6707A Penalties & 419 Plans Litigation

419 Life Insurance Plans and Other Scams – Large IRS Fines –

2012-02-08T11:07:00.000-08:00

The IRS Raids Plan Promoter Benistar, and What Does All This Mean To You?

Articlebase

Posted: Dec. 9

By Lance Wallach

Recently IRS raided Benistar, which is also known as the Grist Mill Trust, the promoter and operator of one of the better known and more heavily scrutinized of the Section 419 life insurance plans. IRS attacked the Benistar 419 plan, and one of its tactics was to demand the names of all the clients Benistar worked with — so they could be audited by the IRS, Benistar refused to give the names and actually appealed the decision to turn over the names. The appeal was unsuccessful, but Benistar officials still refused to give up the names. Recently, the IRS raided the Benistar office and took hundreds of boxes of information, which included information on clients who were in their 419 plan. In documents filed by Benistar itself, they stated that 35 to 50 armed IRS agents descended upon their office to seize documents.

IRS has visited, and is still visiting most of the other plans and obtaining names of participants, selling insurance agents, accountants, etc. They have a whole task force devoted to auditing 419, 412i and other abusive plans.

It’s important to understand what could happen to unsuspecting business owners if they get involved in plans that are not above board. Their names could be turned over to the IRS, where audits could ensue, and where the outcome could be the payment of back taxes and significant penalties. Then they would be fined another time under Section 6707A for not properly reporting on themselves.

Most 419 life insurance and 412i defined benefit pension plans were sold to successful business owners as plans with large tax deductions where money would grow tax free until needed in retirement. I would speak at national accounting and other conventions talking about the problems with most of these plans. I would be attacked by some attendees who where making large insurance commissions selling the plans. I would try to warn insurance company home office executives, but they too had their heads in the sand because of all the money these plans brought in. Then the IRS got tough and started fining the unsuspecting business owners hundreds of thousands a year for not reporting on themselves for being in the plan. The agents and insurance companies advise against filing. “This is a good plan. We have approval.” Not only were the business owners fined under IRS Code 6707A, but the insurance agents were also fined $100,000 for not reporting on themselves. Accountants who signed tax returns are even being fined 100,000 by IRS. Then the business owners sue the accountants, insurance agents, etc. I have been following these scenarios for a long time. In fact, I have been an expert witness in many of these cases, and my side has never lost.

Most promoters of 419 plans told clients that their plans complied with the laws and, therefore, were not listed tax transactions. Unfortunately, the IRS doesn’t care what a promoter of a tax-avoidance plan says; it makes its own determination and punishes those who don’t comply.

The McGehee Family Clinic, P.A. was recently hit with back taxes and a penalty under Code Sec. 666A in conjunction with a deduction to the Benistar 419 plan

Dr. McGehee's clinic took a deduction for a 419 plan (the Benistar plan) back in 2005. Eventually, the McGhee Family Clinic was audited. After the audit, the doctor was told that the deduction would be disallowed and that back taxes were due. Additionally, Dr. McGehee was hit with a 20 percent accuracy-related penalty under Code Sec. 6662A. Finally, the tax court sustained the IRS's determination that McGehee was subject to the increased 30 percent penalty, because its return did not include a disclosure statement indicating its participation in the Benistar Trust. I think that in addition to the aforementioned fines, IRS will now fine him, both on a corporate and personal level, another $200,000 or more, under IRC 6707A, for not properly disclosing his participation in a listed transaction. There was a moratorium on those fines until June 2010, pending new legislation to reduce them. The fines had been 200,000 per year on the corporate level and $100,000 per year on the personal level. You got the fine even if you made no contributions for the year. All you had to do was to be in the plan. So Dr. McGehee's fine would be a total of $300,000 per year for every year that he and his corporation were in the plan.

IRS also says the fine is not appealable. His fine would be in the million-dollar range and it would be in addition to the back taxes, interest, and penalties already discussed earlier in this paragraph.

Legislation just passed slightly reducing those fines, but you still have to properly file to start the Statute of Limitations running to avoid the fines. IRS is fining people who report on themselves, but make a mistake on the forms. Now that the moratorium on the fines has passed, and so has the new legislation, IRS has aggressively moved to fine unsuspecting business owners hundreds of thousands. This is usually after they get audited, and sometimes reach agreement with IRS. Then another division or department of the IRS imposes a fine under 6707A. I am receiving a lot of phone calls from business owners who this is happening to. Unfortunately, some of these people already had called me. I warned them to properly file under 6707A. Either they did not believe me - it is unbelievable - or their accountant or tax attorney filed incorrectly. Then they called again after being fined.

If you were involved with one of these abusive plans, there are steps that you can take to minimize IRS problems. With respect to filing under Section 6707A, I know the two best people in the country at filing after the fact, which is what you would be doing at this point, and still somehow avoiding the fine. It is an art that both learned through countless hours of research and numerous conversations with IRS personnel. Both have filed dozens of times for clients, after the fact, without the clients being fined. Either may well still be able to help you.

And the right accountant, one with the proper knowledge, experience, and Service contacts, can help with the other IRS problems as well. I recall a case where a CPA I knew and recommended was able to get $300,000 or so in liabilities reduced to three thousand dollars and change. Do not count on a result like this, but help is available.

It’s not worth it!

Stay away from 419 and similar plans like Section 79 plans. Be very careful with 412i plans. Avoid most captive insurance plans.

It’s getting closer to the end of the year. This is when every scammer known to man/woman comes out of the woodwork to sell some fly-by-night tax-deductible plan to clients. Sometimes they come in the form of an accountant, insurance agent-financial planner, or even an attorney. I see this in all of my expert witness cases and when I speak at conventions. I have seen this since the 1990s. I wanted to remind readers that, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, financial and estate planning, and abusive tax shelters. He writes about 412(i), 419, and captive insurance plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually, writes for over fifty publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Pubic Radio's All Things Considered, and others. Lance has written numerous books including Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams published by John Wiley and Sons, Bisk Education's CPA's Guide to Life Insurance and Federal Estate and Gift Taxation, as well as AICPA best-selling books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots. He does expert witness testimony and has never lost a case. Contact him at 516.938.5007, wallachinc@gmail.com or visit www.taxaudit419.com.

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.

Lance Wallach
68 Keswick Lane
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.

The Future of Life Settlements

2012-02-02T14:18:00.000-08:00

Gerson Lehrman Group

September 28

Summary

By Lance Wallach

Many insurance professionals now think that the life settlement market is ending. Agents assisting their clients in the sale of their unneeded life insurance policies have no doubt been frustrated by the lack of bids in the current life settlement market. It doesn't help much either when the few bids that are made are often much less than what they would have been in years past. So the future of the life settlement market is dim.

Analysis

And what about the lawsuits that have started? The life settlement market saw double-digit annual growth for a decade until 2008. When the financial crisis hit, global markets and credit evaporated, and the life settlement markets came to a standstill. How did this happen to a market that was supposedly not correlated to other markets?

The life settlement market has long been touted as a non-corollary asset class. Even today many promoters looking to raise funds from investors still highlight this investment benefit. I have always doubted everything about the market and have urged people to stay away. How would you know if Tony Soprano is buying your mother’s life insurance policy? I am a member of the Sons of Italy. I was awarded membership even though I am Jewish. Why? Because I am a friend of the President.

Interest rates and stock market prices impact the portfolios of life insurance carriers. The solvency of a life insurance company directly impacts its ability to meet death claims. Why would life settlements be immune? If carriers like AIG teeter on the edge of financial ruin, then credit risk becomes a primary concern for life settlement investors. You may have heard that an ‘A’-rated carrier has never failed to pay a death claim. This is a great lie. The insurance company is usually no longer rated ‘A’ by the time they fail to pay.

I think that the life settlement market will not have any future source of funds within two years.

Life insurance companies have been attacking the market for years. Their vast experience in underwriting has already proven victorious as table changes in 2008 damaged the Net Asset Value of all life settlement funds. Their lobbying against life settlements has also been successful. Overly burdensome and poorly written life settlement regulation in various states has simultaneously increased the operating expenses for life settlement firms and decreased the opportunity for the consumer.

Life insurance companies are adjusting their COI rates higher and blaming life settlements for the change. They will sell insurance to preserve and protect wealth, yet the very products they sell are backed by investments mired in mountains of debt, equities with high P/E ratios, and issued in a currency that is deeply flawed. Even though many carriers survived the Great Depression, our financial markets are considerably more complex today than they were then and this may cause many carriers to soon find themselves with big problems in the future.

Lance Wallach, CLU, ChFC, the National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year, also writes about retirement plans, 412(i) plans, and 419 plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually, writes for over fifty publications, and is quoted regularly in the press. He has authored numerous books for the AICPA, Bisk TotalTape, Wiley and others. Mr. Wallach does expert witness work and his side has never lost a case.

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 Hiring Agents in Abusive Transactions Group

2012-02-01T12:10:00.001-08:00

FAST PITCH NETWORKING

Posted: Dec. 10

By Lance Wallach

Here it is. Here is your proof of my predictions. Perhaps you didn’t believe me when I told you the IRS was coming after what it has deemed “abusive transactions,” but here it is, right from the IRS’s own job posting. If you were involved with a 419e, 412i, listed transaction, abusive tax shelter, Section 79, or captive, and you haven’t yet approached an expert for help with your situation, you had better do it now, before the notices start piling up on your desk.

A portion of the exact announcement from the Department of the Treasury:

Job Title: INTERNAL REVENUE AGENT (ABUSIVE TRANSACTIONS GROUP)

Agency: Internal Revenue Service

Open Period: Monday, October 18, 2010 to Monday, November 01, 2010

Sub Agency: Internal Revenue Service

Job Announcement Number: 11PH1-SBB0058-0512-12/13

Who May Be Considered:

· IRS employees on Career or Career Conditional Appointments in the competitive service

· Treasury Office of Chief Counsel employees on Career or Career Conditional Appointments or with prior competitive status

· IRS employees on Term Appointments with potential conversion to a Career or Career Conditional Appointment in the same line of work

According to the job description, the agents of the Abusive Transactions Group will be conducting examinations of individuals, sole proprietorships, small corporations, partnerships and fiduciaries. They will be examining tax returns and will “determine the correct tax liability, and identify situations with potential for understated taxes.”

These agents will work in the Small Business/Self Employed Business Division (SB/SE) which provides examinations for about 7 million small businesses and upwards of 33 million self-employed and supplemental income taxpayers. This group specifically goes after taxpayers who generally have higher incomes than most taxpayers, need to file more tax forms, and generally need to rely more on paid tax preparers.” Their examinations can contain “special audit features or anticipated accounting, tax law, or investigative issues,” and look to make sure that, for example, specialty returns are filed properly.

The fines are severe. Under IRC 6707A, fines are up to $200,000 annually for not properly disclosing participation in a listed transaction. There was a moratorium on those fines until June 2010, pending new legislation to reduce them, but the new law virtually guarantees you will be fined. The fines had been $200,000 per year on the corporate level and $100,000 per year on the personal level. You got the fine even if you made no contributions for the year. All you had to do was to be in the plan and fail to properly disclose your participation.

You can possibly still avoid all this by properly filing form 8886 IMMEDIATELY with the IRS. Time is especially of the essence now. You MUST file before you are assessed the penalty. For months the Service has been holding off on actually collecting from people that they assessed because they did not know what Congress was going to do. But now they do know, so they are going to move aggressively to collection with people they have already assessed. There is no reason not to now. This is especially true because the new legislation still does not provide for a right of appeal or judicial review. The Service is still judge, jury, and executioner. Its word is absolute as far as determining what is a listed transaction.

So you have to file form 8886 fast, but you also have to file it properly. The Service treats forms that are incorrectly filed as if they were never filed. You get fined for filing incorrectly, or for not filing at all. The Statute of Limitations does not begin unless you properly file. That means IRS can come back to get you any time in the future unless you file properly.

If you don’t want these new IRS Agents, or any other IRS agents for that matter, to be earning their paychecks by coming after you, make sure you have done all you can to ensure that you have filed properly by reaching out for expert help today.

Should you File, and then Opt Out?

2012-01-31T08:04:00.000-08:00

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.

Backlash on too-good-to-be-true insurance plan

2012-01-26T12:21:00.000-08:00

No Shelter Here September 2011

By: Lance Wallach

During the past few years, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has fined many business owners hundreds of thousands of dollars for participating in several particular types of insurance plans.
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, if your accountant does not confidentially inform on you, he or she will get fined $100,000 by the IRS. Further, the IRS can freeze assets if you don’t pay and can fine you on a corporate and a personal level despite the type of business entity you have.

Legal Wrangling

Currently, small businesses facing audits and potentially huge tax penalties over these plans are filing lawsuits against those who marketed, designed, and sold the plans. Find out promptly if you have one of these plans and seek advice from a knowledgeable accountant to help you properly file Form 8886.
—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. www.taxaudit419.com, www.vebaplan.org, and www.section79plan.org
This article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as specific legal or financial advice.

Backlash on too-good-to-be-true insurance plan

2012-01-26T12:18:00.000-08:00

No Shelter Here September 2011

By: Lance Wallach

Seems Attractive

Gotcha

Legal Wrangling

Backlash on too-good-to-be-true insurance plan

2012-01-26T12:16:00.001-08:00

No Shelter Here September 2011

By: Lance Wallach

Seems Attractive

Gotcha

Legal Wrangling

2012-01-23T13:28:00.001-08:00

Offshore International Today

IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program Reopens

By Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC

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.

Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams

2012-01-17T11:46:00.000-08:00

Lance Wallach

Nov 12

Parts of this article are from the book published by John Wiley and Sons, Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams, authored by Lance Wallach.

Every financial expert out there knows that bad faith and bad planning can take down even the biggest firms, wiping out millions of dollars of value in an instant. Whether it's internal fraud, a scammer, or an incompetent planner that takes your client's cash, the bottom line is: The money is gone and the loss should have been prevented.

Filled with authoritative advice from financial expert Lance Wallach, Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence, and Scams equips you as an accountant, attorney, or financial planner with the weaponry you need to detect bad investments before they happen and protect your clients' wealth - as well as your own.

Sharp and savvy in its frank, often humorous, and authoritative examination of financial fraud and mismanagement, you'll learn about the dysfunctional sectors in the financial industry and:

Protecting your retirement assets
Asset protection basics
Shifting the risk equation: insurance maneuvers
Reevaluating existing insurance
What financial advisors and insurance agents "forget" to tell their clients
The truth about variable annuities
What you must know about life settlements
The smart way to approach college funding

The news for the past two years has been filled with gloom and dangers: Swindles, Bernie Madoff, rip-offs, and the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. But the party's over, and with that era done, it's more important than ever for you to perform the due diligence on all financial maneuvers affecting the money you oversee and provide your clients with assurance in the form of practical solutions for risk and asset management.

A pragmatic blueprint for identifying trouble spots you can expect and immediately useful solutions, Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence, and Scams equips you with the resources, strategies, and tools you need to effectively protect your clients from frauds and financial scammers.

Herewith is an excerpt from Lance Wallach's book, Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams:

The IRS has been cracking down on what it considers to be abusive tax shelters. Many of them are being marketed to small business owners by insurance professionals, financial planners, and even accountants and attorneys. I speak at numerous conventions, for both business owners and accountants. And after I speak, many people who have questions about tax reduction plans that they have heard about always approach me.

I have been an expert witness in many of these 419 and 412(i) lawsuits and I have not lost one of them. If you sold one or more of these plans, get someone who really knows what they are doing to help you immediately. Many advisors will take your money and claim to be able to help you. Make sure they have experience helping agents that have sold these types of plans. Make sure they have experience helping accountants who signed the tax returns. IRS calls them material advisors and fines them $200,000 if they are incorporated or $100,000 if not. Do not let them learn on the job, with your career and money at stake.

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 or www.taxaudit419.com.

Be Fined by the IRS Under Section 6707A Business Owners in 419, 412i, Section 79 and Captive Insurance Plans Will Probably

2012-01-04T08:45:00.000-08:00

NCCPAP

November Newsletter

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 the taxpayer does not necessarily have to make a contribution or claim a tax deduction to be deemed 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 a taxpayer can also be in trouble if they file incorrectly. I have received numerous phone calls from business owners who filed and still got fined. Not only does
the taxpayer 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 told me that the form was prepared 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
they 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 the deductions
taken in prior years. 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; speaks at more than ten conventions annually; writes for over fifty publications; is quoted regularly in the press; and has been featured on TV and radio financial talk shows. Lance has written numerous books including Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams (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.taxadvisorexperts.org 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.

Lance Wallach
68 Keswick Lane
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.

No Shelter Here, Backlash on too-good-to-be-true insurance plan

2012-01-03T09:08:00.001-08:00

Remodeling Hanley / Wood

September 2011

By: Lance Wallach

During the past few years, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has fined many business owners hundreds of thousands of dollars for participating in several particular types of insurance plans.
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

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, if your accountant does not confidentially inform on you, he or she will get fined $100,000 by the IRS. Further, the IRS can freeze assets if you don’t pay and can fine you on a corporate and a personal level despite the type of business entity you have.

Legal Wrangling

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, lawallach@aol.com or visit www.taxaudit419.com, www.vebaplan.org, www.section79.plan

This article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as specific legal or financial advice.

Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation

2011-12-29T10:07:00.001-08:00

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 Pubic Radio’s All Things Considered, and others. Lance has written numerous books including Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams published by John Wiley and Sons, Bisk Education’s CPA’s Guide to Life Insurance and Federal Estate and Gift Taxation, as well as the AICPA best-selling books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots. He does expert witness testimony and has never lost a case. Contact him at 516.938.5007, wallachinc@gmail.com or visit www.taxadvisorexperts.com.

Don't Become A Material Advisor

2011-12-28T11:46:00.000-08:00

Accounting Today

JULY 1, 2011

BY LANCE WALLACH

Accountants, insurance professionals and others need to be careful that they don’t become
what the IRS calls material advisors.
If they sell or give advice, or sign tax returns for abusive, listed or similar plans; they risk a
minimum $100,000 fine. Their client will then probably sue them after having dealt with the
IRS.

In 2010, the IRS raided the offices of Benistar in Simsbury, Conn., and seized the retirement
benefit plan administration firm’s files and records. In McGehee Family Clinic, the Tax Court
ruled that a clinic and shareholder’s investment in an employee benefit plan marketed
under the name “Benistar” was a listed transaction because it was substantially similar to
the transaction described in Notice 95-34 (1995-1 C.B. 309). This is at least the second
case in which the court has ruled against the Benistar welfare benefit plan, by denominating
it a listed transaction.

The McGehee Family Clinic enrolled in the Benistar Plan in May 2001 and claimed
deductions for contributions to it in 2002 and 2005. The returns did not include a Form
8886, Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement, or similar disclosure. The IRS
disallowed the latter deduction and adjusted the 2004 return of shareholder Robert Prosser
and his wife to include the $50,000 payment to the plan.

The IRS assessed tax deficiencies and the enhanced 30 percent penalty under Section
6662A, totaling almost $21,000, against the clinic and $21,000 against the Prossers. The
court ruled that the Prossers failed to prove a reasonable cause or good faith exception.

In rendering its decision, the court cited Curcio v. Commissioner, in which the court also
ruled in favor of the IRS. As noted in Curcio, the insurance policies, which were
overwhelmingly variable or universal life policies, required large contributions relative to the
cost of the amount of term insurance that would be required to provide the death benefits
under the arrangement. The Benistar Plan owned the insurance contracts. The excessive
cost of providing death benefits was a reason for the court’s finding in Curcio that tax
deductions had been properly disallowed.

As in Curcio, the McGehee court held that the contributions to Benistar were not deductible
under Section 162(a) because the participants could receive the value reflected in the
underlying insurance policies purchased by Benistar—despite the payment of benefits by
Benistar seeming to be contingent upon an unanticipated event (the death of the insured
while employed). As long as plan participants were willing to abide by Benistar’s distribution
policies, there was no reason ever to forfeit a policy to the plan. In fact, in estimating life
insurance rates, the taxpayers’ expert in Curcio assumed that there would be no forfeitures,
even though he admitted that an insurance company would generally assume a reasonable
rate of policy lapse.

Companies should carefully evaluate their proposed investments in plans such as the
Benistar Plan. The claimed deductions will be disallowed, and penalties will be assessed for
lack of disclosure if the investment is similar to the investments described in Notice 95-34,
that is, if the transaction is a listed transaction and Form 8886 is either not filed at all or is
not properly filed. The penalties, though perhaps not as severe, are also imposed for
reportable transactions, which are defined as transactions having the potential for tax
avoidance or evasion.

Insurance agents have been selling such abusive plans since the 1990's. They started as
419A(F)(6) plans and abusive 412i plans. The IRS went after them. They then evolved to
single-employer 419(e) plans, which the IRS also went after. The latest scams may be the
so-called captive insurance plan and the so-called Section 79 plan.

While captive insurance plans are legitimate for large corporations, they are usually not
legitimate for small business owners as a way to obtain a tax deduction. I have not yet seen
a legitimate Section 79 plan. Recently, I have sent some of the plan promoters’ materials
over to my IRS contacts who were very interested in receiving them. Some of my associates
are already trying to help defend some unsuspecting business owners who are being
audited by the IRS with respect to these plans.

Similar, though perhaps not as abusive, plans fail after the IRS goes after them. Niche was
one example. The company first marketed a 419A(F)(6) plan that the IRS audited. They
then marketed a 419(e) plan that the IRS audited. Niche, insurance companies, agents, and
many accountants were then sued after their clients lost their deductions, paid fines,
interest, and penalties, and then paid huge fines for failure to file properly under 6707A.
Niche then went out of business.

Millennium sold 419 plans through insurance companies. They stupidly filed for a private
letter ruling to the effect that they were not a listed transaction. They got exactly the
opposite: a private letter ruling saying that they were a listed transaction. Then many
participants were audited. The IRS disallowed the deductions, imposed penalties and
interest, and then assessed large fines for not filing properly under Section 6707A. The
result was lawsuits against agents, insurance companies and accountants. Millennium
sought bankruptcy protection after a lot of lawsuits.

I have been an expert witness in a lot of the lawsuits in these 419 plans, 412i plans, and the
like, and my side has never lost a case. I have received thousands of phone calls over the
years from business owners, accountants, angry plan promoters, insurance agents, and
other various professionals. In the 1990's, when I started writing for the AICPA and other
publications warning about these abusive plans, most people laughed at me, especially the
plan promoters.

In 2002, when I spoke at the annual national convention of the American Society of Pension
Actuaries in Washington, people took notice. The IRS chief actuary Jim Holland also held a
meeting similar to mine on abusive 412i plans. Many IRS agents attended my meeting. I was
also invited to IRS headquarters, at the request of the acting IRS commissioner, to meet
with high-level IRS officials and Treasury officials to discuss 419 issues in depth, which I did
after the meeting.

The IRS then set up task forces and started going after 419 and 412i plans. I have been
profusely warning accountants to properly file under 6707A to avoid the large fines, but
most do not. Even if they file, if they make a mistake on the forms, the IRS will fine them.
Very few accountants have had experience filing the forms, and the IRS instructions are
complicated and therefore difficult to follow. I only know of two people who have been
successful in properly filing the forms, especially after the fact. If the forms are filled out
incorrectly, they should be amended and corrected Most accountants call me a few years
later when they and their clients get the large fines, either after improperly filling out the
forms or failing to fill them out at all. Unfortunately, by then it is too late. If they don’t call me
then, then they call me when their clients sue them.

Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, abusive tax shelters, financial, international tax, and estate planning. He writes about 412(i), 419, Section79, FBAR, and captive insurance plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually, writes for over fifty publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Pubic Radio’s All Things Considered, and others. Lance has written numerous books including Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams published by John Wiley and Sons, Bisk Education’s CPA’s Guide to Life Insurance and Federal Estate and Gift Taxation, as well as the AICPA best-selling books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots. He does expert witness testimony and has never lost a case. Contact him at 516.938.5007, lawallach@aol.com or visit www.vebaplan.com.

IRS Audits Focus on Captive Insurance Plans April 2011 Edition

2011-12-16T10:43:00.000-08:00

April 2011 Edition

By Lance Wallach

The IRS started auditing § 419 plans in the 1990s, and then continued going after § 412(i) and other plans that they considered abusive, listed, or reportable transactions, or substantially similar to such transactions. If an IRS audit disallows the § 419 plan or the § 412(i) plan, not only does the taxpayer lose the deduction and pay interest and penalties, but then the IRS comes back under IRC 6707A and imposes large fines for not properly filing.

Insurance agents, financial planners and even accountants sold many of these plans. The main motivations for buying into one were large tax deductions. The motivation for the sellers of the plans was the very large life insurance premiums generated. These plans, which were vetted by the insurance companies, put lots of insurance on the books. Some of these plans continue to be sold, even after IRS disallowances and lawsuits against insurance agents, plan promoters and insurance companies.

In a recent tax court case, Curcio v. Commissioner (TC Memo 2010-115), the tax court ruled that an investment in an employee welfare benefit plan marketed under the name “Benistar” was a listed transaction in that the transaction in question was substantially similar to the transaction described in IRS Notice 95-34. A subsequent case, McGehee Family Clinic, largely followed Curcio, though it was technically decided on other grounds. The parties stipulated to be bound by Curcio on the issue of whether the amounts paid by McGehee in connection with the Benistar 419 Plan and Trust were deductible. Curcio did not appear to have been decided yet at the time McGehee was argued. The McGehee opinion (Case No. 10-102, United States Tax Court, September 15, 2010) does contain an exhaustive analysis and discussion of virtually all of the relevant issues.

Taxpayers and their representatives should be aware that the IRS has disallowed deductions for contributions to these arrangements. The IRS is cracking down on small business owners who participate in tax reduction insurance plans and the brokers who sold them. Some of these plans include defined benefit retirement plans, IRAs, or even 401(k) plans with life insurance.

In order to fully grasp the severity of the situation, one must have an understanding of IRS Notice 95-34, which was issued in response to trust arrangements sold to companies that were designed to provide deductible benefits such as life insurance, disability and severance pay benefits. The promoters of these arrangements claimed that all employer contributions were tax-deductible when paid, by relying on the 10-or-more-employer exemption from the IRC § 419 limits. It was claimed that permissible tax deductions were unlimited in amount.

In general, contributions to a welfare benefit fund are not fully deductible when paid. Sections 419 and 419A impose strict limits on the amount of tax-deductible prefunding permitted for contributions to a welfare benefit fund. Section 419A(F)(6) provides an exemption from § 419 and § 419A for certain “10-or-more employers” welfare benefit funds. In general, for this exemption to apply, the fund must have more than one contributing employer, of which no single employer can contribute more than 10 percent of the total contributions, and the plan must not be experience-rated with respect to individual employers.

According to the Notice, these arrangements typically involve an investment in variable life or universal life insurance contracts on the lives of the covered employees. The problem is that the employer contributions are large relative to the cost of the amount of term insurance that would be required to provide the death benefits under the arrangement, and the trust administrator may obtain cash to pay benefits other than death benefits, by such means as cashing in or withdrawing the cash value of the insurance policies. The plans are also often designed so that a particular employer’s contributions or its employees’ benefits may be determined in a way that insulates the employer to a significant extent from the experience of other subscribing employers. In general, the contributions and claimed tax deductions tend to be disproportionate to the economic realities of the arrangements.

Benistar advertised that enrollees should expect to obtain the same type of tax benefits as listed in the transaction described in Notice 95-34. The benefits of enrollment listed in its advertising packet included:

Virtually unlimited deductions for the employer;
Contributions could vary from year to year;
Benefits could be provided to one or more key executives on a selective basis;
No need to provide benefits to rank-and-file employees;
Contributions to the plan were not limited by qualified plan rules and would not interfere with pension, profit sharing or 401(k) plans;
Funds inside the plan would accumulate tax-free;
Beneficiaries could receive death proceeds free of both income tax and estate tax;
The program could be arranged for tax-free distribution at a later date;
Funds in the plan were secure from the hands of creditors.

The Court said that the Benistar Plan was factually similar to the plans described in Notice 95-34 at all relevant times.

In rendering its decision the court heavily cited Curcio, in which the court also ruled in favor of the IRS. As noted in Curcio, the insurance policies, overwhelmingly variable or universal life policies, required large contributions relative to the cost of the amount of term insurance that would be required to provide the death benefits under the arrangement. The Benistar Plan owned the insurance contracts.

Following Curcio, as the Court has stipulated, the Court held that the contributions to Benistar were not deductible under § 162(a) because participants could receive the value reflected in the underlying insurance policies purchased by Benistar—despite the payment of benefits by Benistar seeming to be contingent upon an unanticipated event (the death of the insured while employed). As long as plan participants were willing to abide by Benistar’s distribution policies, there was no reason ever to forfeit a policy to the plan. In fact, in estimating life insurance rates, the taxpayers’ expert in Curcio assumed that there would be no forfeitures, even though he admitted that an insurance company would generally assume a reasonable rate of policy lapses.

The McGehee Family Clinic had enrolled in the Benistar Plan in May 2001 and claimed deductions for contributions to it in 2002 and 2005. The returns did not include a Form 8886, Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement, or similar disclosure.

The IRS disallowed the latter deduction and adjusted the 2004 return of shareholder Robert Prosser and his wife to include the $50,000 payment to the plan. The IRS also assessed tax deficiencies and the enhanced 30 percent penalty totaling almost $21,000 against the clinic and $21,000 against the Prossers. The court ruled that the Prossers failed to prove a reasonable cause or good faith exception.

Other important facts:

In recent years, some § 412(i) plans have been funded with life insurance using face amounts in excess of the maximum death benefit a qualified plan is permitted to pay. Ideally, the plan should limit the proceeds that can be paid as a death benefit in the event of a participant’s death. Excess amounts would revert to the plan. Effective February 13, 2004, the purchase of excessive life insurance in any plan is considered a listed transaction if the face amount of the insurance exceeds the amount that can be issued by $100,000 or more and the employer has deducted the premiums for the insurance.
A 412(i) plan in and of itself is not a listed transaction; however, the IRS has a task force auditing 412(i) plans.
An employer has not engaged in a listed transaction simply because it is a 412(i) plan.
Just because a 412(i) plan was audited and sanctioned for certain items, does not necessarily mean the plan engaged in a listed transaction. Some 412(i) plans have been audited and sanctioned for issues not related to listed transactions.

Companies should carefully evaluate proposed investments in plans such as the Benistar Plan. The claimed deductions will not be available, and penalties will be assessed for lack of disclosure if the investment is similar to the investments described in Notice 95-34. In addition, under IRC 6707A, IRS fines participants a large amount of money for not properly disclosing their participation in listed, reportable or similar transactions; an issue that was not before the tax court in either Curcio or McGehee. The disclosure needs to be made for every year the participant is in a plan. The forms need to be properly filed even for years that no contributions are made. I have received numerous calls from participants who did disclose and still got fined because the forms were not filled in properly. A plan administrator told me that he assisted hundreds of his participants with filing forms, and they still all received very large IRS fines for not properly filling in the forms.

IRS has targeted all 419 welfare benefit plans, many 412(i) retirement plans, captive insurance plans with life insurance in them and Section 79 plans.

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.

Don’t Become a ‘Material Advisor’

2011-12-14T11:01:00.001-08:00

Accounting Today

July 1, 2011

By Lance Wallach

Accountants, insurance professionals and others need to be careful that they don’t become what the IRS calls material advisors.

If they sell or give advice, or sign tax returns for abusive, listed or similar plans; they risk a minimum $100,000 fine. They will then probably be sued by their client, when the IRS finishes with their client
In 2010, the IRS raided the offices of Benistar in Simsbury, Conn., and seized the retirement benefit plan administration firm’s files and records. In McGehee Family Clinic, the Tax Court ruled that a clinic and shareholder’s investment in an employee benefit plan marketed under the name “Benistar” was a listed transaction because it was substantially similar to the transaction described in Notice 95-34 (1995-1 C.B. 309). This is at least the second case in which the court has ruled against the Benistar welfare benefit plan, by denominating it a listed transaction.
The McGehee Family Clinic enrolled in the Benistar Plan in May 2001 and claimed deductions for contributions to it in 2002 and 2005. The returns did not include a Form 8886, Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement, or similar disclosure. The IRS disallowed the latter deduction and adjusted the 2004 return of shareholder Robert Prosser and his wife to include the $50,000 payment to the plan.
The IRS assessed tax deficiencies and the enhanced 30 percent penalty under Section 6662A, totaling almost $21,000, against the clinic and $21,000 against the Prossers. The court ruled that the Prossers failed to prove a reasonable cause or good faith exception.
In rendering its decision, the court cited Curcio v. Commissioner, in which the court also ruled in favor of the IRS. As noted in Curcio, the insurance policies, which were overwhelmingly variable or universal life policies, required large contributions relative to the cost of the amount of term insurance that would be required to provide the death benefits under the arrangement. The Benistar Plan owned the insurance contracts. The excessive cost of providing death benefits was a reason for the court’s finding in Curcio that tax deductions had been properly disallowed.
As in Curcio, the McGehee court held that the contributions to Benistar were not deductible under Section 162(a) because the participants could receive the value reflected in the underlying insurance policies purchased by Benistar—despite the payment of benefits by Benistar seeming to be contingent upon an unanticipated event (the death of the insured while employed). As long as plan participants were willing to abide by Benistar’s distribution policies, there was no reason ever to forfeit a policy to the plan. In fact, in estimating life insurance rates, the taxpayers’ expert in Curcio assumed that there would be no forfeitures, even though he admitted that an insurance company would generally assume a reasonable rate of policy lapse.
Companies should carefully evaluate their proposed investments in plans such as the Benistar Plan. The claimed deductions will be disallowed, and penalties will be assessed for lack of disclosure if the investment is similar to the investments described in Notice 95-34, that is, if the transaction is a listed transaction and Form 8886 is either not filed at all or is not properly filed. The penalties, though perhaps not as severe, are also imposed for reportable transactions, which are defined as transactions having the potential for tax avoidance or evasion.
Insurance agents have been selling such abusive plans since the 1990's. They started as 419A(F)(6) plans and abusive 412i plans. The IRS went after them. They then evolved to single-employer 419(e) plans, which the IRS also went after. The latest scams may be the so-called captive insurance plan and the so called Section 79 plan.
While captive insurance plans are legitimate for large corporations, they are usually not legitimate for small business owners as a way to obtain a tax deduction. I have not yet seen a legitimate Section 79 plan. Recently, I have sent some of the plan promoters’ materials over to my IRS contacts, who were very interested in receiving them. Some of my associates are already trying to help defend some unsuspecting business owners who are being audited by the IRS with respect to these plans.
Similar, though perhaps not as abusive, plans fail after the IRS goes after them. Niche was one example. The company first marketed a 419A(F)(6) plan that the IRS audited. They then marketed a 419(e) plan that the IRS audited. Niche, insurance companies, agents, and many accountants were then sued after their clients lost their deductions, paid fines, interest, and penalties, and then paid huge fines for failure to file properly under 6707A. Niche then went out of business.
Millennium sold 419A(F)(6) plans and then 419(e) plans through insurance companies. They stupidly filed for a private letter ruling to the effect that they were not a listed transaction. They got exactly the opposite: a private letter ruling saying that they were a listed transaction. Then many participants were audited. The IRS disallowed the deductions, imposed penalties and interest, and then assessed large fines for not filing properly under Section 6707A. The result was lawsuits against agents, insurance companies and accountants. Millennium sought bankruptcy protection after a lot of lawsuits.
I have been an expert witness in a lot of the lawsuits in these 419, 412i, etc., plans, and my side has never lost a case. I have received thousands of phone calls over the years from business owners, accountants, angry plan promoters, insurance agents, etc. In the 1990's, when I started writing for the AICPA and other publications warning about these abusive plans, most people laughed at me, especially the plan promoters.
In 2002, when I spoke at the annual national convention of the American Society of Pension Actuaries in Washington, people took notice. The IRS chief actuary Jim Holland also held a meeting, similar to mine on abusive 412i plans. Many IRS agents attended my meeting. I was also invited to IRS headquarters, at the request of the acting IRS commissioner, to meet with high-level IRS officials and Treasury officials to discuss 419 issues in depth, which I did after the meeting.
The IRS then set up task forces and started going after 419 and 412i plans. I have been warning accontants to properly file under 6707A to avoid the large fines, but most do not. Even if they file, if they make a mistake on the forms the IRS fines. Very few accountants have had experience filing the forms, and the IRS instructions are difficult to follow. I only know of two people who have been successful in properly filing the forms, especially after the fact. If the forms are filled out wrong they should be amended and corrected Most accountants call me a few years later when they and their clients get the large fines, either after improperly filling out the forms or not doing them at all, but then it is too late. If they don’t call me then, then they call me when their clients sue them.

Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, abusive tax shelters, financial, international tax, and estate planning. He writes about 412(i), 419, Section79, FBAR, and captive insurance plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually, writes for over fifty publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Pubic Radio’s All Things Considered, and others. Lance has written numerous books including Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams published by John Wiley and Sons, Bisk Education’s CPA’s Guide to Life Insurance and Federal Estate and Gift Taxation, as well as the AICPA best-selling books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots. He does expert witness testimony and has never lost a case. Contact him at 516.938.5007, lawallach@aol.com or visit www.vebaplan.com.

Re-entering The Tax System

2011-08-25T10:07:00.001-07:00

Taxlanta.org July 2011

by Lance Wallach

Taxpayers who have failed to file federal tax returns for three years or more and owe more than $75,000 in tax should find this section particularly interesting. (i.e., pure tax ― no interest, no penalties).

Rule No. 1:

Under no circumstances should you attempt to re-enter the tax system on your own. Tax evasion, failing to file a timely tax return, and perjury are very serious tax crimes, and one mistake can send you to federal prison for a very long time. Your voluntary admission of a tax crime is similar to Pandora’s box; once the lid has been opened there is nothing you can do to get it closed again. The biggest mistake that most people make is hiring advisors that do not specialize in failure-to-file cases and have little or no knowledge of the IRS/Criminal Investigation Division (IRS/CID) procedures and criminal-tax violations.

Rule No. 2

Under no circumstance should you assume that the IRS/CID and the U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) will grant you immunity from prosecution simply because you volunteered to come forward, bare your soul, and beg for forgiveness. The IRS terminated its guaranteed non-prosecution policy for voluntary disclosure of tax crimes in 1961. If you have not filed federal tax returns for three years or more and owe more than $75,000 in back taxes, then you will likely receive a visit from the IRS/CID six to eighteen months after you file your delinquent tax returns. The “reward” you get for filing true and correct delinquent tax returns is that you may be able to avoid additional perjury charges. But you will still have to pay a very large tax liability, which will include interest and a whopping 75% civil tax fraud penalty. Your full disclosure will be appreciated, and under current IRS guidelines you “may” avoid criminal prosecution only if you pay the entire amount due.

Call our office today for a free 3-5 minute consultation with Lance Wallach, the nation’s foremost tax expert, or visit www.experttaxadvisors.org.

Rule No. 3

You must hire the best tax advisors that money can buy. Preferably you will want someone with at least 23 years experience handling failure-to-file cases before the IRS, and preferably this same person will have experience as a former IRS Special Agent. That’s where we come in.

Last year I received over a thousand phone calls from business owners, accountants and other professionals who were in trouble with the IRS over a recent large fine. If you were in what the IRS considers an abusive, listed or similar to transaction, you face a hundred thousand dollar IRS fine under IRS code 6707A. The IRS is attacking thousands of people for either being in, selling, or advising about, various types of plans, which are primarily marketed by insurance professionals.

If you are or were in a 412i, 419, captive insurance, or section 79 plan, you should immediately file under 6707A protectively. If you have already filed you should find someone who knows what he is doing to review the forms. I only know of two people who know how to properly file. The IRS instructions are vague. If a taxpayer files wrong, or fills out the forms wrong he still gets the fine. I have had hundreds of phone calls from people in that situation.

Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, financial and estate planning, and abusive tax shelters. He writes about 412(i), 419, and captive insurance plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually, writes for over fifty publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Pubic Radio’s All Things Considered, and others. Lance has written numerous books including Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams published by John Wiley and Sons, Bisk Education’s CPA’s Guide to Life Insurance and Federal Estate and Gift Taxation, as well as AICPA best-selling books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots. He does expert witness testimony and has never lost a case. Contact him at 516.938.5007, wallachinc@gmail.com or visit www.taxadvisorexpert.com.

Bad Broker or Bad Luck?

2011-08-23T08:35:00.000-07:00

Legal.com July 2011

By Lance Wallach

You’ve lost money in the market—maybe a substantial amount. Money you thought could be used to plan your future or maybe put your kids through school is now gone. You’re hurt, you’re angry, and we understand. Can you sue your broker, fund manager, or financial advisor? It depends.

The Big Question: Were You a Victim of Fraud or the Market? The big question is whether your broker did anything illegal. You can only sue if what your broker did was beyond just “bad” in the sense of “unfortunate” or even “awful.” Instead, there must have been actual wrongdoing.

Losing money in today’s bad market does not in and of itself give you the right to sue. Sometimes it is just bad luck. After all, investing — even in blue chip investments – carries risks, and the main risk is that the value of your investment could decline. What if your broker gave you bad advice? Again, it will depend on “how bad” the advice was. If your broker recommended investments that were in line with your investor profile and those recommendations were reasonable based on everything your broker knew or should have known, then no – you cannot sue. Well, what kind of bad behavior does leave them liable, you ask? Basically, there are four kinds of bad behavior that may give you the right to sue:

1. Lying or misrepresenting claims;
2. Your broker acting in his interests, not yours, by means of, among others, misrepresentation, churning, unsuitability, and lack of diversification;
3. Not following instructions including claims of unsuitability, lack of diversification, and breach of contract; and,
4. Unreasonable carelessness, like claims of breach of duty and negligence.

Call our office today for a free 3-5 minute consultation with Lance Wallach, the nation’s foremost expert on financial advising, or visit www.financeexperts.org.

There are a number of different claims that can come out of these types of bad behavior, but fundamentally, if your broker didn’t do one or more of these things, there is no claim. To put it another way: if your broker followed your instructions, was always honest with you, and was reasonably careful, then you cannot sue him – even if his advice or your investments went horribly wrong.

So before suing or filing the paperwork for arbitration, take a deep breath and ask yourself if your broker lied, ignored instructions, or was unreasonably careless by putting his own needs and interests instead of yours. If you find yourself answering no to more than a few of these questions, then, sadly, your broker probably acted with the best intentions, and based on what he reasonably knew at the time, there is no liability.

You will notice that we did not answer the question, “What if my broker stole or embezzled money from my account?” That is because the answer is simple – sue them and report them to law enforcement. Theft is theft, whether it’s by your broker, a guy on a street corner with a gun, or that cousin you never really trusted. For example, two common criminal schemes involving investments and securities are the Ponzi scheme and the pyrimad scheme, though these tend to be complex and hidden. Sometimes theft is simpler. But the short answer is that theft is always actionable. For help with this or if you are still not sure, contact our offices today. As an expert witness, my side has never lost a case. I work with attorneys who will usually take these cases on a contingent basis, and who, more importantly, often obtain great results.

Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, financial and estate planning, and abusive tax shelters. He writes about 412(i), 419, and captive insurance plans. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually, writes for over fifty publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Pubic Radio’s All Things Considered, and others. Lance has written numerous books including Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams published by John Wiley and Sons, Bisk Education’s CPA’s Guide to Life Insurance and Federal Estate and Gift Taxation, as well as AICPA best-selling books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots. He does expert witness testimony and has never lost a case. Contact him at 516.938.5007, wallachinc@gmail.com or visit www.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.

IRS Auditing 412i, 419e Plans

2011-08-16T11:04:00.002-07:00

Plan Administrator Frustrated With IRS Attacks on 412i, 412e Plans

IRS Auditing 412(i) Plans

The Team Approach to Tax, Financial and Estate Planning

2011-08-12T09:44:00.000-07:00

by Lance Wallach

CPAs are the best and most qualified professionals when it comes to serving their clients needs, but they need to know when and how to coordinate with other experts.

Over the last twenty years we have worked with thousands of practitioners who have decided to add financial services to their practices. They do it for a variety of reasons, but the most common are as follows:

*They don’t want to refer their client elsewhere when they request financial services.

* They want to remain competitive.

*They want to diversify and increase their revenue as opposed to depending solely on tax and accounting revenue.

While helping these professionals add planning and investment services to their core offerings, we have found that they achieve four main benefits after doing so:

1. They are more satisfied with their work.

2. Their clients are more satisfied because they can work with someone they trust to meet financial goals.

3. Their clients give them more referrals.

4. Their incomes increase.

We believe that CPAs are the most appropriate--and perhaps the only--professionals who can provide comprehensive financial services to clients because they understand their clients' tax and financial situations. Their clients trust these practitioners to provide professional advice that is in their best interest. In fact, we believe that tax professionals have an obligation and responsibility to advise their clients, and clients expect their professionals to advise them in these important areas.

With a combination of never-ending tax reform, the Tax Code's significant and complex changes, and the market volatility we've experienced over the past few years, clients need guidance more than ever. Practitioners who provide financial planning and investment advisory services are in a position to advise and assist their clients with these issues.

Practitioners just starting out in this arena may not possess the myriad skill sets and substantive knowledge required to embark on new business ventures.

CPAs who don't have all of the necessary talent in-house may find it easier to associate themselves with strategic "partners" who can provide the proper skill sets, training, technology, support and turnkey solutions in their specialized disciplines and niches, to help identify and meet their clients' financial goals.

Adapted from "The Team Approach to Tax, Financial & Estate Planning," edited by Lance Wallach, with chapters by Katharine Gratwick Baker, Fredda Herz Brown, Dr. Stanly J. Feldman, Ira Kaplan, Joseph W. Maczuga, Roger E. Nauheimer, Roger C. Ochs, Matthew J. O'Connor, Richard Preston, Steve Riley, Carl Lloyd Sheeler, Peter Spero, Paul J. Williams, and Roger M. Winsby. Product 017235.

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.

Reduce Other Post-Employment Benefits Liability with a VEBA

2008-07-31T10:33:00.000-07:00

Accounting Today
June 16, 2008

By Lance Wallach

Other Post-Employment Benefits

In 1994, the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) established standards for public employee pension plans. Government and public employers have to report and account for pension benefits costs.

However, until recent years, there was no such standard in place for other post-employment benefits (OPEBs) for state and local government workers.

Private sector employers have been required to report OPEBs for over 15 years under the FASB Standards106/158.

Government and public sector employers have been required to report OPEBs since August 2004 after the issuance of GASB Statement 45. This means that all government employers must now keep their promise of providing retiree benefits. They need to be calculated accurately, accrued during the employee’s years of work with the employer, and recognized as a financial obligation as OPEB costs. These costs are to be reported on financial statements of large public sector employers beginning with the first financial report period after December 15, 2006, and on small employers beginning in 2008.

The intent of GASB 45 was to bring government and public accounting standards into line with private company standards. This requires reporting pensions as well as non-pension post-employment benefits. As the name states, OPEBs are benefits other than pensions. Many state and local governments, public schools, public universities and other public and government agencies provide post-employment benefits that are non-pension-related. These benefits can include health care benefits including vision, dental, prescription and health insurance; life insurance; legal benefits and other non-pension-related work benefits.

Until these changes were put in place with GASB 45 and enforced, readers of government and public financial statements had incomplete information on the costs of services provided by state and local governments and public employers, and were therefore unable to analyze the financial position and long-term health of these government and public agencies.

OPEB Cost

Actuarial calculations are used to derive the OPEB cost. In order to keep the calculations up to date, they must be recalculated every two to three years depending on the size of the employer. For example, employers with less than 100 employees can use a simplified alternative method for measuring the OPEB cost, but these employers still need to re-evaluate and re-assess every three years. The costs and obligations for post-employment benefits are determined using the actuarial present value of the post-employment benefits - in other words, the present value on term of service and the terms of the OPEB plan that are presently in place.

There are assumptions that are made in the actuarial evaluations. They include:

· Healthcare cost factors: age, industry, family, geography, gender.
· Expected long-term and/or short term rate of return on plan assets.
· Projected salary scale.
· Death rates.
· Projected inflation of medical care costs.
· Employee turnover rate.
· Retirement rates; this can vary extensively from year to year.
· Any promises made to retirees.
· Discounts or benefits designed into the plan.

After the actuarial evaluations are completed, each employee gains a different attribution period, which is based on their period of eligibility – date of hire to date of full eligibility (i.e. retirement). With all this said, GASB only requires that employers report OPEBs; employers are not required or even obligated to fund the OPEB cost. However, not doing so can affect significantly an employer’s credit rating and cost of issuing debt financing.

The largest OPEB cost for an employer is health care benefits. The majority of public sector employers, with more than 200 employees, offer some form of post-employment health benefits. Unfortunately, with the uncontrollable increases in health care costs happening annually, and severe budget cuts being put in place across nearly all public and government agencies, the continuing use of “pay-as-you-go” will become more difficult and create new financial liabilities for employers. Add to this state laws that require employers to allow retirees to remain on the active health plan until Medicare steps in, and the reduction in federal and state subsidies, and employers are struggling to subsidize the gap between the blended plan cost (active employees and retirees) and the actual retiree cost. Even if the employer is not contributing to the retiree health care plan, this amount adds additional liability.

In December 2004, a report from Standard and Poor’s, stated that: “The new [GASB 45] reporting may reveal cases in which the actuarial funding of post-employment health benefits would seriously strain operations, or, further, may uncover conditions under which employers are unable or unwilling to fulfill these obligations. In such cases, these liabilities may adversely affect the employer's creditworthiness. All Standard & Poor's rated employers will be monitored closely in terms of their reporting under GASB 45. Upon implementation of these new standards, we will include the new information as part of our ongoing analytical surveillance of ratings."

The following year, in June 2005, Fitch Ratings released its report, saying: “Fitch's credit focus will be on understanding each issuer's [GASB 45] liability and its plans for addressing it. Fitch also will review an entity's reasoning for developing its plan. An absence of action taken to fund OPEB liabilities or otherwise manage them will be viewed as a negative rating factor. Steady progress toward reaching the actuarially determined annual contribution level will be critical to sound credit quality."

Everyone is working towards a solution that will benefit both employers and employees. But it takes constant monitoring by both employers and employees.

However, one solution that could benefit everyone is considering a VEBA plan.

Benefits of a VEBA plan

VEBAs have been successfully established to help reduce health costs and establish financially sound OPEB plans that have proven to be both efficient and effective. The VEBA can help employers develop strategies that can lower their liabilities. Many private sector employers have benefited from the introduction and use of a VEBA for their OPEB plan.

A well designed GASB 45 OPEB involves many different risk management strategies and funding techniques. Any benefit promise made by an employer should be partially or fully funded in a qualified trust to enable actuaries the use of long-term discount rates during the calculations. One approach to this funding source could be issuing OPEB obligation bonds or finance pools. The employer can then successfully take these finance strategies and blend a defined-benefit approach with a defined-contribution strategy to create a successfully managed OPEB plan with reduced liabilities. These two basic forms of post-employment benefit plans specify either the amount of benefits to be provided to an employee at the end of their employment period, or stipulate only the amount to be contributed by the employer to a member’s account for each year of active employment.

A defined-benefit OPEB plan is where the terms are specified and the benefits provided from the time of retirement or other employment separation. These benefits can be dollar-specific or the type/level of coverage - for example, a dollar payment based on a flat rate or years of service, or defined medical coverage, prescription drugs or a percentage of the premiums. Unfortunately, the defined benefit OPEB plan is complicated where the reporting makes assumptions on future medical costs, mortality rates, the availability of Medicare, and the probability of future events.

A defined-contribution OPEB plan considers the individual. It takes into account individual contributions while active, rather than the benefits the beneficiaries are to receive post-employment. Benefits for the defined-contribution plan consist of contributions, earnings on investments of these contributions, and forfeitures on the member’s account. This makes the plan easier to report on, but does not specify the amount of benefits received by the employee after retirement.

GASB accrual standards only apply to defined-benefit OPEB plans. Defined contributions are considered “funded,” as the employer cost equals the required contribution. Therefore, changing the way retiree healthcare and other post-employment benefits are paid can lower or even eliminate the unfunded other post-employment benefits liability.

Now that the public sector and government agencies have to report other post-employment benefits, the VEBA can establish the best plan for the least liability for employers. State and local governments and public services can look at the private sector and see the benefits it has gained from using VEBAs. They can see how it can help soften the financial impact of the new, significant reporting obligation.

Lance Wallach is a frequent speaker at national conventions and writes for more than 50 publications. He was the National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year. Lance welcomes your contact. Email - lawallach@aol.com or call 516-938-5007 for more info.

DISCLAIMER: 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.