Quantcast
Channel: Lance Wallach CHFC
Viewing all 403 articles
Browse latest View live

Regulatory framework

$
0
0





2. Entity Classification for Federal Tax Purposes

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 (7th 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 (9th 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.



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.


Avoiding, or at least winning, an IRS challenge

$
0
0

Lance Wallach


Of course, a Captive insurance company can be extremely beneficial in many aspects, as
insurance profits are kept within the group and tax benefits may be obtained. As is true with any
business planning, however, the Captive must be a legitimate business entity and be in
compliance with the law. There are opportunities for the Service to challenge Captive insurance
companies; therefore, proper formation and ongoing administration is essential. The Service may
have given up on the economic family doctrine, but the Service specifically stated in Rev. Rul.
2001-31 that it may continue to challenge Captives based on the facts and circumstances of each
case. 

Legitimate business reason. As is true with any business planning, a Captive must possess a
legitimate business reason to avoid being characterized as a sham by the Service. Some
legitimate business reasons are as follows: 

(1) To obtain coverage where insurers are unwilling to do so. 
(2) To reduce premium payments. 
(3) To control risk. 
(4) To increase cash-flow. 
(5) To gain access to the reinsurance market
(6) To create diversification. 
(7) To balance coverage.


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



The information provided herein is not intended as legal, accounting, financial or any type of advice for any specific individual or other entity. You should contact an appropriate professional for any such advice.

                                     

On Lawline regarding Abusive Retirement Plans 412i

$
0
0


Lance Wallach featured on Lawline speaking about Abusive Retirement Plans 412i, IRS 6706A Fines and Abusive Insurance product. Here is the story about Bruce Hink purchasing a definet Benefit Retirement Plan & Abusive Tax Shelter from a Insurance Agent and well established Insurance Company. What's the problem??


Abusive Retirement Plans 412i, IRS 6707A Fines, Abusive Insurance Products,

Abusive Offshore Tax Avoidance Schemes

$
0
0




Questions and Answers

Q. What is so important about "OffshoreTransactions"?

A. In recent years, a significant increase in offshore activity has been noted among U.S. taxpayers. More and more taxpayers have been observed attempting to "expatriate" their income and assets. Numerous schemes have been devised in which the true ownership of income streams and assets has been hidden or disguised. In this fashion, substantial amounts of financial activity have been improperly shielded from the U.S. tax system. "Offshore Transactions" generally involve activities in jurisdictions (commonly called "tax havens") that offer financial secrecy laws in an effort to attract investment from outside its borders.

Q. I keep hearing about "Foreign Trusts". Is that what this is about?

A. Yes and no. Initially, the need for enhanced "offshore" compliance efforts was determined as a result of noncompliance observed in numerous trusts. Trusts lend themselves to being the type of entity through which income and assets are more easily hidden or disguised. Because they are flow-through entities, the facts behind true ownership of income or assets may be difficult to establish. Secrecy laws found in most tax havens only compound this difficulty. Many different foreign entities and schemes are being promoted and used by U.S. taxpayers to evade tax. The list includes the use of:
  • Foreign trusts
  • Foreign corporations
  • Foreign (Offshore) partnerships, LLCs and LLPs
  • International Business Companies
  • Offshore private annuities
  • Offshore private banks
  • Personal investment companies
  • Captive insurance companies
  • Offshore bank accounts and credit cards
  • Related party loans
It is important to note that the list is not all-inclusive. Promoters of such schemes always appear to be "improving" the products and services that they market.
Q. What is a U.S. person?
A. IRC § 7701(a)(30) defines a United States person to include:
  • a citizen or resident of the United States;
  • a domestic partnership;
  • a domestic corporation;
  • any estate (other than a foreign estate, within the meaning of paragraph (31)) and
  • any trust if-
- a court within the United States is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of the trust, and
- one or more United States persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust.
Q. The information presented by the promoter sounded legitimate. Now I have concerns regarding this promotion. Who do I contact to report information on the promotion and promoter?
A. Contact the Internal Revenue Service at 1-866-775-7474 or e-mail the Tax Shelter Hotline at irs.tax.shelter.hotline@irs.gov.
Q. Can I get more information on the Internet?
A. Yes. Additional information is available at the following IRS web sites:
  • The Criminal Investigation site Tax Scams/Fraud Alerts provides information on tax scams and explains how to report suspected tax fraud.
  • The Abusive Tax Shelter site provides information to help identify some red flags that may be present in an abusive tax shelter.
  • The IRS Newsroom's page on Tax Scams/Consumer Alerts describes a number of common tax scams. If any of these apply to your investment, you should consult a tax professional not involved in promoting the investment. Or you may contact IRS to determine how it will treat such a promotion.
Note: This page contains one or more references to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), Treasury Regulations, court cases, or other official tax guidance. References to these legal authorities are included for the convenience of those who would like to read the technical reference material. To access the applicable IRC sections, Treasury Regulations, or other official tax guidance, visit the Tax Code, Regulations, and Official Guidance page. To access any Tax Court case opinions issued after September 24, 1995, visit the Opinions Search page of the United States Tax Court.




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.

IRS Targets New Scheme In Employment Plan Arena – Captive Management Companies

$
0
0



By Brian M

People think that accountants and tax lawyers lead boring lives. Perhaps that may be true for some, but there is plenty of action these days with the IRS and their Employment Plans tax group. Recently, the IRS identified an “emerging issue” that it calls a potential Abusive Tax Avoidance Transaction. If you are a small business with an employment benefit plan, those words are never good to hear.

According to an internal IRS training document we recently obtained, the IRS is now targeting for audit small and medium sized businesses that created their own separate management companies. While creating a separate company to provide management services is legal, the IRS wants to make sure there is a legitimate business reason for doing so. The IRS is actively examining (auditing) businesses that are funneling large sums of money from the operating company to the management company and thus insuring the operating company pays little or no taxes. By transferring funds to the management company, the business strips away much of the income from operations.

Once the money is in the management company, the owners create a defined benefit plan that benefits only the owners and none of the rank and file workers.

Accountants and business owners with these set ups should expect an audit. While there are many valid business reasons to create captive management companies, those with well funded defined benefit plans that only benefit the owner should expect a knock on the door from the IRS and some high penalties as well.
Recently the IRS has been focusing a great deal of audit resources within the employment plan area. In addition to the management company issue, IRS continues to look for noncompliant 412 and 419 plans, often called “welfare benefit plans” or similar names. These are considered reportable transactions and many are abusive tax shelters. The penalties for these plans can be $100,000 to $200,000 per year!

Plans set up by Internet and outside promoters often look slick but are often fraught with problems. We have seen some marketing materials replete with supposed IRS opinion letters and legal opinions. Before you sign the dotted line, have the plan reviewed by a tax attorney or experienced CPA. (Some CPAs and lawyers have even been duped by these plans – if you lose an audit and relied on professional advice in purchasing a plan, you may have a professional malpractice claim.)

The above article is not mine, but I agree with a lot of it. If you have or are looking at a captive you must watch out. Many will be audited by IRS. We have received lots of phone calls about this. For more give us a call or Google Lance Wallach.


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


The information provided herein is not intended as legal, accounting, financial or any type of advice for any specific individual or other entity. You should contact an appropriate professional for any such advice.

IRS Very Large Fines

Do Not Be Tempted By Any Type of Mini-Captive Program

$
0
0


In some fraudulent schemes, a firm pays a mini-captive for “insurance,” while the captive secretly remits most of the money back to the parent owners, typically by placing it in an offshore account. The bogus mini-captive, in other words, simply serves as a front for funneling funds to offshore accounts while allowing the U.S. firm to claim a phony tax deduction for premiums paid along the way.
In some versions of this scam, control of the funds is actually relinquished to another owner (typically an offshore entity) for a period of time with the agreement that it will later be returned – perhaps in five years. These often turn out to be true scams: In several documented cases, the offshore entity (or its promoter) has absconded with the clients’ funds and, when threatened with legal action, has threatened to expose the clients to the IRS as tax evaders.
There are two lessons to be learned for any potential mini-captive owner: First, do not be tempted by any type of mini-captive program that is either manifestly illegal or that mysteriously promises significantly greater benefits than a legitimate mini-captive could deliver. Whether resulting from IRS scrutiny or predatory deception, significant risks and penalties are likely to occur.

As an expert witness Lance Wallach has never lost a case. Hopefully you will not need him.

IRS Wants You to Know About Schemes, Scams and Cons:

$
0
0


Lance Wallach


If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!" Seek professional advice from the IRS or a Tax Professional before you subscribe to any scheme that offers exemption from your obligation as a United States Citizen to pay taxes. Buying into a tax evasion scheme can be very costly.
Department of Justice Press Releases on Civil and Criminal Actions Taken as a Result of IRS Enforcement Activities
The Department of Justice issues press releases on IRS enforcement activities.
Tax Scams: How to Recognize and Avoid Them
To help the public recognize and avoid abusive tax schemes, the IRS offers an abundance of educational materials. Participating in an illegal scheme to avoid paying taxes can result in imprisonment and fines, as well as the repayment of taxes owed with penalties and interest. Education is the best way to avoid the pitfalls of these “too good to be true” tax scams.
Tax Scams/Consumer Alerts
Don't fall victim to tax scams. The IRS issues News Releases on some of the common scams, including the annual Dirty Dozen news release.
Special Advice for Law Enforcement on Avoiding Tax Preparer Scams
Enforcing the Laws and Paying Taxes: Is there a Connection?
This is one of many outreach articles the IRS prepares to help educate the public about tax scams.
Examples of Fraud Investigations
In addition to the Tax Fraud Alerts page, Criminal Investigation (CI) wants you to know about other areas of fraud in which individuals have been criminally prosecuted.
How Do You Report Suspected Tax Fraud Activity?
If you have information about an individual or company you suspect is not complying with the tax law, report this activity.
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.


Insurance companies are in big trouble and most do not know it.

$
0
0

Insurance companies are in big trouble and most do not know it.


June 13, 2013     HgExperts

PhoneCall (516) 938-5007

Lance Wallach


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.

Captive Insurance Companies and Risk Retention Groups

$
0
0

Captive Insurance Companies and Risk Retention Groups

Managed properly, a captive insurance company can be an effective way of financing the cost of risk. And a key member of a successful captive management team is the actuary. The actuary can help the management team answer the many questions faced by a captive such as:
- Are the premiums adequate?
- How are the premiums allocated?
- Is there sufficient capital?
- Is the reserve adequate?
- What is the appropriate retention?
- What insurance coverage is to be provided?
- Is reinsurance to be purchased?
- What is the appropriate investment strategy?
- What are appropriate financial performance measures?
- How is the health of reinsurers or fronting insurers?
- What are the ratings from the rating agencies?
- What are the data capture needs?
- Are you compliant with regulatory requirements?
- How is the transfer of risk being supported?

Benistar 419 Plans

$
0
0
 

Since its creation in December 1997, the Benistar 419 Plan, has brought much scrutiny to the tax interpretation of 419 plans.  Created by Daniel Carpenter, the purpose of the Benistar 419 Plan was to provide life insurance to employees through a company’s contributions to a multiple-employer welfare benefit plan.  The Plan initially set itself apart by touting its fully deductible tax features.  The IRS, however, has since determined that contributions to Benistar 419 plans do not fit the parameters of §419A(f)(6), as they ultimately maintain separate accounts for each employer enrolled in the plan, and therefore are not tax deductible. As a result, companies were forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars in back taxes, despite tax deduction promises, and the legal world has seen a surge in cases regarding the matter.
In one such case, Mark Curcio and Barbara Curcio, et al. v Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 1768-07, 2010 WL 2134321 (U.S. Tax Ct. May 27, 2010), the court set out to determine “whether payments to the Benistar 419 Plan & Trust for employee benefits are ordinary and necessary business expenses under section 162(a).”  The court concluded that said contributions did not fulfill the definition of “ordinary and necessary” business expenses.  This decision stemmed from the set up of the Plan.  “[P]etitioners had the right to receive the value reflected in the underlying insurance policies purchased by Benistar Plan.   Peitioners used Benistar Plan to funnel pretax business profits into cash-laden life insurance policies over which they retained control.”  The Plan has since been continuously been referred to as an abusive tax shelter, causing plaintiffs in many 419 related cases to question whether Benistar knowingly made misrepresentations to clients.
In Stephen Ouwinga et al. v John Hancock Variable Life Insurance, No. 1:09-cv-60 2010 WL 4386931 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 29, 2010), the plaintiff claimed the Benistar 419 Plan violated RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which the court subsequently shot down.   In Arrow Drilling Co., Inc., et al. v Daniel Carpenter, et al., No. Civ.A. 2:02-CV-09097, 2003 WL 23100808 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 23, 2003),  Plaintiffs alleged the Benistar 419 Plan violated ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act.  Here the court determined that “Plaintiffs are not employer-sponsors, but rather, employers who, acting on behalf of its employees, brought this suit pursuant to ERISA §503.”  Since employers cannot sue under ERISA, the court dismissed all ERISA related claims made by Plaintiffs.
As the aforementioned cases have shown, it has been difficult to find an effective legal avenue when fighting Daniel Carpenter and the Benistar 419 Plan tax deficiencies.  In Wally Jones v. Daniel Carpenter, Beinistar 419 Plan Services, Inc., and Benistar Admin Services, Inc., Civ. No. 11-2250, 2012 WL 3430719 (D. Minn. Aug. 15, 2012) Carpenter is described as “an attorney who specializes in tax and employee benefits.”  It affirms Carpenter wrote a book guiding professionals through the Benistar 419 Plan and mentions a 1998 letter from Edwards & Angell, LLP.  In this letter, the law firm opined Carpenter’s Benistar 419 Plan would host fully tax deductible features, pointing out several differences between Benistar and similar plans which lacked said features.
Additionally, this case mentions that “in 99 percent of the cases the client’s closest advisor, his accountant or CPA would have been reviewing the [Edwards & Angell] opinion letter.”  It goes on to state Jones’ life insurance agent as well as his accountant/tax advisor reviewed all information provided by Carpenter before advising him to enroll in the Plan and that “neither investigated beyond the materials furnished by Defendants.”  If Jones was “acting on advice from [his accountant]” as the case states, perhaps his accusations against Carpenter are misguided.  After all, even in the legal world we openly acknowledge the choice of an attorney is an important one and should not be based solely on advertisements; investigative work and one’s own discretion is required.
So we’re left with the question, who is to blame in regards to the Benistar 419 Plan? Who should be held responsible for the thousands of dollars in back taxes many companies were forced to pay when the IRS declared the Plan to be non-tax deductible? A challenging case from either side.

Internal Revenue Code Section 79 Plans and Captive Insurance History

A pure captive insurance company

$
0
0
A pure captive insurance company is an insurance company created by the owners of an operating business to provide supplemental property and casualty insurance to such operating business. The shares of the captive insurance company can be owned by owners of the operating business or an irrevocable trust for the benefit of such owner’s heirs.

For many years the IRS argued that premiums paid into a captive insurance company were not deductible due to the related ownership of the insured and insurer (referred to as the “economic family doctrine”). In 2001, after consistently losing in tax court on this premise, the IRS abandoned the economic family doctrine. IRS not only abandoned the economic family doctrine but also began to provide guidance, through revenue rulings 2002-89, 2002-90 and 2002-91, as to how to properly create a captive insurance company. Since 2002, as this area of planning has evolved, the IRS has continued to provide clear guidance which uphold the validity of captive insurance arrangements.

In today’s litigious environment, many large and small businesses have captive insurance arrangements in place which insure a wide range of risks not insured in their commercially procured property and casualty coverage. Certain captive arrangements may elect IRC 831 (b) status which allows the captive insurance company to receive annual premiums of less than $1.2 million income tax free.

In addition, small business owners can incorporate dynastic estate planning concepts into the ownership structure of the CIC to allow for wealth preservation. Done correctly this can afford the small business owner the opportunity to transfer assets to the next generation free of gift and estate taxes. Further, by not having the captive in the owner’s name, assets of the captive are protected from certain creditors.

Section 79, Captive Insurance, IRS Audits and Lawsuits on 419 and 412i Plans. Lance Wallach, expert witness.

$
0
0
IRS Attacks Business Owners in 419, 412, Section 79 and Captive Insurance Plans Under Section 6707A - By Lance Wallach - Taxpayers who previously adopted 419, 412i, captive insurance or Section 79 plans are in big trouble. In recent years, the IRS has identified many of these arrangements as abusive devices to funnel tax deductible dollars to shareholders and classified these arrangements as listed transactions."

These plans were sold by insurance agents, financial planners, accountants and attorneys seeking large life insurance commissions. In general, taxpayers who engage in a “listed transaction” must report such transaction to the IRS on Form 8886 every year that they “participate” in the transaction, and you do not necessarily have to make a contribution or claim a tax deduction to participate. Section 6707A of the Code imposes severe penalties for failure to file Form 8886 with respect to a listed transaction. But you are also in trouble if you file incorrectly. I have received numerous phone calls from business owners who filed and still got fined. Not only do you have to file Form 8886, but it also has to be prepared correctly. I only know of two people in the U.S. who have filed these forms properly for clients. They tell me that was after hundreds of hours of research and over 50 phones calls to various IRS personnel. The filing instructions for Form 8886 presume a timely filling. Most people file late and follow the directions for currently preparing the forms. Then the IRS fines the business owner. The tax court does not have jurisdiction to abate or lower such penalties imposed by the IRS.

"Many taxpayers who are no longer taking current tax deductions for these plans continue to enjoy the benefit of previous tax deductions by continuing the deferral of income from contributions and deductions taken in prior years."

Many business owners adopted 412i, 419, captive insurance and Section 79 plans based upon representations provided by insurance professionals that the plans were legitimate plans and were not informed that they were engaging in a listed transaction. Upon audit, these taxpayers were shocked when the IRS asserted penalties under Section 6707A of the Code in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Numerous complaints from these taxpayers caused Congress to impose a moratorium on assessment of Section 6707A penalties.

The moratorium on IRS fines expired on June 1, 2010. The IRS immediately started sending out notices proposing the imposition of Section 6707A penalties along with requests for lengthy extensions of the Statute of Limitations for the purpose of assessing tax. Many of these taxpayers stopped taking deductions for contributions to these plans years ago, and are confused and upset by the IRS’s inquiry, especially when the taxpayer had previously reached a monetary settlement with the IRS regarding its deductions. Logic and common sense dictate that a penalty should not apply if the taxpayer no longer benefits from the arrangement. Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.6011-4(c)(3)(i) provides that a taxpayer has participated in a listed transaction if the taxpayer’s tax return reflects tax consequences or a tax strategy described in the published guidance identifying the transaction as a listed transaction or a transaction that is the same or substantially similar to a listed transaction.

Clearly, the primary benefit in the participation of these plans is the large tax deduction generated by such participation. Many taxpayers who are no longer taking current tax deductions for these plans continue to enjoy the benefit of previous tax deductions by continuing the deferral of income from contributions and deductions taken in prior years. While the regulations do not expand on what constitutes “reflecting the tax consequences of the strategy,” it could be argued that continued benefit from a tax deferral for a previous tax deduction is within the contemplation of a “tax consequence” of the plan strategy. Also, many taxpayers who no longer make contributions or claim tax deductions continue to pay administrative fees. Sometimes, money is taken from the plan to pay premiums to keep life insurance policies in force. In these ways, it could be argued that these taxpayers are still “contributing,” and thus still must file Form 8886.

It is clear that the extent to which a taxpayer benefits from the transaction depends on the purpose of a particular transaction as described in the published guidance that caused such transaction to be a listed transaction. Revenue Ruling 2004-20, which classifies 419(e) transactions, appears to be concerned with the employer’s contribution/deduction amount rather than the continued deferral of the income in previous years. Another important issue is that the IRS has called CPAs material advisors if they signed tax returns containing the plan, and got paid a certain amount of money for tax advice on the plan. The fine is $100,000 for the CPA, or $200,000 if the CPA is incorporated. To avoid the fine, the CPA has to properly file Form 8918.

As an expert witness Lance Wallach's side has never lost a case. People need to be careful of 419 Welfare Benefit Plans, 412i plans, Section 79 plans and Captive Insurance Plans. Most of these plans are sold by insurance agents. If you are in an abusive, listed or similar transaction plan you need to file under IRS 6707a. The participant files form 8886, and the salesmen or accountant who signs the tax returns files form 8918 if they got paid over $10,000. They are called Material Advisors and face a minimum $100,000 fine. Some plans are offshore which could involve FBAR or OVDI filings. If you have money overseas you probably need to file for IRS tax amnesty. If you want to reduce the tax we suggest that you first file and then opt out. For more information Google Lance Wallach.

Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.

Captive Insurance

$
0
0
Choosing a domicile.
■ Regulatory environment. Some jurisdictions are friendlier than others, or their
statutes may permit different used and forms of captives.
■ Minimum capitalization requirements – varies between jurisdictions from
$150,000 to $750,000. Separate series of a group captive requires risk-based
amount of capital, typically
■ Start-up costs and annual maintenance – typical start-up costs range from
$50,000 to $80,000 for pure captive (plus required capital) and from $20,000
to $25,000 for cell (or series) of group captive.
■ Underwriting risk classification
• Traditional coverage or non-traditional coverage, such as loss of license.
■ Tax implications.
• Small insurance company with premiums less than $1,200,000. See
Section 831(b) of the Internal Revenue Code. Applies to US tax-law
compliant companies.
• Excise taxes on premiums paid for non-US captives.

 

The benefits of captive insurance companies

Variable Life Insurance's Bear Market Headaches

$
0
0


JUNE 
What do you do if you have new clients burdened with severely underfunded variable universal life policies?
It's a problem that tends to rear its ugly head in a bear market. In fact, individuals, who purchased variable universal life (VUL) at the market peak in 1999 and bet heavily on the stock market saw their investments drop at least 20% in 2000 and 2001. And those who underfunded their policies and relied on market appreciation of the cash value may have had to kick in higher premiums to keep their policies in force.
It can be a particular problem when combined with the high cost of some VUL policies, says James Hunt, a former Vermont state insurance commissioner who runs an insurance policy evaluation service for the Consumer Federation of America. Mortality and expense charges, commissions, administrative fees and fund expenses can take a big bite out of cash-value total returns, Hunt says. There also are state premium taxes. The internal rates of return on a policy's cash value can be as high as 500 basis points with an unfavorable policy. At the low end, internal rates of return run about 200 basis points less.
Paula Hogan, a Milwaukee-based financial planner, says she has worked with a couple of new clients who were hit badly with variable universal life policies. Fortunately, the policies had sufficient cash surrender values. She did 1035 tax-free exchanges out of the variable universal life policies into low-cost deferred variable annuities.
When the policyholder annuitizes the contract, she notes, capital is withdrawn from the immediate annuity at a tax loss. "The caveat is if you leave the life insurance policy intact, the stock market may turn around and policyholders will profit," she says.
Given the outlook for the stock market today, Hogan says it may be wise to keep a client in an underfunded policy. Ordinarily, Hogan favors term insurance. But for clients who want a cash-value policy, she recommends whole life. "They don't need to take risks with their life insurance," she believes. "They can invest in stock funds in their retirement plans."
However, Peter Katt, a Mattawan, Mich.-based CFP and insurance agent, believes that defined-benefit variable universal life policies should be changed. Otherwise, over the years, policyholders will underfund or overfund their policies.
He believes that they may be changed to defined-contribution designs with high premium payments relative to the low initial death benefits. This way, the benefits are almost certain to increase significantly without any changes to the premium payments. Another option, he says, is to convert to a special premium management system.
Insurance analysts say that underfunding of variable universal life isn't as widespread as it may appear. Nevertheless, some of those affected by policy losses are concerned that they will lose their life insurance coverage after sinking a fortune into their policies. "I've looked at quite a few variables (VUL) for consumers as well as financial advisors," Hunt says. "I haven't heard about it being a major problem."
James Finnegan, senior vice president of Moody's Insurance Group, N.Y., agrees that for the most part the policies are being properly funded. Nevertheless, a physician recently contacted Hunt about a high-cost $2 million policy. The insurance costs ran $1 per $1,000 over coverage. By contrast, similar term insurance would have cost just 25 cents per $1,000.
She purchased the policy in October 2001, and paid monthly premiums of $1,250 for 30 months. The cash value was invested in 15 different stock funds as directed by her financial advisor. But the surrender value of the policy was $6,000 below the surrender charge. If she had cashed out the policy she would end up with nothing.
"It was a serious mistake to buy a $2 million policy at a level premium," Hunt says. "The risks are great in the early years of the policy."
This physician is not alone. Since the beginning of 2001, the National Association of Securities Dealers has taken disciplinary actions against eight brokerage firms for the sale of variable life insurance. There were none in 2000.
The brokerage firms and individual brokers settled charges without admitting or denying NASD Regulation allegations. Monetary sanctions in the settled actions totaled in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to a NASD spokesperson.
The firms were charged with lack of supervision, unsuitable sales and failure to communicate material facts about the VUL policies they sold. There also have been a number of class action lawsuits filed against brokers and insurance companies.
"There is a lot of litigation involving the sale of variable life products," says John Yanchunis, partner with James & Hoyer, a Tampa, Fla.-based law firm. "The illustrations are not supported by the facts. The elderly were put in unsuitable investments."
Yanchunis says his firm is involved in 50 class action lawsuits. Elderly clients allegedly were switched out of their whole-life policies into variable universal policies. The seniors were told they were buying vanishing-premium policies. Meanwhile, younger people were allegedly sold VUL as retirement-savings accounts with level premiums.
In both instances, Yanchunis says the policies are beginning to explode. The premiums and cash values are insufficient to cover the cost of the insurance. The problem with VULs may rest with the hypothetical policy illustrations, stresses Norse Blazzard, chairman of the National Association of Variable Annuities' committee on variable life. Regulations require that policyholders review illustrations based on hypothetical returns. During the bull market of the 1990s, premiums were often based on 10% to 12% annual rates of return.
"The SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) requires the illustrations, but they are meant to show people how the policy works," Blazzard says. "Most people don't minimum fund, but there are always bound to be problems."
Ted Kilkuskie, chief marketing officer with Hartford Life Insurance Co., says that the few problems that arise industrywide with variable universal life insurance are blown out of proportion by the media. Hartford deals with affluent clients who typically fund their policies to the maximum allowable limit.
The company's average annual VUL premium is $10,700 with a face amount, or death benefit, of $520,000. He stresses that his firm's 200 wholesalers work closely with account executives to make sure that VULs are properly funded and diversified.
"We have seen no significant increase in VUL complaints by our policyholders," says Kilkuskie, whose company is the second-largest seller of VUL policies, according to Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, a New York-based consulting firm. "We have had no problems with policies being underfunded or blowing up."
At Nationwide Financial, the sixth-largest seller of VULs, there are few problems, says John Keenan, vice president of brokerage life. That's because a number of safeguards limit policyholders' risks. Premiums for many policies are invested first in a money fund subaccount, he says. Insurance fees are deducted from the money fund account. Then money is invested in the stock funds, free and clear of any charges.
Policyholders also can set up an automatic dollar-cost-averaging program that moves money into stock funds. In addition, Nationwide's average VUL premium is $18,000, while the face amount is just $350,000.
"It's [underfunded policies] pretty rare," Keenan says. "Our average premiums are large, and the average policy size is relatively small. There are sufficient values to maintain the policies."
Even though insurers stress that VUL should be funded to the maximum allowable limits, Blazzard stresses you can't assume policyholders will earn the illustrated policy rate.
"What is needed is a random walk or Monte Carlo simulation to show the volatility of the policy," Blazzard says.
These types of illustrations help policyholders understand the volatility of a VUL. The analysis, he says, would help them properly fund their policies.
CFP and insurance agent Katt believes that in some instances, variable policies are sold the wrong way.
"Tumbling stock values can cause poorly designed variable life policies to become so underfunded that they require the equivalent of a margin call," Katt says. "A defined-benefit policy type is a very poor design.
"Defined-benefit type policies have level-to-maturity death benefits that purport to also define the premium costs via comforting pre-sale and in-force illustrations." But, he adds that "the illustrations are an illusion because they are based on assuming a constant investment yield that in reality will be very volatile, as we have recently experienced. A defined-benefit policy's premiums cannot be known in advance. It will need to be managed to avoid overfunding and underfunding."

Captive Insurance

$
0
0
We assist prospective,or existing captive owners and their advisors in evaluating, designing, and implementing captive solutions. We also review existing captive structures and suggest ways that they can be used more efficiently. In addition we also have relationships with experienced and reputable insurance managers, actuaries, underwriters, and accountants who specialize in captive insurance arrangements. Our ex IRS agent CPAs will properly file under 6707A to reduce takes on audit.

How much life insurance do you actually need

$
0
0
Every once in a while we get a call on our Financial Helpline from someone whose financial adviser recommended that they invest in a permanent life insurance policy (including wholeuniversal, or variable universal life). The adviser’s pitch can sound compelling. Why purchase temporary term life insurance that you’ll likely never use? Isn’t that like throwing money away? With permanent life insurance, part of your premiums are invested and some of it can be borrowed tax-free for retirement, or your children’s college education, or anything else you’d like and your heirs will get a nice death benefit when you pass away.
But is it really always as great as it sounds? If you listen to financial “gurus” like Suze Orman and Dave Ramsey, you’re likely to come away thinking that the only person who benefits is the insurance salesmen who reaps a big commission. As with many controversies, the truth is somewhere in between. Whether it makes sense in your particular situation, depends on several factors:
1) How much life insurance do you actually need?
This is important for a couple of reasons. First, you want to make sure you purchase as much as you need. If a more expensive permanent policy means you can only afford to buy less, it’s probably not a good idea. After all, the whole point of insurance is to make sure your family has enough to be taken care of financially if something were to happen to you.
Likewise, you don’t want to be buying insurance that you don’t need either. That’s because on average, you’re likely to spend more on it than you or your family will ever receive. Think about it for a moment. The insurance company has to collect enough in premiums not only to pay out benefits but also to cover their expenses (including that nice big fat commission check your adviser could get for selling it to you) and make a profit. In fancy business lingo, your expected return on those premium dollars is negative.
2) How long will you need the insurance?
One of the main reasons that permanent insurance is so much more expensive is that it’s meant to cover you for your entire life (hence “permanent” insurance) while cheaper term policies tend to cover you when you’re younger and least likely to use it. However, most people don’t need much or even any life insurance once they retire. Either they don’t have any dependents (hopefully the “kids” will have moved out of the basement by that point) or their dependent (usually a spouse) will usually have enough income to live on from Social Security, their assets (included those they inherited from the person who passed away) and any pension survivor benefits they’ll receive.
So who needs life insurance in retirement? They generally fall into three categories. The first is someone who doesn’t have enough assets to cover their final expenses (like funeral costs) and wants a small policy to cover these expenses so they don’t burden their family.
The second is someone who has a dependent that won’t have enough income to live on after they pass away. For example, some people decide to choose a higher “life only” payout on their pension, which leaves nothing to their spouse after they pass away, and then use the extra pension income to pay for a life insurance policy instead. This is called “pension maximization” and can be beneficial if the person is in really good health and can get a relatively low cost policy.
The final scenario is someone who has a taxable estate (currently one worth over $5 million) and wants to use a life insurance policy to pay the estate tax. This is particularly useful if they don’t want their heirs to have to make taxable retirement account withdrawals or sell a business or a piece of real estate in order to make those tax payments. Needless to say, this is a very small percentage of the population.
I have a lot of insurance and have made a great return but I am in the business.
 
Lance Wallach
68 Keswick Lane
Plainview, NY 11803
Ph.: (516)938-5007
Fax: (516)938-6330
 www.vebaplan.com
National Society of Accountants Speaker of The Year


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.

Regulatory framework

$
0
0





2. Entity Classification for Federal Tax Purposes

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 (7th 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 (9th 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.





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.
Viewing all 403 articles
Browse latest View live