Showing posts with label Abusive insurance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abusive insurance. Show all posts
Retirement Plan & 419 Welfare Benefit Plan Abusive Tax-Shelter Litigation
14
D. 412(i) Retirement Plan & 419 Welfare Benefit Plan Abusive Tax-Shelter Litigation
There has been much litigation arising out of insureds‘ and their employers‘ participation in defined benefit pension plans intended to meet the requirements of former Section 412(i) of the Internal Revenue Code (the ―Code‖) and welfare benefit plans intended to meet the requirements of Section 419A(f)(6) of the Code (for multiple employer plans) and Section 419(e) of the Code (for single employer plans). In many cases, life insurance policies were the funding vehicle, in whole or in part, for the 412(i) and 419 plans. From approximately 2002-2007, the IRS issued guidance regarding issues related to 412(i) and 419 plans and, since then, the IRS has focused increased scrutiny on the plans, concluding in many cases that the plans did not comply with the relevant Code sections, disallowing deductions taken by the employers and levying harsh penalties. As a result, insureds and their employers have filed lawsuits under various theories against the plan designers and the insurance companies claiming that they were misled regarding the tax benefits of the plans and the compliance of the plans with the Code.
1. Omni Home Fin., Inc. v. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35259, 2008 WL 1925248, *5 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2008) (“Omni I”); Omni Home Fin., Inc. v. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85581, 2008 WL 4616796, **3-4 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2008)(“Omni II”)
In many of the documents used to construct the 412 or 419 plans, the participant agrees that he is not relying on the insurance company‘s representations regarding the validity of the plan or its tax benefits, and the participant represents that he is relying on his own independent tax advisor in deciding to participate in the plan. For instance, in Omni I, the Southern District of California held that a disclosure statement provided to the Plaintiffs precluded claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation because the plaintiffs could not establish reasonable reliance as a matter of law. Contrary to the language agreed upon in the disclaimer provision, the plaintiffs alleged that Hartford, among others, misrepresented to them the tax consequences of their contributions to a 412(i) plan. After an IRS audit found that the plaintiffs‘ plans did not comply with several requirements for the qualified plans, the plaintiffs filed suit. Despite the fact that the plaintiffs claimed that they did not read the disclaimers they signed, the Omni court held that the receipt of the disclosure statements by plaintiffs precluded a finding of reasonable reliance, and granted summary judgment in favor of Hartford on the plaintiffs‘ claims.
In Omni II, the plaintiffs‘ motion for reconsideration was denied as the court noted that ―the material disclosures were in short documents easily intelligible to plaintiffs, who were reasonably sophisticated businesspeople‖ and furthermore, that such contracts did not violate public policy, nor were they contracts of adhesion as ―it is objectively unreasonable for a sophisticated contracting party to fail to read short, readily comprehensible documents he or she signs.‖ However, the court in Berry v. Indianapolis Life Insurance Co. (discussed in Section II.D.3., supra) denied the insurers motions for summary judgment based on disclosures similar to the disclosures at issue in Omni I and Omni II. Most notably, the court denied summary judgment for the plaintiffs whose claims were governed by Texas law and Wisconsin law. Thus,
15
the success of the ―disclaimer of reliance‖ argument may differ may from court to court and will depend on which state‘s law applies.
2. Berry v. Indianapolis Life Ins. Co., 600 F.Supp. 2d 805 (N.D. Tex. 2009)(“Berry I”); Berry v. Indianapolis Life Ins. Co., 638 F.Supp. 2d 732 (N.D. Tex. 2009)(“Berry II”); Berry v. Indianapolis Life Ins. Co., 2010 WL 3422873 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2010)(“Berry III”)
In this class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs, a nation-wide class consisting of doctors, dentists, and construction company owners, and the companies they operate, filed suit, alleging that the defendants sold life insurance policies to fund defined benefit plans in compliance with section 412(i) of the Internal Revenue Code, but were later deemed abusive tax-shelters by the IRS. Plaintiffs allege that four insurance companies (Indianapolis Life, Hartford, American General, and Pacific Life) knew or should have known that the plans would be scrutinized and found to be illegal by the IRS. Plaintiffs also allege that many of the defendants, including the four insurance companies, conspired to market these plans and made fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations about the tax benefits of these plans without disclosing any risk that the IRS would find the plans to be illegal. Ultimately, many of these claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief. Because the alleged misrepresentations were made prior to the IRS pronouncements calling into question the tax benefits of various plans, they were either not false when made or predictions and opinion that are not actionable.
In Berry I, the court dismissed plaintiffs‘ fraud theory holding that there was no apparent reason why the alleged misrepresentations were false when they were made in 2001 and 2002. The rational behind the court‘s ruling was that the IRS had not made any definitive statement about the legality of the 412(i) plan at the time the plaintiffs enrolled in the plan and purchased life insurance policies to fund the plan. The court noted that the plaintiffs could not use the rulings and rulemakings by the IRS in 2004 and 2005 ―to retroactively demonstrate that representations made by [the insurer‘s] alleged agents in 2001-02 were false when made.‖ Moreover, the court held that, as a matter of law, representations regarding the validity and likely tax treatment of the plaintiffs‘ 412(i) plans were ―forward looking‖ statements or ―opinions‖ as to how the IRS would treat 412(i) plans after plaintiffs funded them with insurance policies. The court found that it was ―inherently unreasonable for any person to rely on a prediction of future IRS enactment, enforcement, or non-enforcement of the law by someone unaffiliated with the federal government.‖ The court concluded that, ―[a]s a matter of law, any representation or prediction by any alleged [insurance company] agent as to how the IRS would treat the 412(i) plans, and the funding thereof, in the future is either an unactionable opinion or was unjustifiably relied upon.‖
Subsequently, the Northern District of Texas allowed the plaintiffs an opportunity to re-plead, and it then reaffirmed its prior ruling and dismissed the Berry plaintiffs‘ fraud-based claims with prejudice. The claims against the other insurance company defendants in Berry have been dismissed for the same reasons but the court has not yet decided whether the plaintiffs will be allowed to re-plead. As of November 2010, the third amended complaint was filed, to which Pacific Life filed a reply. Hartford and Pacific Life filed responses to the synopsis of the third amended complaint.
16
3. Zarrella v. Pacific Life Insurance Company, No. 10-60754-CIV, 755 F.Supp.2d 1231 (S.D. Fla. 2011)
In March of 2003, Plaintiffs purchased nine individual policies from Pacific Life for use in Zarrella Construction‘s 412(i) plan. It was not until February of 2004 when the IRS issued a declaration, naming such policies as abusive tax-shelters. Plaintiffs contend that Pacific Life ―marketed and expressly touted the Policies by highlighting these ‗special‘ benefits and/or incentives that – they knew or should have known – violated the IRS Code and presented substantial tax risks to Plaintiffs.‖ On May 10, 2010, Plaintiffs brought a class action against Pacific Life. Following Pacific Life‘s first motion to dismiss being partially granted, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Class Action Complaint in December of 2010. The Plaintiffs asserted the following claims: breach of contract, equitable fraud, negligence, and a violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. Plaintiff‘s alleged that there was a breach of contract ―because the Policies when used to fund 412(i), did not and could not satisfy the requirements of Section 412(i). The court countered by explaining that ―in the written contract, Pacific Life specifically did not guarantee any future tax or legal consequences.‖ Additionally, the court noted that Plaintiff‘s negligence claim failed because they failed to allege the existence of a legal duty.‖
Similarly, the court dismissed the class action fraud allegations against Pacific Life because the plaintiffs failed to explain why the defendants‘ alleged statements were false when made in 2003. The court also noted that fraud must be based on material facts, not a promise or prediction of future events and that the insurance company‘s alleged representations were just ―statements of opinion regarding future events.‖ Thus, once again, Pacific Life‘s 12(b)(6) motion was granted and the amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice on all counts. Accordingly, a second amended complaint was filed by Plaintiff‘s on April 12, 2011. The court has set the trial date for October 24, 2011 and the parties‘ response and reply to Pacific Life‘s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint are before the court.
4. Chau v. Aviva Life and Annuity, No. 3:09-cv-2305-B, 2011 WL 1990446 (N.D. Tex. May 20, 2011)
Doctors and dentists alleged that Indianapolis Life Insurance Company advertised, marketed, and consummated fraudulent business transactions, resulting in damages. Plaintiffs originally filed their complaint in April of 2009 in Washington state court and after Aviva removed the case to federal district court, the MDL Panel ordered the case transferred to the Northern District of Texas. Prior to the case being transferred, Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint and subsequently, Aviva filed its motion to dismiss Plaintiff‘s second amended complaint on February 5, 2010. Plaintiffs allege that the insurer knew that the IRS had looked askance at the legality of similar tax-shelter arrangements (welfare benefit trusts) and indicated that these arrangements may be deemed abusive tax shelters, yet continued to market its § 419 Plan as a tax-avoidance plan.
Plaintiffs‘ motion for a suggestion of remand to the Judicial Panel of Multidistrict Litigation was filed on March 3, 2011 and was subsequently denied by the district court.
17
However, the court noted that plaintiffs may motion again, should there be further developments in the case. Aviva‘s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was granted in part and denied in part on May 20, 2011. In its motion, Aviva claimed that Plaintiffs‘ common law fraud/negligent misrepresentation claim did not meet the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b), in addition to failing to state a claim, and the court agreed. However, on the breach of contract claim, the court found that under the applicable law governing the contract, plaintiff‘s claim was not due to be dismissed. The court elaborated on its reasoning, noting that allegations concerning oral representations made about the policies, specifically, their ability to obtain substantial tax savings with the 419 Plan. Plaintiffs asserted in their second amended complaint that those representations were false and resulted in ―substantial tax penalties and interest‖ due to an IRS audit. Thus, the court found that such allegations, accepted as true, state a claim for a breach of contract under Washington state law.
D. 412(i) Retirement Plan & 419 Welfare Benefit Plan Abusive Tax-Shelter Litigation
There has been much litigation arising out of insureds‘ and their employers‘ participation in defined benefit pension plans intended to meet the requirements of former Section 412(i) of the Internal Revenue Code (the ―Code‖) and welfare benefit plans intended to meet the requirements of Section 419A(f)(6) of the Code (for multiple employer plans) and Section 419(e) of the Code (for single employer plans). In many cases, life insurance policies were the funding vehicle, in whole or in part, for the 412(i) and 419 plans. From approximately 2002-2007, the IRS issued guidance regarding issues related to 412(i) and 419 plans and, since then, the IRS has focused increased scrutiny on the plans, concluding in many cases that the plans did not comply with the relevant Code sections, disallowing deductions taken by the employers and levying harsh penalties. As a result, insureds and their employers have filed lawsuits under various theories against the plan designers and the insurance companies claiming that they were misled regarding the tax benefits of the plans and the compliance of the plans with the Code.
1. Omni Home Fin., Inc. v. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35259, 2008 WL 1925248, *5 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2008) (“Omni I”); Omni Home Fin., Inc. v. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85581, 2008 WL 4616796, **3-4 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2008)(“Omni II”)
In many of the documents used to construct the 412 or 419 plans, the participant agrees that he is not relying on the insurance company‘s representations regarding the validity of the plan or its tax benefits, and the participant represents that he is relying on his own independent tax advisor in deciding to participate in the plan. For instance, in Omni I, the Southern District of California held that a disclosure statement provided to the Plaintiffs precluded claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation because the plaintiffs could not establish reasonable reliance as a matter of law. Contrary to the language agreed upon in the disclaimer provision, the plaintiffs alleged that Hartford, among others, misrepresented to them the tax consequences of their contributions to a 412(i) plan. After an IRS audit found that the plaintiffs‘ plans did not comply with several requirements for the qualified plans, the plaintiffs filed suit. Despite the fact that the plaintiffs claimed that they did not read the disclaimers they signed, the Omni court held that the receipt of the disclosure statements by plaintiffs precluded a finding of reasonable reliance, and granted summary judgment in favor of Hartford on the plaintiffs‘ claims.
In Omni II, the plaintiffs‘ motion for reconsideration was denied as the court noted that ―the material disclosures were in short documents easily intelligible to plaintiffs, who were reasonably sophisticated businesspeople‖ and furthermore, that such contracts did not violate public policy, nor were they contracts of adhesion as ―it is objectively unreasonable for a sophisticated contracting party to fail to read short, readily comprehensible documents he or she signs.‖ However, the court in Berry v. Indianapolis Life Insurance Co. (discussed in Section II.D.3., supra) denied the insurers motions for summary judgment based on disclosures similar to the disclosures at issue in Omni I and Omni II. Most notably, the court denied summary judgment for the plaintiffs whose claims were governed by Texas law and Wisconsin law. Thus,
15
the success of the ―disclaimer of reliance‖ argument may differ may from court to court and will depend on which state‘s law applies.
2. Berry v. Indianapolis Life Ins. Co., 600 F.Supp. 2d 805 (N.D. Tex. 2009)(“Berry I”); Berry v. Indianapolis Life Ins. Co., 638 F.Supp. 2d 732 (N.D. Tex. 2009)(“Berry II”); Berry v. Indianapolis Life Ins. Co., 2010 WL 3422873 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2010)(“Berry III”)
In this class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs, a nation-wide class consisting of doctors, dentists, and construction company owners, and the companies they operate, filed suit, alleging that the defendants sold life insurance policies to fund defined benefit plans in compliance with section 412(i) of the Internal Revenue Code, but were later deemed abusive tax-shelters by the IRS. Plaintiffs allege that four insurance companies (Indianapolis Life, Hartford, American General, and Pacific Life) knew or should have known that the plans would be scrutinized and found to be illegal by the IRS. Plaintiffs also allege that many of the defendants, including the four insurance companies, conspired to market these plans and made fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations about the tax benefits of these plans without disclosing any risk that the IRS would find the plans to be illegal. Ultimately, many of these claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief. Because the alleged misrepresentations were made prior to the IRS pronouncements calling into question the tax benefits of various plans, they were either not false when made or predictions and opinion that are not actionable.
In Berry I, the court dismissed plaintiffs‘ fraud theory holding that there was no apparent reason why the alleged misrepresentations were false when they were made in 2001 and 2002. The rational behind the court‘s ruling was that the IRS had not made any definitive statement about the legality of the 412(i) plan at the time the plaintiffs enrolled in the plan and purchased life insurance policies to fund the plan. The court noted that the plaintiffs could not use the rulings and rulemakings by the IRS in 2004 and 2005 ―to retroactively demonstrate that representations made by [the insurer‘s] alleged agents in 2001-02 were false when made.‖ Moreover, the court held that, as a matter of law, representations regarding the validity and likely tax treatment of the plaintiffs‘ 412(i) plans were ―forward looking‖ statements or ―opinions‖ as to how the IRS would treat 412(i) plans after plaintiffs funded them with insurance policies. The court found that it was ―inherently unreasonable for any person to rely on a prediction of future IRS enactment, enforcement, or non-enforcement of the law by someone unaffiliated with the federal government.‖ The court concluded that, ―[a]s a matter of law, any representation or prediction by any alleged [insurance company] agent as to how the IRS would treat the 412(i) plans, and the funding thereof, in the future is either an unactionable opinion or was unjustifiably relied upon.‖
Subsequently, the Northern District of Texas allowed the plaintiffs an opportunity to re-plead, and it then reaffirmed its prior ruling and dismissed the Berry plaintiffs‘ fraud-based claims with prejudice. The claims against the other insurance company defendants in Berry have been dismissed for the same reasons but the court has not yet decided whether the plaintiffs will be allowed to re-plead. As of November 2010, the third amended complaint was filed, to which Pacific Life filed a reply. Hartford and Pacific Life filed responses to the synopsis of the third amended complaint.
16
3. Zarrella v. Pacific Life Insurance Company, No. 10-60754-CIV, 755 F.Supp.2d 1231 (S.D. Fla. 2011)
In March of 2003, Plaintiffs purchased nine individual policies from Pacific Life for use in Zarrella Construction‘s 412(i) plan. It was not until February of 2004 when the IRS issued a declaration, naming such policies as abusive tax-shelters. Plaintiffs contend that Pacific Life ―marketed and expressly touted the Policies by highlighting these ‗special‘ benefits and/or incentives that – they knew or should have known – violated the IRS Code and presented substantial tax risks to Plaintiffs.‖ On May 10, 2010, Plaintiffs brought a class action against Pacific Life. Following Pacific Life‘s first motion to dismiss being partially granted, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Class Action Complaint in December of 2010. The Plaintiffs asserted the following claims: breach of contract, equitable fraud, negligence, and a violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. Plaintiff‘s alleged that there was a breach of contract ―because the Policies when used to fund 412(i), did not and could not satisfy the requirements of Section 412(i). The court countered by explaining that ―in the written contract, Pacific Life specifically did not guarantee any future tax or legal consequences.‖ Additionally, the court noted that Plaintiff‘s negligence claim failed because they failed to allege the existence of a legal duty.‖
Similarly, the court dismissed the class action fraud allegations against Pacific Life because the plaintiffs failed to explain why the defendants‘ alleged statements were false when made in 2003. The court also noted that fraud must be based on material facts, not a promise or prediction of future events and that the insurance company‘s alleged representations were just ―statements of opinion regarding future events.‖ Thus, once again, Pacific Life‘s 12(b)(6) motion was granted and the amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice on all counts. Accordingly, a second amended complaint was filed by Plaintiff‘s on April 12, 2011. The court has set the trial date for October 24, 2011 and the parties‘ response and reply to Pacific Life‘s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint are before the court.
4. Chau v. Aviva Life and Annuity, No. 3:09-cv-2305-B, 2011 WL 1990446 (N.D. Tex. May 20, 2011)
Doctors and dentists alleged that Indianapolis Life Insurance Company advertised, marketed, and consummated fraudulent business transactions, resulting in damages. Plaintiffs originally filed their complaint in April of 2009 in Washington state court and after Aviva removed the case to federal district court, the MDL Panel ordered the case transferred to the Northern District of Texas. Prior to the case being transferred, Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint and subsequently, Aviva filed its motion to dismiss Plaintiff‘s second amended complaint on February 5, 2010. Plaintiffs allege that the insurer knew that the IRS had looked askance at the legality of similar tax-shelter arrangements (welfare benefit trusts) and indicated that these arrangements may be deemed abusive tax shelters, yet continued to market its § 419 Plan as a tax-avoidance plan.
Plaintiffs‘ motion for a suggestion of remand to the Judicial Panel of Multidistrict Litigation was filed on March 3, 2011 and was subsequently denied by the district court.
17
However, the court noted that plaintiffs may motion again, should there be further developments in the case. Aviva‘s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was granted in part and denied in part on May 20, 2011. In its motion, Aviva claimed that Plaintiffs‘ common law fraud/negligent misrepresentation claim did not meet the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b), in addition to failing to state a claim, and the court agreed. However, on the breach of contract claim, the court found that under the applicable law governing the contract, plaintiff‘s claim was not due to be dismissed. The court elaborated on its reasoning, noting that allegations concerning oral representations made about the policies, specifically, their ability to obtain substantial tax savings with the 419 Plan. Plaintiffs asserted in their second amended complaint that those representations were false and resulted in ―substantial tax penalties and interest‖ due to an IRS audit. Thus, the court found that such allegations, accepted as true, state a claim for a breach of contract under Washington state law.
Abusive Insurance Plans Get Red Flag
Tax Briefs - The IRS in Notice 2007-83 identified as listed transactions certain trust arrangements involving cash value life insurance policies. Revenue Ruling 2007-65, issued simultaneously, addressed situations where the tax deduction has been disallowed, in part or in whole, for premiums paid on such cash-value life insurance policies.
Also simultaneously issued was Notice 2007-84, which disallows tax deductions and imposes severe penalties for welfare benefit plans that primarily and impermissibly benefit shareholders and highly compensated employees.
Taxpayers participating in these listed transactions must disclose such participation to the Service by January 15. Failure to disclose can result in severe penalties--- up to $100,000 for individuals and $200,000 for corporations.
Ruling 2007-65 aims at situations where cash-value life insurance is purchased on owner/employees and other key employees, while only term insurance is offered to the rank and file. These are sold as 419(e), 419(f) (6), and 419 plans. Other arrangements described by the ruling may also be listed transactions. A business in such an arrangement cannot deduct premiums paid for cash-value life insurance.
A CPA who is approached by a client about one of these arrangements must exercise the utmost degree of caution, and not only on behalf of the client. The severe penalties noted above can also be applied to the preparers of returns that fail to properly disclose listed transactions.
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.
Taxpayers participating in these listed transactions must disclose such participation to the Service by January 15. Failure to disclose can result in severe penalties--- up to $100,000 for individuals and $200,000 for corporations.
Ruling 2007-65 aims at situations where cash-value life insurance is purchased on owner/employees and other key employees, while only term insurance is offered to the rank and file. These are sold as 419(e), 419(f) (6), and 419 plans. Other arrangements described by the ruling may also be listed transactions. A business in such an arrangement cannot deduct premiums paid for cash-value life insurance.
A CPA who is approached by a client about one of these arrangements must exercise the utmost degree of caution, and not only on behalf of the client. The severe penalties noted above can also be applied to the preparers of returns that fail to properly disclose listed transactions.
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.
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.
Lance Wallach - Expert Witness Services, Section 79, insurance Expert Witness
Lance Wallach - Expert Witness Services, Section 79, insurance Expert Witness
http://www.section79problem.com/
http://www.section79problem.com/
Abusive Insurance, Welfare Benefit, and Retirement Plans
Published in Tax Practice: Tax Notes
March 2, 2009
By Lance Wallach
The IRS has various task forces auditing all section 419, section 412(i), and other plans that tend to be abusive. These plans are sold by most insurance agents. The IRS is looking to raise money and is not looking to correct plans or help taxpayers. The fines for being in a listed, abusive, or similar transaction are up to $200,000 per year (section 6707A), unless you report on yourself. The IRS calls accountants, attorneys, and insurance agents “material advisors” and also fines them the same amount, again unless the client’s participation in the transaction is reported. An accountant is a material advisor if he signs the return or gives advice and gets paid. More details can be found on http://www.irs.gov and http://www.vebaplan.com.
Bruce Hink, who has given me written permission to use his name and circumstances, is a perfect example of what the IRS is doing to unsuspecting business owners. What follows is a story about how the IRS fines him $200,000 a year for being in what they called a listed transaction. Listed transactions can be found at http://www.irs.gov. Also involved are what the IRS calls abusive plans or what it refers to as substantially similar. Substantially similar to is very difficult to understand, but the IRS seems to be saying, “If it looks like some other listed transaction, the fines apply.” Also, I believe that the accountant who signed the tax return and the insurance agent who sold the retirement plan will each be fined $200,000 as material advisors. We have received many calls for help from accountants, attorneys, business owners, and insurance agents in similar situations. Don’t think this will happen to you? It is happening to a lot of accountants and business owners, because most of theses so-called listed, abusive, or substantially similar plans are being sold by insurance agents.
Recently I came across the case of Hink, a small business owner who is facing $400,000 in IRS penalties for 2004 and 2005 because of his participation in a section 412(i) plan. (The penalties were assessed under section 6707A.)
In 2002 an insurance agent representing a 100-year-old, well established insurance company suggested the owner start a pension plan. The owner was given a portfolio of information from the insurance company, which was given to the company’s outside CPA to review and give an opinion on. The CPA gave the plan the green light and the plan was started.
Contributions were made in 2003. The plan administrator came out with amendments to the plan, based on new IRS guidelines, in October 2004.
The business owner’s insurance agent disappeared in May 2005, before implementing the new guidelines from the administrator with the insurance company. The business owner was left with a refund check from the insurance company, a deduction claim on his 2004 tax return that had not been applied, and no agent.
It took six months of making calls to the insurance company to get a new insurance agent assigned. By then, the IRS had started an examination of the pension plan. Asking advice from the CPA and a local attorney (who had no previous experience in these cases) made matters worse, with a “big name” law firm being recommended and over $30,000 in additional legal fees being billed in three months.
To make a long story short, the audit stretched on for over 2 ½ years to examine a 2-year-old pension with four participants and the $178,000 in contributions. During the audit, no funds went to the insurance company, which was awaiting formal IRS approval on restructuring the plan as a traditional defined benefit plan, which the administrator had suggested and the IRS had indicated would be acceptable. The $90,000 in 2005 contributions was put into the company’s retirement bank account along with the 2004 contributions.
In March 2008 the business owner received a private e-mail apology from the IRS agent who headed the examination, saying that her hands were tied and that she used to believe she was correcting problems and helping taxpayers and not hurting people.
The IRS denied any appeal and ruled in October 2008 the $400,000 penalty would stand. The IRS fine for being in a listed, abusive, or similar transaction is $200,000 per year for corporations or $100,000 per year for unincorporated entities. The material advisor fine is $200,000 if you are incorporated or $100,000 if you are not.
Could you or one of your clients be next?
To this point, I have focused, generally, on the horrors of running afoul of the IRS by participating in a listed transaction, which includes various types of transactions and the various fines that can be imposed on business owners and their advisors who participate in, sell, or advice on these transactions. I happened to use, as an example, someone in a section 412(i) plan, which was deemed to be a listed transaction, pointing out the truly doleful consequences the person has suffered. Others who fall into this trap, even unwittingly, can suffer the same fate.
Now let’s go into more detail about section 412(i) plans. This is important because these defined benefit plans are popular and because few people think of retirement plans as tax shelters or listed transactions. People therefore may get into serious trouble in this area unwittingly, out of ignorance of the law, and, for the same reason, many fail to take necessary and appropriate precautions.
The IRS has warned against the section 412(i) defined benefit pension plans, named for the former code section governing them. It warned against 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 the 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 some 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 the transactions. In general, IRS auditors divide audited plan into those they consider noncompliant and other they consider abusive. While the alternatives available to the sponsor of 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 than participants. Although in some situation 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.
Another plan the IRS is auditing is the section 419 plan. A few listed transactions concern relatively common employee benefit plans the IRS has deemed tax avoidance schemes or otherwise abusive. Perhaps some of the most likely to crop up, especially in small-business returns, are the arrangements purporting to allow the deductibility of premiums paid for life insurance under a welfare benefit plan or section 419 plan. These plans have been sold by most insurance agents and insurance companies.
Some of theses abusive employee benefit plans are represented as satisfying section 419, which sets limits on purposed and balances of “qualified asset accounts” for the benefits, although the plans purport to offer the deductibility of contributions without any corresponding income. Others attempt to take advantage of the exceptions to qualified asset account limits, such as sham union plans that try to exploit the exception for the separate welfare benefit funds under collective bargaining agreements provided by section 419A(f)(5). Others try to take advantage of exceptions for plans serving 10 or more employers, once popular under section 419A(f)(6). More recently, one may encounter plans relying on section 419(e) and, perhaps, defines benefit sections 412(i) pension plans.
Sections 419 and 419A were added to the code by the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 in an attempt to end employers’ acceleration of deductions for plan contributions. But it wasn’t long before plan promoters found an end run around the new code sections. An industry developed in what came to be known as 10-or-more-employer plans.
The IRS steadily added these abusive plans to its designations of listed transactions. With Revenue Ruling 90-105, it warned against deducting some plan contributions attributable to compensation earned by plan participants after the end of the tax year. Purported exceptions to limits of sections 419 and 419A claimed by 10-or-more-employer benefit funds were likewise prescribed in Notice 95-24 (Doc 95-5046, 95 TNT 98-11). Both positions were designated as listed transactions in 2000.
At that point, where did all those promoters go? Evidence indicates many are now promoting plans purporting to comply with section 419(e). They are calling a life insurance plan a welfare benefit plan (or fund), somewhat as they once did, and promoting the plan as a vehicle to obtain large tax deductions. The only substantial difference is that theses are now single-employer plans. And again, the IRS has tried to rein them in, reminding taxpayers that listed transactions include those substantially similar to any that are specifically described and so designated.
On October 17, 2007, the IRS issues Notices 2007-83 (Doc 2007-23225, 2007 TNT 202-6) and 2007-84 (Doc 2007-23220, 2007 TNT 202-5). In the former, the IRS identified some trust arrangements involving cash value life insurance policies, and substantially similar arrangements, as listed transactions. The latter similarly warned against some postretirement medical and life insurance benefit arrangements, saying they might be subject to “alternative tax treatment.” The IRS at the same time issued related Rev. Rul. 2007-65 (Doc 2007-23226, 2007 TNT 202-7) to address situations in which an arrangement is considered a welfare benefit fund but the employer’s deduction for its contributions to the fund id denied in whole or in part for premiums paid by the trust on cash value life insurance policies. It states that a welfare benefit fund’s qualified direct cost under section 419 does not include premium amounts paid by the fund for cash value life insurance policies if the fund is directly or indirectly a beneficiary under the policy, as determined under sections264(a).
Notice 2007-83 targets promoted arrangements under which the fund trustee purchases cash value insurance policies on the lives of a business’s employee/owners, and sometimes key employees, while purchasing term insurance policies on the lives of other employees covered under the plan.
These plans anticipate being terminated and anticipate that the cash value policies will be distributed to the owners or key employees, with little distributed to other employees. The promoters claim that the insurance premiums are currently deductible by the business and that the distributed insurance policies are virtually tax free to the owners. The ruling makes it clear that, going forward, a business under most circumstances cannot deduct the cost of premiums paid through a welfare benefit plan for cash value life insurance on the lives of its employees.
Should a client approach you with one of these plans, be especially cautious, for both of you. Advise your client to check out the promoter very carefully. Make it clear that the government has the names of all former section 419A(f)(6) promoters and, therefore, will be scrutinizing the promoter carefully if the promoter was once active in that area, as many current section 419(e) (welfare benefit fund or plan) promoters were. This makes an audit of your client more likely and far riskier.
It is worth noting that listed transactions are subject to a regulatory scheme applicable only to them, entirely separate from Circular 230 requirements, regulations, and sanctions. Participation in such a transaction must be disclosed on a tax return, and the penalties for failure to disclose are severe – up to $100,000 for individuals and $200,000 for corporations. The penalties apply to both taxpayers and practitioners. And the problem with disclosure, of course, is that it is apt to trigger an audit, in which case even if the listed transaction was to pass muster, something else may not.
Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, financial and estate planning, and abusive tax shelters. He writes about 412(i), 419, and captive insurance plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually, writes for over fifty publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Pubic Radio's All Things Considered, and others. Lance has written numerous books including Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams published by John Wiley and Sons, Bisk Education's CPA's Guide to Life Insurance and Federal Estate and Gift Taxation, as well as AICPA best-selling books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots. He does expert witness testimony and has never lost a case. Contact him at 516.938.5007, wallachinc@gmail.com.
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.
March 2, 2009
By Lance Wallach
The IRS has various task forces auditing all section 419, section 412(i), and other plans that tend to be abusive. These plans are sold by most insurance agents. The IRS is looking to raise money and is not looking to correct plans or help taxpayers. The fines for being in a listed, abusive, or similar transaction are up to $200,000 per year (section 6707A), unless you report on yourself. The IRS calls accountants, attorneys, and insurance agents “material advisors” and also fines them the same amount, again unless the client’s participation in the transaction is reported. An accountant is a material advisor if he signs the return or gives advice and gets paid. More details can be found on http://www.irs.gov and http://www.vebaplan.com.
Bruce Hink, who has given me written permission to use his name and circumstances, is a perfect example of what the IRS is doing to unsuspecting business owners. What follows is a story about how the IRS fines him $200,000 a year for being in what they called a listed transaction. Listed transactions can be found at http://www.irs.gov. Also involved are what the IRS calls abusive plans or what it refers to as substantially similar. Substantially similar to is very difficult to understand, but the IRS seems to be saying, “If it looks like some other listed transaction, the fines apply.” Also, I believe that the accountant who signed the tax return and the insurance agent who sold the retirement plan will each be fined $200,000 as material advisors. We have received many calls for help from accountants, attorneys, business owners, and insurance agents in similar situations. Don’t think this will happen to you? It is happening to a lot of accountants and business owners, because most of theses so-called listed, abusive, or substantially similar plans are being sold by insurance agents.
Recently I came across the case of Hink, a small business owner who is facing $400,000 in IRS penalties for 2004 and 2005 because of his participation in a section 412(i) plan. (The penalties were assessed under section 6707A.)
In 2002 an insurance agent representing a 100-year-old, well established insurance company suggested the owner start a pension plan. The owner was given a portfolio of information from the insurance company, which was given to the company’s outside CPA to review and give an opinion on. The CPA gave the plan the green light and the plan was started.
Contributions were made in 2003. The plan administrator came out with amendments to the plan, based on new IRS guidelines, in October 2004.
The business owner’s insurance agent disappeared in May 2005, before implementing the new guidelines from the administrator with the insurance company. The business owner was left with a refund check from the insurance company, a deduction claim on his 2004 tax return that had not been applied, and no agent.
It took six months of making calls to the insurance company to get a new insurance agent assigned. By then, the IRS had started an examination of the pension plan. Asking advice from the CPA and a local attorney (who had no previous experience in these cases) made matters worse, with a “big name” law firm being recommended and over $30,000 in additional legal fees being billed in three months.
To make a long story short, the audit stretched on for over 2 ½ years to examine a 2-year-old pension with four participants and the $178,000 in contributions. During the audit, no funds went to the insurance company, which was awaiting formal IRS approval on restructuring the plan as a traditional defined benefit plan, which the administrator had suggested and the IRS had indicated would be acceptable. The $90,000 in 2005 contributions was put into the company’s retirement bank account along with the 2004 contributions.
In March 2008 the business owner received a private e-mail apology from the IRS agent who headed the examination, saying that her hands were tied and that she used to believe she was correcting problems and helping taxpayers and not hurting people.
The IRS denied any appeal and ruled in October 2008 the $400,000 penalty would stand. The IRS fine for being in a listed, abusive, or similar transaction is $200,000 per year for corporations or $100,000 per year for unincorporated entities. The material advisor fine is $200,000 if you are incorporated or $100,000 if you are not.
Could you or one of your clients be next?
To this point, I have focused, generally, on the horrors of running afoul of the IRS by participating in a listed transaction, which includes various types of transactions and the various fines that can be imposed on business owners and their advisors who participate in, sell, or advice on these transactions. I happened to use, as an example, someone in a section 412(i) plan, which was deemed to be a listed transaction, pointing out the truly doleful consequences the person has suffered. Others who fall into this trap, even unwittingly, can suffer the same fate.
Now let’s go into more detail about section 412(i) plans. This is important because these defined benefit plans are popular and because few people think of retirement plans as tax shelters or listed transactions. People therefore may get into serious trouble in this area unwittingly, out of ignorance of the law, and, for the same reason, many fail to take necessary and appropriate precautions.
The IRS has warned against the section 412(i) defined benefit pension plans, named for the former code section governing them. It warned against 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 the 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 some 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 the transactions. In general, IRS auditors divide audited plan into those they consider noncompliant and other they consider abusive. While the alternatives available to the sponsor of 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 than participants. Although in some situation 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.
Another plan the IRS is auditing is the section 419 plan. A few listed transactions concern relatively common employee benefit plans the IRS has deemed tax avoidance schemes or otherwise abusive. Perhaps some of the most likely to crop up, especially in small-business returns, are the arrangements purporting to allow the deductibility of premiums paid for life insurance under a welfare benefit plan or section 419 plan. These plans have been sold by most insurance agents and insurance companies.
Some of theses abusive employee benefit plans are represented as satisfying section 419, which sets limits on purposed and balances of “qualified asset accounts” for the benefits, although the plans purport to offer the deductibility of contributions without any corresponding income. Others attempt to take advantage of the exceptions to qualified asset account limits, such as sham union plans that try to exploit the exception for the separate welfare benefit funds under collective bargaining agreements provided by section 419A(f)(5). Others try to take advantage of exceptions for plans serving 10 or more employers, once popular under section 419A(f)(6). More recently, one may encounter plans relying on section 419(e) and, perhaps, defines benefit sections 412(i) pension plans.
Sections 419 and 419A were added to the code by the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 in an attempt to end employers’ acceleration of deductions for plan contributions. But it wasn’t long before plan promoters found an end run around the new code sections. An industry developed in what came to be known as 10-or-more-employer plans.
The IRS steadily added these abusive plans to its designations of listed transactions. With Revenue Ruling 90-105, it warned against deducting some plan contributions attributable to compensation earned by plan participants after the end of the tax year. Purported exceptions to limits of sections 419 and 419A claimed by 10-or-more-employer benefit funds were likewise prescribed in Notice 95-24 (Doc 95-5046, 95 TNT 98-11). Both positions were designated as listed transactions in 2000.
At that point, where did all those promoters go? Evidence indicates many are now promoting plans purporting to comply with section 419(e). They are calling a life insurance plan a welfare benefit plan (or fund), somewhat as they once did, and promoting the plan as a vehicle to obtain large tax deductions. The only substantial difference is that theses are now single-employer plans. And again, the IRS has tried to rein them in, reminding taxpayers that listed transactions include those substantially similar to any that are specifically described and so designated.
On October 17, 2007, the IRS issues Notices 2007-83 (Doc 2007-23225, 2007 TNT 202-6) and 2007-84 (Doc 2007-23220, 2007 TNT 202-5). In the former, the IRS identified some trust arrangements involving cash value life insurance policies, and substantially similar arrangements, as listed transactions. The latter similarly warned against some postretirement medical and life insurance benefit arrangements, saying they might be subject to “alternative tax treatment.” The IRS at the same time issued related Rev. Rul. 2007-65 (Doc 2007-23226, 2007 TNT 202-7) to address situations in which an arrangement is considered a welfare benefit fund but the employer’s deduction for its contributions to the fund id denied in whole or in part for premiums paid by the trust on cash value life insurance policies. It states that a welfare benefit fund’s qualified direct cost under section 419 does not include premium amounts paid by the fund for cash value life insurance policies if the fund is directly or indirectly a beneficiary under the policy, as determined under sections264(a).
Notice 2007-83 targets promoted arrangements under which the fund trustee purchases cash value insurance policies on the lives of a business’s employee/owners, and sometimes key employees, while purchasing term insurance policies on the lives of other employees covered under the plan.
These plans anticipate being terminated and anticipate that the cash value policies will be distributed to the owners or key employees, with little distributed to other employees. The promoters claim that the insurance premiums are currently deductible by the business and that the distributed insurance policies are virtually tax free to the owners. The ruling makes it clear that, going forward, a business under most circumstances cannot deduct the cost of premiums paid through a welfare benefit plan for cash value life insurance on the lives of its employees.
Should a client approach you with one of these plans, be especially cautious, for both of you. Advise your client to check out the promoter very carefully. Make it clear that the government has the names of all former section 419A(f)(6) promoters and, therefore, will be scrutinizing the promoter carefully if the promoter was once active in that area, as many current section 419(e) (welfare benefit fund or plan) promoters were. This makes an audit of your client more likely and far riskier.
It is worth noting that listed transactions are subject to a regulatory scheme applicable only to them, entirely separate from Circular 230 requirements, regulations, and sanctions. Participation in such a transaction must be disclosed on a tax return, and the penalties for failure to disclose are severe – up to $100,000 for individuals and $200,000 for corporations. The penalties apply to both taxpayers and practitioners. And the problem with disclosure, of course, is that it is apt to trigger an audit, in which case even if the listed transaction was to pass muster, something else may not.
Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, financial and estate planning, and abusive tax shelters. He writes about 412(i), 419, and captive insurance plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually, writes for over fifty publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Pubic Radio's All Things Considered, and others. Lance has written numerous books including Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams published by John Wiley and Sons, Bisk Education's CPA's Guide to Life Insurance and Federal Estate and Gift Taxation, as well as AICPA best-selling books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots. He does expert witness testimony and has never lost a case. Contact him at 516.938.5007, wallachinc@gmail.com.
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.
Did you purchase a Section 79 plan and run into trouble? Lance Wallach, insurance expert witness services can provide the help you need with your insurance problems.
Did you purchase a Section 79 plan and run into trouble? Lance Wallach, insurance expert witness services can provide the help you need with your insurance problems.
http://www.section79help.com/
http://www.section79help.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)