
employer benefit funds were likewise prescribed in Notice 95-24 (Doc 95-5046, 95 TNT
98-11). Both positions were designated as listed transactions in 2000.

At that point, where did all those promoters go? Evidence indicates many are now
promoting plans purporting to comply with section 419(e). They are calling a life
insurance plan a welfare benefit plan (or fund), somewhat as they once did, and
promoting the plan as a vehicle to obtain large tax deductions. The only substantial
difference is that theses are now single-employer plans. And again, the IRS has tried
to rein them in, reminding taxpayers that listed transactions include those substantially
similar to any that are specifically described and so designated.

On October 17, 2007, the IRS issues Notices 2007-83 (Doc 2007-23225, 2007 TNT 202-
6) and 2007-84 (Doc 2007-23220, 2007 TNT 202-5). In the former, the IRS identified
some trust arrangements involving cash value life insurance policies, and substantially
similar arrangements, as listed transactions. The latter similarly warned against some
postretirement medical and life insurance benefit arrangements, saying they might be
subject to "alternative tax treatment." The IRS at the same time issued related Rev.
Rul. 2007-65 (Doc 2007-23226, 2007 TNT 202-7) to address situations in which an
arrangement is considered a welfare benefit fund but the employer's deduction for its
contributions to the fund id denied in whole or in part for premiums paid by the trust on
cash value life insurance policies. It states that a welfare benefit fund's qualified direct
cost under section 419 does not include premium amounts paid by the fund for cash value
life insurance policies if the fund is directly or indirectly a beneficiary under the policy,
as determined under sections264(a).

Notice 2007-83 targets promoted arrangements under which the fund trustee purchases

cash value insurance policies on the lives of a business's employee/owners, and
sometimes key employees, while purchasing term insurance policies on the lives of other
employees covered under the plan.

These plans anticipate being terminated and anticipate that the cash value policies will
be distributed to the owners or key employees, with little distributed to other employees.
The promoters claim that the insurance premiums are currently deductible by the business
and that the distributed insurance policies are virtually tax free to the owners. The ruling
makes it clear that, going forward, a business under most circumstances cannot deduct
the cost of premiums paid through a welfare benefit plan for cash value life insurance on
the lives of its employees.

Should a client approach you with one of these plans, be especially cautious, for both
of you. Advise your client to check out the promoter very carefully. Make it clear that
the government has the names of all former section 419A(f)(6) promoters and, therefore,
will be scrutinizing the promoter carefully if the promoter was once active in that area, as
many current section 419(e) (welfare benefit fund or plan) promoters were. This makes
an audit of your client more likely and far riskier.

It is worth noting that listed transactions are subject to a regulatory scheme applicable
only to them, entirely separate from Circular 230 requirements, regulations, and
sanctions. Participation in such a transaction must be disclosed on a tax return, and the
penalties for failure to disclose are severe – up to $100,000 for individuals and $200,000
for corporations. The penalties apply to both taxpayers and practitioners. And the
problem with disclosure, of course, is that it is apt to trigger an audit, in which case even
if the listed transaction was to pass muster, something else may not.

Big Trouble Ahead For 412i and 419 Plan Participants - Lance Wallach

Big Trouble Ahead For 412i and 419 Plan Participants - Lance Wallach

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

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