Showing posts with label Retirement Plans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Retirement Plans. Show all posts
Facebooks insiders escape 200 million in taxes.
Lance Wallach
As
I discuss in my Estates and Trusts book the Facebook insiders are using a GRAT
to avoid estate and gift taxes. A grantor retained annuity trust is a legal
way, if done properly, to avoid taxes. The strategy is a great way to shift
wealth to others at almost no tax cost. GRATS are a way for the rich to avoid
estate and other taxes. These trusts, which are easy to structure, transfer
asset appreciation from one taxpayer to others almost tax-free. The benefits
are huge. To be done successfully this strategy must use realistic appraisal
feels. A valuation must be done in an unbiased way. Business Valuations can be
a key to this strategy. Over the life of the trust the person who set it up
gets payments plus a return. The result is usually no gift or estate tax on the
appreciation of the asset. This is true even though the asset had been
transferred.
Be
sure that whoever sets this up knows what he is doing. A realistic business
valuation is a must, or a valuation of the asset.
Lance Wallach, National Society of
Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the American Institute of CPAs
faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans,
financial and estate planning, and abusive tax shelters. He speaks at more than ten conventions
annually and writes for over fifty publications. 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. Mr. Wallach may be reached at 516/938.5007,
wallachinc@gmail.com, or at www.taxaudit419.com or www.lancewallach.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.
Reportable Transactions .com: 419 Plan, 412i Plan
Reportable Transactions .com: 419 Plan, 412i Plan, Welfare benefit plan assistan...: 419 Plan, 412i Plan, Welfare benefit plan assistance, audits & Abusive tax shelters
Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation
Maryland Trial Lawyer
Dolan Media Newswires January
Small businesses facing audits and potentially huge tax penalties over certain types of retirement plans are filing lawsuits against those who marketed, designed and sold the plans. The 412(i) and 419(e) plans were marketed in the past several years as a way for small business owners to set up retirement or welfare benefits plans while leveraging huge tax savings, but the IRS put them on a list of abusive tax shelters and has more recently focused audits on them.
The penalties for such transactions are extremely high and can pile up quickly.
There are business owners who owe taxes but have been assessed 2 million in penalties. The existing cases involve many types of businesses, including doctors’ offices, dental practices, grocery store owners, mortgage companies and restaurant owners. Some are trying to negotiate with the IRS. Others are not waiting. A class action has been filed and cases in several states are ongoing. The business owners claim that they were targeted by insurance companies; and their agents to purchase the plans without any disclosure that the IRS viewed the plans as abusive tax shelters. Other defendants include financial advisors who recommended the plans, accountants who failed to fill out required tax forms and law firms that drafted opinion letters legitimizing the plans, which were used as marketing tools.
A 412(i) plan is a form of defined benefit pension plan. A 419(e) plan is a similar type of health and benefits plan. Typically, these were sold to small, privately held businesses with fewer than 20 employees and several million dollars in gross revenues. What distinguished a legitimate plan from the plans at issue were the life insurance policies used to fund them. The employer would make large cash contributions in the form of insurance premiums, deducting the entire amounts. The insurance policy was designed to have a “springing cash value,” meaning that for the first 5-7 years it would have a near-zero cash value, and then spring up in value.
Just before it sprung, the owner would purchase the policy from the trust at the low cash value, thus making a tax-free transaction. After the cash value shot up, the owner could take tax-free loans against it. Meanwhile, the insurance agents collected exorbitant commissions on the premiums – 80 to 110 percent of the first year’s premium, which could exceed million.
Technically, the IRS’s problems with the plans were that the “springing cash” structure disqualified them from being 412(i) plans and that the premiums, which dwarfed any payout to a beneficiary, violated incidental death benefit rules.
Under §6707A of the Internal Revenue Code, once the IRS flags something as an abusive tax shelter, or “listed transaction,” penalties are imposed per year for each failure to disclose it. Another allegation is that businesses weren’t told that they had to file Form 8886, which discloses a listed transaction.
According to Lance Wallach of Plainview, N.Y. (516-938-5007), who testifies as an expert in cases involving the plans, the vast majority of accountants either did not file the forms for their clients or did not fill them out correctly.
Because the IRS did not begin to focus audits on these types of plans until some years after they became listed transactions, the penalties have already stacked up by the time of the audits.
Another reason plaintiffs are going to court is that there are few alternatives – the penalties are not appeasable and must be paid before filing an administrative claim for a refund.
The suits allege misrepresentation, fraud and other consumer claims. “In street language, they lied,” said Peter Losavio, a plaintiffs’ attorney in Baton Rouge, La., who is investigating several cases. So far they have had mixed results. Losavio said that the strength of an individual case would depend on the disclosures made and what the sellers knew or should have known about the risks.
In 2004, the IRS issued notices and revenue rulings indicating that the plans were listed transactions. But plaintiffs’ lawyers allege that there were earlier signs that the plans ran afoul of the tax laws, evidenced by the fact that the IRS is auditing plans that existed before 2004.
“Insurance companies were aware this was dancing a tightrope,” said William Noll, a tax attorney in Malvern, Pa. “These plans were being scrutinized by the IRS at the same time they were being promoted, but there wasn’t any disclosure of the scrutiny to unwitting customers.”
A defense attorney, who represents benefits professionals in pending lawsuits, said the main defense is that the plans complied with the regulations at the time and that “nobody can predict the future.”
An employee benefits attorney who has settled several cases against insurance companies, said that although the lost tax benefit is not recoverable, other damages include the hefty commissions – which in one of his cases amounted to 400,000 the first year – as well as the costs of handling the audit and filing amended tax returns.
Defying the individualized approach an attorney filed a class action in federal court against four insurance companies claiming that they were aware that since the 1980s the IRS had been calling the policies potentially abusive and that in 2002 the IRS gave lectures calling the plans not just abusive but “criminal.” A judge dismissed the case against one of the insurers that sold 412(i) plans.
The court said that the plaintiffs failed to show the statements made by the insurance companies were fraudulent at the time they were made, because IRS statements prior to the revenue rulings indicated that the agency may or may not take the position that the plans were abusive. The attorney, whose suit also names law firm for its opinion letters approving the plans, will appeal the dismissal to the 5th Circuit.
In a case that survived a similar motion to dismiss, a small business owner is suing Hartford Insurance to recover a “seven-figure” sum in penalties and fees paid to the IRS. A trial is expected in August.
But tax experts say the audits and penalties continue. “There’s a bit of a disconnect between what members of Congress thought they meant by suspending collection and what is happening in practice. Clients are still getting bills and threats of liens,” Wallach said. “Thousands of business owners are being hit with million-dollar-plus fines. … The audits are continuing and escalating. I just got four calls today,” he said. A bill has been introduced in Congress to make the penalties less draconian, but nobody is expecting a magic bullet.
“From what we know, Congress is looking to make the penalties more proportionate to the tax benefit received instead of a fixed amount.”
Lance Wallach can be reached at: WallachInc@gmail.com
For more information, please visit www.taxadvisorexperts.org Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, abusive tax shelters, financial, international tax, and estate planning. He writes about 412(i), 419, Section79, FBAR, and captive insurance plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually, writes for over fifty publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National 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.taxadvisorexperts.com.
Lance Wallach
Plainview, NY 11803
Ph.: (516)938-5007
Fax: (516)938-6330 www.vebaplan.com
National Society of Accountants Speaker of The Year
The information provided herein is not intended as legal, accounting, financial or any type of advice for any specific individual or other entity. You should contact an appropriate professional for any such advice.
Plainview, NY 11803
Ph.: (516)938-5007
Fax: (516)938-6330 www.vebaplan.com
National Society of Accountants Speaker of The Year
The information provided herein is not intended as legal, accounting, financial or any type of advice for any specific individual or other entity. You should contact an appropriate professional for any such advice.
401k Retirement Plan IRS Audits
 |
| By Lance Wallach, CLU, ChFC, CIMC |
401k IRS audits be careful - The Flooring Contractor Summer - Has Your 401k or Other Retirement Plan Been Reviewed? By Lance Wallach. Government officials now expect 401(k) plan sponsors to conduct periodic due diligence reviews. With respect to their 401k or other retirement plans, the problem is that most sponsors (owners) do not have the in house resources to do so.
This is not something that 401(k) plans historically did. On the heels of the recent mutual fund scandals, though, Labor Department officials indicated that sponsors had a duty to periodically investigate plans and benchmark funds and fees.
Baby boomers are now retiring, and their 401(k) accounts often are their primary source of retirement income. A sponsor potentially could be liable for less than stellar 401(k) account growth if employees can claim that he did not meet his fiduciary duties.
Trusting the reputation of a major mutual fund company is not enough anymore. Sponsors must investigate and compare their plans to other programs at least every two to five years, as well as demonstrate that their plan expenses are in line with what others are paying. Blind trust is not prudent. You need a process, and you need to document that process.
Every fiduciary decision has to be made through a careful process. According to ERISA, the primary plan fiduciary is the sponsor, i.e., the employer.
Therefore, it is the employer’s responsibility to ensure the prudent selection and oversight of plan vendors.
Sponsors must monitor vendors in two ways: micromonitoring, which should occur annually, examines plan features and services, while macromonitoring every three years or so allows sponsors to benchmark with competitors.
Smaller employers who comparatively lack resources and manpower find it difficult to monitor vendors to this extent. Thus, owing to ERISA provisions that compel bewildered sponsors to take on experts to help with due diligence, most small to midsized plans will need to hire consultants.
There is potential liability if due diligence reviews are not conducted. Failure to engage in a prudent process may breach fiduciary duties, which may render the sponsor liable for damages. For example, if plan participants pay fees that are higher than the current market rate because the sponsor did not perform a review, that fiduciary could be liable for the higher fees.
Read more
Baby boomers are now retiring, and their 401(k) accounts often are their primary source of retirement income. A sponsor potentially could be liable for less than stellar 401(k) account growth if employees can claim that he did not meet his fiduciary duties.
Trusting the reputation of a major mutual fund company is not enough anymore. Sponsors must investigate and compare their plans to other programs at least every two to five years, as well as demonstrate that their plan expenses are in line with what others are paying. Blind trust is not prudent. You need a process, and you need to document that process.
Every fiduciary decision has to be made through a careful process. According to ERISA, the primary plan fiduciary is the sponsor, i.e., the employer.
Therefore, it is the employer’s responsibility to ensure the prudent selection and oversight of plan vendors.
Sponsors must monitor vendors in two ways: micromonitoring, which should occur annually, examines plan features and services, while macromonitoring every three years or so allows sponsors to benchmark with competitors.
Smaller employers who comparatively lack resources and manpower find it difficult to monitor vendors to this extent. Thus, owing to ERISA provisions that compel bewildered sponsors to take on experts to help with due diligence, most small to midsized plans will need to hire consultants.
There is potential liability if due diligence reviews are not conducted. Failure to engage in a prudent process may breach fiduciary duties, which may render the sponsor liable for damages. For example, if plan participants pay fees that are higher than the current market rate because the sponsor did not perform a review, that fiduciary could be liable for the higher fees.
Read more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)