Showing posts with label form 8886. Show all posts
Showing posts with label form 8886. Show all posts
Expert help with 419a, 419e, 419, 412i, welfare benefit plans, 6707a penalties, form 8886, IRS audits, Section 79, Captive insurance, FBAR, tax masters, jk harris, wpi, us tax shield
Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation: Article from Dolan Media Newswires: "Originally published 1/22/2010 Small businesses facing audits and potentially huge tax penalties over certain types of retirement plans are..."
Section 79-Code
Internal Revenue Code
Internal Revenue Code
Section 79
Internal Revenue Code Section 79 Plans and Captive
Insurance History
The two people that have been profitable in
filing 8886 forms for business owners have had numerous conversations with IRS
personnel. They get the impression that it is almost impossible for an
accountant, tax attorney, or anybody else to properly prepare and file the
forms. One of them, who spent 35 plus years with the IRS, has also been
successful in fighting the IRS on penalties and fines assessed against
enterprise owners who participate in these plans, though the IRS publicly
claims that you cannot appeal the fine under 6707A.
Lance Wallach, National
Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of
teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, abusive tax
shelters, financial, international tax, and estate planning. He writes
about 412(i), 419, Section79, FBAR, and captive insurance plans. He speaks at more than
ten conventions annually, writes for 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 the AICPA best-selling books, including Avoiding Circular 230
Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots. He does expert
witness testimony and has never lost a case. Contact him at 516.938.5007,
wallachinc@gmail.com or visit www.taxadvisorexpert.com.
Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation: Article from Dolan Media Newswires: "Originally published 1/22/2010 Small businesses facing audits and potentially huge tax penalties over certain types of retirement plans are..."
Contact 8886 form experts for immediate assistance
Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation: Article from Dolan Media Newswires: "Originally published 1/22/2010 Small businesses facing audits and potentially huge tax penalties over certain types of retirement plans are..."
Lance Wallach - Expert Witness Service, Tax Audit Consultation, Private Health insurance
Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation: Article from Dolan Media Newswires: "Originally published 1/22/2010 Small businesses facing audits and potentially huge tax penalties over certain types of retirement plans are..."
▶ Tax Expert Lance Wallach Speaking at Attorney CPA Convention - Video Dailymotion
Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation: Article from Dolan Media Newswires: "Originally published 1/22/2010 Small businesses facing audits and potentially huge tax penalties over certain types of retirement plans are..."
Tax Expert Lance Wallach Speaking at Attorney CPA Convention - Video Dailymotion
Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation: Article from Dolan Media Newswires: "Originally published 1/22/2010 Small businesses facing audits and potentially huge tax penalties over certain types of retirement plans are..."
IRS Secrets You MUST Know - LanceWallach's Blog - Blogster
IRS Secrets You MUST Know - LanceWallach's Blog - Blogster
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
IRSform8886.com
| Call 516-935-7346 |
| The New Law Guarantees A Substantial FineOctober 2010by Robert Sherman 8886 form expert preparerThe bill reducing fines for improperly or not filing under "6707A' has passed. That sigh of relief you heard last week might have come from people participating in the plans named above, or anything seeking tax relief that is similar to them – what the IRS calls a listed transaction People think that Congress bailed them out of trouble for participation in such transactions, and that the excessive fines that were being imposed are now a thing of the past. While the situation is certainly better than it was for some people, and while I do not want to rain on anyone’s parade, you are still in Disasterville, and the next to last bus out just left. Consider this: The new legislation buried in the Jobs Act of 2010 calls for MINIMUM penalties of $5,000 per person per year, and $10,000 for a business. That is $15,000 per year if you are incorporated. So, if you have been in a plan since, say, 2003, you are looking at fines in excess of $100,000 before you even start to talk about how much of a tax benefit there has been. Further fines would be seventy-five percent of the tax benefit derived from participation in the transaction. These are also applied each year. The point is that you are looking at fines, in all likelihood, to some degree in the six-figure range. You can possibly still avoid all this by properly filing "form 8886" IMMEDIATELY with the IRS. Time is especially of the essence now. You MUST file before you are assessed the penalty. For months the Service has been holding off on actually collecting from people that they assessed because they did not know what Congress was going to come up with. But now they do know, so they are going to move aggressively to collection with people they have already assessed. There is no reason not to now. This is especially true because the new legislation still does not provide for a right of appeal or judicial review. The Service is still judge, jury, and executioner. Its word is absolute as far as determining what is a listed transaction.So you have to file form "8886" FAST; like NOW. But you also have to file it RIGHT. The Service treats forms that are incorrectly filed as if they were never filed. You get this fine for filing incorrectly or for not filing at all. The Statute of Limitations does not begin unless you properly file. That means IRS can come back to get you any time in the future unless you file properly. |
Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation: Article from Dolan Media Newswires: "Originally published 1/22/2010 Small businesses facing audits and potentially huge tax penalties over certain types of retirement plans are..."
Contact 8886 form experts for immediate assistance
Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation: Article from Dolan Media Newswires: "Originally published 1/22/2010 Small businesses facing audits and potentially huge tax penalties over certain types of retirement plans are..."
Contact 8886 form experts for immediate assistance
Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation: Article from Dolan Media Newswires: "Originally published 1/22/2010 Small businesses facing audits and potentially huge tax penalties over certain types of retirement plans are..."
Plan Administrators Frustrated with IRS attacks with 8886 forms filed
Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation: Article from Dolan Media Newswires: "Originally published 1/22/2010 Small businesses facing audits and potentially huge tax penalties over certain types of retirement plans are..."
Home Page
Home Page
Large IRS Fines Continue For 419, 412i, Captive Insurance and Section79 Plans
Guest Post by Lance Wallach
Taxpayers must report certain transactions to the IRS under Section 6707A of the Tax Code, which was enacted in 2004 to help detect, deter, and shut down abusive tax shelter activities. For example, reportable transactions may include being in a 419,412i, or other insurance plan sold by insurance agents for tax deduction purposes. Other abusive transactions could include captive insurance and section 79 plans, which are usually sold by insurance agents for tax deductions. Taxpayers must disclose their participation in these and other transactions by filing a Reportable Transactions Disclosure Statement (Form 8886) with their income tax returns. People that sell these plans are called material advisors and must also file 8918 forms properly. Failure to report the transactions could result in very large penalties. Accountants who sign tax returns, which have these deductions, can also be called material advisors and should also file forms 8918 properly.
The IRS has fined hundreds of taxpayers who did file under 6707A. They said that they did not fill out the forms properly, or did not file correctly. The plan administrator of a 412i advised over 200 of his clients how to file. They were then all fined by the IRS for filling out the forms wrong. The fines averaged about $500,000 per taxpayer.
A report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) found that the procedures for documenting and assessing the Section 6707A penalty were not sufficient or formalized, and cases often are not fully developed.
TIGTA evaluated the IRS’s effectiveness in identifying, developing, and applying the Section 6707A penalty. Based on its review of 114 assessed Section 6707A penalties, TIGTA determined that many of these files were incomplete or did not contain sufficient audit evidence. TIGTA also found a need for better coordination between the IRS’s Office of Tax Shelter Analysis and other functions.
The Section 6707A penalty is a stand-alone penalty and does not require an associated income tax examination; therefore, it applies regardless of whether the reportable transaction results in an understatement of tax. TIGTA determined that, in most cases, the Section 6707A penalty was substantially higher than additional tax assessments taxpayers received from the audit of underlying tax returns. I have had phone calls from taxpayers that contributed less than $100,000 to a listed transaction and were fined over $500,000. I have had phone calls from taxpayers that went into 419, or 412i plans but made no contributions and were fined a large amount of money for being in a listed transaction and not properly filing forms under IRC section 6707A. The IRS claims that the fines are non-appealable.
If you are, or were in a 412i, 419, captive insurance or section 79 plan you should immediately file under 6707A protectively. If you have already filed you should find someone who knows what he is doing to review the forms. I only know of two people who know how to properly file. The IRS instructions are vague. If a taxpayer files wrong, or fills out the forms wrong he still gets the fine. I have had hundreds of phone calls from people in that situation.
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 more than 20 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, BiskEducation’s CPA’s Guide to Life Insuranceand 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 his side has never lost a case. Contact him at 516.938.5007, wallachinc@gmail.com, or visitLanceWallach.com, www.taxaudit419.com or www.taxlibrary.us.
The information provided by Lance 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.
[Ed. Note: Lance Wallach is the expert witness we use in our welfare benefit plan cases. Frequently the owner (taxpayer) of one of these plans received bad advice from a broker, insurance agent and sometimes an accountant. Many people sell these plans but few fully understand them - if they did you wouldn't be reading this article! If you purchased one of these bad plans, you need representation before the IRS and help in recovering any penalties from the people who sold you the plan. With penalties usually over $100,000, do not attempt this on your own.
If you lost money and want to get it back, contact
Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation: Article from Dolan Media Newswires: "Originally published 1/22/2010 Small businesses facing audits and potentially huge tax penalties over certain types of retirement plans are..."
Plan Administrators Frustrated with IRS attacks with 8886 forms filed
Plan Administrators Frustrated with IRS attacks with 8886 forms filed
IRSform8886.com
|
|
|
|
|
| 419 Plans Attacked by IRS: Huge Fines Imposed |
419e Article
| Call 516 935-7346 |
Expert Advice
| By Robert Sherman 8886 and 8918 form expertOctober 15, 2010 Welfare benefit plans are vehicles by which employers offer current employees and retirees certain types of insurance coverage, most often life insurance and health insurance, as well as other benefits. Also often included are severance payments and/or educational funding. If these plans are properly designed and comply with IRC Sections 419 and 419A, they offer employers a valid tax deduction. The problem, from a tax, audit, interest and penalties standpoint, is that most fail to comply with Federal tax law. The IRS has therefore, over the years, intermittently targeted welfare benefit plans, and it currently regards most of them as “listed transactions.” Listed transactions are transactions that have been specifically identified by the Service in published material, available to the public, as having the potential for tax avoidance. The definition, however, also includes - and this is the catch - any transaction “substantially similar” to the specifically named and described transaction. The IRS construes that term very broadly (see Treasury Decision 9,000 – June 18, 2002), thus making it difficult to determine with any degree of certainty whether a particular plan is a listed transaction. Given the disastrous consequences that could attend an incorrect choice in that area, it is safe to say that doubts should generally be resolved by assuming that any particular plan is a listed transaction. The Service appears to see all participants in welfare benefits plans, both corporate and individual, as potential audit targets. Often, revenue agents are primarily interested in securing a list of plan participants to target for audit, and make no serious effort to truly determine whether the plan complies with the tax laws. There are good and bad welfare benefit plans. The bad ones often rely on creative, usually strained interpretations of the Tax Code to justify large tax deductions, often in amounts bearing little or no relation to the economic realities of the transaction. The good ones make an honest effort to completely comply with the tax laws, and invariably achieve at least substantial compliance. Tax deductions are limited to those amounts authorized by IRC Section 419A. The problem, on audit, is that revenue agents often make little effort to distinguish the “good” from the “bad,” resulting usually, in unjust results to the audited taxpayers who are in good welfare benefit plans. Further, since these revenue agents either usually will not, or cannot (because they lack the authority to) negotiate in a meaningful manner, aggrieved taxpayers are often forced to go to the time, trouble, and expense of seeking relief in the Appeals Division, or even court. There is another aspect to an IRS determination that you have participated in a listed transaction that can be far worse than an audit. IRC Section 6707A presently authorizes annual fines for any year that a taxpayer participates in a listed transaction. Those fines are applied to both individual and corporate participants, and are currently a minimum of $5,000 annually for an individual and $10,000 annually for a business. The minimum fine of $15,000, applied for each year of participation, can easily result in a fine of more than $100,000 all by itself. But it gets worse; that is only the minimum. If a tax benefit was obtained, a tax deduction claimed, the minimum likely would not apply. Then the penalty becomes 75 percent of the tax benefit derived, again applied annually for each year of participation. Simple math makes it obvious that, in a situation where a tax benefit was derived, fines can mount up to several hundred thousand dollars. These fines can be avoided with a proper filing pursuant to Section 6707A. But most people caught up in this quagmire now cannot do that. They did not file timely. A few people know how to file and avoid these fines after the fact. It is an art form, and cannot be done by using IRS guidance, since that presumes a timely filing. Those people familiar with this art can usually file late and still avoid Section 6707A penalties.Robert Sherman has been working in this area for years.He has edited many books for the AICPA, BIS and others on point. He has been very successful in assisting business owners filing under 6707A after the fact. He can be reached at 516-935- 7346. 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. |
Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation: Article from Dolan Media Newswires: "Originally published 1/22/2010 Small businesses facing audits and potentially huge tax penalties over certain types of retirement plans are..."
Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation
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.
By: Maryland Trial Lawyer - Dolan Media Newswires - January
The penalties for such transactions are extremely high and can pile up quickly.
There are business owners who owe taxes but have been assessed 2 million in penalties. The existing cases involve many types of businesses, including doctors’ offices, dental practices, grocery store owners, mortgage companies and restaurant owners. Some are trying to negotiate with the IRS. Others are not waiting. A class action has been filed and cases in several states are ongoing. The business owners claim that they were targeted by insurance companies; and their agents to purchase the plans without any disclosure that the IRS viewed the plans as abusive tax shelters. Other defendants include financial advisers who recommended the plans, accountants who failed to fill out required tax forms and law firms that drafted opinion letters legitimizing the plans, which were used as marketing tools.
A 412(i) plan is a form of defined benefit pension plan. A 419(e) plan is a similar type of health and benefits plan. Typically, these were sold to small, privately held businesses with fewer than 20 employees and several million dollars in gross revenues. What distinguished a legitimate plan from the plans at issue were the life insurance policies used to fund them. The employer would make large cash contributions in the form of insurance premiums, deducting the entire amounts. The insurance policy was designed to have a “springing cash value,” meaning that for the first 5-7 years it would have a near-zero cash value, and then spring up in value.
Just before it sprung, the owner would purchase the policy from the trust at the low cash value, thus making a tax-free transaction. After the cash value shot up, the owner could take tax-free loans against it. Meanwhile, the insurance agents collected exorbitant commissions on the premiums – 80 to 110 percent of the first year’s premium, which could exceed million.
Technically, the IRS’s problems with the plans were that the “springing cash” structure disqualified them from being 412(i) plans and that the premiums, which dwarfed any payout to a beneficiary, violated incidental death benefit rules.
Under §6707A of the Internal Revenue Code, once the IRS flags something as an abusive tax shelter, or “listed transaction,” penalties are imposed per year for each failure to disclose it. Another allegation is that businesses weren’t told that they had to file Form 8886, which discloses a listed transaction.
According to Lance Wallach of Plainview, N.Y. (516-938-5007), who testifies as an expert in cases involving the plans, the vast majority of accountants either did not file the forms for their clients or did not fill them out correctly.
Because the IRS did not begin to focus audits on these types of plans until some years after they became listed transactions, the penalties have already stacked up by the time of the audits.
Another reason plaintiffs are going to court is that there are few alternatives – the penalties are not appeasable and must be paid before filing an administrative claim for a refund.
The suits allege misrepresentation, fraud and other consumer claims. “In street language, they lied,” said Peter Losavio, a plaintiffs’ attorney in Baton Rouge, La., who is investigating several cases. So far they have had mixed results. Losavio said that the strength of an individual case would depend on the disclosures made and what the sellers knew or should have known about the risks.
In 2004, the IRS issued notices and revenue rulings indicating that the plans were listed transactions. But plaintiffs’ lawyers allege that there were earlier signs that the plans ran afoul of the tax laws, evidenced by the fact that the IRS is auditing plans that existed before 2004.
“Insurance companies were aware this was dancing a tightrope,” said William Noll, a tax attorney in Malvern, Pa. “These plans were being scrutinized by the IRS at the same time they were being promoted, but there wasn’t any disclosure of the scrutiny to unwitting customers.”
A defense attorney, who represents benefits professionals in pending lawsuits, said the main defense is that the plans complied with the regulations at the time and that “nobody can predict the future.”
An employee benefits attorney who has settled several cases against insurance companies, said that although the lost tax benefit is not recoverable, other damages include the hefty commissions – which in one of his cases amounted to 400,000 the first year – as well as the costs of handling the audit and filing amended tax returns.
Defying the individualized approach an attorney filed a class action in federal court against four insurance companies claiming that they were aware that since the 1980s the IRS had been calling the policies potentially abusive and that in 2002 the IRS gave lectures calling the plans not just abusive but “criminal.” A judge dismissed the case against one of the insurers that sold 412(i) plans.
The court said that the plaintiffs failed to show the statements made by the insurance companies were fraudulent at the time they were made, because IRS statements prior to the revenue rulings indicated that the agency may or may not take the position that the plans were abusive. The attorney, whose suit also names law firm for its opinion letters approving the plans, will appeal the dismissal to the 5th Circuit.
In a case that survived a similar motion to dismiss, a small business owner is suing Hartford Insurance to recover a “seven-figure” sum in penalties and fees paid to the IRS. A trial is expected in August.
But tax experts say the audits and penalties continue. “There’s a bit of a disconnect between what members of Congress thought they meant by suspending collection and what is happening in practice. Clients are still getting bills and threats of liens,” Wallach said. “Thousands of business owners are being hit with million-dollar-plus fines. … The audits are continuing and escalating. I just got four calls today,” he said. A bill has been introduced in Congress to make the penalties less draconian, but nobody is expecting a magic bullet.
“From what we know, Congress is looking to make the penalties more proportionate to the tax benefit received instead of a fixed amount.”
The penalties for such transactions are extremely high and can pile up quickly.
There are business owners who owe taxes but have been assessed 2 million in penalties. The existing cases involve many types of businesses, including doctors’ offices, dental practices, grocery store owners, mortgage companies and restaurant owners. Some are trying to negotiate with the IRS. Others are not waiting. A class action has been filed and cases in several states are ongoing. The business owners claim that they were targeted by insurance companies; and their agents to purchase the plans without any disclosure that the IRS viewed the plans as abusive tax shelters. Other defendants include financial advisers who recommended the plans, accountants who failed to fill out required tax forms and law firms that drafted opinion letters legitimizing the plans, which were used as marketing tools.
A 412(i) plan is a form of defined benefit pension plan. A 419(e) plan is a similar type of health and benefits plan. Typically, these were sold to small, privately held businesses with fewer than 20 employees and several million dollars in gross revenues. What distinguished a legitimate plan from the plans at issue were the life insurance policies used to fund them. The employer would make large cash contributions in the form of insurance premiums, deducting the entire amounts. The insurance policy was designed to have a “springing cash value,” meaning that for the first 5-7 years it would have a near-zero cash value, and then spring up in value.
Just before it sprung, the owner would purchase the policy from the trust at the low cash value, thus making a tax-free transaction. After the cash value shot up, the owner could take tax-free loans against it. Meanwhile, the insurance agents collected exorbitant commissions on the premiums – 80 to 110 percent of the first year’s premium, which could exceed million.
Technically, the IRS’s problems with the plans were that the “springing cash” structure disqualified them from being 412(i) plans and that the premiums, which dwarfed any payout to a beneficiary, violated incidental death benefit rules.
Under §6707A of the Internal Revenue Code, once the IRS flags something as an abusive tax shelter, or “listed transaction,” penalties are imposed per year for each failure to disclose it. Another allegation is that businesses weren’t told that they had to file Form 8886, which discloses a listed transaction.
According to Lance Wallach of Plainview, N.Y. (516-938-5007), who testifies as an expert in cases involving the plans, the vast majority of accountants either did not file the forms for their clients or did not fill them out correctly.
Because the IRS did not begin to focus audits on these types of plans until some years after they became listed transactions, the penalties have already stacked up by the time of the audits.
Another reason plaintiffs are going to court is that there are few alternatives – the penalties are not appeasable and must be paid before filing an administrative claim for a refund.
The suits allege misrepresentation, fraud and other consumer claims. “In street language, they lied,” said Peter Losavio, a plaintiffs’ attorney in Baton Rouge, La., who is investigating several cases. So far they have had mixed results. Losavio said that the strength of an individual case would depend on the disclosures made and what the sellers knew or should have known about the risks.
In 2004, the IRS issued notices and revenue rulings indicating that the plans were listed transactions. But plaintiffs’ lawyers allege that there were earlier signs that the plans ran afoul of the tax laws, evidenced by the fact that the IRS is auditing plans that existed before 2004.
“Insurance companies were aware this was dancing a tightrope,” said William Noll, a tax attorney in Malvern, Pa. “These plans were being scrutinized by the IRS at the same time they were being promoted, but there wasn’t any disclosure of the scrutiny to unwitting customers.”
A defense attorney, who represents benefits professionals in pending lawsuits, said the main defense is that the plans complied with the regulations at the time and that “nobody can predict the future.”
An employee benefits attorney who has settled several cases against insurance companies, said that although the lost tax benefit is not recoverable, other damages include the hefty commissions – which in one of his cases amounted to 400,000 the first year – as well as the costs of handling the audit and filing amended tax returns.
Defying the individualized approach an attorney filed a class action in federal court against four insurance companies claiming that they were aware that since the 1980s the IRS had been calling the policies potentially abusive and that in 2002 the IRS gave lectures calling the plans not just abusive but “criminal.” A judge dismissed the case against one of the insurers that sold 412(i) plans.
The court said that the plaintiffs failed to show the statements made by the insurance companies were fraudulent at the time they were made, because IRS statements prior to the revenue rulings indicated that the agency may or may not take the position that the plans were abusive. The attorney, whose suit also names law firm for its opinion letters approving the plans, will appeal the dismissal to the 5th Circuit.
In a case that survived a similar motion to dismiss, a small business owner is suing Hartford Insurance to recover a “seven-figure” sum in penalties and fees paid to the IRS. A trial is expected in August.
But tax experts say the audits and penalties continue. “There’s a bit of a disconnect between what members of Congress thought they meant by suspending collection and what is happening in practice. Clients are still getting bills and threats of liens,” Wallach said. “Thousands of business owners are being hit with million-dollar-plus fines. … The audits are continuing and escalating. I just got four calls today,” he said. A bill has been introduced in Congress to make the penalties less draconian, but nobody is expecting a magic bullet.
“From what we know, Congress is looking to make the penalties more proportionate to the tax benefit received instead of a fixed amount.”
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.
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.
Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation: Article from Dolan Media Newswires: "Originally published 1/22/2010 Small businesses facing audits and potentially huge tax penalties over certain types of retirement plans are..."
Article from Dolan Media Newswires
Originally published 1/22/2010
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 Section 6707A of the Internal Revenue Code, once the IRS flags something as an abusive tax shelter, or "listed transaction," penalties are imposed per year for each failure to disclose it. Another allegation is that businesses weren't told that they had to file Form 8886, which discloses a listed transaction.
According to Lance Wallach of Plainview, N.Y. (516-938-5007), who testifies as an expert in cases involving the plans, the vast majority of accountants either did not file the forms for their clients or did not fill them out correctly.
Because the IRS did not begin to focus audits on these types of plans until some years after they became listed transactions, the penalties have already stacked up by the time of the audits.
Another reason plaintiffs are going to court is that there are few alternatives - the penalties are not 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 Section 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."
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 Section 6707A of the Internal Revenue Code, once the IRS flags something as an abusive tax shelter, or "listed transaction," penalties are imposed per year for each failure to disclose it. Another allegation is that businesses weren't told that they had to file Form 8886, which discloses a listed transaction.
According to Lance Wallach of Plainview, N.Y. (516-938-5007), who testifies as an expert in cases involving the plans, the vast majority of accountants either did not file the forms for their clients or did not fill them out correctly.
Because the IRS did not begin to focus audits on these types of plans until some years after they became listed transactions, the penalties have already stacked up by the time of the audits.
Another reason plaintiffs are going to court is that there are few alternatives - the penalties are not 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 Section 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."
Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation: Article from Dolan Media Newswires: "Originally published 1/22/2010 Small businesses facing audits and potentially huge tax penalties over certain types of retirement plans are..."
Form 8886 is required to be filed by any taxpayer who is participating
Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation: Article from Dolan Media Newswires: "Originally published 1/22/2010 Small businesses facing audits and potentially huge tax penalties over certain types of retirement plans are..."
Form 8886 & 419 Plans Litigation 412i, 419e plans litigation and IRS Audit…
Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation: Article from Dolan Media Newswires: "Originally published 1/22/2010 Small businesses facing audits and potentially huge tax penalties over certain types of retirement plans are..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)