Showing posts with label Section 79 Plans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Section 79 Plans. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Section 79 Plans



            Most people have never heard of what we call in the industry a Section 79 Plan.
           
            Why? Because it’s a marginally affective wealth building tool pitched by insurance agents who really do not understand the math behind the plan.

            If you already have the opinion that we do not like Section 79 Plans, you are correct.

            If that’s the case, then why are we discussing it on our web-site?

            The answer is simple, the benefits of Section 79 plans are massively oversold by advisors who pitch them and we wanted you to know that we believe the plans are not worth implementing from a pure financial point of view.  In other words, this section of our web-site was put together to warn you to stay away from advisors pitching this plan.

            Why is it such a bad plan?  It’s all about the math.  We can show you how to build more wealth without implementing a Section 79 Plan.



For More Information Google Lance Wallach.

 Lance Wallach, CLU, ChFC, CIMC, speaks and writes extensively about financial planning, retirement plans, and tax reduction strategies.  He is an American Institute of CPA’s course developer and instructor and has authored numerous bestselling books about abusive tax shelters, IRS crackdowns and attacks and other tax matters. He speaks at more than 20 national conventions annually and writes for more than 50 national publications.  For more information and additional articles on these subjects, visit www.vebaplan.com, www.taxlibrary.us, lawyer4audits.com or call 516-938-5007.
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. 

Avoid IRS Abuse - Part 1

Section 79 Plans Could Cost Your Business Thousands in Fines

Section 79 Plans Could Cost Your Business Thousands in Fines

You CAN Avoid Section 79 IRS Fines....

You CAN Avoid Section 79 IRS Fines....

Section 79 Plan information to keep you out of the auditor's office.

Section 79 Plan information to keep you out of the auditor's office.

Section 79 Plan-What Is It & How Do You Avoid Being Fined by IRS?

Section 79 Plan-What Is It & How Do You Avoid Being Fined by IRS?

Section 79 Plans

Blog

Where Can I Find Help With Section 79 Plans?

Expert Witness-419e,412i,Section 79,tax shelters,listed transaction

Expert Witness-419e,412i,Section 79,tax shelters,listed transaction

Section 79 Plan


Did You Buy a Section 79 Plan

Section 79 Plans are insurance plans sold to small business owner that the IRS considers abusive and will audit. Before you buy into this type of plan, captive insurance or any other type of plan, you should know its history.

Find more help at these websites:

Lance Wallach, captive insurance and Section 79 plan expert, is the nation's leading authority on resolving IRS tax problems for individuals and businesses.

Mr. Wallach, National Society of Accountants' Speaker of the Year, is a member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals and he is a renowned national expert witness in many 419, 412i, and financial abuse cases. To date his side has never lost a case.

Mr. Wallach is often a featured speaker at national conventions for CPAs, attorneys, and business owners and other entrepreneurs, and has over 30 years experience helping people get the most possible money back from the IRS.  He can be contacted at 516-938-5007 or wallachinc@gmail.com, or visit www.taxaudit419.com for more information.




Lance Wallach on Listed Transactions

It’s not worth it!

It’s not worth it!
Stay away from 419 and similar plans like Section 79 plans. Be very careful with 412i plans. Avoid most captive insurance plans.
It’s getting closer to the end of the year. This is when every scammer known to man/woman comes out of the woodwork to sell some fly-by-night tax-deductible plan to clients. Sometimes they come in the form of an accountant, insurance agent-financial planner, or even an attorney. I see this in all of my expert witness cases and when I speak at conventions. I have seen this since the 1990s. I wanted to remind readers that, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

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, 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 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.taxaudit419.com.

Is your retirement plan the best for you and your company?

Is your retirement plan the best for you and your company? Is it bogged down with hidden fees? Are owners and top executives getting the benefit that they really deserve?
Recent legislation, to take effect in 2012, will require retirement plan fee transparency which will reveal the many hidden fees that have been eating away at retirement plan balances for decades. Many business owners, HR directors, and investors are in for a shock.
The enactment of the Pension Protection Act dramatically increased the retirement plan benefits available to owners and top executives. If your plan hasn't been reviewed recently, you should have it done. We can provide you with a NO COST review.

Section 79 Plans

Many business owners have set up tax-deferred retirement plans such as a 401(k) in order to get a tax break. While those plans do provide for a tax advantage now, they come at a heavy tax cost in retirement, when we don't have the income to offset the expense.
Section 79 plans, when funded with permanent insurance, provide an excellent tax advantage for you and your business now AND tax-free access to your money later. Additionally, Section 79 plans provide life insurance in the event that a key person passes away unexpectedly. Our featured plan also includes coverage for terminal, chronic, and critical illness at no additional cost.
A Section 79 plan offers employers an opportunity to purchase life insurance for employees on a tax-advantaged basis. This type of plan offers several advantages:
  • Executive gets to exclude a portion (35-40%) of the employer contribution from income
  • Tax-advantaged life insurance for key employees' personal or business needs
  • Income tax deduction at the corporate level
  • High percentage of plan cost allocated to key employees
  • Provides supplementary retirement income, tax-free when properly structured
  • Attracts and retains key employees
  • Offers a limited funding commitment 


Jump Start Your Retirement Savings
Many small business owners reinvest every dollar they can into their business. For their efforts, they are rewarded with ownership of a successful business enterprise. But this often comes at the cost of sufficient planning for retirement. We can help you catch up by jump starting your retirement savings in the form of Leveraged Planning™. 

What is Leveraged Planning?
Leveraged Planning™ offers business owners  the ability to take advantage of leverage to enable the funding of specially selected insurance and annuity products for use as retirement planning strategies, wealth creation tools, components of buy/sell arrangements, and as alternatives to traditional premium financing and more.
Our lending partner extends commercial loans based on the financial and business performance in a broad range of industries. From physician’s offices to metal fabrication shops, funded Leveraged Planning™ programs are well suited to a diverse array of business owners.
The proceeds of these loans are used by the business-clients to purchase life insurance and/or annuity products for the benefit of the businesses owner (or their designated beneficiary). The loan servicing is handled through the firm, thus the business owners is able to place the value of the firm in a position to benefit them or the beneficiaries directly without placing their personal assets in jeopardy.  Each life insurance and annuity product is carefully vetted to ensure that stability is the primary characteristic of any program put in place. Fast approvals, no personal guarantees and internal loan servicing are hallmarks of a program designed for this commercial market.
The salesman who wrote this failed to mention that if you go into what the IRS calls a listed transaction you will get audited.

Section 79 plans?


Answer:

The dangers of 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. 

Internal Revenue Service, Treasury § 1.79–4T minimum or maximum contribution rate by the employer or the employees.



(Secs. 79(c) and 7805 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954 (78 Stat. 36, 26 U.S.C. 79(c); 68A
Stat. 917, 28 U.S.C. 7805))
[T.D. 6888, 31 FR 9203, July 6, 1966, as amended
by T.D. 7623, 44 FR 28800, May 17, 1979;
T.D. 7924, 48 FR 54595, Dec. 6, 1983; T.D. 8273,
54 FR 47979, Nov. 20, 1989; T.D. 8424, 57 FR
33635, July 30, 1992; T.D. 8821, 64 FR 29790,
June 3, 1999]
§ 1.79–4T Questions and answers relating
to the nondiscrimination requirements
for group-term life insurance
(temporary).
Q–1: When does section 79, as amended
by the Tax Reform Act of 1984, become
effective?
A–1: (a) Generally, section 79, as
amended, applies to taxable years (of
the employee receiving insurance coverage)
beginning after December 31,
1983. There are, however, several exceptions
to this effective date where there
is coverage under a group-term life insurance
plan of the employer that was
in existence on January 1, 1984, or a
comparable successor to such a plan
maintained by the employer or a successor
employer.
(b) First, the new rules of section 79
(b) and (e), that require the inclusion
in income of a retired employee of
amounts attributable to the cost of
group-term life insurance in excess of
$50,000 and that include former employees
within the definition of the term
‘‘employee,’’ will not apply to any employee
who retired from employment
on or before January 1, 1984.
(c) Second, in the case of an individual
who retires after January 1,
1984, and before January 1, 1987, the
new rules of section 79 (b) and (e) do
not apply if (1) the individual attained
age 55 on or before January 1, 1984, and
(2) the plan was maintained by the
same employer who employed the individual
during 1983, or by a successor
employer.
(d) Third, in the case of an individual
who retires after December 31, 1986, the
new rules of section 79 (b) and (e) do
not apply if (1) the individual attained
age 55 on or before January 1, 1984, (2)
the plan was maintained by the same
employer who employed the individual
during 1983, or by a successor employer,
and (3) the plan is not, after December
31, 1986, a discriminatory
group-term life insurance plan (not
taking into account any group-term
life insurance coverage provided to employees
who retired before January 1,
1987).
(e) For purposes of determining
whether a plan is, after December 31,
1986, a discriminatory group-term life
insurance plan, there shall be ignored
any insurance coverage provided pursuant
to a state law requirement that an
insurer continue to provide insurance
coverage for a period of time not in excess
of two months following the termination
of a policy.
Q–2: What is meant by a ‘‘group-term
life insurance plan of the employer
that was in existence on January 1,
1984’’?
A–2: A group-term life insurance plan
of the employer was in existence on
January 1, 1984, only if the group policy
or policies providing group-term life
insurance benefits under the plan were
executed on or before January 1, 1984,
and were not terminated prior to such
date. The applicability of section 79, as
amended, to an employee will not be
affected by the transfer of the employee
between employers treated as a
single employer under section 79(d)(7)
if the employee continues, after the
transfer, to be provided with groupterm
life insurance benefits under a
plan that is comparable (determined
under the principles set forth in Q&A 3)
to the plan provided by the former employer.
Q–3: When is a plan of group-term life
insurance a ‘‘comparable successor’’ to
another such plan?
A–3: A plan of group-term life insurance
will be a comparable successor to
another plan of group-term life insurance
(the first plan) only if the plan
does not differ from the first plan in
any significant aspect with respect to
individuals who are potentially eligible
for benefits provided under the grandfather
provisions in Q&A 1. These individuals
consist of those persons who
are covered under a plan of group-term
life insurance of the employer that was
in existence on January 1, 1984, or a
comparable successor to such a plan
maintained by the employer or a successor
employer, and who either retired
Part of the IRS memo on group term as it relates to section 79 which you should read before you proceed.

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

Massachusetts Society of Certified Public Accounts, 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.

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.Contact him at:516.938.5007,wallachinc@gmail.com, orwww.taxadvisorexperts.org, orwww.taxlibrary.us.

If the plan is marginal from a wealth-building standpoint, then why are agents selling it?


This brings up an interesting issue. If the plan is marginal from a wealth-building standpoint, then why are agents selling it? 

Again, there are two reasons: 1) Most advisors have not broken down the math so they can come to a correct conclusion, which is that the plans are not worth implementing from a pure financial standpoint. 2) Some advisors know the plan is marginal from a financial standpoint and don't care because they know they can still sell it to business owners who are looking for deductions. 

The first reason is somewhat excusable (or was, before you knew the truth). The second reason is what helps gives life insurance agents a bad reputation. Clients would be better off paying tax on their money and funding a "good" EIUL policy for wealth building

It sounds crazy, but it's true. The math does not lie. Clients would be better off paying tax on their money and taking it home to buy a "good" cash accumulating policy. 

The information written by Roccy Defrancico and makes a very good point about section 79 plans.

Section 79 & 419 Plans Litigation: Section 79

Section 79 & 419 Plans Litigation: Section 79: April 8, 2013 By Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC Call (516) 938-5007 For businesses with 10 or fewer employees, the law prohibits full m...

Section 79

April 8, 2013 By Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC Call (516) 938-5007 For businesses with 10 or fewer employees, the law prohibits full medical underwriting of the policies that are issued ("group" underwriting is required, which is much more risky for an insurance company). Section 79-Group underwriting for businesses of 10 employees or less Lance Wallach Beginning this article, I wanted to reiterate my comments on implementing plans with fewer than 10 employees. Amazingly, one of the insurance companies offering this plan seemly doesn't have the ability to issue non-medical underwriting policies. This is laughable and pathetic all at the same time, and a plan you'll want to stay far away from. As I briefly alluded to in my previous article, one of the reasons I really do not like Section 79 plans is that they basically force employers and those helping them set up Section 79 plans to lie to the employees when implementing the plan. Non-discrimination Section 79 plans are employee benefits plans. As such, employers are not supposed to discriminate in favor of key employees or business owners. As you know, Section 79 plans are implemented so business owners can take a business deduction for the purchase of an individually owned life insurance policy that the owner can borrow from tax free in retirement. It sounds great until you break down the math and understand that a client would be better off paying taxes on his/her money, taking it home, and funding a good cash value life policy rather than the low cash accumulation Section 79 Plan policy. Notwithstanding the math behind Section 79 plans, let's talk about the benefits for employees. The employee owner is going to buy a "permanent" policy that will carry cash and can be borrowed from tax free in retirement. That same policy must be offered to all employees. If that actually happened in a full-disclosure manner, virtually all the employees would opt for the same permanent policy; and if that happened, the finances of the plan would really go out the window because of the tremendous costs for the employees. How do you "work around" this issue? The work around of this issue is a bit clever and deceptive. The employees will be scared into voluntarily opting for $50,000 of term insurance instead of the full-benefit policy (term or permanent). Why would an employee opt for $50,000 in term instead of a policy with several hundred thousands of dollars or even millions of dollars in death benefits? Because employees who are provided death benefits by an employer in excess of $50,000 are taxed on the additional benefit on an annual basis (and it increases every year). beginning this article, I wanted to reiterate my comments on implementing plans with fewer than 10 employees Group underwriting for businesses of 10 employees or less For businesses with 10 or fewer employees, the law prohibits full medical underwriting of the policies that are issued ("group" underwriting is required, which is much more risky for an insurance company). Amazingly, one of the insurance companies offering this plan seemly doesn't have the ability to issue non-medical underwriting policies. This is laughable and pathetic all at the same time, and a plan you'll want to stay far away from. As I briefly alluded to in my previous article, one of the reasons I really do not like Section 79 plans is that they basically force employers and those helping them set up Section 79 plans to lie to the employees when implementing the plan. Non-discrimination Section 79 plans are employee benefits plans. As such, employers are not supposed to discriminate in favor of key employees or business owners. As you know, Section 79 plans are implemented so business owners can take a business deduction for the purchase of an individually owned life insurance policy that the owner can borrow from tax free in retirement. It sounds great until you break down the math and understand that a client would be better off paying taxes on his/her money, taking it home, and funding a good cash value life policy rather than the low cash accumulation Section 79 Plan policy. Notwithstanding the math behind Section 79 plans, let's talk about the benefits for employees. The employee owner is going to buy a "permanent" policy that will carry cash and can be borrowed from tax free in retirement. That same policy must be offered to all employees. If that actually happened in a full-disclosure manner, virtually all the employees would opt for the same permanent policy; and if that happened, the finances of the plan would really go out the window because of the tremendous costs for the employees. How do you "work around" this issue? The work around of this issue is a bit clever and deceptive. The employees will be scared into voluntarily opting for $50,000 of term insurance instead of the full-benefit policy (term or permanent). Why would an employee opt for $50,000 in term instead of a policy with several hundred thousands of dollars or even millions of dollars in death benefits? Because employees who are provided death benefits by an employer in excess of $50,000 are taxed on the additional benefit on an annual basis (and it increases every year). Roccy is a good man and the author of the above article. I did not copy the entire article. I only copied the first page. Roccy D is a very smart man who is aware of the problems with abusive tax shelters including 412i 419 and the new abusive section 79 plans. It seems that over the years he and I have attacked abusive 419 and 412i plans, while everyone else was selling them. Now he and I are warning about section 79 scams. 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. 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 does expert witness testimony and has never lost a case. Contact him at 516.938.5007 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.