New IRS Fresh Start Initiative Helps Taxpayers Who Owe Taxes
March 12, 2012
The Internal Revenue Service has expanded its "Fresh Start" initiative to help struggling taxpayers who owe taxes. The following four tips explain the expanded relief for taxpayers.
- Penalty relief Part of the initiative relieves some unemployed taxpayers from failure-to-pay penalties. Penalties are one of the biggest factors a financially distressed taxpayer faces on a tax bill. The Fresh Start Penalty Relief Initiative gives eligible taxpayers a six-month extension to fully pay 2011 taxes. Interest still applies on the 2011 taxes from April 15, 2012 until the tax is paid, but you won't face failure-to-pay penalties if you pay your tax, interest and any other penalties in full by Oct. 15, 2012.
The penalty relief is available to two categories of taxpayers:
* Wage earners who have been unemployed at least 30 consecutive days
during 2011 or in 2012 up to this year's April 17 tax deadline.
* Self-employed individuals who experienced a 25 percent or greater
reduction in business income in 2011 due to the economy.
To qualify for this penalty relief, your adjusted gross income must not exceed $200,000 if married filing jointly or $100,000 if your filing status is single, married filing separately, head of household, or qualifying widower. Your 2011 balance due can not exceed $50,000.
Taxpayers who qualify need to complete a new Form 1127A to request the 2011 penalty relief. The new form is available on www.irs.gov or by calling 1-800-829-3676 (TAX FORM). - Installment agreements An installment agreement is a payment option for those who cannot pay their entire tax bill by the due date. The Fresh Start provisions give more taxpayers the ability to use streamlined installment agreements to catch up on back taxes and also more time to pay.
The new threshold for requesting an installment agreement has been raised from $25,000 to $50,000. This option requires limited financial information, meaning far less burden to the taxpayer. The maximum term for streamlined installment agreements has been raised to six years from the current five-year maximum.
- If your debt is more than $50,000, you'll still need to supply the IRS with a Collection Information Statement (Form 433-A or Form 433-F). You also can pay your balance down to $50,000 or less to qualify for this payment option.
With an installment agreement, you'll pay less in penalties, but interest continues to accrue on the outstanding balance. In order to qualify for the new expanded streamlined installment agreement, you must agree to monthly direct debit payments.
You can set up an installment agreement with the IRS through the On-line Payment Agreement (OPA) page at www.irs.gov
Offer in Compromise Under the first round of Fresh Start in 2011, the IRS expanded the Offer in Compromise (OIC) program to cover a larger group of struggling taxpayers. An Offer in Compromise is an agreement between a taxpayer and the IRS that settles the taxpayer’s tax liabilities for less than the full amount owed.
The IRS recognizes many taxpayers are still struggling to pay their bills so the agency has been working on more common-sense changes to the OIC program to more closely reflect real-world situations.
Generally, an offer will not be accepted if the IRS believes that the liability can be paid in full as a lump sum or through a payment agreement. The IRS looks at the taxpayer’s income and assets to make a determination regarding the taxpayer’s ability to pay.
The IRS recognizes many taxpayers are still struggling to pay their bills so the agency has been working on more common-sense changes to the OIC program to more closely reflect real-world situations.
Generally, an offer will not be accepted if the IRS believes that the liability can be paid in full as a lump sum or through a payment agreement. The IRS looks at the taxpayer’s income and assets to make a determination regarding the taxpayer’s ability to pay.
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 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.
A warning for 419, 412i, Sec.79 and captive insurance
WebCPA
The dangers of being "listed"
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 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 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.
Abusive 412(i) Retirement Plans Can Get Accountants Fined $200,000
California Enrolled Agent
January 2
By Lance Wallach & Ira Kaplan
Most insurance agents sell 412(i) retirement plans. The large insurance commissions generate some of the enthusiasm. Unlike other retirement plans, the 412(i) plan must have insurance products as the funding mechanism. This seems to generate enthusiasm among insurance agents. The IRS has been auditing almost all participants in 412(i) plans for the last few years. At first, they thought all 412(i) plans were abusive. Many participants’ contributions were disallowed and there were additional fines of $200,000 per year for the participants. The accountants who signed the tax returns (who the IRS called “material advisors”) were also fined $200,000 with a referral to the Office of Professional Responsibility. For more articles and details, see www.vebaplan.com and www.irs.gov/.
On Friday February 13, 2004, the IRS issued proposed regulations concerning the valuation of insurance contracts in the context of qualified retirement plans.
The IRS said that it is no longer reasonable to use the cash surrender value or the interpolated terminal reserve as the accurate value of a life insurance contract for income tax purposes. The proposed regulations stated that the value of a life insurance contract in the context of qualified retirement plans should be the contract’s fair market value.
The Service acknowledged in the regulations (and in a revenue procedure issued simultaneously) that the fair market value standard could create some confusion among taxpayers. They addressed this possibility by describing a safe harbor position.
When I addressed the American Society of Pension Actuaries Annual National Convention, the IRS chief actuary also spoke about attacking abusive 412(i) pensions.
A “Section 412(i) plan” is a tax-qualified retirement plan that is funded entirely by a life insurance contract or an annuity. The employer claims tax deductions for contributions that are used by the plan to pay premiums on an insurance contract covering an employee. The plan may hold the contract until the employee dies, or it may distribute or sell the contract to the employee at a specific point, such as when the employee retires.
“The guidance targets specific abuses occurring with Section 412(i) plans”, stated Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy Pam Olson. “There are many legitimate Section 412(i) plans, but some push the envelope, claiming tax results for employees and employers that do not reflect the underlying economics of the arrangements.” Or, to put it another way, tax deductions are being claimed, in some cases, that the Service does not feel are reasonable given the taxpayer’s facts and circumstances.
“Again and again, we’ve uncovered abusive tax avoidance transactions that game the system to the detriment of those who play by the rules,” said IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson.
The IRS has warned against Section 412(i) defined benefit pension plans, named for the former IRC section governing them. It warned against certain 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 such participation under pain of penalties, potentially reaching $100,000 for individuals and $200,000 for other taxpayers. Targets also include some retirement plans.
One reason for the harsh treatment of 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 these transactions. In general, IRS auditors divide audited plans into those they consider noncompliant and others they consider abusive. While the alternatives available to the sponsor of a 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. Although in some situations 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. In addition, if the participant did not file Form 8886 and the accountant did not file Form 8918 (to report themselves), they would be fined $200,000.
Lance Wallach, the National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year, speaks and writes extensively about retirement plans, Circular 230 problems and tax reduction strategies. He speaks at more than 40 conventions annually, writes for over 50 publications and has written numerous best selling AICPA books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Business Hot Spots. Contact him at 516.938.5007 or visit www.vebaplan.com.
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.
Will Your Municipal Bond or Your Life Insurance Company Still Have Value Next Year?
-->
By Lance Wallach
Investor protection with municipal bonds is so spotty that there is potential for much mischief.
Disclosure, that bedrock of fair securities markets, is the heart of the problem facing municipal investors. Municipal issuers often don’t file the most basic reports outlining their operating results or material changes in their financial conditions.
Even though hospitals, cities and states that borrow money are required by their bond covenants to make such filings, nondisclosure among the nearly 60,000 issuers is common.
With the S.E.C. largely on the sidelines, disclosure enforcement in the municipal market is left to participants. Do you think they really want to police themselves very closely? That leaves individuals who trade the securities, the investors, and the dealers, to monitor the disclosure information. There is almost no penalty for not complying with those requirements. This is another disaster waiting to happen. If you own municipal bonds, you had better be careful. You may want to investigate www.financeexperts.org and select someone that knows what they are doing to assist you.
Do you have a life insurance or annuity policy? If so, you may be in trouble. The plummeting financial markets are dragging down the life insurance industry, which is an important component of the U.S. economy. Continuously escalating losses weaken the companies’ capital and eat away at investor confidence.
More than a dozen life insurers have been awaiting action on applications for aid from the government’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, and the industry is expecting an answer to its request for a bank-style bailout in the upcoming weeks. So far, the government hasn’t stated whether or not insurers qualify for the program.
Life insurers have undoubtedly been taking a beating in recent weeks. The Dow Jones Wilshire U.S. Life Insurance Index has fallen 82% since its May 2007 all time high. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has lost 21% this year to date.
Several of the hardest-hit companies are century-old names that insure the lives of millions of Americans. Shares of Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. are down 93% as of the close on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 from their 2008 high. MetLife Inc. and Prudential Financial Inc. are both suffering as the value of their vast investment portfolios declines.
As the economy weakens, analysts say many insurers face losses can eat away at the capital cushions regulators require them to maintain. In addition, experts say the industry is going through its most chaotic period in recent history and it’s a pretty scary situation right now.
The consequences of a weakened life-insurance industry for the overall economy are significant because life insurers are among the biggest holders of the nation’s corporate debt. For example, if life insurers stop buying bonds, the capital markets may not fully recover. Their buying activity has already declined.
Wall Street analysts say another problem for some life insurers is obligations for variable annuities, a retirement-income product that often guarantees minimum withdrawals or investment returns. As stock markets plunge to new lows, life insurers need to set aside additional funds to show regulators they can meet their obligations, further crimping sparse capital.
Life insurers’ woes have come largely from investment grade corporate bonds, commercial real estate and mortgages, regulatory filings show. Many insurers ended 2008 with high levels of losses that, due to accounting rules, they haven’t had to record on their bottom lines.
Hartford Financial had $14.6 billion in unrealized losses at year’s end. In addition, Hartford Insurance, through its agents, sold life insurance policies that were part of a welfare benefit plan popularly known as Niche Marketing, which has long been under IRS attack and is almost certainly regarded by the Service as an abusive tax shelter and/or listed transaction. Prudential, the second-largest insurer by assets, had nearly $11.3 billion in unrealized losses, up $5.4 billion in the fourth quarter from the previous quarter.
Lance Wallach, the National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year, speaks and writes extensively about retirement plans, Circular 230 problems and tax reduction strategies. He speaks at more than 40 conventions annually, writes for over 50 publications, is quoted regularly in the press, and has written numerous best-selling AICPA books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Business Hot Spots. Contact him at 516.938.5007 or visit www.vebaplan.com.
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.
Published in The Finance Toolbox
By Lance Wallach
Investor protection with municipal bonds is so spotty that there is potential for much mischief.
Disclosure, that bedrock of fair securities markets, is the heart of the problem facing municipal investors. Municipal issuers often don’t file the most basic reports outlining their operating results or material changes in their financial conditions.
Even though hospitals, cities and states that borrow money are required by their bond covenants to make such filings, nondisclosure among the nearly 60,000 issuers is common.
With the S.E.C. largely on the sidelines, disclosure enforcement in the municipal market is left to participants. Do you think they really want to police themselves very closely? That leaves individuals who trade the securities, the investors, and the dealers, to monitor the disclosure information. There is almost no penalty for not complying with those requirements. This is another disaster waiting to happen. If you own municipal bonds, you had better be careful. You may want to investigate www.financeexperts.org and select someone that knows what they are doing to assist you.
Do you have a life insurance or annuity policy? If so, you may be in trouble. The plummeting financial markets are dragging down the life insurance industry, which is an important component of the U.S. economy. Continuously escalating losses weaken the companies’ capital and eat away at investor confidence.
More than a dozen life insurers have been awaiting action on applications for aid from the government’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, and the industry is expecting an answer to its request for a bank-style bailout in the upcoming weeks. So far, the government hasn’t stated whether or not insurers qualify for the program.
Life insurers have undoubtedly been taking a beating in recent weeks. The Dow Jones Wilshire U.S. Life Insurance Index has fallen 82% since its May 2007 all time high. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has lost 21% this year to date.
Several of the hardest-hit companies are century-old names that insure the lives of millions of Americans. Shares of Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. are down 93% as of the close on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 from their 2008 high. MetLife Inc. and Prudential Financial Inc. are both suffering as the value of their vast investment portfolios declines.
As the economy weakens, analysts say many insurers face losses can eat away at the capital cushions regulators require them to maintain. In addition, experts say the industry is going through its most chaotic period in recent history and it’s a pretty scary situation right now.
The consequences of a weakened life-insurance industry for the overall economy are significant because life insurers are among the biggest holders of the nation’s corporate debt. For example, if life insurers stop buying bonds, the capital markets may not fully recover. Their buying activity has already declined.
Wall Street analysts say another problem for some life insurers is obligations for variable annuities, a retirement-income product that often guarantees minimum withdrawals or investment returns. As stock markets plunge to new lows, life insurers need to set aside additional funds to show regulators they can meet their obligations, further crimping sparse capital.
Life insurers’ woes have come largely from investment grade corporate bonds, commercial real estate and mortgages, regulatory filings show. Many insurers ended 2008 with high levels of losses that, due to accounting rules, they haven’t had to record on their bottom lines.
Hartford Financial had $14.6 billion in unrealized losses at year’s end. In addition, Hartford Insurance, through its agents, sold life insurance policies that were part of a welfare benefit plan popularly known as Niche Marketing, which has long been under IRS attack and is almost certainly regarded by the Service as an abusive tax shelter and/or listed transaction. Prudential, the second-largest insurer by assets, had nearly $11.3 billion in unrealized losses, up $5.4 billion in the fourth quarter from the previous quarter.
Lance Wallach, the National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year, speaks and writes extensively about retirement plans, Circular 230 problems and tax reduction strategies. He speaks at more than 40 conventions annually, writes for over 50 publications, is quoted regularly in the press, and has written numerous best-selling AICPA books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Business Hot Spots. Contact him at 516.938.5007 or visit www.vebaplan.com.
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.
419 Welfare Benefit Plans
HG EXPERTS
Legal Experts Directory
May 9, 2012 By Sam Susser
A view from a former IRS Agent, CPA, College Professor
Welfare Benefit Plans (WBP), also known as Welfare Benefit
Trusts and Welfare Benefit Funds are vehicles by which employers may offer
their employees and retirees with certain types of insurance coverage (e.g.,
life insurance, health insurance, disability insurance, and long-term care), as
well as other benefits such as severance payments and educational funding. If
properly designed and in compliance with IRC sections 419 and 419A, WBPs offer
employers with a valid tax deduction. However, as is the case with many plans
that offer opportunities for deductibility, some WBPs fail to comply with Code
standards, invite abuse, and otherwise are used inappropriately as a basis to
reduce taxable income.
It is, therefore, not surprising that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has targeted WBP, designating many such plans as “listed transactions.” The IRS’ attack arsenal includes, but is not limited to: Notice 2007-83 (where the IRS intends to challenge claimed tax benefits meeting the definition of a “listed transaction”); Notice 2007-84 (where the IRS may challenge trust arrangements purporting to provide non-discriminatory medical and life insurance benefits, if such plans are, in substance, discriminatory); Revenue Ruling 2007-65 (where the IRS will not disallow deductions for such arrangements for prior year tax years, except to the extent that deductions have exceeded the amount of insurance included on the participant’s Form W-2 for a particular year), and IR-2007-170 (the IRS’ guidance position on WBPs). Accordingly, taxpayers who have claimed deductions pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 419 are receiving letters from the IRS inviting them to an audit.
THE GOOD:
Let’s start off with a proposition that may surprise many of you – the IRS is generally good. No, that’s not an oxymoron. The rest of this article is in the words of Sam Susser:
For over 35 years, I have had the privilege of representing the IRS and the US taxpayers on tax audits. Our goal was to always determine the correct tax –whether the outcome was a deficiency or a refund. The bottom line, which the IRS supported, was to “do the right thing.” Over these years, I have met and befriended many competent and exemplary agents. As with all industries, there are a few who simply go through the motions, and there are a few who are simply incompetent. Fortunately, the latter two groups are in the minority. Now that I represent clients who are being audited by IRS, my objectives have not changed. The right thing must still be done. I only hope to get a well-versed agent who knows the law and can make a determination based on facts and circumstances, and not by preconceived notions.
I have been resolving the WBP issue mostly at the Revenue Agent (RA) level. Most RAs are knowledgeable in the area of WBP, and it it a pleasure dealing with them. My clients became involved with both abusive plans as well as what I determined to be non-abusive plan. Because most clients have sought the opinions of an independent professional tax attorney, CPA, Enrolled Agent , or other independent professionals who the IRS deems to be knowledgeable and capable of rendering an opinion on a Plan, Prior to 2007 I had a good case for abating the penalty and any interest thereon due to the reasonable cause exception. The RAs accepted my briefs for penalty relief and I usually resolved the case agreed at the agent’s level. The right thing was being done by both sides. Since 2007 the bar has been raised in meeting the reasonable cause exception. Simply put, if taxpayers failed to file Forms 8886 with their tax returns, the penalty could no longer be abated due to reasonable cause. If we do not come to an agreement, the case would, at taxpayer’s additional expense, proceed to the Appeals Division. This would normally be a good strategy in nebulous circumstances. With rare exceptions this is not a good strategy under these circumstances as explained later.
Just as there are good and bad IRS agents, there are good and bad WBPs. The abusive plans that have been sold should not affect those plans that adhere to the spirit of the tax laws. Thus, of the many plans sold to taxpayers, some can be considered “good.” The “bad” WBPs should not taint the “good” ones.
IR-2007-170, Oct. 17, 2007, recognizes that “[t]here are many legitimate welfare benefit funds that provide benefits, such as health insurance and life insurance, to employees and retirees. However, the arrangements the IRS is cautioning employers about is primarily benefits the owner or other key employees of businesses, sometimes in the form of distributions of cash, loans, or life insurance policies.”
THE BAD:
A persistent pattern that I see with WBPs is that the IRS appears to presumptively hold such plans as improper contrary to the statement in IR-2007-170. From what I have indirectly encountered, it appears that the IRS may interview the plan administrator, with the primary objective of securing the plan’s participants (and audit targets) rather than determining whether the limitations of a Code Section 419 deduction were satisfied. No determination is made as to whether the plan meets or fails to meet Code requirements. The plan participants then receive audit letters: one to the entity claiming the deduction, and the other to the owner(s) of such entity. These audit letters are generally accompanied by a lengthy “canned” Information Document Request (IDR) ostensibly written by IRS attorneys.
During my decades with the IRS, IDRs are usually focused documents seeking very specific documents and information to determine whether further action is required. However, my review of IDRs on the subject of WBPs shows them to be akin to document production demands in a civil litigation. The IRS basically wants everything associated with the WBP – there is no specific focus. Moreover, they have a very expansive definition of documents, and seek them whether they are in the taxpayer’s possession, or in the possession of the taxpayer’s “attorneys, accountants, affiliates, advisers, representatives, or other persons directly or indirectly employed by you, hired by you, or connected with you, or your representatives, and anyone else subject to your control.”
What was most disturbing about these IDRs that I have seen is the fact that the RAs also have, on a number of occasions, requested copies of the tax returns for the tax year(s) under audit. This indicated to me, especially since the name of the WBP is repeatedly mentioned in the IDR, that my client was selected from the list provided by the plan administrator to the IRS. This in itself is not necessarily bad since this is a useful tool for the IRS in obtaining names of participants of plans that might not meet the muster of the Code and IRS pronouncements. However, I would think that the “give me everything from everybody” approach should not be the first step in an IRS inquiry into the validity of a WBP.
Other clients received audit letters with a similar IDR requesting information including copies of the returns under examination. These clients, however, had stopped participating in the plan many years prior to the audit years. Nonetheless, since the client's name was still on the Plan’s list of participants, the client was going to be audited. The IRS takes the position that the cash surrender value of any life insurance policy in the plan is available to the client and is therefore income to that client for the year the IRS has decided to audit Accordingly, the RAs are proposing adjustments in years in which no deduction to the WBP have been taken.
THE … ?
To rub salt into the wound, the RA has enclosed an explanation as to why the deduction is disallowed, and has proposed a statutory underpayment penalty. The tax law provides for a penalty to be imposed where a taxpayer makes a substantial understatement of their tax liability. For individual taxpayers, a substantial underpayment exists when the understatement for the year exceeds the greater of ten percent of the tax required to be shown on the return, or $5,000. This is a relatively low threshold and is easily met by most taxpayers. The penalty is twenty percent of the tax underpayment.
Following the RA’s review, the taxpayer can expect to receive a 20 – 40 page “boiler-plated” or “canned” write-up, which will wind up as the Revenue Agent Report (RAR). The RARs that I’ve seen appear obviously drafted by IRS attorneys. Sometimes the RAR is shortened as a result of “cut and paste” procedures assembled by the RA. The RARs also contain alternative positions for these proposed disallowances. Taxpayers and representatives can take little comfort when all indications lead to the conclusion that the IRS has made a determination prior to assessing all the facts and circumstances of any given case standing on its own merits. My concern is that the WBP that meet IRS requirements are swept together with those that do not, and are unjustly branded as “bad.” The participants of these “good” plans must now overcome the preconceived notions of the RA. This becomes a difficult task as RAs won't deviate from the “boiler-plated” positions, forcing the taxpayer to expend funds in seeking further relief . The Appeals Division has similarly received a directive to sustain the RA RAR thus effectively eliminating the appeals right the taxpayers normally have. The only "appeals" route a taxpayer can take is to petition the Courts for a hearing. The time, expense, and outcome in defending a WBP under this scenario are enigmatic (hence the “…?”), and well, simply put, can really become downright UGLY!
CONCLUSION:
The IRS needs to examine WBPs on a plan by plan basis, and make a determination based on the facts and circumstances of each plan. Specifically, they should be charged with independently evaluating whether a particular WBP generally adheres to the Code and the IRS’s issued pronouncements. The RA and those in charge of this project should be cognizant of the statement issued by Donald L. Korb (Chief Counsel for the IRS): “The guidance targets specific abuses involving a limited group of arrangements that claim to be welfare benefit funds.” (emphasis provided). He continues to state that: “[T]oday’s action sends a strong signal that these abusive schemes must stop.” (emphasis provided). For those plans that the IRS deems to be abusive, the IRS can concentrate its resources in auditing the plan participants. The IRS hierarchy needs to eliminate the UGLY, recognize the GOOD, and pursue the BAD.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Sam Susser
Sam Susser began his IRS career on 2/1/71, and spent most the succeeding years as an international examiner with brief stints in the Review Section and the Appeals Division. He closed out his IRS tenure spending four years as International Team Manager for South Florida. Currently Sam is in private practice and can be reached at 561-742-1005
It is, therefore, not surprising that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has targeted WBP, designating many such plans as “listed transactions.” The IRS’ attack arsenal includes, but is not limited to: Notice 2007-83 (where the IRS intends to challenge claimed tax benefits meeting the definition of a “listed transaction”); Notice 2007-84 (where the IRS may challenge trust arrangements purporting to provide non-discriminatory medical and life insurance benefits, if such plans are, in substance, discriminatory); Revenue Ruling 2007-65 (where the IRS will not disallow deductions for such arrangements for prior year tax years, except to the extent that deductions have exceeded the amount of insurance included on the participant’s Form W-2 for a particular year), and IR-2007-170 (the IRS’ guidance position on WBPs). Accordingly, taxpayers who have claimed deductions pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 419 are receiving letters from the IRS inviting them to an audit.
THE GOOD:
Let’s start off with a proposition that may surprise many of you – the IRS is generally good. No, that’s not an oxymoron. The rest of this article is in the words of Sam Susser:
For over 35 years, I have had the privilege of representing the IRS and the US taxpayers on tax audits. Our goal was to always determine the correct tax –whether the outcome was a deficiency or a refund. The bottom line, which the IRS supported, was to “do the right thing.” Over these years, I have met and befriended many competent and exemplary agents. As with all industries, there are a few who simply go through the motions, and there are a few who are simply incompetent. Fortunately, the latter two groups are in the minority. Now that I represent clients who are being audited by IRS, my objectives have not changed. The right thing must still be done. I only hope to get a well-versed agent who knows the law and can make a determination based on facts and circumstances, and not by preconceived notions.
I have been resolving the WBP issue mostly at the Revenue Agent (RA) level. Most RAs are knowledgeable in the area of WBP, and it it a pleasure dealing with them. My clients became involved with both abusive plans as well as what I determined to be non-abusive plan. Because most clients have sought the opinions of an independent professional tax attorney, CPA, Enrolled Agent , or other independent professionals who the IRS deems to be knowledgeable and capable of rendering an opinion on a Plan, Prior to 2007 I had a good case for abating the penalty and any interest thereon due to the reasonable cause exception. The RAs accepted my briefs for penalty relief and I usually resolved the case agreed at the agent’s level. The right thing was being done by both sides. Since 2007 the bar has been raised in meeting the reasonable cause exception. Simply put, if taxpayers failed to file Forms 8886 with their tax returns, the penalty could no longer be abated due to reasonable cause. If we do not come to an agreement, the case would, at taxpayer’s additional expense, proceed to the Appeals Division. This would normally be a good strategy in nebulous circumstances. With rare exceptions this is not a good strategy under these circumstances as explained later.
Just as there are good and bad IRS agents, there are good and bad WBPs. The abusive plans that have been sold should not affect those plans that adhere to the spirit of the tax laws. Thus, of the many plans sold to taxpayers, some can be considered “good.” The “bad” WBPs should not taint the “good” ones.
IR-2007-170, Oct. 17, 2007, recognizes that “[t]here are many legitimate welfare benefit funds that provide benefits, such as health insurance and life insurance, to employees and retirees. However, the arrangements the IRS is cautioning employers about is primarily benefits the owner or other key employees of businesses, sometimes in the form of distributions of cash, loans, or life insurance policies.”
THE BAD:
A persistent pattern that I see with WBPs is that the IRS appears to presumptively hold such plans as improper contrary to the statement in IR-2007-170. From what I have indirectly encountered, it appears that the IRS may interview the plan administrator, with the primary objective of securing the plan’s participants (and audit targets) rather than determining whether the limitations of a Code Section 419 deduction were satisfied. No determination is made as to whether the plan meets or fails to meet Code requirements. The plan participants then receive audit letters: one to the entity claiming the deduction, and the other to the owner(s) of such entity. These audit letters are generally accompanied by a lengthy “canned” Information Document Request (IDR) ostensibly written by IRS attorneys.
During my decades with the IRS, IDRs are usually focused documents seeking very specific documents and information to determine whether further action is required. However, my review of IDRs on the subject of WBPs shows them to be akin to document production demands in a civil litigation. The IRS basically wants everything associated with the WBP – there is no specific focus. Moreover, they have a very expansive definition of documents, and seek them whether they are in the taxpayer’s possession, or in the possession of the taxpayer’s “attorneys, accountants, affiliates, advisers, representatives, or other persons directly or indirectly employed by you, hired by you, or connected with you, or your representatives, and anyone else subject to your control.”
What was most disturbing about these IDRs that I have seen is the fact that the RAs also have, on a number of occasions, requested copies of the tax returns for the tax year(s) under audit. This indicated to me, especially since the name of the WBP is repeatedly mentioned in the IDR, that my client was selected from the list provided by the plan administrator to the IRS. This in itself is not necessarily bad since this is a useful tool for the IRS in obtaining names of participants of plans that might not meet the muster of the Code and IRS pronouncements. However, I would think that the “give me everything from everybody” approach should not be the first step in an IRS inquiry into the validity of a WBP.
Other clients received audit letters with a similar IDR requesting information including copies of the returns under examination. These clients, however, had stopped participating in the plan many years prior to the audit years. Nonetheless, since the client's name was still on the Plan’s list of participants, the client was going to be audited. The IRS takes the position that the cash surrender value of any life insurance policy in the plan is available to the client and is therefore income to that client for the year the IRS has decided to audit Accordingly, the RAs are proposing adjustments in years in which no deduction to the WBP have been taken.
THE … ?
To rub salt into the wound, the RA has enclosed an explanation as to why the deduction is disallowed, and has proposed a statutory underpayment penalty. The tax law provides for a penalty to be imposed where a taxpayer makes a substantial understatement of their tax liability. For individual taxpayers, a substantial underpayment exists when the understatement for the year exceeds the greater of ten percent of the tax required to be shown on the return, or $5,000. This is a relatively low threshold and is easily met by most taxpayers. The penalty is twenty percent of the tax underpayment.
Following the RA’s review, the taxpayer can expect to receive a 20 – 40 page “boiler-plated” or “canned” write-up, which will wind up as the Revenue Agent Report (RAR). The RARs that I’ve seen appear obviously drafted by IRS attorneys. Sometimes the RAR is shortened as a result of “cut and paste” procedures assembled by the RA. The RARs also contain alternative positions for these proposed disallowances. Taxpayers and representatives can take little comfort when all indications lead to the conclusion that the IRS has made a determination prior to assessing all the facts and circumstances of any given case standing on its own merits. My concern is that the WBP that meet IRS requirements are swept together with those that do not, and are unjustly branded as “bad.” The participants of these “good” plans must now overcome the preconceived notions of the RA. This becomes a difficult task as RAs won't deviate from the “boiler-plated” positions, forcing the taxpayer to expend funds in seeking further relief . The Appeals Division has similarly received a directive to sustain the RA RAR thus effectively eliminating the appeals right the taxpayers normally have. The only "appeals" route a taxpayer can take is to petition the Courts for a hearing. The time, expense, and outcome in defending a WBP under this scenario are enigmatic (hence the “…?”), and well, simply put, can really become downright UGLY!
CONCLUSION:
The IRS needs to examine WBPs on a plan by plan basis, and make a determination based on the facts and circumstances of each plan. Specifically, they should be charged with independently evaluating whether a particular WBP generally adheres to the Code and the IRS’s issued pronouncements. The RA and those in charge of this project should be cognizant of the statement issued by Donald L. Korb (Chief Counsel for the IRS): “The guidance targets specific abuses involving a limited group of arrangements that claim to be welfare benefit funds.” (emphasis provided). He continues to state that: “[T]oday’s action sends a strong signal that these abusive schemes must stop.” (emphasis provided). For those plans that the IRS deems to be abusive, the IRS can concentrate its resources in auditing the plan participants. The IRS hierarchy needs to eliminate the UGLY, recognize the GOOD, and pursue the BAD.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Sam Susser
Sam Susser began his IRS career on 2/1/71, and spent most the succeeding years as an international examiner with brief stints in the Review Section and the Appeals Division. He closed out his IRS tenure spending four years as International Team Manager for South Florida. Currently Sam is in private practice and can be reached at 561-742-1005
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.
Copyright Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC
Copyright Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC
Should you File, and then Opt Out?
Announced February 8, 2011, the IRS 2011 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative (OVDI) program is a welcome but conditional amnesty allowing taxpayers with foreign accounts to come clean and get into compliance with the IRS. The program runs through Sept. 9, 2011.
There’s been discussion of “opting out” of the program to take your chances in audit, but it’s a topic fraught with danger. Now, however, there is guidance about opting out of the program that makes much of it transparent. Because of this late date it is recommended that you properly file FBARs and the 90-day request for amnesty extension. This is the first important step. If the forms are not done properly, you will have extensive problems and will not have to think about opting out. If your forms are properly done and filed, then your situation should be discussed with someone who is experienced in these matters.
Under the OVDI, taxpayers are subject to a penalty of 25 percent of the highest aggregate account balance on their undisclosed account(s) between 2003 and 2010. If the value was less than $75,000 at all times during those years, the penalty is only 12.5 percent.
These account balance penalties are in lieu of all other penalties that may apply, including FBAR and offshore-related information return penalties. Plus, participants are required to pay taxes and interest on any monies (such as interest income on foreign accounts) they previously failed to report. Finally, they must pay an accuracy-related penalty equal to 20 percent of the underpayment of tax, plus interest.
Opting out of the program can make sense for some, though it involves taking your chances with an IRS examination. Someone should represent you with extensive experience in this. We always suggest they should at least be a CPA with years of experience in international tax. It’s even better if you use one that was with the international tax division of the IRS for a number of years. The IRS has published a separate guide detailing the rules and procedures for opting out.
Here are some of the rules:
1. IRS Summary. The IRS employee who has been handling your case summarizes it, agreeing or disagreeing with your view of penalties, and listing how extensive an audit he or she recommends.
2. Program Status Report. Before you can opt out, the IRS sends a letter reporting on the status of your disclosure and what you still must submit. If you’ve given enough data, the IRS will calculate what you would owe under the OVDI. You should provide any missing items within 30 days.
3. Taxpayer Submission. Within 20 days, the taxpayer opts out in writing and makes a written case what penalties should apply and why.
4. Central Committee. A Committee of IRS Managers reviews the summary and decides how extensive an audit to conduct. The IRS says “the taxpayer is not to be punished (or rewarded) for opting out.” The Committee also decides whether to assign your case for a normal civil audit or to assign it for a criminal exam.
5. Written Warning. The IRS sends another letter explaining that opting out must be in writing and is irrevocable. You have 20 days thereafter to opt out in writing.
6. Interview? Some audits will include taxpayer interviews.
Bottom Line? The “opt out” procedure is helpful but still a bit daunting. If you are considering it, make sure you get some solid advice from an experienced person who, in my opinion, should have worked for the IRS and is a CPA about the nature of your case. This is just one of the many options that should be discussed with your advisor. There are many other strategies that you may want to utilize. Your advisor should be aware of all your options, and should explain them. If not, consider engaging someone else. Remember, the penalties can be very large, especially if your advisor is not skilled at this. There is even the potential for criminal prosecution. See taxadvisorexpert.com for the latest information in this area or to contact one of our professionals today.
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, international tax, and other subjects. He writes about FBAR, OVDI, international taxation, captive insurance plans and other topics. 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, lawallach@aol.com,lanwalla@aol.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.
Backlash on too-good-to-be-true insurance plan
No Shelter Here September 2011
Backlash on too-good-to-be-true insurance plan
By: Lance Wallach
The 412(i), 419, captive insurance, and section 79 plans were marketed as a way for small-business owners to set up retirement, welfare benefit plans, or other tax-deductible programs while leveraging huge tax savings, but the IRS put most of them on a list of abusive tax shelters, listed transactions, or similar transactions, etc., and has more recently focused audits on them. Many accountants are unaware of the issues surrounding these plans, and many big-name insurance companies are still encouraging participation in them.
Seems Attractive
The plans are costly up-front, but your money builds over time, and there’s a large payout if the money is removed before death. While many business owners have retirement plans, they also must care for their employees. With one of these plans, business owners are not required to give their workers anything.Gotcha
Although small business has taken a recessionary hit and owners may not be spending big sums on insurance now, an IRS task force is auditing people who bought these as early as 2004. There is no statute of limitations.The IRS also requires participants to file Form 8886 informing the IRS of participation in this “abusive transaction.” Failure to file or to file incorrectly will cost the business owner interest and penalties. Plus, you’ll pay back whatever you claimed for a deduction, and there are additional fines — possibly 70% of the tax benefit you claim in a year. And,
IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program Reopens
Offshore International Today
IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program Reopens
By Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC
Abusive Tax Shelter, Listed Transaction, Reportable Transaction Expert Witness
Abusive Tax Shelter, Listed Transaction, Reportable Transaction Expert Witness
Today, the Internal Revenue Service reopened the offshore voluntary disclosure program to help people hiding offshore accounts get current with their taxes. Additionally, the IRS revealed the collection of more than $4.4 billion so far from the two previous international programs.
The Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) was reopened following continued strong interest from taxpayers and tax practitioners after the closure of the 2011 and 2009 programs. The third offshore program comes as the IRS continues working on a wide range of international tax issues and follows ongoing efforts with the Justice Department to pursue criminal prosecution of international tax evasion. This program will remain open indefinitely until otherwise announced.
Lance Wallach and his associates have received thousands of phone calls from concerned clients with questions about the prior programs. Some of Lance’s associates are still very busy helping people with the last program. Not a single person has been audited and most are pleased with the results and are now able to sleep easily without worrying about the IRS. According to Lance, it requires years of experience to obtain a good result from the program.
He suggests using a CPA-certified, ex-IRS agent with lots of international tax experience. While this is not a requirement to file under the program, Lance has heard many horror stories from people who have tried to file by themselves or who have used inexperienced accountants.
“Our focus on offshore tax evasion continues to produce strong, substantial results for the nation’s taxpayers,” said IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman. “We have billions of dollars in hand from our previous efforts, and we have more people wanting to come in and get right with the government. This new program makes good sense for taxpayers still hiding assets overseas and for the nation’s tax system.”
The new program is similar to the 2011 program in many ways, but it has a few key differences. Unlike last year, there is no set deadline for people to apply. However, the terms of the program could change at any time going forward. For example, the IRS may increase penalties in the program for all or some taxpayers or defined classes of taxpayers – or decide to end the program entirely at any point.
“As we've said all along, people need to come in and get right with us before we find you,” Shulman said. “We are following more leads and the risk for people who do not come in continues to increase.”
The third offshore effort accompanies another announcement that Shulman made today, that the IRS has collected $3.4 billion so far from people who participated in the 2009 offshore program. That figure reflects closures of about 95 percent of the cases from the 2009 program. On top of that, the IRS has collected an additional $1 billion from up front payments required under the 2011 program. That number will grow as the IRS processes the 2011 cases.
In all, the IRS has seen 33,000 voluntary disclosures from the 2009 and 2011 offshore initiatives. Since the 2011 program closed last September, hundreds of taxpayers have come forward to make voluntary disclosures. Those who come in after the closing of the 2011 program will be able to be treated under the provisions of the new OVDP program.
The overall penalty structure for the new program is the same for 2011, except for taxpayers in the highest penalty category.
The new program’s penalty framework requires individuals to pay a penalty of 27.5 percent of the highest aggregate balance in foreign bank accounts/entities or the value of foreign assets during the eight full tax years prior to the disclosure. That is up from 25 percent in the 2011 program. Some taxpayers will be eligible for 5 or 12.5 percent penalties; these remain the same in the new program as in 2011.
Participants must file all original and amended tax returns and include payment for back-taxes and interest for up to eight years as well as paying accuracy-related and/or delinquency penalties.
Participants face a 27.5 percent penalty, but taxpayers in limited situations can qualify for a 5 percent penalty. Smaller offshore accounts will face a 12.5 percent penalty. People whose offshore accounts or assets did not surpass $75,000 in any calendar year covered by the new OVDP will qualify for this lower rate. As under the prior programs, taxpayers who feel that the penalty is disproportionate may opt instead to be examined.
The IRS recognizes that its success in offshore enforcement and in the disclosure programs has raised awareness related to tax filing obligations. This includes awareness by dual citizens and others who may be delinquent in filing, but owe no U.S. tax.
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 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 other type of advice for any specific individual or other entity. You should contact an appropriate professional for any such advice.
How Hartford Life and Other Insurance Companies Tricked their Agents and Got People in Trouble with the IRS - HG.org
How Hartford Life and Other Insurance Companies Tricked their Agents and Got People in Trouble with the IRS - HG.org
Agents from Hartford and other insurance companies were shown ways to sell large life insurance policies. This “Welfare Benefit Trust 419 plan or 412i plan should be shown to their profitable small business owners as a cure for paying too much taxes.
A Welfare Benefit Trust 419 plan essentially works like this:
• The business provides a fringe benefit for their employees, such as health insurance and life insurance.
• The benefit is established in the name of a trust and funded with a cash value life insurance policy
• Here is the gravy: the entire amount deposited into the trust (insurance policy) is tax deductible to the company,and
• The owners of the company can withdraw the cash value from the policy in later years tax-free.
• The business provides a fringe benefit for their employees, such as health insurance and life insurance.
• The benefit is established in the name of a trust and funded with a cash value life insurance policy
• Here is the gravy: the entire amount deposited into the trust (insurance policy) is tax deductible to the company,and
• The owners of the company can withdraw the cash value from the policy in later years tax-free.
Read more by clicking the link above!
Similarities and Differences Between IRC Section 419A(f)(6) and IRC Section 419(e) Plans CPA’s Guide to Life Insurance
Author/Moderator: Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC, CIMC
Below is an excerpt from one of Lance Wallach’s new books.
Similarities and Differences Between IRC Section 419A(f)(6) and IRC Section 419(e) Plans
One popular type of listed transaction is the so-called “welfare benefit plan,” which once relied on IRC §419A(f)(6) for its authority to claim tax deductions, but now more commonly relies on IRC §419(e). The IRC §419A(f)(6) plans used to claim that the section completely exempted business owners from all limitations on how much tax could be deducted. In other words, it was claimed, tax deductions were unlimited. These plans featured large amounts of life insurance and accompanying large commissions, and were thus aggressively pushed by insurance agents, financial planners, and sometimes even accountants and attorneys. Not to mention the insurance companies themselves, who put millions of dollars in premiums on the books and, when confronted with questions about the outlandish tax claims made in marketing these plans, claimed to be only selling product, not giving opinions on tax questions.
Similarities and Differences Between IRC Section 419A(f)(6) and IRC Section 419(e) Plans CPA’s Guide to Life Insurance
Author/Moderator: Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC, CIMC
Below is an excerpt from one of Lance Wallach’s new books.
Similarities and Differences Between IRC Section 419A(f)(6) and IRC Section 419(e) Plans
One popular type of listed transaction is the so-called “welfare benefit plan,” which once relied on IRC §419A(f)(6) for its authority to claim tax deductions, but now more commonly relies on IRC §419(e). The IRC §419A(f)(6) plans used to claim that the section completely exempted business owners from all limitations on how much tax could be deducted. In other words, it was claimed, tax deductions were unlimited. These plans featured large amounts of life insurance and accompanying large commissions, and were thus aggressively pushed by insurance agents, financial planners, and sometimes even accountants and attorneys. Not to mention the insurance companies themselves, who put millions of dollars in premiums on the books and, when confronted with questions about the outlandish tax claims made in marketing these plans, claimed to be only selling product, not giving opinions on tax questions.
Help with Common IRS Problems
There are many problems you can run into with the IRS. The following is an overview and helpful information on some of these confusing issues.
· IRS Penalties
· Unfiled Tax Returns
· IRS Liens
· IRS Audits
· Payroll Tax Problems
· IRS Levies
· IRS Seizures
· Wage Garnishments
IRS Penalties
The penalizes millions of taxpayers each year. They have so many penalties that it's hard to understand which penalty they are hitting you with.
The most common penalties are Failure to File and Failure to Pay. Both of these penalties can substantially increase the amount you owe the IRS in a very short period of time.
To make matters worse the IRS charges you interest on penalties. Many tax-payers often find out about IRS problems many years after they have occurred. This causes the amount owed the IRS to be substantially greater due to penalties and the accumulated interest on those penalties.
Some IRS penalties can be as high as 75%-100% of the original taxes owed. Often taxpayers can afford to pay the taxes owed, however, the extra penalties make it impossible to pay off the entire balance.
The original goal of the IRS imposing penalties was to punish taxpayers in order to keep them in line. Unfortunately, the penalties have turned into additional sources of income for the IRS. So they are happy to add whatever penalties they can and to pile interest on top of those penalties. Your loss is their gain.
Under certain circumstances the IRS does abate, or forgive, penalties. Therefore before you pay the IRS any penalty amounts, you may want to consider requesting that the IRS abate your penalties.
Unfiled Tax Returns
Many taxpayers fail to file required tax returns for many reasons. What you must understand is that failure to file tax returns may be construed as a criminal act by the IRS. This type of criminal act is punishable by one year in jail for each year not filed.
Needless to say, its one thing to owe the IRS money but another thing to potentially lose your freedom for failure to file a tax return.
The IRS may file “SFR” (Substitute For Return) Tax Returns for you. This is the IRS's version of an unfiled tax return. Because SFR Tax Returns are filed in the best interest of the government, the only deductions you'll see are standard deductions and one personal exemption.
You will not get credit for deductions which you may be entitled to, such as exemptions for a spouse or children, interest and taxes on your home, cost of any stock or real estate sales, business expenses, etc.
Regardless of what you have heard, you have the right to file your original tax return, no matter how late its filed.
IRS Liens
The IRS can make your life miserable by filing Federal Tax Liens. Federal Tax Liens are public records that indicate you owe the IRS various taxes. They are filed with the County Clerk in the county from which you or your business operates.
Because they are public records, they will show up on your credit report. This often makes it difficult for a taxpayer to obtain any financing on an automobile or a home. Federal Tax Liens also can tie up your personal property, you cannot sell or transfer that property without a clear title.
Often taxpayers find themselves in a Catch-22 where hey have property that they would like to borrow against, but because of the Federal Tax Lien, they cannot get a loan. We can work toward getting the Tax Lien lifted so that you can borrow money on your property.
IRS Audits
The IRS can audit you by mail, in their offices, or in your office or home. The location of your audit is a good indication of the severity of the audit.
Typically, Correspondence Audits are for missing documents in your tax return that IRS computers have tried to find. These usually include W-2's and 1099 income items or interest expense items. This type of audit can be handled through the mail with the correct documentation.
The IRS Office Audit is usually with a Tax Examiner who will request numerous documents and explanations of various deductions. This type of audit may also require you to produce all bank records for a period of time so that the IRS can check for unreported income.
The IRS Home or Office Audit should be taken more seriously because the IRS auditor is a Revenue Agent. Revenue Agents receive more training and learn more auditing techniques than a typical Tax Examiner.
The IRS audits should be taken seriously because they often lead to other tax years and other tax problems not originally stated in the audit letter.
Payroll Tax Problems
The IRS is very aggressive in their collection attempts for past due payroll taxes. The penalties assessed on delinquent payroll tax deposits or filings can dramatically increase the total amount you owe in just a matter of months.
I believe that it is critical for a taxpayer to have an attorney for a representation in these situations. How you answer the first five IRS questions may determine whether you stay in business or are liquidated by the IRS. We always advise clients to avoid meeting with any IRS representatives regarding payroll taxes until you have met with a professional to discuss you options.
IRS Levy
An IRS Levy is the action taken by the IRS to collect taxes. For example, the IRS can issue a Bank Levy to obtain your cash in savings and checking accounts. Or the IRS can levy your wages or accounts receivable. The person, company, or institution that is served with the levy must comply or face their own IRS problems.
The additional paperwork this person, company, or institution, is faced with to comply with the IRS Levy often causes the taxpayers relationship with that person to suffer. Levies should be avoided at all costs and are usually the result of poor or no communication with the IRS.
When the IRS levies a bank account, the levy is only for the particular day the levy is received by the bank. The bank is required to remove whatever amount of money is in your account that day (up to the amount of the IRS Levy) and send it to the IRS within 21 days unless notified otherwise by the IRS. This type of levy does not affect any future deposits made into your bank account unless the IRS issues another Bank Levy.
An IRS Wage Levy is difficult. Wage Levies are filed with your employer and remain in effect until the IRS notifies the employer that the Wage Levy has been released. Most Wage Levies take so much money from the taxpayer's paycheck that the taxpayer doesn’t even have enough money to live on.
IRS Seizures
The IRS has extensive powers when it comes to Seizures of Assets. These powers allow them to seize personal and business assets to pay off outstanding tax liabilities. This occurs when taxpayers have been avoiding the IRS.
This is one of the IRS's ultimate weapons. They can seize cars, television sets, jewelry, computers, collectibles, business equipment, or anything with value which can be sold in order to acquire the money the IRS wants to pay off tax debts. If you are facing a seizure, you have a serious problem.
Wage Garnishments
The IRS Wage Garnishment is a very powerful tool used to collect taxes owed through your employer. Once a Wage Garnishment is filed with an employer. Once a Wage Garnishment is filed with an employer, the employer is required to collect a large percentage of each paycheck. The paycheck that would have otherwise been paid to the employee will then be paid to the IRS.
The Wage Garnishment stays in effect until the IRS is fully paid or until the IRS agrees to release the garnishment. Having wages garnished can create other debt problems because the amount left over after the IRS takes its cut is often small, so you may have difficulty with bills and other financial obligations.
Lance Wallach speaks at more than 20 conventions annually and writes for more than fifty publications about tax reduction ideas, abusive welfare benefit and retirement plans, captive insurance companies, cash balance plans, life settlements, premium finance, etc. He is a course developer and instructor for the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and a prolific author. He has written or collaborated on numerous books, including, The Team Approach to Tax and Financial Planning; Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hotspots; Alternatives to Commonly Misused Tax Strategies: Ensuring Your Clients Future, all published by the American Institute of CPAs. The CPA’s Guide to Life Insurance, and The CPA’s Guide to Trusts and Estates, both published by Bisk Education, and his latest book, Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence, and Scams, published by Wiley. In addition, Mr. Wallach writes for various national business associations that sell his books to their members and others. He has been an expert witness on some of the above issues, and to date his side has never lost a case. Contact lanwalla@aol.com or visit reportabletransaction.com/IRSHelp.html
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.
· IRS Penalties
· Unfiled Tax Returns
· IRS Liens
· IRS Audits
· Payroll Tax Problems
· IRS Levies
· IRS Seizures
· Wage Garnishments
IRS Penalties
The penalizes millions of taxpayers each year. They have so many penalties that it's hard to understand which penalty they are hitting you with.
The most common penalties are Failure to File and Failure to Pay. Both of these penalties can substantially increase the amount you owe the IRS in a very short period of time.
To make matters worse the IRS charges you interest on penalties. Many tax-payers often find out about IRS problems many years after they have occurred. This causes the amount owed the IRS to be substantially greater due to penalties and the accumulated interest on those penalties.
Some IRS penalties can be as high as 75%-100% of the original taxes owed. Often taxpayers can afford to pay the taxes owed, however, the extra penalties make it impossible to pay off the entire balance.
The original goal of the IRS imposing penalties was to punish taxpayers in order to keep them in line. Unfortunately, the penalties have turned into additional sources of income for the IRS. So they are happy to add whatever penalties they can and to pile interest on top of those penalties. Your loss is their gain.
Under certain circumstances the IRS does abate, or forgive, penalties. Therefore before you pay the IRS any penalty amounts, you may want to consider requesting that the IRS abate your penalties.
Unfiled Tax Returns
Many taxpayers fail to file required tax returns for many reasons. What you must understand is that failure to file tax returns may be construed as a criminal act by the IRS. This type of criminal act is punishable by one year in jail for each year not filed.
Needless to say, its one thing to owe the IRS money but another thing to potentially lose your freedom for failure to file a tax return.
The IRS may file “SFR” (Substitute For Return) Tax Returns for you. This is the IRS's version of an unfiled tax return. Because SFR Tax Returns are filed in the best interest of the government, the only deductions you'll see are standard deductions and one personal exemption.
You will not get credit for deductions which you may be entitled to, such as exemptions for a spouse or children, interest and taxes on your home, cost of any stock or real estate sales, business expenses, etc.
Regardless of what you have heard, you have the right to file your original tax return, no matter how late its filed.
IRS Liens
The IRS can make your life miserable by filing Federal Tax Liens. Federal Tax Liens are public records that indicate you owe the IRS various taxes. They are filed with the County Clerk in the county from which you or your business operates.
Because they are public records, they will show up on your credit report. This often makes it difficult for a taxpayer to obtain any financing on an automobile or a home. Federal Tax Liens also can tie up your personal property, you cannot sell or transfer that property without a clear title.
Often taxpayers find themselves in a Catch-22 where hey have property that they would like to borrow against, but because of the Federal Tax Lien, they cannot get a loan. We can work toward getting the Tax Lien lifted so that you can borrow money on your property.
IRS Audits
The IRS can audit you by mail, in their offices, or in your office or home. The location of your audit is a good indication of the severity of the audit.
Typically, Correspondence Audits are for missing documents in your tax return that IRS computers have tried to find. These usually include W-2's and 1099 income items or interest expense items. This type of audit can be handled through the mail with the correct documentation.
The IRS Office Audit is usually with a Tax Examiner who will request numerous documents and explanations of various deductions. This type of audit may also require you to produce all bank records for a period of time so that the IRS can check for unreported income.
The IRS Home or Office Audit should be taken more seriously because the IRS auditor is a Revenue Agent. Revenue Agents receive more training and learn more auditing techniques than a typical Tax Examiner.
The IRS audits should be taken seriously because they often lead to other tax years and other tax problems not originally stated in the audit letter.
Payroll Tax Problems
The IRS is very aggressive in their collection attempts for past due payroll taxes. The penalties assessed on delinquent payroll tax deposits or filings can dramatically increase the total amount you owe in just a matter of months.
I believe that it is critical for a taxpayer to have an attorney for a representation in these situations. How you answer the first five IRS questions may determine whether you stay in business or are liquidated by the IRS. We always advise clients to avoid meeting with any IRS representatives regarding payroll taxes until you have met with a professional to discuss you options.
IRS Levy
An IRS Levy is the action taken by the IRS to collect taxes. For example, the IRS can issue a Bank Levy to obtain your cash in savings and checking accounts. Or the IRS can levy your wages or accounts receivable. The person, company, or institution that is served with the levy must comply or face their own IRS problems.
The additional paperwork this person, company, or institution, is faced with to comply with the IRS Levy often causes the taxpayers relationship with that person to suffer. Levies should be avoided at all costs and are usually the result of poor or no communication with the IRS.
When the IRS levies a bank account, the levy is only for the particular day the levy is received by the bank. The bank is required to remove whatever amount of money is in your account that day (up to the amount of the IRS Levy) and send it to the IRS within 21 days unless notified otherwise by the IRS. This type of levy does not affect any future deposits made into your bank account unless the IRS issues another Bank Levy.
An IRS Wage Levy is difficult. Wage Levies are filed with your employer and remain in effect until the IRS notifies the employer that the Wage Levy has been released. Most Wage Levies take so much money from the taxpayer's paycheck that the taxpayer doesn’t even have enough money to live on.
IRS Seizures
The IRS has extensive powers when it comes to Seizures of Assets. These powers allow them to seize personal and business assets to pay off outstanding tax liabilities. This occurs when taxpayers have been avoiding the IRS.
This is one of the IRS's ultimate weapons. They can seize cars, television sets, jewelry, computers, collectibles, business equipment, or anything with value which can be sold in order to acquire the money the IRS wants to pay off tax debts. If you are facing a seizure, you have a serious problem.
Wage Garnishments
The IRS Wage Garnishment is a very powerful tool used to collect taxes owed through your employer. Once a Wage Garnishment is filed with an employer. Once a Wage Garnishment is filed with an employer, the employer is required to collect a large percentage of each paycheck. The paycheck that would have otherwise been paid to the employee will then be paid to the IRS.
The Wage Garnishment stays in effect until the IRS is fully paid or until the IRS agrees to release the garnishment. Having wages garnished can create other debt problems because the amount left over after the IRS takes its cut is often small, so you may have difficulty with bills and other financial obligations.
Lance Wallach speaks at more than 20 conventions annually and writes for more than fifty publications about tax reduction ideas, abusive welfare benefit and retirement plans, captive insurance companies, cash balance plans, life settlements, premium finance, etc. He is a course developer and instructor for the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and a prolific author. He has written or collaborated on numerous books, including, The Team Approach to Tax and Financial Planning; Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hotspots; Alternatives to Commonly Misused Tax Strategies: Ensuring Your Clients Future, all published by the American Institute of CPAs. The CPA’s Guide to Life Insurance, and The CPA’s Guide to Trusts and Estates, both published by Bisk Education, and his latest book, Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence, and Scams, published by Wiley. In addition, Mr. Wallach writes for various national business associations that sell his books to their members and others. He has been an expert witness on some of the above issues, and to date his side has never lost a case. Contact lanwalla@aol.com or visit reportabletransaction.com/IRSHelp.html
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.
IRS tax relief firm, Lance Wallach, speaking: How to Avoid IRS Fines for You and Your Clients
IRS tax relief firm, Lance Wallach, speaking: How to Avoid IRS Fines for You and Your Clients | ...: How to Avoid IRS Fines for You and Your Clients | LifeHealthPro
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)