Captive Insurance - Buyers Beware!

April 27, 2015, 12:44 pm

≫ Next: The Team Approach to Tax, Financial and Estate Planning

≪ Previous: Tax Audit Experts - Don't Write That Big IRS Check Yet!

By Lance Wallach, CLU, ChFC, CIMC

Parts of this article are from the book by John Wiley and Sons, Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams, authored by Lance Wallach.

September 24, 2010

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.

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 percent 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. Small companies have been copying a method to control insurance costs and reduce taxes that used to be the domain of large businesses: setting up their own insurance companies to provide coverage when they think that outside insurers are charging too much. A captive insurance company would be an insurance subsidiary that is owned by its parent business(es). There are now nearly 5,000 captive insurers worldwide. More than 80 percent of Fortune 500 companies take advantage of some sort of captive insurance company arrangement. Now small companies can, too.

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. Single-parent captives allow an organization to cover any risk they wish to fund, and generally eliminate the commission-price component from the premiums. Jurisdictions in the United States and in certain parts of the world have adopted a series of laws and regulations that allow small non–life insurance companies, taxed under IRC Section 831(b), or as 831(b) companies.

Captives can be a great cost-saving tool, but they can also be 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 or tax deferral vehicles, 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.

Read more

↧

The Team Approach to Tax, Financial and Estate Planning

May 22, 2015, 9:47 am

≫ Next: Re-entering The Tax System

≪ Previous: Captive Insurance - Buyers Beware!

by Lance Wallach

CPAs are the best and most qualified professionals when it comes to serving their clients needs, but they need to know when and how to coordinate with other experts.

Over the last twenty years we have worked with thousands of practitioners who have decided to add financial services to their practices. They do it for a variety of reasons, but the most common are as follows:

*They don’t want to refer their client elsewhere when they request financial services.
* They want to remain competitive.
*They want to diversify and increase their revenue as opposed to depending solely on tax and accounting revenue.

While helping these professionals add planning and investment services to their core offerings, we have found that they achieve four main benefits after doing so:

1. They are more satisfied with their work.
2. Their clients are more satisfied because they can work with someone they trust to meet financial goals.
3. Their clients give them more referrals.
4. Their incomes increase.

We believe that CPAs are the most appropriate--and perhaps the only--professionals who can provide comprehensive financial services to clients because they understand their clients' tax and financial situations. Their clients trust these practitioners to provide professional advice that is in their best interest. In fact, we believe that tax professionals have an obligation and responsibility to advise their clients, and clients expect their professionals to advise them in these important areas.

With a combination of never-ending tax reform, the Tax Code's significant and complex changes, and the market volatility we've experienced over the past few years, clients need guidance more than ever. Practitioners who provide financial planning and investment advisory services are in a position to advise and assist their clients with these issues.

Practitioners just starting out in this arena may not possess the myriad skill sets and substantive knowledge required to embark on new business ventures.

CPAs who don't have all of the necessary talent in-house may find it easier to associate themselves with strategic "partners" who can provide the proper skill sets, training, technology, support and turnkey solutions in their specialized disciplines and niches, to help identify and meet their clients' financial goals.

Adapted from "The Team Approach to Tax, Financial & Estate Planning," edited by Lance Wallach, with chapters by Katharine Gratwick Baker, Fredda Herz Brown, Dr. Stanly J. Feldman, Ira Kaplan, Joseph W. Maczuga, Roger E. Nauheimer, Roger C. Ochs, Matthew J. O'Connor, Richard Preston, Steve Riley, Carl Lloyd Sheeler, Peter Spero, Paul J. Williams, and Roger M. Winsby. Product 017235.

↧

Re-entering The Tax System

May 22, 2015, 10:01 am

≫ Next: Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation

≪ Previous: The Team Approach to Tax, Financial and Estate Planning

Taxlanta.org July 2011

by Lance Wallach

Taxpayers who have failed to file federal tax returns for three years or more and owe more than $75,000 in tax should find this section particularly interesting. (i.e., pure tax ― no interest, no penalties).

Rule No. 1:

Under no circumstances should you attempt to re-enter the tax system on your own. Tax evasion, failing to file a timely tax return, and perjury are very serious tax crimes, and one mistake can send you to federal prison for a very long time. Your voluntary admission of a tax crime is similar to Pandora’s box; once the lid has been opened there is nothing you can do to get it closed again. The biggest mistake that most people make is hiring advisors that do not specialize in failure-to-file cases and have little or no knowledge of the IRS/Criminal Investigation Division (IRS/CID) procedures and criminal-tax violations.

Rule No. 2

Under no circumstance should you assume that the IRS/CID and the U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) will grant you immunity from prosecution simply because you volunteered to come forward, bare your soul, and beg for forgiveness. The IRS terminated its guaranteed non-prosecution policy for voluntary disclosure of tax crimes in 1961. If you have not filed federal tax returns for three years or more and owe more than $75,000 in back taxes, then you will likely receive a visit from the IRS/CID six to eighteen months after you file your delinquent tax returns. The “reward” you get for filing true and correct delinquent tax returns is that you may be able to avoid additional perjury charges. But you will still have to pay a very large tax liability, which will include interest and a whopping 75% civil tax fraud penalty. Your full disclosure will be appreciated, and under current IRS guidelines you “may” avoid criminal prosecution only if you pay the entire amount due.

Call our office today for a free 3-5 minute consultation with Lance Wallach, the nation’s foremost tax expert, or visit www.experttaxadvisors.org.

Rule No. 3

You must hire the best tax advisors that money can buy. Preferably you will want someone with at least 23 years experience handling failure-to-file cases before the IRS, and preferably this same person will have experience as a former IRS Special Agent. That’s where we come in.

Last year I received over a thousand phone calls from business owners, accountants and other professionals who were in trouble with the IRS over a recent large fine. If you were in what the IRS considers an abusive, listed or similar to transaction, you face a hundred thousand dollar IRS fine under IRS code 6707A. The IRS is attacking thousands of people for either being in, selling, or advising about, various types of plans, which are primarily marketed by insurance professionals.

If you are or were in a 412i, 419, captive insurance, or section 79 plan, you should immediately file under 6707A protectively. If you have already filed you should find someone who knows what he is doing to review the forms. I only know of two people who know how to properly file. The IRS instructions are vague. If a taxpayer files wrong, or fills out the forms wrong he still gets the fine. I have had hundreds of phone calls from people in that situation.

↧

Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation

May 22, 2015, 10:05 am

≫ Next: Bad Broker or Bad Luck?

≪ Previous: Re-entering The Tax System

Maryland Trial Lawyer

Dolan Media Newswires January

Small businesses facing audits and potentially huge tax penalties over certain types of retirement plans are filing lawsuits against those who marketed, designed and sold the plans. The 412(i) and 419(e) plans were marketed in the past several years as a way for small business owners to set up retirement or welfare benefits plans while leveraging huge tax savings, but the IRS put them on a list of abusive tax shelters and has more recently focused audits on them.
The penalties for such transactions are extremely high and can pile up quickly.
There are business owners who owe taxes but have been assessed 2 million in penalties. The existing cases involve many types of businesses, including doctors’ offices, dental practices, grocery store owners, mortgage companies and restaurant owners. Some are trying to negotiate with the IRS. Others are not waiting. A class action has been filed and cases in several states are ongoing. The business owners claim that they were targeted by insurance companies; and their agents to purchase the plans without any disclosure that the IRS viewed the plans as abusive tax shelters. Other defendants include financial advisors who recommended the plans, accountants who failed to fill out required tax forms and law firms that drafted opinion letters legitimizing the plans, which were used as marketing tools.
A 412(i) plan is a form of defined benefit pension plan. A 419(e) plan is a similar type of health and benefits plan. Typically, these were sold to small, privately held businesses with fewer than 20 employees and several million dollars in gross revenues. What distinguished a legitimate plan from the plans at issue were the life insurance policies used to fund them. The employer would make large cash contributions in the form of insurance premiums, deducting the entire amounts. The insurance policy was designed to have a “springing cash value,” meaning that for the first 5-7 years it would have a near-zero cash value, and then spring up in value.
Just before it sprung, the owner would purchase the policy from the trust at the low cash value, thus making a tax-free transaction. After the cash value shot up, the owner could take tax-free loans against it. Meanwhile, the insurance agents collected exorbitant commissions on the premiums – 80 to 110 percent of the first year’s premium, which could exceed million.
Technically, the IRS’s problems with the plans were that the “springing cash” structure disqualified them from being 412(i) plans and that the premiums, which dwarfed any payout to a beneficiary, violated incidental death benefit rules.
Under §6707A of the Internal Revenue Code, once the IRS flags something as an abusive tax shelter, or “listed transaction,” penalties are imposed per year for each failure to disclose it. Another allegation is that businesses weren’t told that they had to file Form 8886, which discloses a listed transaction.
According to Lance Wallach of Plainview, N.Y. (516-938-5007), who testifies as an expert in cases involving the plans, the vast majority of accountants either did not file the forms for their clients or did not fill them out correctly.
Because the IRS did not begin to focus audits on these types of plans until some years after they became listed transactions, the penalties have already stacked up by the time of the audits.
Another reason plaintiffs are going to court is that there are few alternatives – the penalties are not appeasable and must be paid before filing an administrative claim for a refund.
The suits allege misrepresentation, fraud and other consumer claims. “In street language, they lied,” said Peter Losavio, a plaintiffs’ attorney in Baton Rouge, La., who is investigating several cases. So far they have had mixed results. Losavio said that the strength of an individual case would depend on the disclosures made and what the sellers knew or should have known about the risks.
In 2004, the IRS issued notices and revenue rulings indicating that the plans were listed transactions. But plaintiffs’ lawyers allege that there were earlier signs that the plans ran afoul of the tax laws, evidenced by the fact that the IRS is auditing plans that existed before 2004.
“Insurance companies were aware this was dancing a tightrope,” said William Noll, a tax attorney in Malvern, Pa. “These plans were being scrutinized by the IRS at the same time they were being promoted, but there wasn’t any disclosure of the scrutiny to unwitting customers.”
A defense attorney, who represents benefits professionals in pending lawsuits, said the main defense is that the plans complied with the regulations at the time and that “nobody can predict the future.”
An employee benefits attorney who has settled several cases against insurance companies, said that although the lost tax benefit is not recoverable, other damages include the hefty commissions – which in one of his cases amounted to 400,000 the first year – as well as the costs of handling the audit and filing amended tax returns.
Defying the individualized approach an attorney filed a class action in federal court against four insurance companies claiming that they were aware that since the 1980s the IRS had been calling the policies potentially abusive and that in 2002 the IRS gave lectures calling the plans not just abusive but “criminal.” A judge dismissed the case against one of the insurers that sold 412(i) plans.
The court said that the plaintiffs failed to show the statements made by the insurance companies were fraudulent at the time they were made, because IRS statements prior to the revenue rulings indicated that the agency may or may not take the position that the plans were abusive. The attorney, whose suit also names law firm for its opinion letters approving the plans, will appeal the dismissal to the 5th Circuit.
In a case that survived a similar motion to dismiss, a small business owner is suing Hartford Insurance to recover a “seven-figure” sum in penalties and fees paid to the IRS. A trial is expected in August.
But tax experts say the audits and penalties continue. “There’s a bit of a disconnect between what members of Congress thought they meant by suspending collection and what is happening in practice. Clients are still getting bills and threats of liens,” Wallach said.“Thousands of business owners are being hit with million-dollar-plus fines. … The audits are continuing and escalating. I just got four calls today,” he said. A bill has been introduced in Congress to make the penalties less draconian, but nobody is expecting a magic bullet.
“From what we know, Congress is looking to make the penalties more proportionate to the tax benefit received instead of a fixed amount.”

↧

Bad Broker or Bad Luck?

May 22, 2015, 10:26 am

≫ Next: IRS Auditing 412i, 419e Plans

≪ Previous: Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation

Legal.com July 2011
By Lance Wallach

You’ve lost money in the market—maybe a substantial amount. Money you thought could be used to plan your future or maybe put your kids through school is now gone. You’re hurt, you’re angry, and we understand. Can you sue your broker, fund manager, or financial advisor? It depends.

The Big Question: Were You a Victim of Fraud or the Market? The big question is whether your broker did anything illegal. You can only sue if what your broker did was beyond just “bad” in the sense of “unfortunate” or even “awful.” Instead, there must have been actual wrongdoing.

Losing money in today’s bad market does not in and of itself give you the right to sue. Sometimes it is just bad luck. After all, investing — even in blue chip investments – carries risks, and the main risk is that the value of your investment could decline. What if your broker gave you bad advice? Again, it will depend on “how bad” the advice was. If your broker recommended investments that were in line with your investor profile and those recommendations were reasonable based on everything your broker knew or should have known, then no – you cannot sue. Well, what kind of bad behavior does leave them liable, you ask? Basically, there are four kinds of bad behavior that may give you the right to sue:

1. Lying or misrepresenting claims;
2. Your broker acting in his interests, not yours, by means of, among others, misrepresentation, churning, unsuitability, and lack of diversification;
3. Not following instructions including claims of unsuitability, lack of diversification, and breach of contract; and,
4. Unreasonable carelessness, like claims of breach of duty and negligence.

Call our office today for a free 3-5 minute consultation with Lance Wallach, the nation’s foremost expert on financial advising, or visit www.financeexperts.org.

There are a number of different claims that can come out of these types of bad behavior, but fundamentally, if your broker didn’t do one or more of these things, there is no claim. To put it another way: if your broker followed your instructions, was always honest with you, and was reasonably careful, then you cannot sue him – even if his advice or your investments went horribly wrong.

So before suing or filing the paperwork for arbitration, take a deep breath and ask yourself if your broker lied, ignored instructions, or was unreasonably careless by putting his own needs and interests instead of yours. If you find yourself answering no to more than a few of these questions, then, sadly, your broker probably acted with the best intentions, and based on what he reasonably knew at the time, there is no liability.

You will notice that we did not answer the question, “What if my broker stole or embezzled money from my account?” That is because the answer is simple – sue them and report them to law enforcement. Theft is theft, whether it’s by your broker, a guy on a street corner with a gun, or that cousin you never really trusted. For example, two common criminal schemes involving investments and securities are the Ponzi scheme and the pyrimad scheme, though these tend to be complex and hidden. Sometimes theft is simpler. But the short answer is that theft is always actionable. For help with this or if you are still not sure, contact our offices today. As an expert witness, my side has never lost a case. I work with attorneys who will usually take these cases on a contingent basis, and who, more importantly, often obtain great results.

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.

↧