IRS Swapouts

How to Get Fined $100,000 by the IRS and Lose Your License - Accountants, Insurance Agents

How to Get Fined $100,000 by the IRS and Lose Your License - Accountants, Insurance Agents

Over the past decade, business owners have been overwhelmed by a plethora of arrangements designed to reduce the cost of providing employee benefits and taxes, while simultaneously increasing their own retirement savings. The solutions ranged from traditional pension and profit sharing plans to more advanced strategies.

Some strategies, such as IRS Section 419 and 412(i) plans, used life insurance as vehicles to bring aboutbenefits. Unfortunately, the high life insurance commissions (often 90% of the contribution, or more) fostered an environment that led to the marketing and selling of aggressive and noncompliant plans.

IRS tax relief firm, Lance Wallach, speaking: How to Avoid IRS Fines for You and Your Clients

IRS tax relief firm, Lance Wallach, speaking: How to Avoid IRS Fines for You and Your Clients | ...: How to Avoid IRS Fines for You and Your Clients | LifeHealthPro

Similarities and Differences Between IRC Section 419A(f)(6) and IRC Section 419(e) Plans CPA’s Guide to Life Insurance

Author/Moderator: Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC, CIMC

Below is an excerpt from one of Lance Wallach’s new books.

Similarities and Differences Between IRC Section 419A(f)(6) and IRC Section 419(e) Plans

One popular type of listed transaction is the so-called “welfare benefit plan,” which once relied on IRC §419A(f)(6) for its authority to claim tax deductions, but now more commonly relies on IRC §419(e). The IRC §419A(f)(6) plans used to claim that the section completely exempted business owners from all limitations on how much tax could be deducted. In other words, it was claimed, tax deductions were unlimited. These plans featured large amounts of life insurance and accompanying large commissions, and were thus aggressively pushed by insurance agents, financial planners, and sometimes even accountants and attorneys. Not to mention the insurance companies themselves, who put millions of dollars in premiums on the books and, when confronted with questions about the outlandish tax claims made in marketing these plans, claimed to be only selling product, not giving opinions on tax questions.

EP Abusive Tax Transactions - Certain Trust Arrangements Seeking to Qualify for Exemption from Section 419

Notice 95-34 discusses tax problems raised by certain trust arrangements seeking to qualify for exemption from IRC section 419. This transaction involves the claiming of deductions under IRC sections 419 and 419A for contributions to multiple employer welfare benefit funds. In general, an employer may deduct contributions to a welfare benefit fund when paid, but only if the contributions qualify as ordinary and necessary business expenses of the employer and only to the extent allowable under IRC sections 419 and 419A. There are strict limits on the amount of tax-deductible pre-funding permitted for contributions to a welfare benefit fund.
IRC section 419A(f)(6) provides an exemption from IRC sections 419 and 419A for a welfare benefit fund that is part of a 10 or more employer plan. In general, for this exemption to apply, an employer normally cannot contribute more than 10 percent of the total contributions contributed under the plan by all employers, and the plan must not be experience rated with respect to individual employers.
Promoters have offered trust arrangements that are used to provide life insurance, disability, and severance pay benefits. The promoters enroll at least 10 employers in their multiple employer trusts and claim that all employer contributions are tax deductible when paid, relying on the 10-or-more-employer exemption from the limitations under IRC sections 419 and 419A. Often the trusts maintain separate accounting of the assets attributable to each subscribing employer’s contributions.
Notice 95-34 puts taxpayers on notice that deductions for contributions to these arrangements are disallowable for any one of several reasons (e.g., the arrangements may provide deferred compensation, the arrangements may be separate plans for each employer, the arrangements may be experience rated in form or operation, or the contributions may be nondeductible prepaid expenses).
On July 17, 2003, final regulations (T.D. 9079) relating to whether a welfare benefit fund is part of a 10 or more employer plan (as defined in section 419A(f)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code) were published in the Federal Register (68 FR 42254).

In addition, in a case decided by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the contributions to the plan were taxable to the owners of the corporate employers as constructive dividends (Neonatology Associates, P.A., Et Al. v. Commissioner, 299 F.3rd 221 - 3rd Cir. 2002).

How Hartford Life and Other Insurance Companies Tricked their Agents and Got People in Trouble with the IRS - HG.org

A Welfare Benefit Trust 419 plan essentially works like this:

• The business provides a fringe benefit for their employees, such as health insurance and life insurance.

• The benefit is established in the name of a trust and funded with a cash value life insurance policy

• Here is the gravy: the entire amount deposited into the trust (insurance policy) is tax deductible to the company,and

• The owners of the company can withdraw the cash value from the policy in later years tax-free.

Insurance swap-outs trade old policies for new ones

By Lance Wallach

Do you have any clients who complain that their life insurance was supposed to be paid up by now, but it isn’t? Notices from their insurance companies may even indicate that their suggested premium payment has increased, or that their policies are about to lapse.
Do you have clients whose “investment type” life insurance policy is not performing as projected? Ever have clients cancel their life insurance and get a taxable statement of gain? This can even happen if their policy lapses and they get nothing back (they had a paper gain). This is becoming more common.
There are many reasons why it may be advantageous for the owner of a cash value life insurance policy to swap out the policy for a new one. These reasons include reducing premium payments substantially, the insured’s improved health, a change in the rating of the insurance company, competitive terms of a new policy, increasing the death benefit while making the same payment, increase of the
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
When interest rates dropped, premiums had to be paid
in some cases, for twice as long.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
endowment age for the insured, change in the insured’s financial situation, and many more. …
Instead of cashing in a value life insurance policy and purchasing a new one, a policy-owner should use the process of the insurance swapoutsm on the policies. By doing so, a policyowner can roll the exiting cash value insurance policy into a new one without paying taxes on the growth in the old policy’s cash value. In contrast, if the policyowner were to cancel the policy, she would be subject to paying income tax on the cash value in excess of premiums paid into the policy.
An insurance swapoutsm also allows the policyowner to carry over the original basis, which is used to calculate income taxes due upon receiving distributions from the policy’s cash value. Maintaining the original basis can be especially beneficial in the initial contract years of the policy, when the premiums paid may exceed the policy’s cash value.
As an example, a life insurance policy on which the owner has paid $30,000 in premiums has a cash value of $20,000. If the owner were to surrender the policy and buy a new one with the proceeds, the basis in the new policy would be $20,000. With an insurance swapoutsm, however, the basis would remain at $30,000.
Because people are living longer, and due to the insurance marketplace having become more efficient and competitive, the cost of death protection on new policies is usually lower than on older policies. Clients with old policies that don’t reflect updated mortality experience may benefit by swapping them for policies with lower premiums or higher death benefits. One problem with older policies is that they were illustrated at high interest rates that probably would not last indefinitely. These policies might have illustrated being paid up in, say, 11 years, and when interest rates dropped, premiums had to be paid for, in some cases, twice as long.
An insurance swapoutsm is the most efficient way to accomplish various fundamental insurance planning goals. Don’t attempt this on your own, and be wary of your local insurance agent who may say he can help. The result may be a large tax bill. Under Internal Revenue Code Section 1035, insurance can be exchanged for insurance or annuities.
However, because such exchanges are complicated, there are many mistakes that can be made. Any mistake may make the exchange useless or, worse, taxable (in a gain situation). There is also a liability issue. Section 1035 does not require state insurance department replacement forms to be filed. But the filing and analysis of state insurance department replacement forms are part of the insurance swapoutsm procedure. So is the analysis of new acquisition costs, cancellation penalties, new contestability periods, etc. … The swapout should only be recommended if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Accountants, Business, Owners and others Fined 200k by IRS

November 1, 2009
By Lance Wallach

If you are an accountant, insurance professional, or small business owner 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.

Over the last few years I have received thousands of phone calls from accountants and business owners who are in, or will potentially be in the above situation. Life insurance agents continue to sell so called 419 and 412 (i) plans. The IRS has been calling many of these plans listed transactions. They have been auditing. What is worse is that they have been fining participants and their accountants $200, 000. Think this can’t happen to you? If you have small business owner clients that are successful it probably will.

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.

The IRS may call the accountant
you a material advisor and fine you $200,000.00. The IRS may fine your clients over a million dollars for being in a retirement plan, 419 plan, etc. As you read this article, hundreds of unfortunate people are having their lives ruined by these fines. You may need to take action immediately. The Internal Revenue Service said it will extend until the end of 2009 a grace period granted to small business owners for collection of certain tax-shelter penalties.

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 implemented by small business seeking to provide retirement income or health benefits to their employees.

Strict liability requires the IRS to impose the 6707A penalty regardless of innocence of a person (i.e. whether the person knew that the transaction needed to be reported or not or whether the person made a good faith effort to report) or the level of the person’s reliance on professional advisors. A Section 6707A penalty is imposed when the transaction

CAPTIVE INSURANCE

http://lancewallach.articlealley.com/captive-insurance-468471.html

Achieve large tax and cost reductions by renting a "CAPTIVE"

Most accountants and small business owners are unfamiliar with a great way to reduce taxes and expenses. By either creating or sharing "a captive insurance company", substantial tax and cost savings willbenefit the small business owner. Over 80% of Fortune 500 companies take advantage of some kind of captive insurance company arrangement. They set up their own insurance companies to provide coverage when they think outside insurers are charging too much, or coverage is simply unavailable. The parent company creates a captive so that it has a self-financing option for buying insurance. The captive then either retains the risk of providing insurance or pays reinsurers (companies that reinsure insurers) to take the risk.

If you buy insurance from a standard insurance company, your money buys a service, but the money is spent and gone forever. When you utilize or "rent a captive", your money buys a service but it is investedwith a good possibility of a return.

In the event of a claim, the company pays claims from its captive or from its reinsurer. To keep costs down, captives are often based in places where there is favorable tax treatment and less onerous regulation (i.e. Vermont, South Carolina, and Bermuda).

Optimum utilization of a captive by a small business, medical practice, or professional

The best way for a small business, medical practice, etc., to take advantage of captive benefits is to share or rent a large captive. You can significantly decrease your costs of insurance and obtain tax deductions at the same time. There are, as well, significant tax advantages to renting a large captive as opposed to owning a captive.

The advantages of "renting a captive" become apparent when you consider that the single parent captive may be forced to use less than adequate standards or marginal service so they can meet the financial requirements associated with the initial general licensing and administrative costs of establishment. Additionally, when renting a large captive, the captive bears the burden of initial capital commitment and protects reinsurers from runaway claims and unnecessary losses through their underwriting protocols and claims management practices, all at significant savings to the small business owner.

Other advantages include low policy fees and no capital responsibilities to meet solvency requirements or annual management and maintenance costs. By renting a large captive, you only pay a pro rata fee to cover all administrative expenses for the captive insurance company. Another significant advantage of renting a large captive is the ability to take a loan. It is illegal for an individual captive to make loans to subscribers. When renting a large captive, however, the individual subscriber has no ownership interest, and this difference makes it legal for a rented captive to make loans to individual subscribers. So you can make a tax deductible contribution, and then take back money tax free. Operation of an individual stand alone captive insurance company may not achieve the type of cost savings that a small business could obtain by renting a large captive. To rent a large captive, your company simply fills out some forms. Renting a captive requires no significant financial commitment beyond the payment of premiums.

Buyer Beware

As with many strategies to enjoy tax savings and advantages, you must to do this correctly. IRS and other problems have happened, in the past, to those that have done this improperly or abusively. You probably want to work with a large captive that already has over fifty million in assets and is being rented by at least 200 different companies. Also, you'll not want to own or control any part of the captive. As an unrelated party, you can more likely significantly decrease your cost of insurance, eliminate capital requirements, and minimize maintenance costs.

You want to deal with a large captive that meets the risk shifting requirements of IRS Revenue Ruling 2005-40. Be cautious about setting up your own small captive. In addition to all the costs, a small captive may find that the expense of defending itself from regulatory oversight is much greater than any benefits received.

Today's IRS audits are both targeted and coordinated

Today's IRS audits are both targeted and coordinated
Question: Are the IRS audits coordinated?

Answer: Yes. The IRS audits are both targeted and coordinated. They are targeted meaning that the IRS obtains a list of the participating employers in a plan promotion and audits the participating employers (and owners) for the purpose of challenging the deductions taken with respect to the plan. The audits are coordinated meaning that there is an IRS Issue Management Team for each promotion that has responsibility for both managing the promoter audit(s) and also developing the coordinated position to be followed by the Examination Agents. Their intention is that all taxpayers under audit will receive the similar treatment in Exam. There are also IRS Offices that specialize in 419 audits. For example, IRS offices in upstate New York and in El Monte California will manage many audits of specific promotions. Williams Coulson has significant experience in working with both of these offices.

Question: What is the general IRS position on these plans?

Answer: Though there can be some differences among plans, the basic IRS position is that the plans are not welfare benefit plans, but really plans of deferred compensation. As such, the contributions remain deductible at the business level but are included in the owner’s 1040 income for every open year and the value of the insurance policy with respect to contributions in closed years is included in the owner’s income either in the first open year or the year of termination or transfer. The IRS will normally apply 20% penalties on the tax applied and 30% with respect to non-reporting cases (see discussion below).

Question: Can the penalties ever be waived?

Answer: Yes. The penalties can often be waived upon a showing of the taxpayer’s due diligence and good faith reasonable cause. For example, if the taxpayer can show reliance on an outside tax advisor who reviewed the plan and the law, the Examining Agent normally has the authority to waive the 20% negligence penalty. Note that there are different standards for waiving penalties among the IRS Offices. It is important to know the standards of each office before requesting a waiver.

Question: What if there is an opinion letter issued on the plan – will that eliminate penalties?

Answer: Generally, the answer is a resounding – No. If the opinion letter was issued to the promoter or the promotion itself and a copy was merely provided to the taxpayer (even if the taxpayer paid for it), the IRS perceives the advice to be bias and not reasonable for reliance.

Question: What if the taxpayer relied upon the advisor who sold the promotion?

Answer: The IRS also discounts any advice provided by parties who are part of the sales team for the promotion. It is possible to negate the bias against professionals involved in the sale if you can demonstrate that the professional was first a tax advisor and gave advice in that role and not as a salesman.

Question: What are the “listed transaction” penalties?

Answer: The IRS has identified certain multiple and single employer welfare benefit plans as listed transactions. Taxpayers who participate in listed transactions have an obligation to notify the IRS of their participation on IRS Form 8886. The Form 8886 must be filed with every tax return where a tax effect of the transaction appears on the return and for the first year of filing must also be filed with the IRS Office of Tax Shelter Analysis (OTSA). There are penalties that apply for the failure to file the Form 8886. The IRS position appears to be that although only the C corporation must file the 8886, if the business is a pass-through entity like an S Corporation, LLC or partnership, then the Form 8886 must be filed at both the entity level and also the individual level. The penalty for non-filing is 75% of the tax reduction for the tax year. Note that it is very clear that a plan does not have to be proven to be defective or abusive for the penalty to apply. Further, the IRS has made it very clear that they will construe the duty to disclose broadly. Thus, if there is even a possibility that a plan is a listed transaction, the taxpayer should consider strongly filing the Form 8886.

Question: Are there other negatives to not filing the Form 8886?

Answer: Yes. In addition to the non-reporting penalty, the negligence penalty discussed above of 20% becomes 30% and is much more difficult to have waived. Further, the non-reporting penalty cannot be appealed to tax court. Therefore, the only recourse is to pay the penalty, file for a refund and fight the case in District Court.

Question: Whose responsibility is it to notify taxpayers of the need to file Form 8886?

Answer: It depends. Many promoters take the initiative to inform their customers that the promotion may be considered to be a listed transaction and that they should consider filing Forms 8886, though some promoters have actually taken the opposite view and have directed customers to not file the Form 8886 to keep them off the IRS radar. These promoters face potential liability if the penalties are assessed. Because the Form 8886 is filed with the tax returns, it may be partly the responsibility of the CPA who prepares the returns to file the Form, though many CPAs may not know that the transaction is a listed transaction or how to prepare the Form. From the IRS perspective, the responsibility is clear – it is the taxpayer who bears the ultimate responsibility and will be penalized if the Form is not filed.

Question: Are some plans better than others?

Answer: Yes. Even though the IRS appears to have thrown a giant net over the entire industry, I have observed that many promoters have worked hard to develop a plan that complies with the tax law. The plans are supported by substantial legal and actuarial authority and make it clear that they are welfare plans and not deferred compensation plans. These plans are often very strong in their marketing materials as to the nature of the plan and also provide for less deductible amounts. On the other hand, some promotions have ignored new IRS Regulations (issued in 2003) and continue to sell and market plans that have been out of compliance for years. They make no attempt to bring their plans into compliance and seek to stay under the radar by directing their customers to not file Forms 8886.

Question: Do taxpayers have causes of action?

Answer: Maybe. We see two potential causes of action. First, in cases where the promoter has either created a defective product, or has turned a blind eye towards law changes, the promoter and potentially the insurance companies may have liability for the creating, marketing, endorsing and selling a defective product. Second, where planners have sold the product to customers improperly, by describing the plan as a safe, IRS approved retirement plan with unlimited deductions, they may have liability for fraudulent sales.

I do not agree with everything in this well written sales pitch. As an expert witness Lance Wallach’s side has never lost a case. I only know of two people that have successfully filed under IRS 8886, after the fact. Many of the hundreds of phone calls that I receive each year involve misfiling of 8886 forms.

If you are, or were in an abusive tax shelter like a 419 or 412i plan to time to act is now. If you are in a captive insurance or section 79 plan you should speak with someone that does not sell them. Many former promoters of abusive 419 plans now sell captive insurance or section 79 plans. IRS audits those plans. Who should you believe as many people still promote these scams?

Google Lance Wallach and the man pushing the plan.

MORE YOU SHOULD KNOW

As an expert witness Lance Wallach side has never lost a case: Sometimes the IRS might disagree with planning you...

As an expert witness Lance Wallach side has never lost a case: Sometimes the IRS might disagree with planning you...: Sometimes the IRS might disagree with planning you did with other advisors and you need to find help to ensure that your rights are protec

Captive Insurance

Captive Insurance

Most accountants and small business owners are unfamiliar with a great way to reduce taxes and expenses. By either creating or sharing "a captive insurance company", substantial tax and cost savings willbenefit the small business owner. Over 80% of Fortune 500 companies take advantage of some kind of captive insurance company arrangement. They set up their own insurance companies to provide coverage when they think outside insurers are charging too much, or coverage is simply unavailable. The parentcompany creates a captive so that it has a self-financing option for buying insurance. The captive then either retains the risk of providing insurance or pays reinsurers (companies that reinsure insurers) to take the risk.