How To Beat TheIrs

Insurance companies use captives to mislead regulators.

noreply@blogger.com (irsdog) — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 17:10:00 +0000

Lance Wallach

Consumers have been cheated by some life Insurance companies repeatedly over the years. For instance some companies had used what the IRS called abusive tax shelters to sell large amounts of life insurance. When the IRS became aware of the situation the consumers were issued very large fines. For the last five years some life insurance companies have doubled their use of another tool to mislead consumers.

Many life insurance companies are using captive insurance to alter their books and look better. This could lead to another taxpayer bailout and insurance companies being taken over. This would put benefits in policies at risk for some policyholders.

By using a captive many insurance companies allow the companies to describe themselves as richer and stronger. This misleads regulators, the ratings agency and consumers who rely on rating. The NY insurance dept. said the insurance based in New York had burnished their books by $48 billion using captive insurance companies, often owned by the insurers.

I have been writing about some problems with captives for years, and this is one of the problems. The use of a captive to mislead people is not what captives are for, but some of them do this.

Insurance regulation is based on solvency. Because the transactions of using captives make companies look richer than they normally would be, so insurance companies are diverting reserves to other uses like executive compensation and stockholder dividends to try to raise the price of their stock. This is not a problem with mutual insurance companies where the insured’s are the stockholders.

By using a captive and trying to hide the fact, some insurance companies artificially increase their risk based capital ratios. These ratios are an important measurement of solvency.

Life insurer’s use of captive to shift obligations from their balance sheets has nearly doubled over the last few years. My concern is that the transactions of using captives do not accomplish the stated goal of transferring risk. Of course the insurance companies argue the opposite. Google Lance Wallach for more articles on captives.

Some of the largest life insurance groups are MetLife, ING, Prudential, A.I.G., AEGON, Hartford, Manulife, Lincoln National, and ASA.

Insurance companies have been playing games for years. To sell more insurance many insurance companies have sold 419 and other plans that the IRS has called abusive transactions. Even after the IRS went after the buyers with large fines the insurance companies continued to sell life insurance inside of these plans. They also sold abusive 412i policies in the past with the same result. Now they are selling so called sections 79 plans which the IRS is looking at. As an expert witness in these types of cases my side has never lost a case.

Using captives is just the latest plan that many insurance companies are now using to look better. The state of NY is trying to do something about this. Most other states have not yet taken notice.

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.

Kick the tires before you buy!

noreply@blogger.com (irsdog) — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 17:10:00 +0000

Lance Wallach

Prognostications on Captives

Grounds for IRS challenges

Given the substantial tax benefits associated with a captive insurance company, it is not

Surprising that the IRS has challenged certain aspects of Captives over the years. The primary

arguments for those challenges are:

(1) The Captive is not writing "insurance" in the usual sense, due to a lack of risk shifting

and risk distribution.

(2) Excessive premiums are being paid.

Consequently, it is critical that a Captive not only be formed and administered correctly, but also

that it issue true insurance to its affiliates.

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.

noreply@blogger.com (irsdog) — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 17:10:00 +0000

SELF-DEFENSE

December 20, 2012 By Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC

CHAPTER FIVE

Protecting Clients From Fraud Incompetence and Scams

Published by John Wiley & Sons
Lance Wallach
SELF-DEFENSE
Herol Graham has turned defensive boxing into a poetic art.
Trouble is, nobody ever got knocked out by a poem.
- Eddie Shaw

Every accountant knows that increased cash flow and cost savings are critical for businesses in 2009. What is uncertain is the best path to recommend to garner these benefits.
Over the past decade business owners have been overwhelmed by a plethora of choices designed to reduce the cost of providing employee benefits while increasing their own retirement savings. The solutions range from traditional pension and profit sharing plans to more advanced strategies.

To Read More Click on Link Below:

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?preview=1&id=29453

Captive Insurance Buyer Beware

noreply@blogger.com (irsdog) — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 17:09:00 +0000

Hg Experts

Legal Experts Directory

Captive Insurance Buyer Beware

By Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC Abusive Tax Shelter, Listed Transaction, Reportable Transaction Expert Witness

Is a captive insurance cell the way to go? - Accounting Today - Captive Insurance: 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 will benefit 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 invested with 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.

Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, abusive tax shelters, financial, international tax, and estate planning. He writes about 412(i), 419, Section79, FBAR and captive insurance plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually, writes for more than 50 publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered” and others. Lance has written numerous books including “Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams,” published by John Wiley and Sons, Bisk Education’s “CPA’s Guide to Life Insurance and Federal Estate and Gift Taxation,” as well as the AICPA best-selling books, including “Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots.” He does expert witness testimony and has never lost a case. Contact him at 516.938.5007, wallachinc@gmail.com or visit www.taxadvisorexpert.com.

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.

Section 79, captive insurance, 412i, 419, audits, problems and lawsuits

noreply@blogger.com (irsdog) — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 17:09:00 +0000

Published By

HG Experts.com

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 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.

Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, abusive tax shelters, financial, international tax, and estate planning. He writes about 412(i), 419, Section79, FBAR and captive insurance plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually, writes for more than 50 publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered” and others. Lance has written numerous books including “Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams,” published by John Wiley and Sons, Bisk Education’s “CPA’s Guide to Life Insurance and Federal Estate and Gift Taxation,” as well as the AICPA best-selling books, including “Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots.” He does expert witness testimony and has never lost a case. Contact him at 516.938.5007, wallachinc@gmail.com or visit www.taxadvisorexpert.com.

Before you buy you should know section 79 Plan history

noreply@blogger.com (irsdog) — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 17:09:00 +0000

Before you buy you should know section 79 Plan history

IRS Fines Numerous Business Owners, Accountants, Insurance Agents $200k + | Small Business Marketing & Resource Articles

noreply@blogger.com (irsdog) — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 17:09:00 +0000

IRS Fines Numerous Business Owners, Accountants, Insurance Agents $200k + | Small Business Marketing & Resource Articles

Section 79 Plans: 412IPLANS.ORG

noreply@blogger.com (irsdog) — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 17:08:00 +0000

Section 79 Plans: 412IPLANS.ORG: 412IPLANS.ORG

Servicers for 419, 419e, 412i, Section 79, captive insurance, listed transactions

noreply@blogger.com (irsdog) — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 17:07:00 +0000

Servicers for 419, 419e, 412i, Section 79, captive insurance, listed transactions

Welfare Benefit Plan

noreply@blogger.com (irsdog) — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 17:07:00 +0000

Welfare Benefit Plan

www.taxaudit419.com/files/AICPA_BOOK_ANNOUNCEMENT_team.pdf

noreply@blogger.com (irsdog) — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 17:06:00 +0000

www.taxaudit419.com/files/AICPA_BOOK_ANNOUNCEMENT_team.pdf

Help with Common IRS Problems: RAMESH SARVA: SARVA

noreply@blogger.com (irsdog) — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 17:05:00 +0000

Help with Common IRS Problems: RAMESH SARVA: SARVA: RAMESH SARVA: SARVA : Defendants have also directly and indirectly promoted the VEBA plan scheme to prospective participants. Sarva for his ...

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Abusive Tax Shelters & 419 Plans Lawsuits: IRS to Audit Sea Nine VEBA Participating Employers...

Abusive Tax Shelters & 419 Plans Lawsuits: IRS to Audit Sea Nine VEBA Participating Employers...: Lance Wallach In recent months, I have received phone calls from participants in the Sea Nine VEBA and have learned that the IRS may...

Ilakumari Patel, Naren Patel and MVP Consulting Plus, Inc. v. Comerica Bank, Prudential Insurance Company, Kenneth Elliott, Sean Kath, Gaurang Parikh, Ramesh Sarva, Ramesh Sarva, CPA, PC and Sea Nine Associates, Inc.

Lawsuit Details

RFC Case Number:	3:2013cv04491
File Date:	Friday, November 08, 2013
Plaintiff:	Ilakumari Patel, Naren Patel and MVP Consulting Plus, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel:
Defendant:	Comerica Bank, Prudential Insurance Company, Kenneth Elliott, Sean Kath, Gaurang Parikh, Ramesh Sarva, Ramesh Sarva, CPA, PC and Sea Nine Associates, Inc.
Cause:	28:1132 E.R.I.S.A.

KENNETH ELLIOT: Defendant Kenneth Elliot

noreply@blogger.com (irsdog) — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 17:05:00 +0000

KENNETH ELLIOT: Defendant Kenneth Elliot: Defendant Kenneth Elliot personally and through both his employment with co-defendant Sea Nine Associates, Inc., a number of related entitie...

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Sea Nine VEBA Important

As of August 23,2013, the IRS has closed audits of 12 Sea Nine VEBA plan-participating taxpayers who were referred to Sea Nine by Sarva. For those taxpayers alone , the IRS assessed a total of $4,852,106in additional taxes, or an average additional tax of $404,342 per audit. Because Sarva has acknowledged directing atleast 40 of his customers to Sea Nine , the total amount of harm to the Treasury he has caused through promotion of improper VEBA plans is likely almost four times higher.

2 comments:

Lance WallachFebruary 6, 2014 at 6:17 AM

he IRS and U.S. Department Justice Department have a special relationship with welfare benefit plan promoters and the brokers and insurance agents that sell them. They hate them. For over a decade, the IRS has declared that many welfare benefit plans are fraudulent and abusive tax shelters. Many of the promoters are now out of business or under criminal investigation (or both). Last month’s announcement by DOJ of new enforcement actions within the “industry” therefore comes as no surprise. The customers who bought these plans, however, might be in for a rude awakening. Huge taxes and maybe even criminal prosecution.Sea Nine VEBA Important
As of August 23,2013, the IRS has closed audits of 12 Sea Nine VEBA plan-participating taxpayers who were referred to Sea Nine by Sarva. For those taxpayers alone , the IRS assessed a total of $4,852,106in additional taxes, or an average additional tax of $404,342 per audit. Because Sarva has acknowledged directing atleast 40 of his customers to Sea Nine , the total amount of harm to the Treasury he has caused through prom

Abusive 412(i) Retirement Plans Can Get Accountants Fined $200,000

noreply@blogger.com (irsdog) — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 17:04:00 +0000

California Enrolled Agent

January 2

By Lance Wallach & Ira Kaplan

Most insurance agents sell 412(i) retirement plans. The large insurance commissions generate some of the enthusiasm. Unlike other retirement plans, the 412(i) plan must have insurance products as the funding mechanism. This seems to generate enthusiasm among insurance agents. The IRS has been auditing almost all participants in 412(i) plans for the last few years. At first, they thought all 412(i) plans were abusive. Many participants’ contributions were disallowed and there were additional fines of $200,000 per year for the participants. The accountants who signed the tax returns (who the IRS called “material advisors”) were also fined $200,000 with a referral to the Office of Professional Responsibility. For more articles and details, see www.vebaplan.com and www.irs.gov/.

On Friday February 13, 2004, the IRS issued proposed regulations concerning the valuation of insurance contracts in the context of qualified retirement plans.

The IRS said that it is no longer reasonable to use the cash surrender value or the interpolated terminal reserve as the accurate value of a life insurance contract for income tax purposes. The proposed regulations stated that the value of a life insurance contract in the context of qualified retirement plans should be the contract’s fair market value.

The Service acknowledged in the regulations (and in a revenue procedure issued simultaneously) that the fair market value standard could create some confusion among taxpayers. They addressed this possibility by describing a safe harbor position.

When I addressed the American Society of Pension Actuaries Annual National Convention, the IRS chief actuary also spoke about attacking abusive 412(i) pensions.

A “Section 412(i) plan” is a tax-qualified retirement plan that is funded entirely by a life insurance contract or an annuity. The employer claims tax deductions for contributions that are used by the plan to pay premiums on an insurance contract covering an employee. The plan may hold the contract until the employee dies, or it may distribute or sell the contract to the employee at a specific point, such as when the employee retires.

“The guidance targets specific abuses occurring with Section 412(i) plans”, stated Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy Pam Olson. “There are many legitimate Section 412(i) plans, but some push the envelope, claiming tax results for employees and employers that do not reflect the underlying economics of the arrangements.” Or, to put it another way, tax deductions are being claimed, in some cases, that the Service does not feel are reasonable given the taxpayer’s facts and circumstances.

“Again and again, we’ve uncovered abusive tax avoidance transactions that game the system to the detriment of those who play by the rules,” said IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson.

The IRS has warned against Section 412(i) defined benefit pension plans, named for the former IRC section governing them. It warned against certain trust arrangements it deems abusive, some of which may be regarded as listed transactions. Falling into that category can result in taxpayers having to disclose such participation under pain of penalties, potentially reaching $100,000 for individuals and $200,000 for other taxpayers. Targets also include some retirement plans.

One reason for the harsh treatment of 412(i) plans is their discrimination in favor of owners and key, highly compensated employees. Also, the IRS does not consider the promised tax relief proportionate to the economic realities of these transactions. In general, IRS auditors divide audited plans into those they consider noncompliant and others they consider abusive. While the alternatives available to the sponsor of a noncompliant plan are problematic, it is frequently an option to keep the plan alive in some form while simultaneously hoping to minimize the financial fallout from penalties.

The sponsor of an abusive plan can expect to be treated more harshly. Although in some situations something can be salvaged, the possibility is definitely on the table of having to treat the plan as if it never existed, which of course triggers the full extent of back taxes, penalties and interest on all contributions that were made, not to mention leaving behind no retirement plan whatsoever. In addition, if the participant did not file Form 8886 and the accountant did not file Form 8918 (to report themselves), they would be fined $200,000.

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 and has written numerous best selling AICPA books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Business Hot Spots. Contact him at 516.938.5007 or visit www.vebaplan.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. You should contact an appropriate professional for any such advice.

Reportable Transactions & 419 Plans Litiga 419 Plans Litigation: Large IRS Fines Continue For 419, 412i, Captive In...

noreply@blogger.com (irsdog) — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 17:03:00 +0000

Reportable Transactions & 419 Plans Litigation: CJA and associates 419 412i section 79 scam audits...: CJA and associates 419 412i section 79 scam audits lawsuits

CJA Marketing CJA and Associates Sold defective ... - Ripoff Report
www.ripoffreport.com/.../CJA.../CJA-Marketing-CJA-and-Associates-Sol...‎
Apr 24, 2013 - CJA Marketing Complaint Review: CJA Marketing CJA and AssociatesSold defective retirement plans costing us hundreds of thousands of dollars, ... Ripoff Report | Complaints Reviews Scams Lawsuits Frauds Reported.

You +1'd this
CJA & Associates and 412i, 419, and Other Abusive Plans
wewanttoprofileyouinnewbook.blogspot.com/.../cja-associates-a...‎
by Lance Wallach - in 53 Google+ circles
Nov 27, 2012 - Google Lance Wallach and see why CJA & Associates, insurance ..... 412i CJA and associates lawsuits received their first complaint on ...
Class Action Filed against CJA and Associates and Fidelity Security
kmjradiolance3.blogspot.com/.../class-action-filed-against-cja-and.html‎
Jun 1, 2012 - Hartford, CT: A consumer fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against Chicago-based CJA and Associates and Kansas City, ...

Lance Wallach +1'd this
[PDF]

Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint omits a Count Three. 1 IN THE ...
https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/.../05D1211P....‎
United States District Cou...
Sep 27, 2005 - when [she] came across CJA and Associates as a provider” of employee .... lawsuit.” See Plaintiffs' Surreply at 5; see also Status Report Fixed ...
Stephanie Strauss - VP Marketing- PlanGen Advanced Benefit ...

Reportable Transactions & 419 Plans Litiga 419 Plans Litigation: Large IRS Fines Continue For 419, 412i, Captive In...& 419 Plans Litigation: CJA and associates 419 412i section 79 scam audits..

noreply@blogger.com (irsdog) — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 21:25:00 +0000

6707A Penalties & 419 Plans Litigation: Large IRS Fines Continue For 419, 412i, Captive In...: By Lance Wallach Taxpayers must report certain transactions to the IRS under Section 6707A of the Tax Code, which was enacted in 2004...

6707A Penalties & 419 Plans Litigation: 6707A Penalties & 419 Plans Litigation: Important ...

noreply@blogger.com (irsdog) — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 21:25:00 +0000

6707A Penalties & 419 Plans Litigation: 6707A Penalties & 419 Plans Litigation: Important ...: 6707A Penalties & 419 Plans Litigation: Important FBAR and International Tax Information F... : By Lance Wallach For individual tax ret...

Federal Tax Information

noreply@blogger.com (irsdog) — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 21:24:00 +0000

Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2010-45

November 8, 2010

REG-119921-09

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Series LLCs and Cell Companies

AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

This document contains proposed regulations regarding the classification for Federal tax purposes of a series of a domestic series limited liability company (LLC), a cell of a domestic cell company, or a foreign series or cell that conducts an insurance business. The proposed regulations provide that, whether or not a series of a domestic series LLC, a cell of a domestic cell company, or a foreign series or cell that conducts an insurance business is a juridical person for local law purposes, for Federal tax purposes it is treated as an entity formed under local law. Classification of a series or cell that is treated as a separate entity for Federal tax purposes generally is determined under the same rules that govern the classification of other types of separate entities. The proposed regulations provide examples illustrating the application of the rule. The proposed regulations will affect domestic series LLCs; domestic cell companies; foreign series, or cells that conduct insurance businesses; and their owners.

DATES:

Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by December 13, 2010.

ADDRESSES:

Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-119921-09), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-119921-09), Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, or sent electronically, via the Federal eRulemaking portal at www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-119921-09)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Concerning the proposed regulations, Joy Spies, (202) 622-3050; concerning submissions of comments, Oluwafunmilayo (Funmi) Taylor, (202) 622-7180 (not toll-free numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

1. Introduction

A number of states have enacted statutes providing for the creation of entities that may establish series, including limited liability companies (series LLCs). In general, series LLC statutes provide that a limited liability company may establish separate series. Although series of a series LLC generally are not treated as separate entities for state law purposes and, thus, cannot have members, each series has “associated” with it specified members, assets, rights, obligations, and investment objectives or business purposes. Members’ association with one or more particular series is comparable to direct ownership by the members in such series, in that their rights, duties, and powers with respect to the series are direct and specifically identified. If the conditions enumerated in the relevant statute are satisfied, the debts, liabilities, and obligations of one series generally are enforceable only against the assets of that series and not against assets of other series or of the series LLC.

Certain jurisdictions have enacted statutes providing for entities similar to the series LLC. For example, certain statutes provide for the chartering of a legal entity (or the establishment of cells) under a structure commonly known as a protected cell company, segregated account company or segregated portfolio company (cell company). A cell company may establish multiple accounts, or cells, each of which has its own name and is identified with a specific participant, but generally is not treated under local law as a legal entity distinct from the cell company. The assets of each cell are statutorily protected from the creditors of any other cell and from the creditors of the cell company.

Under current law, there is little specific guidance regarding whether for Federal taxpurposes a series (or cell) is treated as an entity separate from other series or the series LLC (or other cells or the cell company, as the case may be), or whether the company and all of its series (or cells) should be treated as a single entity.

Notice 2008-19, 2008-1 C.B. 366 requested comments on proposed guidance concerning issues that arise if arrangements entered into by a cell constitute insurance for Federal income tax purposes. The notice also requested comments on the need for guidance concerning similar segregated arrangements that do not involve insurance. The IRS received a number of comments requesting guidance for similar arrangements not involving insurance, including series LLCs and cell companies. These comments generally recommended that series and cells should be treated as separate entities for Federal tax purposes if they are established under a statute with provisions similar to the series LLC statutes currently in effect in several states. The IRS and Treasury Department generally agree with these comments. See §601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b).

2. Entity Classification for Federal Tax Purposes

A. Regulatory framework

Sections 301.7701-1 through 301.7701-4 of the Procedure and Administration Regulations provide the framework for determining an organization’s entity classification for Federal tax purposes. Classification of an organization depends on whether the organization is treated as: (i) a separate entity under §301.7701-1, (ii) a “business entity” within the meaning of §301.7701-2(a) or a trust under §301.7701-4, and (iii) an “eligible entity” under §301.7701-3.

Section 301.7701-1(a)(1) provides that the determination of whether an entity is separate from its owners for Federal tax purposes is a matter of Federal tax law and does not depend on whether the organization is recognized as an entity under local law. Section 301.7701-1(a)(2) provides that a joint venture or other contractual arrangement may create a separate entity for Federal tax purposes if the participants carry on a trade, business, financial operation, or venture and divide the profits therefrom. However, a joint undertaking merely to share expenses does not create a separate entity for Federal tax purposes, nor does mere co-ownership of property where activities are limited to keeping property maintained, in repair, and rented or leased. Id.

Section 301.7701-1(b) provides that the tax classification of an organization recognized as a separate entity for tax purposes generally is determined under §§301.7701-2, 301.7701-3, and 301.7701-4. Thus, for example, an organization recognized as an entity that does not have associates or an objective to carry on a business may be classified as a trust under §301.7701-4.

Section 301.7701-2(a) provides that a business entity is any entity recognized for Federal tax purposes (including an entity with a single owner that may be disregarded as an entity separate from its owner under §301.7701-3) that is not properly classified as a trust or otherwise subject to special treatment under the Internal Revenue Code (Code). A business entity with two or more members is classified for Federal tax purposes as a corporation or a partnership. See §301.7701-2(a). A business entity with one owner is classified as a corporation or is disregarded. See §301.7701-2(a). If the entity is disregarded, its activities are treated in the same manner as a sole proprietorship, branch, or division of the owner. However, §301.7701-2(c)(2)(iv) and (v) provides for an otherwise disregarded entity to be treated as a corporation for certain Federal employment tax and excise tax purposes.

Section 301.7701-3(a) generally provides that an eligible entity, which is a business entity that is not a corporation under §301.7701-2(b), may elect its classification for Federal tax purposes.

B. Separate entity classification

The threshold question for determining the tax classification of a series of a series LLC or a cell of a cell company is whether an individual series or cell should be considered an entity for Federal tax purposes. The determination of whether an organization is an entity separate from its owners for Federal tax purposes is a matter of Federal tax law and does not depend on whether the organization is recognized as an entity under local law. Section 301.7701-1(a)(1). In Moline Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner, 319 U.S. 436 (1943), the Supreme Court noted that, so long as a corporation was formed for a purpose that is the equivalent of business activity or the corporation actually carries on a business, the corporation remains a taxable entity separate from its shareholders. Although entities that are recognized under local law generally are also recognized for Federal tax purposes, a state law entity may be disregarded if it lacks business purpose or any business activity other than tax avoidance. See Bertoli v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 501 (1994); Aldon Homes, Inc. v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 582 (1959).

The Supreme Court in Commissioner v. Culbertson, 337 U.S. 733 (1949), and Commissioner v. Tower, 327 U.S. 280 (1946), set forth the basic standard for determining whether a partnership will be respected for Federal tax purposes. In general, a partnership will be respected if, considering all the facts, the parties in good faith and acting with a business purpose intended to join together to conduct an enterprise and share in its profits and losses. This determination is made considering not only the stated intent of the parties, but also the terms of their agreement and their conduct. Madison Gas & Elec. Co. v. Commissioner, 633 F.2d 512, 514 (7^th Cir. 1980); Luna v. Commissioner, 42 T.C. 1067, 1077-78 (1964).

Conversely, under certain circumstances, arrangements that are not recognized as entities under state law may be treated as separate entities for Federal tax purposes. Section 301.7701-1(a)(2). For example, courts have found entities for tax purposes in some co-ownership situations where the co-owners agree to restrict their ability to sell, lease or encumber their interests, waive their rights to partition property, or allow certain management decisions to be made other than by unanimous agreement among co-owners. Bergford v. Commissioner, 12 F.3d 166 (9^th Cir. 1993); Bussing v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 1050 (1987); Alhouse v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-652. However, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has ruled that a co-ownership does not rise to the level of an entity for Federal tax purposes if the owner employs an agent whose activities are limited to collecting rents, paying property taxes, insurance premiums, repair and maintenance expenses, and providing tenants with customary services. Rev. Rul. 75-374, 1975-2 C.B. 261. See also Rev. Rul. 79-77, 1979-1 C.B. 448, (see §601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b).

Rev. Proc. 2002-22, 2002-1 C.B. 733, (see §601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b)), specifies the conditions under which the IRS will consider a request for a private letter ruling that an undivided fractional interest in rental real property is not an interest in a business entity under §301.7701-2(a). A number of factors must be present to obtain a ruling under the revenue procedure, including a limit on the number of co-owners, a requirement that the co-owners not treat the co-ownership as an entity (that is, that the co-ownership may not file a partnership or corporate tax return, conduct business under a common name, execute an agreement identifying any or all of the co-owners as partners, shareholders, or members of a business entity, or otherwise hold itself out as a partnership or other form of business entity), and a requirement that certain rights with respect to the property (including the power to make certain management decisions) must be retained by co-owners. The revenue procedure provides that an organization that is an entity for state law purposes may not be characterized as a co-ownership under the guidance in the revenue procedure.

The courts and the IRS have addressed the Federal tax classification of investment trusts with assets divided among a number of series. In National Securities Series-Industrial Stocks Series v. Commissioner, 13 T.C. 884 (1949), acq., 1950-1 C.B. 4, several series that differed only in the nature of their assets were created within a statutory open-end investment trust. Each series regularly issued certificates representing shares in the property held in trust and regularly redeemed the certificates solely from the assets and earnings of the individual series. The Tax Court stated that each series of the trust was taxable as a separate regulated investment company. See also Rev. Rul. 55-416, 1955-1 C.B. 416, (see §601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b)). But see Union Trusteed Funds v. Commissioner, 8 T.C. 1133 (1947), (series funds organized by a state law corporation could not be treated as if each fund were a separate corporation).

In 1986, Congress added section 851(g) to the Code. Section 851(g) contains a special rule for series funds and provides that, in the case of a regulated investment company (within the meaning of section 851(a)) with more than one fund, each fund generally is treated as a separate corporation. For these purposes, a fund is a segregated portfolio of assets the beneficial interests in which are owned by holders of interests in the regulated investment company that are preferred over other classes or series with respect to these assets.

C. Insurance company classification

Section 7701(a)(3) and §301.7701-2(b)(4) provide that an arrangement that qualifies as an insurance company is a corporation for Federal income tax purposes. Sections 816(a) and 831(c) define an insurance company as any company more than half the business of which during the taxable year is the issuing of insurance or annuity contracts or the reinsuring of risks underwritten by insurance companies. See also §1.801-3(a)(1), (“[T]hough its name, charter powers, and subjection to State insurance laws are significant in determining the business which a company is authorized and intends to carry on, it is the character of the business actually done in the taxable year which determines whether a company is taxable as an insurance company under the Internal Revenue Code.”). Thus, an insurance company includes an arrangement that conducts insurance business, whether or not the arrangement is a state law entity.

3. Overview of Series LLC Statutes and Cell Company Statutes

A. Domestic statutes

Although §301.7701-1(a)(1) provides that state classification of an entity is not controlling for Federal tax purposes, the characteristics of series LLCs and cell companies under their governing statutes are an important factor in analyzing whether series and cells generally should be treated as separate entities for Federal tax purposes.

Series LLC statutes have been enacted in Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Nevada, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Puerto Rico. Delaware enacted the first series LLC statute in 1996. Del. Code Ann. Tit. 6, section 18-215 (the Delaware statute). Statutes enacted subsequently by other states are similar, but not identical, to the Delaware statute. All of the statutes provide a significant degree of separateness for individual series within a series LLC, but none provides series with all of the attributes of a typical state law entity, such as an ordinary limited liability company. Individual series generally are not treated as separate entities for state law purposes. However, in certain states (currently Illinois and Iowa), a series is treated as a separate entity to the extent provided in the series LLC’s articles of organization.

The Delaware statute provides that a limited liability company may establish, or provide for the establishment of, one or more designated series of members, managers, LLC interests or assets. Under the Delaware statute, any such series may have separate rights, powers, or duties with respect to specified property or obligations of the LLC or profits and losses associated with specified property or obligations, and any such series may have a separate business purpose or investment objective. Additionally, the Delaware statute provides that the debts, liabilities, obligations, and expenses of a particular series are enforceable against the assets of that series only, and not against the assets of the series LLC generally or any other series of the LLC, and, unless the LLC agreement provides otherwise, none of the debts, liabilities, obligations, and expenses of the series LLC generally or of any other series of the series LLC are enforceable against the assets of the series, provided that the following requirements are met: (1) the LLC agreement establishes or provides for the establishment of one or more series; (2) records maintained for any such series account for the assets of the series separately from the other assets of the series LLC, or of any other series of the series LLC; (3) the LLC agreement so provides; and (4) notice of the limitation on liabilities of a series is set forth in the series LLC’s certificate of formation.

Unless otherwise provided in the LLC agreement, a series established under Delaware law has the power and capacity to, in its own name, contract, hold title to assets, grant liens and security interests, and sue and be sued. A series may be managed by the members of the series or by a manager. Any event that causes a manager to cease to be a manager with respect to a series will not, in itself, cause the manager to cease to be a manager of the LLC or of any other series of the LLC.

Under the Delaware statute, unless the LLC agreement provides otherwise, any event that causes a member to cease to be associated with a series will not, in itself, cause the member to cease to be associated with any other series or with the LLC, or cause termination of the series, even if there are no remaining members of the series. Additionally, the Delaware statute allows a series to be terminated and its affairs wound up without causing the dissolution of the LLC. However, all series of the LLC terminate when the LLC dissolves. Finally, under the Delaware statute, a series generally may not make a distribution to the extent that the distribution will cause the liabilities of the series to exceed the fair market value of the series’ assets.

The series LLC statutes of Illinois, 805 ILCS 180/37-40 (the Illinois statute), and Iowa, I.C.A. §489.1201 (the Iowa statute) provide that a series with limited liability will be treated as a separate entity to the extent set forth in the articles of organization. The Illinois statute provides that the LLC and any of its series may elect to consolidate their operations as a single taxpayer to the extent permitted under applicable law, elect to work cooperatively, elect to contract jointly, or elect to be treated as a single business for purposes of qualification to do business in Illinois or any other state.

In addition, under the Illinois statute, a series’ existence begins upon filing of a certificate of designation with the Illinois secretary of state. A certificate of designation must be filed for each series that is to have limited liability. The name of a series with limited liability must contain the entire name of the LLC and be distinguishable from the names of the other series of the LLC. If different from the LLC, the certificate of designation for each series must list the names of the members if the series is member-managed or the names of the managers if the series is manager-managed. The Iowa and Illinois statutes both provide that, unless modified by the series LLC provisions, the provisions generally applicable to LLCs and their managers, members, and transferees are applicable to each series.

Some states have enacted series provisions outside of LLC statutes. For example, Delaware has enacted series limited partnership provisions (6 Del. C. §17-218). In addition, Delaware’s statutory trust statute permits a statutory trust to establish series (12 Del. C. §3804). Both of these statutes contain provisions that are nearly identical to the corresponding provisions of the Delaware series LLC statute with respect to the ability of the limited partnership or trust to create or establish separate series with the same liability protection enjoyed by series of a Delaware series LLC.

All of the series LLC statutes contain provisions that grant series certain attributes of separate entities. For example, individual series may have separate business purposes, investment objectives, members, and managers. Assets of a particular series are not subject to the claims of creditors of other series of the series LLC or of the series LLC itself, provided that certain record-keeping and notice requirements are observed. Finally, most series LLC statutes provide that an event that causes a member to cease to be associated with a series does not cause the member to cease to be associated with the series LLC or any other series of the series LLC.

However, all of the state statutes limit the powers of series of series LLCs. For example, a series of a series LLC may not convert into another type of entity, merge with another entity, or domesticate in another state independent from the series LLC. Several of the series LLC statutes do not expressly address a series’ ability to sue or be sued, hold title to property, or contract in its own name. Ordinary LLCs and series LLCs generally may exercise these rights. Additionally, most of the series LLC statutes provide that the dissolution of a series LLC will cause the termination of each of its series.

B. Statutes with respect to insurance

The insurance codes of a number of states include statutes that provide for the chartering of a legal entity commonly known as a protected cell company, segregated account company, or segregated portfolio company. See, for example, Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 8, chap.141, §§6031-6038 (sponsored captive insurance companies and protected cells of such companies); S.C. Code Ann. tit. 38, chap. 10, §§38-10-10 through 39-10-80 (protected cell insurance companies). Under those statutes, as under the series LLC statutes described above, the assets of each cell are segregated from the assets of any other cell. The cell may issue insurance or annuity contracts, reinsure such contracts, or facilitate the securitization of obligations of a sponsoring insurance company. Rev. Rul. 2008-8, 2008-1 C.B. 340, (see §601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b)), analyzes whether an arrangement entered into between a protected cell and its owner possesses the requisite risk shifting and risk distribution to qualify as insurance for Federal income tax purposes. Under certain domestic insurance codes, the sponsor may be organized under a corporate or unincorporated entity statute.

Series or cell company statutes in a number of foreign jurisdictions allow series or cells to engage in insurance businesses. See, for example, The Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 Part XXVII (Protected Cell Companies), Part XXVIII (Incorporated Cell Companies); The Companies (Jersey) law, 1991, Part 18D; Companies Law, Part XIV (2009 Revision) (Cayman Isl.) (Segregated Portfolio Companies); and Segregated Accounts Companies Act (2000) (Bermuda).

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Series LLCs and Cell Companies

noreply@blogger.com (irsdog) — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 21:24:00 +0000

Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2010-45

November 8, 2010

REG-119921-09

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Series LLCs and Cell Companies

Background

AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

DATES:

Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by December 13, 2010.

ADDRESSES:

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

1. Introduction

Under current law, there is little specific guidance regarding whether for Federal tax purposes a series (or cell) is treated as an entity separate from other series or the series LLC (or other cells or the cell company, as the case may be), or whether the company and all of its series (or cells) should be treated as a single entity.

Captive Insurance and Other Tax Reduction Strategies – The Good, Bad, and Ugly

noreply@blogger.com (irsdog) — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 21:24:00 +0000

By Lance Wallach May 14th

Every accountant knows that increased cash flow and cost savings are critical for businesses. What is uncertain is the best path to recommend to garner these benefits.

Over the past decade business owners have been overwhelmed by a plethora of choices designed to reduce the cost of providing employee benefits while 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 about benefits. Unfortunately, the high life insurance commissions (often 90% of the contribution, or more) fostered an environment that led to aggressive and noncompliant plans.

The result has been thousands of audits and an IRS task force seeking out tax shelter promotion. For unknowing clients, the tax consequences are enormous. For their accountant advisors, the liability may be equally extreme.

Recently, there has been an explosion in the marketing of a financial product called Captive Insurance. These so called “Captives” are typically small insurance companies designed to insure the risks of an individual business under IRS code section 831(b). When properly designed, a business can make tax-deductible premium payments to a related-party insurance company. Depending on circumstances, underwriting profits, if any, can be paid out to the owners as dividends, and profits from liquidation of the company may be taxed as capital gains.

While captives can be a great cost saving tool, they also are expensive to build and manage. Also, captives are allowed to garner tax benefits because they operate as real insurance companies. Advisors and business owners who misuse captives or market them as estate planning tools, asset protection vehicles, tax deferral or other benefits not related to the true business purpose of an insurance company face grave regulatory and tax consequences.

A recent concern is the integration of small captives with life insurance policies. Small captives under section 831(b) have no statutory authority to deduct life premiums. Also, if a small captive uses life insurance as an investment, the cash value of the life policy can be taxable at corporate rates, and then will be taxable again when distributed. The consequence of this double taxation is to devastate the efficacy of the life insurance, and it extends serious liability to any accountant who recommends the plan or even signs the tax return of the business that pays premiums to the captive.

The IRS is aware that several large insurance companies are promoting their life insurance policies as investments with small captives. The outcome looks eerily like that of the 419 and 412(i) plans mentioned above.

Remember, if something looks too good to be true, it usually is. There are safe and conservative ways to use captive insurance structures to lower costs and obtain benefits for businesses. And, some types of captive insurance products do have statutory protection for deducting life insurance premiums (although not 831(b) captives). Learning what works and is safe is the first step an accountant should take in helping his or her clients use these powerful, but highly technical insurance tools.

Lance Wallach speaks and writes extensively about VEBAs, retirement plans, and tax reduction strategies. He speaks at more than 70 conventions annually, writes for 50 publications, and was the National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year. Contact him at 516.938.5007 or visit www.vebaplan.com.

412i Tax Shelter Fraud Litigation - How It Works

noreply@blogger.com (irsdog) — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 21:24:00 +0000

Lance Wallach

PARTIES:

Typically, these transactions will include an Insurance company, accountant, tax attorney, and a promoter (someone with an insurance background, perhaps an actuary, who knows how to structure the policy itself). These groups will use insurance brokerages and sub-agents (licensed in the various states) to sell the policies themselves.

INSURANCE COMPANIES

AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY® INDIANAPOLIS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY®

HARTFORD LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY® PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY®

BANKERS LIFE and OTHERS®?

4121iHOW THESE PLANS WORK:

In the late 1990’s, the individuals and groups above devised a scheme to sell abusive tax shelters under the auspices of Section 412(i) of the tax code. A 412(i) is a defined benefit pension plan. It provides specific retirement benefits to participants once they reach retirement and must contain assets sufficient to pay those benefits. A 412(i) plan differs from other defined benefit pension plans in that it must be funded exclusively by the purchase of individual life insurance products. To create a 412(i) plan, there must be a trust to hold the assets. The employer funds the plan by making cash contributions to the trust, and the Code allows the employer to take a tax deduction in the amount of the contributions, i.e. the entire amount.

The trust uses the contributed funds to purchase some combination of life insurance products (insurance or annuities) for the plan. As the plan participants retire, the trust will usually sell the policies for their present cash value and purchase annuities with the proceeds. The revenue stream from the annuities pays the specified retirement benefit to plan participants.

These defendants (with the aid and knowledge of the insurance companies) used the traditional structure and sold life insurance policies with excessively high premiums. The trust then uses the large cash contributions to pay high insurance premiums and the employer takes a deduction for the sum of those large contributions. As you might expect, these policies were designed with excessively high fees or “loads” which provided exorbitant commissions to the insurance companies and the agents who sold the products.

The policies that were sold were termed Springing Cash Value Policies. They had no cash value for the first 5-7 years, after which they had significant cash value. Under this scheme, after 5-7 years, and just before the cash value sprung, the participant purchases the policy from the trust for the policy’s surrender value. In theory, you have a tax free transaction.

The IRS does not recognize the tax benefit of such a plan and has repeatedly issued announcements indicating that such plans are contrary to federal tax laws and regulations.

I am not an attorney but I learned some of the above information from attorney’s Mr. Ford’s website.

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 Public 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 and www.taxlibrary.us

Important FBAR and International Tax Information For 2012

noreply@blogger.com (irsdog) — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 21:23:00 +0000

-->

By Lance Wallach

For individual tax returns (Forms 1040) due to be filed in 2012 (due this year by April 17, 2012, unless extended), the IRS has issued new Form 8938, "Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets," requiring the disclosure of certain foreign accounts and assets.

Whether an individual is required to file this form is complicated, but basically this applies to the following assets if owned in 2011:
Financial accounts in foreign financial institutions.
Any stock or securities issued by foreign corporations or entities, any interest in a foreign partnership, trust or estate, as well as any financial instrument or contract issued by a foreign person, and foreign pension plans and deferred compensation arrangements (but not foreign social security). You are not, however, required to report foreign assets (1) if the assets are held in a U.S. brokerage account; (2) if you are required to disclose the asset on certain other tax form such as Form 3520 or Form 5471; or (3) if such assets (other than stock) are used in your trade or business.

Whether you have to file Form 8938 depends on the total value of such foreign assets at year end as well as the highest value at any point in the year. For U.S. citizens and residents filing joint tax returns, you must file Form 8938 if the year-end value of the foreign assets is $100,000 or more or, if the value at any time during the year exceeded $150,000. On joint returns, all foreign-based assets owned by the spouses are considered in determining these thresholds. For married spouses filing separately and for unmarried persons, the thresholds are $50,000 (year end) and $75,000 (high value during the year).

There are different rules regarding certain persons who live abroad. There are also rules regarding valuation of certain assets. These are spelled out in greater detail in the Form 8938 instructions.

If required, Form 8938 is to be filed with your Federal Income Tax Return (Form 1040). Currently only individuals having filing requirements must fill out the Form 8938, but it is expected that this will be extended to corporations, partnerships and trusts in the future.

The IRS may impose penalties for failure to file Form 8938 if you lack reasonable cause or willfully neglected to file. In addition, if you underpay your tax as a result of a transaction involving an undisclosed foreign financial asset, the penalty for such failure may be 40 percent of the underpayment (instead of the normal 20 percent). In addition, the statute of limitations for assessing tax may be extended if you fail to file the form.

It is important to note that Form 8938 is in addition to the annual Foreign Bank Account Form or "FBAR," which has different filing requirements. The FBAR, generally is required if you have ownership or signature authority over one or more foreign bank accounts with a value of over $10,000 on any date in the prior year. The FBAR is not part of your income tax return, but is filed separately and must be received by the Department of Treasury in Detroit by June 30 (timely mailing does not apply to that form).

Abusive Tax Shelters: June 2014

noreply@blogger.com (irsdog) — Thu, 18 May 2017 18:21:00 +0000

Abusive Tax Shelters: June 2014

Don't You Deserve Expert Accountants? Especially for 419e, 412i, IRS Audits, Section79

noreply@blogger.com (irsdog) — Thu, 18 May 2017 18:20:00 +0000

Don't You Deserve Expert Accountants? Especially for 419e, 412i, IRS Audits, Section79

IRS Tax Audits, 419 and 412i plans, Tax resolution services

noreply@blogger.com (irsdog) — Thu, 18 May 2017 18:20:00 +0000

IRS Tax Audits, 419 and 412i plans, Tax resolution services

How To Beat TheIrs

Insurance companies use captives to mislead regulators.

Lance Wallach

Kick the tires before you buy!

Lance Wallach

Prognostications on Captives

Grounds for IRS challenges

SELF-DEFENSE

Captive Insurance Buyer Beware

Hg Experts

Legal Experts Directory

Captive Insurance Buyer Beware

Section 79, captive insurance, 412i, 419, audits, problems and lawsuits

Published By

HG Experts.com

Before you buy you should know section 79 Plan history

IRS Fines Numerous Business Owners, Accountants, Insurance Agents $200k + | Small Business Marketing & Resource Articles

Section 79 Plans: 412IPLANS.ORG

Servicers for 419, 419e, 412i, Section 79, captive insurance, listed transactions

Welfare Benefit Plan

www.taxaudit419.com/files/AICPA_BOOK_ANNOUNCEMENT_team.pdf

Help with Common IRS Problems: RAMESH SARVA: SARVA

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Abusive Tax Shelters & 419 Plans Lawsuits: IRS to Audit Sea Nine VEBA Participating Employers...

Ilakumari Patel, Naren Patel and MVP Consulting Plus, Inc. v. Comerica Bank, Prudential Insurance Company, Kenneth Elliott, Sean Kath, Gaurang Parikh, Ramesh Sarva, Ramesh Sarva, CPA, PC and Sea Nine Associates, Inc.

Lawsuit Details

KENNETH ELLIOT: Defendant Kenneth Elliot

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Sea Nine VEBA Important

2 comments:

Abusive 412(i) Retirement Plans Can Get Accountants Fined $200,000

Reportable Transactions & 419 Plans Litiga 419 Plans Litigation: Large IRS Fines Continue For 419, 412i, Captive In...

CJA Marketing CJA and Associates Sold defective ... - Ripoff Report

CJA & Associates and 412i, 419, and Other Abusive Plans

Class Action Filed against CJA and Associates and Fidelity Security

Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint omits a Count Three. 1 IN THE ...

Stephanie Strauss - VP Marketing- PlanGen Advanced Benefit ...

Reportable Transactions & 419 Plans Litiga 419 Plans Litigation: Large IRS Fines Continue For 419, 412i, Captive In...& 419 Plans Litigation: CJA and associates 419 412i section 79 scam audits..

6707A Penalties & 419 Plans Litigation: 6707A Penalties & 419 Plans Litigation: Important ...

Federal Tax Information

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Series LLCs and Cell Companies

Captive Insurance and Other Tax Reduction Strategies – The Good, Bad, and Ugly

412i Tax Shelter Fraud Litigation - How It Works

Lance Wallach

Important FBAR and International Tax Information For 2012

Abusive Tax Shelters: June 2014

Don't You Deserve Expert Accountants? Especially for 419e, 412i, IRS Audits, Section79

IRS Tax Audits, 419 and 412i plans, Tax resolution services