Showing posts with label Litigation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Litigation. Show all posts
Captive Insurance and Other Abusive Tax Shelters
By Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC Abusive Tax Shelter, Listed Transaction, Reportable Transaction Expert Witness
Call Lance Wallach at (516) 938-5007
Call Lance Wallach at (516) 938-5007
Captive insurance arrangements that are funded with cash-value life insurance are the hot tax shelter for 2014. But serious questions exist whether they work as the promoter’s promise they will do.
During the savings & loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s, the courts used a particular acronym to describe cases where a physician had made an obviously bad investment in an oil & gas deal, and then sued to try to recoup their losses. Such a case was known as a "DDC", which was short for "Dumb Doctor Case".
Some doctors have a habit of getting into deals that don't make any sense. There's a saying that doctors will crawl on their bellies over broken glass for a mile to get to a bad deal, but they won't walk across the street to get to a good one.
Life insurance companies started pushing 412i plans and 419 welfare benefit plans in the 90s to business owners. When I spoke at the annual national convention of the National Society of Actuary’s about the problems with 419 and 412i plans in 2002 the IRS invited me to address their high level people that were writing regulations on point. We discussed the problems with these plans. The IRS then came up with additional regulations and set up task forces to audit these plans. The results for the business owners and Doctors were audits and very large taxes. I warned in financial publications and at conventions that I spoke at about the upcoming problems. I told people to file under IRS 6707A properly to at least reduce IRS fines on audit. In 2002 I also wrote to life insurance companies like Hartford Life etc. What was the result? The insurance companies continued to push these abusive plans and the IRS audited them. As an expert witness against these insurance companies and plans my side has never lost a case.
Some doctors have a habit of getting into deals that don't make any sense. There's a saying that doctors will crawl on their bellies over broken glass for a mile to get to a bad deal, but they won't walk across the street to get to a good one.
Life insurance companies started pushing 412i plans and 419 welfare benefit plans in the 90s to business owners. When I spoke at the annual national convention of the National Society of Actuary’s about the problems with 419 and 412i plans in 2002 the IRS invited me to address their high level people that were writing regulations on point. We discussed the problems with these plans. The IRS then came up with additional regulations and set up task forces to audit these plans. The results for the business owners and Doctors were audits and very large taxes. I warned in financial publications and at conventions that I spoke at about the upcoming problems. I told people to file under IRS 6707A properly to at least reduce IRS fines on audit. In 2002 I also wrote to life insurance companies like Hartford Life etc. What was the result? The insurance companies continued to push these abusive plans and the IRS audited them. As an expert witness against these insurance companies and plans my side has never lost a case.
Asset Protection
Asset protection is a legal method of reducing your
exposure to various types of risks by placing assets into various protected
structures. In addition, these structures are typically organized in a
manner to minimize the negative impact of a particular event. For example,
did you ever wonder why both Pepsi and Coca-Cola have bottling divisions? It
minimizes liability. If there is a problem with the physical product, the
bottling division will be the target of litigation. However, the intellectual
property is owned by a separate structure keeping out of the defendant’s chair
if the bottling division is sued. However, all businesses should consider their
actual structure from the perspective of being potential litigation, which is
the essence of asset protection.
In general, there are two negative situations asset protection seeks to minimize. The first is bankruptcy. Here, planners work with the bankruptcy code to help clients survive bankruptcy. However, it's important to realize there is only so much a planner can do in this area. The bankruptcy code exemptions are very clear -- and also fairly limited. The second negative event planners work at minimizing is litigation. Here we have far more flexibility (so long as there are no fraudulent transfer issues). By using various structures, it is possible to greatly reduce the negative impact of litigation. Other events that are considered in the plan are divorce (both of the client and the client's children) death (but this falls more under estate planning) and incapacitation.
It’s also important to understand what asset protection isn’t. Asset protection cannot create a bullet proof strategy that is unassailable in all situations – and don’t let anyone tell you differently. The most striking example is bankruptcy; as mentioned above, the bankruptcy exemptions are very clear and very narrow; anything that falls outside them is swept up in the bankruptcy estate to pay creditors. In addition, if a person does not maintain the plan, trouble can emerge. For example, a person that forms a corporation that does not keep up with corporate formalities could have the court “pierce the corporate veil,” meaning the person will become personally liable for the claim.
Who Should Engage in Asset Protection?
All businesses should have an attorney who specializes in asset protection look at the overall business structure at least once every few years to make sure their overall structure provides maximum protection. In addition, all high net worth individuals (people with at least $1 million in net worth) should have a plan in place, as their wealth is a natural litigation target. There are also several professions that naturally benefit from asset protection planning. Doctors lead the pack, followed closely by other licensed professionals (accountants, lawyers and engineers etc..).
In general, there are two negative situations asset protection seeks to minimize. The first is bankruptcy. Here, planners work with the bankruptcy code to help clients survive bankruptcy. However, it's important to realize there is only so much a planner can do in this area. The bankruptcy code exemptions are very clear -- and also fairly limited. The second negative event planners work at minimizing is litigation. Here we have far more flexibility (so long as there are no fraudulent transfer issues). By using various structures, it is possible to greatly reduce the negative impact of litigation. Other events that are considered in the plan are divorce (both of the client and the client's children) death (but this falls more under estate planning) and incapacitation.
It’s also important to understand what asset protection isn’t. Asset protection cannot create a bullet proof strategy that is unassailable in all situations – and don’t let anyone tell you differently. The most striking example is bankruptcy; as mentioned above, the bankruptcy exemptions are very clear and very narrow; anything that falls outside them is swept up in the bankruptcy estate to pay creditors. In addition, if a person does not maintain the plan, trouble can emerge. For example, a person that forms a corporation that does not keep up with corporate formalities could have the court “pierce the corporate veil,” meaning the person will become personally liable for the claim.
Who Should Engage in Asset Protection?
All businesses should have an attorney who specializes in asset protection look at the overall business structure at least once every few years to make sure their overall structure provides maximum protection. In addition, all high net worth individuals (people with at least $1 million in net worth) should have a plan in place, as their wealth is a natural litigation target. There are also several professions that naturally benefit from asset protection planning. Doctors lead the pack, followed closely by other licensed professionals (accountants, lawyers and engineers etc..).
Reportable Transactions .com: 419 Plan, 412i Plan
Reportable Transactions .com: 419 Plan, 412i Plan, Welfare benefit plan assistan...: 419 Plan, 412i Plan, Welfare benefit plan assistance, audits & Abusive tax shelters
Small business retirement plans fuel litigation
Dolan
Media Newswires 01/22/2010
Small businesses facing audits and potentially huge tax penalties over certain types of retirement plans are filing lawsuits against those who marketed, designed and sold the plans. The 412(i) and 419(e) plans were marketed in the past several years as a way for small business owners to set up retirement or welfare benefits plans while leveraging huge tax savings, but the IRS put them on a list of abusive tax shelters and has more recently focused audits on them.
The penalties for such transactions are extremely high and can pile up quickly - $100,000 per individual and $200,000 per entity per tax year for each failure to disclose the transaction - often exceeding the disallowed taxes.
There are business owners who owe $6,000 in taxes but have been assessed $1.2 million in penalties. The existing cases involve many types of businesses, including doctors' offices, dental practices, grocery store owners, mortgage companies and restaurant owners. Some are trying to negotiate with the IRS. Others are not waiting. A class action has been filed and cases in several states are ongoing. The business owners claim that they were targeted by insurance companies; and their agents to purchase the plans without any disclosure that the IRS viewed the plans as abusive tax shelters. Other defendants include financial advisors who recommended the plans, accountants who failed to fill out required tax forms and law firms that drafted opinion letters legitimizing the plans, which were used as marketing tools.
A 412(i) plan is a form of defined benefit pension plan. A 419(e) plan is a similar type of health and benefits plan. Typically, these were sold to small, privately held businesses with fewer than 20 employees and several million dollars in gross revenues. What distinguished a legitimate plan from the plans at issue were the life insurance policies used to fund them. The employer would make large cash contributions in the form of insurance premiums, deducting the entire amounts. The insurance policy was designed to have a "springing cash value," meaning that for the first 5-7 years it would have a near-zero cash value, and then spring up in value.
Just before it sprung, the owner would purchase the policy from the trust at the low cash value, thus making a tax-free transaction. After the cash value shot up, the owner could take tax-free loans against it. Meanwhile, the insurance agents collected exorbitant commissions on the premiums - 80 to 110 percent of the first year's premium, which could exceed $1 million.
Technically, the IRS's problems with the plans were that the "springing cash" structure disqualified them from being 412(i) plans and that the premiums, which dwarfed any payout to a beneficiary, violated incidental death benefit rules.
Under §6707A of the Internal Revenue Code, once the IRS flags something as an abusive tax shelter, or "listed transaction," penalties are imposed per year for each failure to disclose it. Another allegation is that businesses weren't told that they had to file Form 8886, which discloses a listed transaction.
According to Lance Wallach , who testifies as an expert in cases involving the plans, the vast majority of accountants either did not file the forms for their clients or did not fill them out correctly.
Because the IRS did not begin to focus audits on these types of plans until some years after they became listed transactions, the penalties have already stacked up by the time of the audits.
Another reason plaintiffs are going to court is that there are few alternatives - the penalties are not appealable and must be paid before filing an administrative claim for a refund.
The suits allege misrepresentation, fraud and other consumer claims. "In street language, they lied," said Peter Losavio, a plaintiffs' attorney in Baton Rouge, La., who is investigating several cases. So far they have had mixed results. Losavio said that the strength of an individual case would depend on the disclosures made and what the sellers knew or should have known about the risks.
In 2004, the IRS issued notices and revenue rulings indicating that the plans were listed transactions. But plaintiffs' lawyers allege that there were earlier signs that the plans ran afoul of the tax laws, evidenced by the fact that the IRS is auditing plans that existed before 2004.
"Insurance companies were aware this was dancing a tightrope," said William Noll, a tax attorney in Malvern, Pa. "These plans were being scrutinized by the IRS at the same time they were being promoted, but there wasn't any disclosure of the scrutiny to unwitting customers."
A defense attorney, who represents benefits professionals in pending lawsuits, said the main defense is that the plans complied with the regulations at the time and that "nobody can predict the future."
An employee benefits attorney who has settled several cases against insurance companies, said that although the lost tax benefit is not recoverable, other damages include the hefty commissions - which in one of his cases amounted to $860,000 the first year - as well as the costs of handling the audit and filing amended tax returns.
Defying the individualized approach an attorney filed a class action in federal court against four insurance companies claiming that they were aware that since the 1980s the IRS had been calling the policies potentially abusive and that in 2002 the IRS gave lectures calling the plans not just abusive but "criminal." A judge dismissed the case against one of the insurers that sold 412(i) plans.
The court said that the plaintiffs failed to show the statements made by the insurance companies were fraudulent at the time they were made, because IRS statements prior to the revenue rulings indicated that the agency may or may not take the position that the plans were abusive. The attorney, whose suit also names law firm for its opinion letters approving the plans, will appeal the dismissal to the 5th Circuit.
In a case that survived a similar motion to dismiss, a small business owner is suing Hartford Insurance to recover a "seven-figure" sum in penalties and fees paid to the IRS. A trial is expected in August.
Small businesses facing audits and potentially huge tax penalties over certain types of retirement plans are filing lawsuits against those who marketed, designed and sold the plans. The 412(i) and 419(e) plans were marketed in the past several years as a way for small business owners to set up retirement or welfare benefits plans while leveraging huge tax savings, but the IRS put them on a list of abusive tax shelters and has more recently focused audits on them.
The penalties for such transactions are extremely high and can pile up quickly - $100,000 per individual and $200,000 per entity per tax year for each failure to disclose the transaction - often exceeding the disallowed taxes.
There are business owners who owe $6,000 in taxes but have been assessed $1.2 million in penalties. The existing cases involve many types of businesses, including doctors' offices, dental practices, grocery store owners, mortgage companies and restaurant owners. Some are trying to negotiate with the IRS. Others are not waiting. A class action has been filed and cases in several states are ongoing. The business owners claim that they were targeted by insurance companies; and their agents to purchase the plans without any disclosure that the IRS viewed the plans as abusive tax shelters. Other defendants include financial advisors who recommended the plans, accountants who failed to fill out required tax forms and law firms that drafted opinion letters legitimizing the plans, which were used as marketing tools.
A 412(i) plan is a form of defined benefit pension plan. A 419(e) plan is a similar type of health and benefits plan. Typically, these were sold to small, privately held businesses with fewer than 20 employees and several million dollars in gross revenues. What distinguished a legitimate plan from the plans at issue were the life insurance policies used to fund them. The employer would make large cash contributions in the form of insurance premiums, deducting the entire amounts. The insurance policy was designed to have a "springing cash value," meaning that for the first 5-7 years it would have a near-zero cash value, and then spring up in value.
Just before it sprung, the owner would purchase the policy from the trust at the low cash value, thus making a tax-free transaction. After the cash value shot up, the owner could take tax-free loans against it. Meanwhile, the insurance agents collected exorbitant commissions on the premiums - 80 to 110 percent of the first year's premium, which could exceed $1 million.
Technically, the IRS's problems with the plans were that the "springing cash" structure disqualified them from being 412(i) plans and that the premiums, which dwarfed any payout to a beneficiary, violated incidental death benefit rules.
Under §6707A of the Internal Revenue Code, once the IRS flags something as an abusive tax shelter, or "listed transaction," penalties are imposed per year for each failure to disclose it. Another allegation is that businesses weren't told that they had to file Form 8886, which discloses a listed transaction.
According to Lance Wallach , who testifies as an expert in cases involving the plans, the vast majority of accountants either did not file the forms for their clients or did not fill them out correctly.
Because the IRS did not begin to focus audits on these types of plans until some years after they became listed transactions, the penalties have already stacked up by the time of the audits.
Another reason plaintiffs are going to court is that there are few alternatives - the penalties are not appealable and must be paid before filing an administrative claim for a refund.
The suits allege misrepresentation, fraud and other consumer claims. "In street language, they lied," said Peter Losavio, a plaintiffs' attorney in Baton Rouge, La., who is investigating several cases. So far they have had mixed results. Losavio said that the strength of an individual case would depend on the disclosures made and what the sellers knew or should have known about the risks.
In 2004, the IRS issued notices and revenue rulings indicating that the plans were listed transactions. But plaintiffs' lawyers allege that there were earlier signs that the plans ran afoul of the tax laws, evidenced by the fact that the IRS is auditing plans that existed before 2004.
"Insurance companies were aware this was dancing a tightrope," said William Noll, a tax attorney in Malvern, Pa. "These plans were being scrutinized by the IRS at the same time they were being promoted, but there wasn't any disclosure of the scrutiny to unwitting customers."
A defense attorney, who represents benefits professionals in pending lawsuits, said the main defense is that the plans complied with the regulations at the time and that "nobody can predict the future."
An employee benefits attorney who has settled several cases against insurance companies, said that although the lost tax benefit is not recoverable, other damages include the hefty commissions - which in one of his cases amounted to $860,000 the first year - as well as the costs of handling the audit and filing amended tax returns.
Defying the individualized approach an attorney filed a class action in federal court against four insurance companies claiming that they were aware that since the 1980s the IRS had been calling the policies potentially abusive and that in 2002 the IRS gave lectures calling the plans not just abusive but "criminal." A judge dismissed the case against one of the insurers that sold 412(i) plans.
The court said that the plaintiffs failed to show the statements made by the insurance companies were fraudulent at the time they were made, because IRS statements prior to the revenue rulings indicated that the agency may or may not take the position that the plans were abusive. The attorney, whose suit also names law firm for its opinion letters approving the plans, will appeal the dismissal to the 5th Circuit.
In a case that survived a similar motion to dismiss, a small business owner is suing Hartford Insurance to recover a "seven-figure" sum in penalties and fees paid to the IRS. A trial is expected in August.
Last July, in response to a letter from members of
Congress, the IRS put a moratorium on collection of §6707A penalties, but only
in cases where the tax benefits were less than $100,000 per year for
individuals and $200,000 for entities. That moratorium was recently extended
until March 1, 2010.
But tax experts say
the audits and penalties continue. "There's a bit of a disconnect between
what members of Congress thought they meant by suspending collection and what
is happening in practice. Clients are still getting bills and threats of
liens," Wallach said.
"Thousands
of business owners are being hit with million-dollar-plus fines. ... The audits
are continuing and escalating. I just got four calls today," he said.
A bill has been introduced in Congress to make the penalties less draconian,
but nobody is expecting a magic bullet.
"From what we know, Congress is looking to
make the penalties more proportionate to the tax benefit received instead of a
fixed amount."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)