Showing posts with label section 79 problems. Show all posts
Showing posts with label section 79 problems. Show all posts

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.

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

No Shelter Here: Beware of These Insurance Plans | Remodeling

No Shelter Here: Beware of These Insurance Plans | Remodeling



During the past few years, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has fined many business owners hundreds of thousands of dollars for participating in several particular types of insurance plans.
The 412(i), 419, captive insurance, and section 79 plans were marketed as a way for small-business owners to set up retirement, welfare benefit plans, or other tax-deductible programs while leveraging huge tax savings, but the IRS put most of them on a list of abusive tax shelters, listed transactions, or similar transactions, etc., and has more recently focused audits on them. Many accountants are unaware of the issues surrounding these plans, and many big-name insurance companies are still encouraging participation in them.

IRS Issues Final Regulations for Material Advisors, Accountants, Attorneys and Insurance Agents - HG.org

IRS Issues Final Regulations for Material Advisors, Accountants, Attorneys and Insurance Agents - HG.org



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.

Don't Get Caught in Section 79 Trap, One doctor almost lost everything....

    Don’t Get Caught in Section 79 Trap
    One doctor almost lost everything ………..


      Don’t Get Caught in Section 79 Trap
      One doctor almost lost everything ………..


      In 2006 Doctor X found himself in what he thought was 
      the pleasant position of having a substantial amount of 
      cash on hand that was not essential to the operation of 
      his practice. That comfortable feeling did not last long. 
      He quickly fell prey to a predatory insurance agent who 
      sold him on the idea of Section 79 scam as a vehicle to 
      obtain tax deductions. Of course what really interested 
      the insurance agent was the funding vehicle, a large 
      life insurance contract with American General as the 
      insurance carrier, which just happened to net the 
      agent a large commission.

      Unfortunately, the large, questionable tax deductions 
      claimed by Doctor X indeed attracted the attention of 
      the IRS. As a result of their audit, the IRS not only 
      disallowed all of the tax deductions, but also imposed 
      back taxes, an array of penalties, and interest, turning 
      the doctor’s anticipated investment vehicle into 
      something that could cost him everything he was 
      saving and more. As if that weren’t bad enough, even 
      that Draconian action was not the end of the story.

      None of his so-called financial advisors had told Doctor 
      X about IRC Section 6707A. Under this section of the 
      Code, huge fines can be imposed on those who fail to 
      inform the Service about participation in listed or 
      reportable transactions, or transactions substantially 
      similar to listed transactions. Loosely defined, a 
      reportable transaction is any transaction that has the 
      potential for tax avoidance or evasion. Since he had no 
      knowledge of this requirement, the doctor did not make 
      the proper filings under Section 6707A, and is now 
      also being threatened with monstrous fines for that 
      failure to submit the proper forms in the proper format.

      Although these issues had the potential for great 
      disaster and great financial loss for this doctor, all the 
      anxiety and stress he has been suffering over this 
      matter may soon have a happier ending than he 
      expected at its onset because he had the sense to 
      contact us for help, perhaps just in the nick of time. As 
      a result of putting experts with a great deal of 
      experience on his case, he now stands an excellent 
      chance of having at least some of the penalties from 
      the original audit abated. He will probably be able to 
      recover the money that he sank into that large 
      American General life insurance contract as well. 
      Sometimes a properly worded letter to the insurance 
      company is all it takes. Last, but certainly not least, 
      Doctor X also has an excellent chance of avoiding the 
      large Section 6707A penalties, as our experts in the art 
      of filing late without paying fines are currently at work 
      on that as well.

      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.


      Serving Clients Nationwide

      516-938-5007

      Lance Wallach Expert Witness

Section 79 Plans: Section 79 by Lance Wallach, expert witness.

Section 79 Plans: Section 79 by Lance Wallach, expert witness.