Section 79, Captive Insurance, 419, 412i Plans, Don’t go to
arbitration Sue
Thomas, Francis, Edward,
and Dolores Ehlen1("the Ehlens") are
employees of Ehlen Floor Covering, Inc. ("Ehlen Floor"). In 2002,
Ehlen Floor created a 412(I) employee benefit pension plan, the Ehlen Floor
Coverings Retirement Plan ("the Plan"), with the help of advisors and
administrators. IPS, a corporation specializing in pension plan design and
administration for small businesses, took over as the Plan administrator at the
start of 2003. As part of the commencement of IPS's services, Edward Ehlen, in
his capacity as president of Ehlen Floor, signed an Arbitration Addendum
("AA") attached to an Administrative Services Agreement ("the
Agreement") between IPS and Ehlen Floor. The AA called for arbitration of
"any claim arising out of the rendition or lack of rendition of services
under [the] [A]greement." The Agreement provided a list of available
services that IPS could provide, such as performing annual reviews of the Plan,
making amendments, and preparing annual report forms. The Agreement also stated
that Ehlen Floor would indicate in Section VI of the Agreement which of the
available services it desired for IPS to actually perform. There is no Section
VI in the Agreement, nor is there any testimony or evidence that plaintiffs
ever viewed a Section VI of the Agreement.
Shortly after IPS
stepped in as administrator of the Plan, it became aware that the Plan was not
in compliance with several Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") rules and
regulations. IPS contends that it drafted an amendment to correct these flaws,
but the amendment was never officially adopted. In 2004, the IRS promulgated
new rules explaining that it would consider 412(i) plans with beneficiary
payout limitations to be listed transactions2, possibly subject to serious
penalties. The rule required any plans that could be considered listed
transactions to file Form 8886 to avoid potential penalties. IPS drafted
another amendment to the Plan after determining that the Plan would likely be
classified as a listed transaction under the new rules. Ehlen Floor was not
informed about the pre-rule tax problems, the existence of the new rule, the
additional filing requirements that the new rule imposed, or the drafting of
the new amendment. The IRS instigated an audit on March 6, 2006, found the Plan
to be non-compliant, and ultimately assessed significant penalties against
Ehlen Floor.
In August 2007,
plaintiffs filed a complaint in state court against a number of parties
involved with the creation and initial administration of the Plan, asserting
claims of negligence, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, negligent
supervision, breaches of fiduciary duties, and unfair and deceptive trade
practices. The case was removed to federal court on the basis of preemption
under ERISA. In May 2009, as requested by the court, plaintiffs recast their
complaints as federal matters in their Second Amended Complaint, but plaintiffs
contested the removal and argued against federal jurisdiction. IPS was added as
a defendant in the Second Amended Complaint. IPS then moved to compel
arbitration of the dispute, claiming that the terms of the AA govern the
matter. The district court denied the motion. IPS appeals; plaintiffs
cross-appeal to challenge the existence of federal jurisdiction.
II. STANDARD
Innovative Pension
Strategies, Inc. ("IPS") appeals the district court's denial of its
motion to compel arbitration and stay plaintiffs' claims against it. Plaintiffs
cross-appeal, disputing the preemption of their claims under the Employment
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and alleging a lack of
federal jurisdiction. We find that jurisdiction is proper and affirm the
district court's denial of IPS's motion to compel arbitration.
We therefore affirm the
district court's denial of IPS's motion to compel arbitration and to stay
plaintiffs' claims against it.
Lance Wallach
can be reached at: WallachInc@gmail.com
For more information, please visit www.taxadvisorexperts.org Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, abusive tax shelters, financial, international tax, and estate planning. He writes about 412(i), 419, Section79, FBAR, and captive insurance plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually, writes for over fifty publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National 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. Contact him at 516.938.5007, wallachinc@gmail.com or visit www.taxadvisorexperts.com.
The information provided herein is not intended as legal, accounting, financial or any type of advice for any specific individual or other entity. You should contact an appropriate professional for any such advice.
While I strongly recommend you read my more detailed summaries, the following are the main bullet points explaining why you should stay away from these plans:
ReplyDelete1) You have to lie to employees to implement them.
2) The life illustrations given by ignorant or crooked insurance agents are not realistic (most use today’s historically low lending rates with 2-3% loan spreads on variable loans on EIUL policies (ones that do not have a fixed lending rate)).
3) You have to be a C-Corporation to use them.
4) The life policies sold in these plans are so bad that the companies don’t want them sold unless they are in Section 79 plans (the policies are designed to have poor performance so the income tax deduction is increased).
5) Another very good reason not to use these plans is because there are better alternatives like Captive Insurance Companies (click here to learn the power of growing wealth through a CIC).
6) And the best reason not to use a Section 79 plan is because when you run the real numbers the client would be better off NOT funding the plan, taking his/her money home after taxes, and funding a “good” EIUL policy (a Retirement Life™ policy).
Conclusion
If you are an insurance agent and are being told by an IMO or insurance company that you need to start selling Section 79 plans so you can get in the business market and make a bunch of money, resist the sales pitch. If you are a business owner being pitched a plan, resist the sales pitch.
If you’ve been told this is a can’t-miss program, have them give you what they think is a good illustration for a client and forward it to me
ReplyDelete419 Life Insurance Plans and Other Scams – Large IRS Fines – The IRS Raids Plan Promoter Benistar, and What Does All This Mean To You? | 419e-attorneys.com
419 Life Insurance Plans and Other Scams – Large IRS Fines – The IRS Raids Plan Promoter Benistar, and What Does All This Mean To You? | 419e-attorneys.com
Posted by Lance Wallach at 5/14/2015 08:19:00 AM
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest
Labels: 412i, 412i Benefit Plan, 412i Plan, 419, 419 lawsuits, 419 Litigation, 419 Plan, abusive tax shelters, audits, Lance Wallach, Lance Wallach Expert Witness, Welfare Benefit Plan
2 comments:
Robert ShermanMarch 7, 2016 at 5:52 PM
Benistar
Benistar 419 Plan
Grist Mill Trust
Nova
Niche
Sea Nine Veba
SADI Trust
Beta 419
Millennium
Bisys
Creative Services Group
Sterling Benefit Plan
Compass 419
Niche 419
CRESP
American Benefits Trust
National Benefit Plan and Trust
ABT
Professional Benefits Trust
Old Mutual
Allmerica Financial
American Heritage Life
Commercial Union Life
National Life of Vermont
Old Line Life
Security Mutual Life
West Coast Life
ECI Pension Services
Pension Professionals of America
ABI
Hartford
AIG
Indy Life
Indianapolis Life
Advantage
Jacksom National
Jefferson-Pilot Life
Lincoln Benefit Life
Lincoln National Life
Manufacturers Life
Massachusetts Mutual
Metropolitan Life
Midland Life
Minnesota Mutual
Principal Life
Reliastar
Security Mutual
USG Annuity & Life
Western Reserve Life Assurance
Old Mutual
Allmerica Financial
American Heritage Life
Commercial Union Life
National Life of Vermont
Old Line Life
Security Mutual Life
West Coast Life
For Help With Any of T
Reply
Robert ShermanMarch 7, 2016 at 5:52 PM
Benistar
Benistar 419 Plan
Grist Mill Trust
Nova
Niche
Sea Nine Veba
SADI Trust
Beta 419
Millennium
Bisys
Creative Services Group
Sterling Benefit Plan
Compass 419
Niche 419
CRESP
American Benefits Trust
National Benefit Plan and Trust
ABT
Professional Benefits Trust
Old Mutual
Allmerica Financial
American Heritage Life
Commercial Union Life
National Life of Vermont
Old Line Life
Security Mutual Life
West Coast Life
ECI Pension Services
Pension Professionals of America
ABI
Hartford
AIG
Indy Life
Indianapolis Life
Advantage
Jacksom National
Jefferson-Pilot Life
Lincoln Benefit Life
Lincoln National Life
Manufacturers Life
Massachusetts Mutual
Metropolitan Life
Midland Life
Minnesota Mutual
Principal Life
Reliastar
Security Mutual
USG Annuity & Life
Western Reserve Life Assurance
Old Mutual
Allmerica Financial
American Heritage Life
Commercial Union Life
National Life of Vermont
Old Line Life
Security Mutual Life
West Coast Life
For Help With Any of