Showing posts with label section 79 Plan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label section 79 Plan. 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)



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.

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.

Help with Common IRS Problems: Lance Wallach Life Insurance: 2330. Implied Obliga...

Help with Common IRS Problems: Lance Wallach Life Insurance: 2330. Implied Obliga...: Lance Wallach Life Insurance: 2330. Implied Obligation of Good Faith and Fair De... : 2330. Implied Obligation of Good Faith and Fair Dealin...







Tuesday, March 25, 2014


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...





26 U.S. Code § 412 - Minimum funding standards

Current through Pub. L. 113-86, except 113-79. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
PREV | NEXT

(a) Requirement to meet minimum funding standard
(1) In general
A plan to which this section applies shall satisfy the minimum funding standard applicable to the plan for any plan year.
(2) Minimum funding standard
For purposes of paragraph (1), a plan shall be treated as satisfying the minimum funding standard for a plan year if—
(A) in the case of a defined benefit plan which is not a multiemployer plan, the employer makes contributions to or under the plan for the plan year which, in the aggregate, are not less than the minimum required contribution determined under section 430 for the plan for the plan year,
(B) in the case of a money purchase plan which is not a multiemployer plan, the employer makes contributions to or under the plan for the plan year which are required under the terms of the plan, and
(C) in the case of a multiemployer plan, the employers make contributions to or under the plan for any plan year which, in the aggregate, are sufficient to ensure that the plan does not have an accumulated funding deficiency under section 431 as of the end of the plan year.
(b) Liability for contributions
(1) In general
Except as provided in paragraph (2), the amount of any contribution required by this section (including any required installments under paragraphs (3) and (4) of section430 (j)) shall be paid by the employer responsible for making contributions to or under the plan.
(2) Joint and several liability where employer member of controlled group
If the employer referred to in paragraph (1) is a member of a controlled group, each member of such group shall be jointly and severally liable for payment of such contributions.
(3) Multiemployer plans in critical status
Paragraph (1) shall not apply in the case of a multiemployer plan for any plan year in which the plan is in critical status pursuant to section 432. This paragraph shall only apply if the plan sponsor adopts a rehabilitation plan in accordance with section 432(e) and complies with such rehabilitation plan (and any modifications of the plan).
(c) Variance from minimum funding standards
(1) Waiver in case of business hardship
(A) In general
If—
(i) an employer is (or in the case of a multiemployer plan, 10 percent or more of the number of employers contributing to or under the plan are) unable to satisfy the minimum funding standard for a plan year without temporary substantial business hardship (substantial business hardship in the case of a multiemployer plan), and
(ii) application of the standard would be adverse to the interests of plan participants in the aggregate,
the Secretary may, subject to subparagraph (C), waive the requirements of subsection (a) for such year with respect to all or any portion of the minimum funding standard. The Secretary shall not waive the minimum funding standard with respect to a plan for more than 3 of any 15 (5 of any 15 in the case of a multiemployer plan) consecutive plan years  [1]
(B) Effects of waiver
If a waiver is granted under subparagraph (A) for any plan year—
(i) in the case of a defined benefit plan which is not a multiemployer plan, the minimum required contribution under section 430 for the plan year shall be reduced by the amount of the waived funding deficiency and such amount shall be amortized as required under section 430 (e), and
(ii) in the case of a multiemployer plan, the funding standard account shall be credited under section 431 (b)(3)(C) with the amount of the waived funding deficiency and such amount shall be amortized as required under section 431 (b)(2)(C).
(C) Waiver of amortized portion not allowed
The Secretary may not waive under subparagraph (A) any portion of the minimum funding standard under subsection (a) for a plan year which is attributable to any waived funding deficiency for any preceding plan year.
(2) Determination of business hardship
For purposes of this subsection, the factors taken into account in determining temporary substantial business hardship (substantial business hardship in the case of a multiemployer plan) shall include (but shall not be limited to) whether or not—
(A) the employer is operating at an economic loss,
(B) there is substantial unemployment or underemployment in the trade or business and in the industry concerned,
(C) the sales and profits of the industry concerned are depressed or declining, and
(D) it is reasonable to expect that the plan will be continued only if the waiver is granted.
(3) Waived funding deficiency
For purposes of this section and part III of this subchapter, the term “waived funding deficiency” means the portion of the minimum funding standard under subsection (a) (determined without regard to the waiver) for a plan year waived by the Secretary and not satisfied by employer contributions.
(4) Security for waivers for single-employer plans, consultations
(A) Security may be required
(i) In general Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the Secretary may require an employer maintaining a defined benefit plan which is a single-employer plan (within the meaning of section 4001(a)(15) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) to provide security to such plan as a condition for granting or modifying a waiver under paragraph (1).
(ii) Special rules Any security provided under clause (i) may be perfected and enforced only by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or at the direction of the Corporation, by a contributing sponsor (within the meaning of section 4001(a)(13) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), or a member of such sponsor’s controlled group (within the meaning of section 4001(a)(14) of such Act).
(B) Consultation with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the Secretary shall, 

EBSA News Release: U.S. Department of Labor sues Bridgeport, Pa., benefit firms and lawyers to protect welfare benefit plan participants nationwide [03/11/2009]

EBSA News Release: U.S. Department of Labor sues Bridgeport, Pa., benefit firms and lawyers to protect welfare benefit plan participants nationwide [03/11/2009]



WebCPA




The
dangers of being "listed"


A warning for 419, 412i, Sec.79 and captive insurance



Accounting Today: October 25, 2010

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


($200,000 for a business and $100,000 for an individual) 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 has to be prepared
correctly. I only know of two


people in the United States who have filed these forms
properly for clients. They tell me that


was after hundreds of hours of research and over fifty phones
calls to various IRS


personnel.



The filing instructions for Form 8886 presume a timely filing.
 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 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.  It


follows that taxpayers who no longer enjoy the benefit of
those large deductions are no


longer "participating ' in the listed transaction.
  But that is not the end of the story.


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.  This language may


provide the taxpayer with a solid argument in the event of an
audit.  




Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of
the Year and member of the


AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker
on retirement plans, financial


and estate planning, and abusive tax shelters.  He writes
about 412(i), 419, and captive


insurance plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions
annually, writes for over fifty


publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured
on television and radio


financial talk shows including NBC, National Pubic Radio's All
Things Considered, and


others. Lance has written numerous books including Protecting
Clients from Fraud,


Incompetence and Scams published by John Wiley and Sons, Bisk
Education's CPA's


Guide to Life Insurance and Federal Estate and Gift Taxation,
as well as AICPA best-selling


books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and
Common Abusive Small


Business Hot Spots. He does expert witness testimony and has
never lost a case. Contact


him at 516.938.5007, wallachinc@gmail.com or visit
www.taxaudit419.com or www.taxlibrary.


us.



The information provided herein is not intended as legal,
accounting, financial or any


other type of advice for any specific individual or other
entity.  You should contact an


appropriate professional for any such advice.








Help with Common IRS Problems: As an expert witness Lance Wallach side has never ...

Help with Common IRS Problems: As an expert witness Lance Wallach side has never ...: As an expert witness Lance Wallach side has never lost a case: Sometimes the IRS might disagree with planning you... : Sometimes the IRS mig...








Tuesday, March 25, 2014


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...





26 U.S. Code § 412 - Minimum funding standards

Current through Pub. L. 113-86, except 113-79. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
PREV | NEXT

(a) Requirement to meet minimum funding standard
(1) In general
A plan to which this section applies shall satisfy the minimum funding standard applicable to the plan for any plan year.
(2) Minimum funding standard
For purposes of paragraph (1), a plan shall be treated as satisfying the minimum funding standard for a plan year if—
(A) in the case of a defined benefit plan which is not a multiemployer plan, the employer makes contributions to or under the plan for the plan year which, in the aggregate, are not less than the minimum required contribution determined under section 430 for the plan for the plan year,
(B) in the case of a money purchase plan which is not a multiemployer plan, the employer makes contributions to or under the plan for the plan year which are required und

Section 79 Plans: Lance Wallach -Tax Resolution Expert

Section 79 Plans: Lance Wallach -Tax Resolution Expert, Now Availabl...