Showing posts with label Section 79. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Section 79. Show all posts
Section 79 Plans: Section 79, Captive Insurance, IRS Audits and Lawsuits on 419 and 412i Plans
Section 79 Plans: Section 79, Captive Insurance, IRS Audits and Lawsuits on 419 and 412i Plans (click the link to go to the page)
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.
Hg Experts
Legal Experts Directory
By Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC Abusive Tax Shelter, Listed Transaction, Reportable Transaction Expert Witness
IRS Attacks Business Owners in 419, 412, Section 79 and Captive Insurance Plans Under Section 6707A - By Lance Wallach - Taxpayers who previously adopted 419, 412i, captive insurance or Section 79 plans are in big trouble. In recent years, the IRS has identified many of these arrangements as abusive devices to funnel tax deductible dollars to shareholders and classified these arrangements as listed transactions."
These plans were sold by insurance agents, financial planners, accountants and attorneys seeking large life insurance commissions. In general, taxpayers who engage in a “listed transaction” must report such transaction to the IRS on Form 8886 every year that they “participate” in the transaction, and you do not necessarily have to make a contribution or claim a tax deduction to participate. Section 6707A of the Code imposes severe penalties for failure to file Form 8886 with respect to a listed transaction. But you are also in trouble if you file incorrectly. I have received numerous phone calls from business owners who filed and still got fined. Not only do you have to file Form 8886, but it also has to be prepared correctly. I only know of two people in the U.S. who have filed these forms properly for clients. They tell me that was after hundreds of hours of research and over 50 phones calls to various IRS personnel. The filing instructions for Form 8886 presume a timely filling. Most people file late and follow the directions for currently preparing the forms. Then the IRS fines the business owner. The tax court does not have jurisdiction to abate or lower such penalties imposed by the IRS.
"Many taxpayers who are no longer taking current tax deductions for these plans continue to enjoy the benefit of previous tax deductions by continuing the deferral of income from contributions and deductions taken in prior years."
Many business owners adopted 412i, 419, captive insurance and Section 79 plans based upon representations provided by insurance professionals that the plans were legitimate plans and were not informed that they were engaging in a listed transaction. Upon audit, these taxpayers were shocked when the IRS asserted penalties under Section 6707A of the Code in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Numerous complaints from these taxpayers caused Congress to impose a moratorium on assessment of Section 6707A penalties.
The moratorium on IRS fines expired on June 1, 2010. The IRS immediately started sending out notices proposing the imposition of Section 6707A penalties along with requests for lengthy extensions of the Statute of Limitations for the purpose of assessing tax. Many of these taxpayers stopped taking deductions for contributions to these plans years ago, and are confused and upset by the IRS’s inquiry, especially when the taxpayer had previously reached a monetary settlement with the IRS regarding its deductions. Logic and common sense dictate that a penalty should not apply if the taxpayer no longer benefits from the arrangement. Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.6011-4(c)(3)(i) provides that a taxpayer has participated in a listed transaction if the taxpayer’s tax return reflects tax consequences or a tax strategy described in the published guidance identifying the transaction as a listed transaction or a transaction that is the same or substantially similar to a listed transaction.
Clearly, the primary benefit in the participation of these plans is the large tax deduction generated by such participation. Many taxpayers who are no longer taking current tax deductions for these plans continue to enjoy the benefit of previous tax deductions by continuing the deferral of income from contributions and deductions taken in prior years. While the regulations do not expand on what constitutes “reflecting the tax consequences of the strategy,” it could be argued that continued benefit from a tax deferral for a previous tax deduction is within the contemplation of a “tax consequence” of the plan strategy. Also, many taxpayers who no longer make contributions or claim tax deductions continue to pay administrative fees. Sometimes, money is taken from the plan to pay premiums to keep life insurance policies in force. In these ways, it could be argued that these taxpayers are still “contributing,” and thus still must file Form 8886.
It is clear that the extent to which a taxpayer benefits from the transaction depends on the purpose of a particular transaction as described in the published guidance that caused such transaction to be a listed transaction. Revenue Ruling 2004-20, which classifies 419(e) transactions, appears to be concerned with the employer’s contribution/deduction amount rather than the continued deferral of the income in previous years. Another important issue is that the IRS has called CPAs material advisors if they signed tax returns containing the plan, and got paid a certain amount of money for tax advice on the plan. The fine is $100,000 for the CPA, or $200,000 if the CPA is incorporated. To avoid the fine, the CPA has to properly file Form 8918.
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 more than 50 publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Public 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.
"Many taxpayers who are no longer taking current tax deductions for these plans continue to enjoy the benefit of previous tax deductions by continuing the deferral of income from contributions and deductions taken in prior years."
Many business owners adopted 412i, 419, captive insurance and Section 79 plans based upon representations provided by insurance professionals that the plans were legitimate plans and were not informed that they were engaging in a listed transaction. Upon audit, these taxpayers were shocked when the IRS asserted penalties under Section 6707A of the Code in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Numerous complaints from these taxpayers caused Congress to impose a moratorium on assessment of Section 6707A penalties.
The moratorium on IRS fines expired on June 1, 2010. The IRS immediately started sending out notices proposing the imposition of Section 6707A penalties along with requests for lengthy extensions of the Statute of Limitations for the purpose of assessing tax. Many of these taxpayers stopped taking deductions for contributions to these plans years ago, and are confused and upset by the IRS’s inquiry, especially when the taxpayer had previously reached a monetary settlement with the IRS regarding its deductions. Logic and common sense dictate that a penalty should not apply if the taxpayer no longer benefits from the arrangement. Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.6011-4(c)(3)(i) provides that a taxpayer has participated in a listed transaction if the taxpayer’s tax return reflects tax consequences or a tax strategy described in the published guidance identifying the transaction as a listed transaction or a transaction that is the same or substantially similar to a listed transaction.
Clearly, the primary benefit in the participation of these plans is the large tax deduction generated by such participation. Many taxpayers who are no longer taking current tax deductions for these plans continue to enjoy the benefit of previous tax deductions by continuing the deferral of income from contributions and deductions taken in prior years. While the regulations do not expand on what constitutes “reflecting the tax consequences of the strategy,” it could be argued that continued benefit from a tax deferral for a previous tax deduction is within the contemplation of a “tax consequence” of the plan strategy. Also, many taxpayers who no longer make contributions or claim tax deductions continue to pay administrative fees. Sometimes, money is taken from the plan to pay premiums to keep life insurance policies in force. In these ways, it could be argued that these taxpayers are still “contributing,” and thus still must file Form 8886.
It is clear that the extent to which a taxpayer benefits from the transaction depends on the purpose of a particular transaction as described in the published guidance that caused such transaction to be a listed transaction. Revenue Ruling 2004-20, which classifies 419(e) transactions, appears to be concerned with the employer’s contribution/deduction amount rather than the continued deferral of the income in previous years. Another important issue is that the IRS has called CPAs material advisors if they signed tax returns containing the plan, and got paid a certain amount of money for tax advice on the plan. The fine is $100,000 for the CPA, or $200,000 if the CPA is incorporated. To avoid the fine, the CPA has to properly file Form 8918.
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 more than 50 publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Public 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.
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.
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.
Section 79 Plans: WHAT IS A SECTION 79 PLAN?
Section 79 Plans: WHAT IS A SECTION 79 PLAN?: Section 79 plans are commonly known for the $50,000 free term life insurance they can provide for employees. Less commonly known is tha...
Abusive Tax Shelters: Section 79 and Other Abusive Plans Being Audited I...
Abusive Tax Shelters: Section 79 and Other Abusive Plans Being Audited I...: The IRS is on guard and starting to attack Section 79 plans. The decision to participate in such plan requires commitment to ensure the lega...
| FOLLOW US |
print
Section 79, Captive Insurance, IRS Audits and Lawsuits on 419 and 412i Plans
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
IRS Attacks Business Owners in 419, 412, Section 79 and Captive Insurance Plans Under Section 6707A - By Lance Wallach - Taxpayers who previously adopted 419, 412i, captive insurance or Section 79 plans are in big trouble. In recent years, the IRS has identified many of these arrangements as abusive devices to funnel tax deductible dollars to shareholders and classified these arrangements as listed transactions."
These plans were sold by insurance agents, financial planners, accountants and attorneys seeking large life insurance commissions. In general, taxpayers who engage in a “listed transaction” must report such transaction to the IRS on Form 8886 every year that they “participate” in the transaction, and you do not necessarily have to make a contribution or claim a tax deduction to participate. Section 6707A of the Code imposes severe penalties for failure to file Form 8886 with respect to a listed transaction. But you are also in trouble if you file incorrectly. I have received numerous phone calls from business owners who filed and still got fined. Not only do you have to file Form 8886, but it also has to be prepared correctly. I only know of two people in the U.S. who have filed these forms properly for clients. They tell me that was after hundreds of hours of research and over 50 phones calls to various IRS personnel. The filing instructions for Form 8886 presume a timely filling. Most people file late and follow the directions for currently preparing the forms. Then the IRS fines the business owner. The tax court does not have jurisdiction to abate or lower such penalties imposed by the IRS.
"Many taxpayers who are no longer taking current tax deductions for these plans continue to enjoy the benefit of previous tax deductions by continuing the deferral of income from contributions and deductions taken in prior years."
Many business owners adopted 412i, 419, captive insurance and Section 79 plans based upon representations provided by insurance professionals that the plans were legitimate plans and were not informed that they were engaging in a listed transaction. Upon audit, these taxpayers were shocked when the IRS asserted penalties under Section 6707A of the Code in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Numerous complaints from these taxpayers caused Congress to impose a moratorium on assessment of Section 6707A penalties.
The moratorium on IRS fines expired on June 1, 2010. The IRS immediately started sending out notices proposing the imposition of Section 6707A penalties along with requests for lengthy extensions of the Statute of Limitations for the purpose of assessing tax. Many of these taxpayers stopped taking deductions for contributions to these plans years ago, and are confused and upset by the IRS’s inquiry, especially when the taxpayer had previously reached a monetary settlement with the IRS regarding its deductions. Logic and common sense dictate that a penalty should not apply if the taxpayer no longer benefits from the arrangement. Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.6011-4(c)(3)(i) provides that a taxpayer has participated in a listed transaction if the taxpayer’s tax return reflects tax consequences or a tax strategy described in the published guidance identifying the transaction as a listed transaction or a transaction that is the same or substantially similar to a listed transaction.
Clearly, the primary benefit in the participation of these plans is the large tax deduction generated by such participation. Many taxpayers who are no longer taking current tax deductions for these plans continue to enjoy the benefit of previous tax deductions by continuing the deferral of income from contributions and deductions taken in prior years. While the regulations do not expand on what constitutes “reflecting the tax consequences of the strategy,” it could be argued that continued benefit from a tax deferral for a previous tax deduction is within the contemplatio
"Many taxpayers who are no longer taking current tax deductions for these plans continue to enjoy the benefit of previous tax deductions by continuing the deferral of income from contributions and deductions taken in prior years."
Many business owners adopted 412i, 419, captive insurance and Section 79 plans based upon representations provided by insurance professionals that the plans were legitimate plans and were not informed that they were engaging in a listed transaction. Upon audit, these taxpayers were shocked when the IRS asserted penalties under Section 6707A of the Code in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Numerous complaints from these taxpayers caused Congress to impose a moratorium on assessment of Section 6707A penalties.
The moratorium on IRS fines expired on June 1, 2010. The IRS immediately started sending out notices proposing the imposition of Section 6707A penalties along with requests for lengthy extensions of the Statute of Limitations for the purpose of assessing tax. Many of these taxpayers stopped taking deductions for contributions to these plans years ago, and are confused and upset by the IRS’s inquiry, especially when the taxpayer had previously reached a monetary settlement with the IRS regarding its deductions. Logic and common sense dictate that a penalty should not apply if the taxpayer no longer benefits from the arrangement. Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.6011-4(c)(3)(i) provides that a taxpayer has participated in a listed transaction if the taxpayer’s tax return reflects tax consequences or a tax strategy described in the published guidance identifying the transaction as a listed transaction or a transaction that is the same or substantially similar to a listed transaction.
Clearly, the primary benefit in the participation of these plans is the large tax deduction generated by such participation. Many taxpayers who are no longer taking current tax deductions for these plans continue to enjoy the benefit of previous tax deductions by continuing the deferral of income from contributions and deductions taken in prior years. While the regulations do not expand on what constitutes “reflecting the tax consequences of the strategy,” it could be argued that continued benefit from a tax deferral for a previous tax deduction is within the contemplatio
Reportable Transactions & 419 Plans Litigation: CJA and associates 419 412i section 79 scam audits...
Reportable Transactions & 419 Plans Litigation: CJA and associates 419 412i section 79 scam audits...: CJA and associates 419 412i section 79 scam audits lawsuits
Section 79 Plans: What are the nondiscrimination tests for group ter...
Section 79 Plans: What are the nondiscrimination tests for group ter...: What are the nondiscrimination tests for group term life insurance plans? 1 Group term life insurance provided under the Trust that is su...
Dolan Media Newswires
01/22/2010
Dolan Media Newswires
01/22/2010
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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."
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)
as an expert lance wallach has never lost a case www.lancewallach.com
419 412i plans IRS audits lawsuits
Lance Wallach
director at taxaudit419.com
Plan names:
Beta 419,Millennium Plan,Bisys,Creative Services Group,Sterling Benefit Plan,Compass 419,Niche 419,CRESP,Sea Nine Veba, American Benefits Trust, National Benefit Plan and Trust, ABT, Millennium 419 Plan,Bisys 419,Creative Services Group 419 Plan,Sterling Benefit 419 Plan,CRESP 419,Sea Nine Veba 419, National Benefit Plan and Trust 419, American Benefits Trust 419,ABT 419,Old Mutual, Allmerica Financial, American Heritage Life, Commercial Union Life, National Life of Vermont, Old Line Life, Security Mutual Life, West Coast Life "Grist Mill Trust" "Real Veba""Section 79 GEAR" GEAR" "United Financial Group" "Kenny Hartstein" "Millennium Plan" Kenny Hartstein" "Millennium Plan" "Tom Crosswhite" "Greg Roper""captive insurance" cresp "Ridge Plan" "Professional benefits Trust" "PBT " "Professional Planning Associates" "National Pension Associate" "NPA""Heritage Plan" ""Insurance fraud""pension and benefit plan fraud""insurance company fraud""ECI Pension Services""Pension Professionals of America""ABI""Hartford""AIG""Indy Life""Indianapolis Life""Advantage" Names of People who SOLD: "Kenny Hartstein""Dennis Cunning""Steve Toth""Michael Sonnenberg"Larry Bell""Scott Ridge""Randall Smith""Greg Roper""Tracy Sunderlage""Warren Trust""Joseph Donnelly""Norm Bevan""Judy Carsrud""Dan Carpenter""Ed Waesche" "Tom Crosswhite""David Struckman""George Huff" "Tom Crosswhite" "Greg Roper""Christopher Jarvis" David Mandell" Gen Von Oder Insurance Companies -- need to be 412 AND 419: Hartford 419, Pacific Life 419, PAC Life 419, AVIVA, 419, Indianpolis Life, Penn Mutual419,Bankers Life 419, John Hancock 419, Security Mutual 419, Transamerica 419,Prudential 419, Kansas City Life 419, Mass Mutual419, Guardian 419, Amerus 419, Wells Fargo 419, Fifth Third Bank 419, Arrow Head Trust 419, U.S. Benefits Group, Benefit Plan Advisors, Rex Insurance Service,Advantage,AIG, Old Mutu