The “Tax Resolution” Offices of “Lance Wallach”
5 1 6 – 9 3 8 – 5 0 0 7 Nationwide Assistance
“Expert Witness Services” Can Benefit You
In Many Ways
ATO leads global battle against multinational tax cheats
- SIMON BENSON
- THE DAILY TELEGRAPH
- MARCH 02, 2015 12:00AM
When you hire someone so qualified that he has been an expert witness you can be confident you are getting the BEST.
Click HERE to listen to expert “Lance Wallach” speak about listed transactions, 419 plan issues, welfare benefit plans and annuities, and how new IRS regulations can affect you if you participated in one of these types of benefit plans. Then make sure YOU obtain his services before your adversary does.
Remember, you could still be penalized for failure to file Form “8886” and those IRS penalties can be severe.
Abusive Insurance, Welfare Benefit, and Retirement Plans
The A2Z Directory March 2011
The IRS has various task forces auditing all section 419, section 412(i), and other plans that tend to be abusive. Most insurance agents sell these plans. The IRS is looking to raise money and is not looking to correct plans or help taxpayers. 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 onwww.irs.gov and vebaplan.org.
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 each year for being in what they called a listed transaction. Listed transactions can be found at 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 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 insurance agents are selling substantially similar plans. Recently I came across the case of Hink, a small business owner who is facing thousands 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 ,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 8,000 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.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.
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. 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.
How do insurance agents and companies handle untruths on behalf of their clients?
The incontestability clause was originally designed to manage situations wherein an applicant fails to mention something that is relevant to a life insurance policy and how it is approved and issued. In the case of these omissions, the clause can be used to contest payout of the policy if the applicant dies within two or three years of the issuance.
If a smoker, for example, dies outside of the contestability period and is denied a death claim for misrepresenting his smoker status – generally the insurance company cannot void the contract after the contestability period ends.
Our forum members discussed this issue, and noted that if caught within two years of the policy issue, a revocation of the policy might occur. After two years, the death benefit would be paid in full, unless the state courts had allowed another way to rescind the policy. But whether the insurance company includes a fraud provision or not, the state does not provide an escape clause in the case of fraud against an insurance company.
Breaking News: Don’t Become A Material
Accountants, insurance professionals and others need to be careful that they
don’t become what the IRS calls material advisors. If they sell or give advice,
or sign tax returns for abusive, listed or similar plans; they risk a minimum
$100,000 fine. Their client will then probably sue them after having dealt with
In 2010, the IRS raided the offices of and seized
the retirement benefit plan administration firm’s files and records. In
McGehee Family Clinic, the Tax Court ruled that a clinic and shareholder’s
investment in an employee benefit plan marketed under the name
was a listed transaction because it was substantially similar to the
transaction described in Notice 95-34 (1995-1 C.B. 309). This is at least the
second case in which the court has ruled against the welfare benefit
plan, by denominating it a listed transaction.
The McGehee Family Clinic enrolled in the Benistar Plan in May 2001 and
claimed deductions for contributions to it in 2002 and 2005. The returns did
not include a Form 8886, Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement, or
similar disclosure. The IRS disallowed the latter deduction and adjusted the
2004 return of shareholder Robert Prosser and his wife to include the
$50,000 payment to the plan. Click here to read more.
California Broker, June 2011
Employee Retirement Plans
By Lance Wallach
412i, 419, Captive Insurance and Section 79 Plans; Buyer Beware
The IRS has been attacking all 419 welfare benefit plans, many 412i retirement plans, captive insurance plans with life insurance in them, and Section 79 plans. IRS is aggressively auditing various plans and calling them “listed transactions,” “abusive tax shelters,” or “reportable transactions,” participation in any of which must be disclosed to the Service. The result has been IRS audits, disallowances, and huge fines for not properly reporting under IRC 6707A.
In a recent tax court case, Curico v. Commissioner (TC Memo 2010-115), the Tax Court ruled that an investment in an employee welfare benefit plan marketed under the name “Benistar” was a listed transaction. It was substantially similar to the transaction described in IRS Notice 95-34. A subsequent case, McGehee Family Clinic, largely followed Curico, though it was technically decided on other grounds. The parties stipulated to be bound by Curico regarding whether the amounts paid by McGehee in connection with the Benistar 419 Plan and Trust were deductible. Curico did not appear to have been decided yet at the time McGehee was argued. The McGehee opinion (Case No. 10-102) (United States Tax Court, September 15, 2010) does contain an exhaustive analysis and discussion of virtually all of the relevant issues. Taxpayers and their representatives should be aware that the Service has disallowed deductions for
contributions to these arrangements. The IRS is cracking down on small business owners who participate in tax reduction insurance plans and the brokers who sold them. Some of these plans include defined benefit retirement plans, IRAs, or even 401(k) plans with life insurance. Click here to read full article.
Section 79, Captive Insurance, 419,412i Plans
Don’t go to Arbitration Sue
Thomas, Francis, Edward, and Dolores Ehlen1(“the Ehlens”) are employees of Ehlen Floor Covering, Inc. (“Ehlen Floor”). In 2002, Ehlen Floor created a 412(I) employee benefit pension plan, the Ehlen Floor Coverings Retirement Plan (“the Plan”), with the help of advisors and administrators. IPS, a corporation specializing in pension plan design and administration for small businesses, took over as the Plan administrator at the start of 2003. As part of the commencement of IPS’s services, Edward Ehlen, in his capacity as president of Ehlen Floor, signed an Arbitration Addendum (“AA”) attached to an Administrative Services Agreement (“the Agreement”) between IPS and Ehlen Floor. The AA called for arbitration of “any claim arising out of the rendition or lack of rendition of services under [the] [A]greement.” The Agreement provided a list of available services that IPS could provide, such as performing annual reviews of the Plan, making amendments, and preparing annual report forms. The Agreement also stated that Ehlen Floor would indicate in Section VI of the Agreement which of the available services it desired for IPS to actually perform. There is no Section VI in the Agreement, nor is there any testimony or evidence that plaintiffs ever viewed a Section VI of the Agreement.
Shortly after IPS stepped in as administrator of the Plan, it became aware that the Plan was not in compliance with several Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) rules and regulations. IPS contends that it drafted an amendment to correct these flaws, but the amendment was never officially adopted. In 2004, the IRS promulgated new rules explaining that it would consider 412(i) plans with beneficiary payout limitations to be listed transactions2, possibly subject to serious penalties. The rule required any plans that could be considered listed transactions to file Form 8886 to avoid potential penalties. IPS drafted another amendment to the Plan after determining that the Plan would likely be classified as a listed transaction under the new rules. Ehlen Floor was not informed about the pre-rule tax problems, the existence of the new rule, the additional filing requirements that the new rule imposed, or the drafting of the new amendment. The IRS instigated an audit on March 6, 2006, found the Plan to be non-compliant, and ultimately assessed significant penalties against Ehlen Floor.
In August 2007, plaintiffs filed a complaint in state court against a number of parties involved with the creation and initial administration of the Plan, asserting claims of negligence, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, negligent supervision, breaches of fiduciary duties, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The case was removed to federal court on the basis of preemption under ERISA. In May 2009, as requested by the court, plaintiffs recast their complaints as federal matters in their Second Amended Complaint, but plaintiffs contested the removal and argued against federal jurisdiction. IPS was added as a defendant in the Second Amended Complaint. IPS then moved to compel arbitration of the dispute, claiming that the terms of the AA govern the matter. The district court denied the motion. IPS appeals; plaintiffs cross-appeal to challenge the existence of federal jurisdiction.
Innovative Pension Strategies, Inc. (“IPS”) appeals the district court’s denial of its motion to compel arbitration and stay plaintiffs’ claims against it. Plaintiffs cross-appeal, disputing the preemption of their claims under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and alleging a lack of federal jurisdiction. We find that jurisdiction is proper and affirm the district court’s denial of IPS’s motion to compel arbitration.
We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of IPS’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay plaintiffs’ claims against it.
Lance Wallach can be reached at: WallachInc@gmail.com
For more information, please visit www.taxadvisorexperts.org 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, email@example.com or visitwww.taxadvisorexperts.com.
National Society of Accountants Speaker of The Year
The information provided herein is not intended as legal, accounting, financial or any type of advice for any specific individual or other entity. You should contact an appropriate professional for any such advice.
“Retirement Plans” Alert!
Due to recent changes in “IRS regulations”, most “419 plans” and “412i plans” are now in violation of the tax laws, and could subject both participants and their “material advisors” to large “IRS tax penalties”! The IRS is auditing many of these “benefit plans” right now.Let “Lance Wallach” review yours BEFORE you get the “letter from the IRS”notifying you of a “pension audit” or that you may be facing “IRS penalties and interest”.
Contact us at
516 – 938 5007
for preventive advice today before it’s too late!
Click on the links below to view some of Lance’s many helpful articles.
When you have “IRS problems”, you need a proven winner to stand up to them and help you avoid “IRS audits”and IRS penalties and interest. If you are suffering from IRS tax penalties regarding “419 plans” and 412i plans, captive insurance or Section 79 plans,you need “Lance Wallach” because with him as an expert witness,
his side has
NEVER LOST A CASE!
Kenny Hartstein, Dennis Cunning, Steve Toth, Larry Bell, Scott Ridge, Randall Smith, Greg Roper, Tracy Sunderlage, Joseph Donnelly, Norm Bevan, Michael Sonnenberg, Judy Carsrud, Dan Carpenter, Michael Carroll, Anthony Fakouri,Steve Burgess
Content copyright 2015. TaxAdvis