Massachusetts Society of Certified Public Accountants, Inc.
Winter 2010
IRS Attacks Business Owners in 419, 412, Section 79 and Captive Insurance Plans Under Section 6707A
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 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 also has to be prepared correctly. I only know of two people in the U.S. who have filed these forms properly for clients. They tell me that was after hundreds of hours of research and over 50 phones calls to various IRS personnel. The filing instructions for Form 8886 presume a timely filling. 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 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."
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. 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. Another important issue is that the IRS has called CPAs material advisors if they signed tax returns containing the plan, and got paid a certain amount of money for tax advice on the plan. The fine is $100,000 for the CPA, or $200,000 if the CPA is incorporated. To avoid the fine, the CPA has to properly file Form 8918.
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 Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots.
IRS Attacks Business Owners in 419, 412, Section 79 and Captive Insurance Plans Under Section 6707A
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 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 also has to be prepared correctly. I only know of two people in the U.S. who have filed these forms properly for clients. They tell me that was after hundreds of hours of research and over 50 phones calls to various IRS personnel. The filing instructions for Form 8886 presume a timely filling. 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 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."
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. 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. Another important issue is that the IRS has called CPAs material advisors if they signed tax returns containing the plan, and got paid a certain amount of money for tax advice on the plan. The fine is $100,000 for the CPA, or $200,000 if the CPA is incorporated. To avoid the fine, the CPA has to properly file Form 8918.
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 Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots.
Section 79, captive insurance, 412i, 419, audits, problems and lawsuits
________________________________________
April 24, 2012 By Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC
________________________________________
Captive insurance, section 79, 419 and 412i problems
WebCPA
The dangers of being "listed"
A warning for 419, 412i, Sec.79 and captive insurance
Accounting Today: October 25,
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 th
Section 79, captive insurance, 412i, 419, audits, problems and lawsuits
________________________________________
April 24, 2012 By Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC
________________________________________
Captive insurance, section 79, 419 and 412i problems
WebCPA
ed, the premiums are deducted when paid to a related company, and depending on claims, profits can be paid out as dividends and when liquidated, the proceeds are taxed at capital gains rates.
The problem with Captives is that they are expensive to set up and operate. Captives must be opetate as a true risk assuming entity, not simply a tax avoidance vehicle. Some variations are to rent a cell captives that can work for a lot less money.
The IRS is looking into the sale of life insurance to fund Captives. They are also looking at most section 79 plans. This sounds very familiar.
next 412 and 419 problem for unsuspecting companies. Designed under IRS Code 831(b), these captive insurance companies are designed to insure the risks of an individual business. In theory and if properly designed, the premiums are deducted when paid to a related company, and depending on claims, profits can be paid out as dividends and when liquidated, the proceeds are taxed at capital gains rates.
The problem with Captives is that they are expensive to set up and operate. Captives must be opetate as a true risk assuming entity, not simply a tax avoidance vehicle. Some variations are to rent a cell captives that can work for a lot less money.
The IRS is looking into the sale of life insurance to fund Captives. They are also looking at most section 79 plans. This sounds very familiar.
) plans and 419 plans etc.
In October of 2005, the IRS invited those who sponsored 412(i) plans that were treated as listed transactions to enter a settlement program in which the taxpayer would recind the plan and pay the income taxes it would have paid had it not engaged in the plan, plus interest and reduced penalties.
MDL stands for Multidistrict Litigation. It was created by Congress in 1968 – 28 U.S.C. §1407.
The act created an MDL Panel of judges to determine whether civil actions pending in different federal districts involve one or more common questions of fact such that the actions should be transferred to one federal district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. In theory, the purposes of this transfer or “centralization” process are to avoid duplication of discovery, to prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and to conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. Transferred actions which are not resolved in the MDL are remanded to their originating court or district by the Panel for trial. Lots of people who were audited sued the insurance companys, agents, accountants and others.
Then, Pacific Life, Hartford Life & Annuity moved for summary judgment in the MDL. The court granted the motions in part, and denied the motions in part. Specifically, the court dealt with the issue of the disclaimers contained within the policies and signed by various policyholders.
Applying California law in evauating the disclosures and disclaimers, the Court ruled that the California Plaintiffs failed to raise issues of material fact that they reasonably relied on representations by Hartford and Pacific Life regarding the tax and legal issues related to their 412(i) plans.
Conversely, the court ruled that pursuant to Wisconsin law, the disclaimers were unenforceable. The court came to similar conclusion when applying Texas law to the Plaintiffs claims.
Plaintiffs have been more successful in suing 419 plan promoters, insurance companys, accountants ,etc. I have been an expert witness and my side has never lost a case.
I have been speaking with my IRS contacts about the newest abusive tax shelter trends, captives and section 79 plans. They have started auditing participants in these plans. The IRS has not yet decided if the plans are listed, abusive or similar to. I think that captive insurance companies and section 79 plans may become the next 412 and 419 problem for unsuspecting companies. Designed under IRS Code 831(b), these captive insurance companies are designed to insure the risks of an individual business. In theory and if properly designed, the premiums are deducted when paid to a related company, and depending on claims, profits can be paid out as dividends and when liquidated, the proceeds are taxed at capital gains rates.
The problem with Captives is that they are expensive to set up and operate. Captives must be opetate as a true risk assuming entity, not simply a tax avoidance vehicle. Some variations are to rent a cell captives that can work for a lot less money.
The IRS is looking into the sale of life insurance to fund Captives. They are also looking at most section 79 plans. This sounds very familiar.
a 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 Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots.
Contact him at:
516.938.5007,
wallachinc@gmail.com, or
www.taxadvisorexperts.org, or
www.taxlibrary.us.
section 79 IRS problems use lance wallach for section 79 insurance problems
google lance wallach for section 79 problems
ReplyDeleteWinl advisors if they signed tax returns containing the plan, and got paid a certain amount of money for tax advice on the plan. The fine is $100,000 for the CPA, or $200,000 if the CPA is incorporated. To avoid the fine, the CPA has to properly file Form 8918.
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 Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots.
Contact him at:
516.938.5007,
wallachinc@gmail.com, or
www.taxadvisorexperts.org, or
www.taxlibrary.us.
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.
ReplyDeleteIt 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. Another important issue is that the IRS has called CPAs material advisors if they signed tax returns containing the plan, and got paid a certain amount of money for tax advice on the plan. The fine is $100,000 for the CPA, or $200,000 if the CPA is incorporated. To avoid the fine, the CPA has to properly file Form 8918.
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 Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots.
Contact him at:
516.938.5007,
wallachinc@gmail.com, or
www.taxadvisorexperts.org, or
www.taxlibrary.us.
www.lancewallach.com
be careful
ReplyDeletetional 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 Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots.
Contact him at:
516.938.5007,
wallachinc@gmail.com, or
www.taxadvisorexperts.org, or
www.taxlibrary.us.
google or lance wallach on the net for help
ReplyDeleteWHAT IS A SECTION 79 PLAN?
DeleteSection 79 plans are commonly known for the $50,000 free term life insurance they can provide for employees. Less commonly known is that Section 79 plans can also provide permanent life insurance. These plans are employee benefit plans established under Section 79 of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 79 plans are non-qualified plans but they are tax-deductible plans for the adopting employer.
WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF A SECTION 79 PLAN?
Section 79 plans provide life insurance benefits for employees paid for by the employer. The life premiums paid are 100% tax-deductible to the business. The "economic benefit" of the life insurance is reportable as taxable income for the insured employee. Only life insurance in excess of $50,000 is reportable. The "economic benefit" is determined using the rates under Table I ( Reg. §1.79-3(d)(2)). When permanent insurance is used the reportable economic benefit can be as little as 60% of the actual premium paid and deducted. This can provide a tax-advantaged way to purchase personal life insurance.
CAN ANY BUSINESS ADOPT A SECTION 79 PLAN?
Section 79 plans are only for employees. Self-employed individuals, partners and owners of S corporations are not employees. For an owner to participate the sponsoring employer must be a C Corporation.
MUST EVERY EMPLOYEE BE INCLUDED IN THE PLAN?
Non-discrimination rules do apply. 70% of all full time employees must benefit, or 85% of participants must be non-key employees. All participants must be offered the same type and amount of benefits. Special rules apply for companies with less than ten employees.
WHAT OPTIONS ARE TYPICALLY OFFERED IN A SECTION 79 PLAN THAT INCLUDES PERMANENT INSURANCE?
Typically, employees are offered three options. (1) Permanent life insurance with a death benefit that is a multiple of salary, (2) term insurance with a death benefit that is a multiple of salary, and (3) $50,000 group term insurance. The multiple of salary offered is usually defined by how much insurance the business owner wants for him or herself. Everyone will be offered the same multiple of salary. Option 1, permanent insurance, will produce the largest reportable economic benefit added to the taxable income of the employee, Option 2 will provide a significantly lower reportable economic benefit added to the taxable income of the employee, and Option 3 will result in no economic benefit added to the employee's taxable income.
IRS Attacks Accountants and Business Owners- Senate Response
ReplyDeleteSenator seeks support to scale back the IRS’s assault on nondisclosure of alleged tax shelters due to constitutional concerns.
Senator Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) has sponsored legislation (S.765) to curtail the IRS and its nearly unlimited authority and power under Code section 6707A. Senator Nelson is actively seeking co-sponsors. You should contact an appropriate professional for any such advice.
section 79 plans get audits. For help Lance Wallach is all over the internet for section 79 and other IRS problems, not just section 79
section 79 problems file IRS 8886 to avoid section 79 prombems or else the section 79 is probably audited
ReplyDeleteIRS Attacks Accountants and Business Owners- Senate Response
ReplyDeleteSenator seeks support to scale back the IRS’s assault on nondisclosure of alleged tax shelters due to constitutional concerns.
Senator Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) has sponsored legislation (S.765) to curtail the IRS and its nearly unlimited authority and power under Code section 6707A. Senator Nelson is actively seeking co-sponsors of the bill. The bill seeks to scale back the scope of the section 6707A reportable/listed transaction nondisclosure penalty to a more reasonable level. The current law provides for penalties that are draconian by nature and offer no flexibility to the IRS to reduce or abate the imposition of the 6707A penalty. This has served as a weapon of mass destruction for the IRS and has hit many small businesses and their owners with unconscionable results.
Internal Revenue Code 6707A was enacted as park of the American Jobs Creation Act on October 22, 2004. It imposes a strict liability penalty for any person that failed to disclose either a listed transaction or reportable transaction per each occurrence. Reportable transactions usually fall within certain general types of transactions (e.g. confidential transactions, transactions with tax protection, certain loss generating transaction and transactions of interest arbitrarily so designated as by the IRS) that have the potential for tax avoidance. Listed transactions are specified transactions which have been publicly designated by the IRS, including anything that is substantially similar to such a transaction (a phrase which is given very liberal construction by the IRS). There are currently 34 listed transactions, including certain retirement plans under Code section 412(i) and certain employee welfare
benefit plans funded in part with life insurance under Code sections 419A(f)(5), 419(f)(6) and 419(e). Many of these plans were implem
t version of Code section 6707A.
ReplyDeleteThe bill would allow an IRS imposed 6707A penalty for nondisclosure of a listed transaction to be rescinded if a taxpayer’s failure to file was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.
The bill would make a 6707A penalty proportional to an understatement of any tax due.
Would only allow the IRS to impose a 6707A penalty on actual taxpayers.
Accordingly, non-tax paying entity such as S corporations and limited liability companies would not be subject to a 6707A penalty (individuals, C corporations and certain trusts and estates would remain subject to the 6707A penalty).
As previously mentioned, Senator Nelson is currently seeking co-sponsors for Senate bill 765. Additionally, the movement for a similar bill is currently gaining steam in the House. Please contact your local Congressmen and you Senators to voice your support for modifying Code section 6707A to adopt a fairer and more reasonable approach to disclosure. Please feel free to contact our office if you would like assistance in any of your tax and penalty controversy needs.
Lance Wallach, the National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year, speaks and writes extensively about retirement plans, Circular 230 problems and tax reduction strategies. He speaks at more than 40 conventions annually, writes for over 50 publications, is quoted regularly in the press, and has written numerous best-selling AICPA books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Business Hot Spots. He does extensive expert witness work and has never lost a case. Contact him at 516.938.5007 or visit www.vebaplan.com.
IRS tax amnesty FBAR ovdi section 79 insurance plans 419 412i etc etc problems solved by www.vebaplan.com
419welfare benefit plan help and other insurance problems like section 79 419 captive insurance
ReplyDeleteNEW JERSEY ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
ReplyDeleteLines from Lance - Newsletter November 2009
Business Owners, Accountants, and Others Fined $200,000 by IRS and Don’t Know Why
By Lance Wallach
If you are a small business owner, accountant or insurance professional you may be in big trouble and not know it. IRS has been fining people like you $200,000. Most people that have received the fines were not aware that they had done anything wrong. What is even worse is that the fines are not appeal-able. This is not an isolated situation. This has been happening to a lot of people.
Currently, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has the discretion to assess hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties under §6707A of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) in an attempt to curb tax avoidance shelters. This discretion can be applied regardless of the innocence of the taxpayer and was granted by Congress. It works so that if the IRS determines you have engaged in a listed transaction and failed to properly disclose it, you will be subject to a potentially draconian penalty regardless of any other facts and circumstances concerning the transaction. For some, this penalty has been assessed at almost a million dollars and for many it is the beginning of a long nightmare.
section 79 insurance scams get IRS audits, section 79 problems can be fixed. Lance Wallach understands section 79 insurance plans
ReplyDeleteWhy You Should Stay Away From Section 79 Life Insurance Plans
ReplyDeleteBy: Roccy
It’s been a few years since I ran my two-part newsletter warning readers to stay away from Section 79 plans,
and I thought it was a good time put it back out there.
To read Part I of my series on why you shouldn’t sell Section 79 Plans, click on the following link:
To read Part II of my series on why you shouldn’t sell Section 79 Plans, click on the following link:
For some odd reason, I’ve had several calls lately from doctors who’ve read my Doctor's Wealth
Preservation Guide to say they are being pitched Section 79 plans; and after reading my book and several articles
I’ve published in the past, they wonder if these plans are any good.
The doctors are being told that Section 79 plans are the “best” wealth-building tool they can use to reduce
their income taxes and create a “tax-free” retirement income.
Unfortunately, for these unsuspecting doctors, what they don’t know is that, not only are Section 79 Plans
not the “best” wealth-building tool they can use, they are not even a “good” wealth-building tool.
I rail against Section 79 plans for several reasons including the following:
1) 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 deduction is increased).
5) Another very good reason not to use these plans is because there are better alternatives like Captive
Insurance Companies (click on the following link to learn of 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 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 they tell you it’s a can’t-miss
program, have them give you what they think is a good illustration for a client and forward it to me. I’ll expose it for the
nonsense that it is, and then you will understand first hand why you don’t want to sell these plans
Section 79 article above is not mine but he agrees with me however if you are in a section 79 you must properly file 8886 forms to avoid the IRS fines google lance wallach for more
Lance Wallach is all over the net on section 79 and section 79 plan problems
Why You Should Stay Away From Section 79 Life Insurance Plans
ReplyDeleteBy: Roccy
It’s been a few years since I ran my two-part newsletter warning readers to stay away from Section 79 plans,
and I thought it was a good time put it back out there.
To read Part I of my series on why you shouldn’t sell Section 79 Plans, click on the following link:
To read Part II of my series on why you shouldn’t sell Section 79 Plans, click on the following link:
For some odd reason, I’ve had several calls lately from doctors who’ve read my Doctor's Wealth
Preservation Guide to say they are being pitched Section 79 plans; and after reading my book and several articles
I’ve published in the past, they wonder if these plans are any good.
The doctors are being told that Section 79 plans are the “best” wealth-building tool they can use to reduce
their income taxes and create a “tax-free” retirement income.
Unfortunately, for these unsuspecting doctors, what they don’t know is that, not only are Section 79 Plans
not the “best” wealth-building tool they can use, they are not even a “good” wealth-building tool.
I rail against Section 79 plans for several reasons including the following:
1) 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 deduction is increased).
5) Another very good reason not to use these plans is because there are better alternatives like Captive
Insurance Companies (click on the following link to learn of 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 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 they tell you it’s a can’t-miss
program, have them give you what they think is a good illustration for a client and forward it to me. I’ll expose it for the
nonsense that it is, and then you will understand first hand why you don’t want to sell these plans
Section 79 article above is not mine but he agrees with me however if you are in a section 79 you must properly file 8886 forms to avoid the IRS fines google lance wallach for more
Section 79 plans are extremely marginal from a wealth building standpoint and are mainly sold by advisors who do not understand the math or do understand the math and don't care because the plans help them push/sell life insurance.
ReplyDeleteHowever, manipulating a client to use a Section 79 Plan that is so very marginal from a wealth- building standpoint simply because it is sexy to sell a 40 percent deductible plan may not be the best path for you to go down. You have the math, and you can make your decisions accordingly.
section 79 plan section 79 insurance plan sold by agents section 79 or sec79 be aware of the problems with section 79 life isnurance plans or plans
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteSection 79 allows employers to offer group and permanent life insurance benefits with contributions that are typically tax-deductible to the corporation. Many employers already offer group term life insurance to their employees. Typically this amount is limited to $50,000 of coverage and is generally income tax-free for employees. But key-employees and owners often need permanent coverage and higher coverage amounts. Adding a permanent benefit to a group term life insurance program can help owners attract, retain and reward key employees and owners. Using the guidelines of IRC Section 79, a corporation can potentially use pre-tax dollars to provide tax-advantaged benefits to participating employees.
This section 79 is from the CJA and associates website. We have received calls about audits of section 79plans
ReplyDeleteSection 79 allows employers to offer group and permanent life insurance benefits with contributions that are typically tax-deductible to the corporation. Many employers already offer group term life insurance to their employees. Typically this amount is limited to $50,000 of coverage and is generally income tax-free for employees. But key-employees and owners often need permanent coverage and higher coverage amounts. Adding a permanent benefit to a group term life insurance program can help owners attract, retain and reward key employees and owners. Using the guidelines of IRC Section 79, a corporation can potentially use pre-tax dollars to provide tax-advantaged benefits to participating employees. section 79 palsn and 419 plans get IRS audits
section 79 help or sect 79 plan help
ReplyDeletereduce section 79 tax lance wallach 516 9357346 file 8886 reduce section 79 plan taxs
ReplyDeletelance wallach for section 79 412i 419 captive insurance audits and lawsuits
ReplyDeleteIRS attacks section 79 419 captive insurance 412i plans
ReplyDelete412i help with www.vebaplan.com
ReplyDeleteLance Wallach
38 people have you in circles
Lance Wallach commented on a video on Youtube.
Shared publicly - Dec 10, 2013
"Niche" "Bisys" "Veba" "Doug Williams" "arch bonnema" "steve toth" "captive insurance" "michael sonnenberg" "ron snyder" "brian cave" "benistar" "norm bevan"
"doug williams" " williams coulson" "dennis cunning" "phil rowe" "sadi trust" "beta plan" "millennium plan" "grist mill trust" "compass welfare benefit plan" "sea nine"
"professional benefits trust" "integrity 419" "integrity benefit plan" "veba plan" "sterling 419" "judy carsrud"
By Lance Wallach
October 23, 2010
Welfare benefit plans (419), 412i, captive insurance and Section 79 plans are under intense IRS
scrutiny and no matter what plan you were in, you surely need help now. The IRS has been
cracking down on 419, 412i, listed transactions and virtually all plans, making it difficult for
anyone who has been involved with one of these plans. Listed below are some of the companies
and names of salesmen,and others that you may recognize.
Plan Names:
Niche
BiSYS
Veba
Benistar
SADI trust
Beta plan
Millennium plan
Grist Mill trust
Compass welfare benefit plan
Sea Nine veba
Professional Benefits Trust
Integrity 419
Integrity Benefit Plan
Veba Plan
Sterling 419
People, law firms, etc., affiliated with plans:
Doug Williams
Arch Bonnema
Steve Toth
Michael Sonnenberg
Ron Snyder
Brian Cave
Norman Bevan
Dennis Cunning
Williams Coulson
Phil Rowe
Judy Carsrud
Michael Lloyd
Greeberg Tarig
If you need help getting out of a plan, redoing a plan, or reviewing a plan, we can help you.
We have written books about the subject, given hundreds of lectures and have worked on these
problems for many years.
Our team includes ex-IRS agents, tax attorneys, CPAs, Erisa attorneys and others substantially
knowledgeable about these plans.
need help with a listed or similar plan file under 6707A to reduce IRS fines and www.taxaudit419.com to be made whole
ReplyDeleteSelect Your Specialty
Conditions
Conferences
Education
Videos
Publications
Hennessy's Highlights
Physician's Money Digest
Protect Your Inheritance from Divorce
By Lance Wallach | September 16, 2008
Most people are unaware that a divorce can create a scenario where a soon-to-be ex-spouse can get their hands on the inherited assets of the other spouse. Imagine a scenario in which you are married and your last living parent passes away, leaving you with $2 million in real estate and stocks. You put the money in your marital bank account or put the real estate in both of your names. One year later, you and your spouse decide to divorce. (A similar scenario is if you die in the middle of obtaining a divorce.)
Importance of Trust
Depending on your state of residence, your spouse's entitlement to your inheritance varies. If you have been married for more than 10 years, chances are that your spouse is going to get half of everything you inherited from your last remaining parent. Protecting inherited assets during a divorce comes from a parent's planning. If you are trying to protect the assets you will pass to your children, the power to protect those assets is in your hands. The main way to protect your children from losing inherited assets in a divorce is through the use of an irrevocable trust.
Your parents can set up an irrevocable trust that moves all their assets into it when they die and names you as the ultimate beneficiary. The language of the trust will allow a trustee, usually a bank or trusted family advisor or friend, to dip into the irrevocable trust for many different purposes, as long as it is on your behalf. The trust document must be written so that if you ever get divorced, none of the assets of the trust will go to your ex-spouse. To protect assets you intend to pass to your children from their potential divorce, you would also transfer assets to an irrevocable trust at your death with the same trust language that would prevent any distributions to an exspouse in a divorce.
Distribution Schedule
Many times a portion of the assets will be given from the irrevocable trust outright to you at a scheduled age no matter if you are divorced or not. For example, there might be language to give you 25% of the assets at age 60, then 65, 70, and 75. The reason behind this is that you are less likely to divorce later in life, assuming you have been married for a while. The trustee would still, typically, have the ability at earlier ages to dip into the trust for purchases of items or outright cash distributions, but those would be at the discretion of the trustee as per the language of the trust.
While you might not think that you will get divorced, never say never. Statistics say that more than 50% of marriages will end in divorce. Due to my experience with physicians, I can state with confidence that physicians divorce more often than the general public on average. If your parents are going to pass significant wealth at their death to you, make sure that they fund an irrevocable trust for your benefit with language preventing distributions to any ex-spouse.
Lance Wallach CLU, ChFC, CIMC, is president of VEBA Specialists. Ira Kaplan, Esq, is a CPA. For a free 50-page alert on reducing income taxes, e-mail Mr. Wallach at LanWalla@aol.com. The information provided herein is not intended as legal, accounting, financial, or any other type of advice for any specific individual or other entity. Contact an appropriate professional for any such advice.
- See more at: http://www.hcplive.com/publications/pmd/2006/103/4566#sthash.04iLFqft.dpuf
RS Code Section 79, a corporation can potentially use pre-tax dollars to ...
ReplyDeleteSection 79 Plans
lancesvids.blogspot.com/
by Lance Wallach - in 61 Google+ circles
Mar 28, 2014 - Section 79, Captive Insurance, 419, 412i Plans, Don't go to arbitration Sue. Thomas, Francis, Edward, and Dolores Ehlen("the Ehlens") are ...
. Proc. 2007-21 describes the procedures for requesting rescission of the § 6707A penalty.
ReplyDeleteThe temporary regulations generally adopt the list of factors weighing in favor of and against granting rescission stated in Rev. Proc. 2007-21.
One additional factor the regulations identify as weighing in favor of granting rescission is whether the penalty assessed is disproportionately larger than the tax benefit received.
The factors identified in the temporary regulations do not represent an exclusive list, and no single factor will be determinative of whether to grant rescission in any particular case. Rather, the Commissioner (or the Commissioner's delegate) will consider and weigh all relevant factors, regardless of whether the factor is included in this list.
The temporary regulations mirror Rev. Proc. 2007-21 in providing that a rescission request is not the appropriate forum to contest whether the elements necessary to support a penalty under section 6707A exist. That question is for the examining agent, the IRS Appeals Division, and the courts.
A rescission determination is based on the premise that a violation of section 6707A exists but, nonetheless, the penalty should be rescinded (or abated). Accordingly, the temporary regulations provide that the Commissioner (or the Commissioner's delegate) will not consider whether the taxpayer in fact failed to comply with section 6011.
The temporary regulations provide that the Commissioner (or the Commissioner's delegate) will not take into consideration doubt as to liability for, or collectibility of, the penalties in determining whether to rescind the penalty.
The temporary regulations restate the existing authority of the Secretary to prescribe by revenue procedure or other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin the manner in which taxpayers must disclose the requirement to pay certain penalties on reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Rev. Procs. 2005-51 and 2007-25 are the current published guidance items that provide these disclosure rules and remain effective until further guidance is issued in the form of regulations or other guidance that explicitly supersedes these two documents.
The temporary regulations supersede Notice 2005-11.
The temporary regulations apply to disclosure statements that are due after September 11, 2008.
Posted by Lance Wallach at 8:43 AM 1 comment:
Labels: 6707a, lance Wallach, Lance Wallach Expert Witness, Tax Shelter, Taxpayers
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Business Owners in 419, 412i, Section 79 and Captive Insurance Plans Will Probably Be Fined by the IRS Under Section 6707A
Business Owners in 419, 412i, Section 79 and Captive Insurance Plans Will Probably Be Fined by the IRS Under Section 6707A
Posted on December 27, 2011, in Uncategorized, with 4 Comments
Business Owners in 419, 412i, Section 79 and Captive Insurance Plans Will Probably Be Fined by the IRS Under Section 6707A
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 t
Lance Wallach
ReplyDeleteManaging Director
The Offices of Lance Wallach
Serving clients
nationwide
Call us today:
516-938-5007
Email us at:
LanWalla@aol.com
Every one of our consulting attorneys, CPAs & ex
IRS Agents has over 25 years of professional
experience! We believe that no firm has more
experienced professionals to assist our clients
than we do!
Specializing in the following services:
"IRS audit appeals"
U.S. 'Tax Court' cases
Multinational taxation consulting
Incorporating your business
Recovering losses from insurance companies
& brokerage firms
"Tax shelter analysis"
"Pension plan reviews" & evaluations
"419"& "412i" benefit plan analysis
"419" & "412i plan" remediation
Offshore tax shelter issues
IRS "listed transactions" assistance
Expert Witness Testimony For:
* Taxes
* Insurance & retirement plan cases
* SSI & Disability Advocates
Protect your clients – and yourself – from all kinds of financial chicanery and stupidity with this vital new book
ReplyDeleteIt 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.