Showing posts with label 412i. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 412i. Show all posts

IRS Audits Focus on Captive Insurance Plans

IRS Audits 419, 412i, Captive Insurance Plans With Life Insurance, and Section 79 Scams
By Lance Wallach                                                                                          June 2011


The IRS started auditing 419 plans in the ‘90s, and then continued going after 412i and other plans that they considered abusive, listed, or reportable transactions, or substantially similar to such transactions.

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 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 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 Service 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 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 Section 419 and Section 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% 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.

The 419 plan 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 419 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 419 Plan owned the insurance contracts.

The McGehee Family Clinic had enrolled in the 419 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% 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.


More you should know:

In recent years, some section 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 412i 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 419 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 file forms, and they still all received very large IRS fines for not properly filling in the forms.

IRS has been attacking all 419 welfare benefit plans, many 412i 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 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.


IRS Attacks Business Owners in 419, 412, Section 79 and Captive Insurance Plans Under Section 6707A

Massachusetts Society of Certified Public Accountants, Inc.
Winter 2010

By Lance Wallach

Taxpayers who previously adopted 419, 412i, captive
insurance or Section 79 plans are in big trouble.


In recent years, the IRS has identified many of these arrangements as abusive devices to funnel tax deductible dollars to shareholders and classified these arrangements as listed transactions." These plans were sold by insurance agents, financial planners, accountants and attorneys seeking large life insurance commissions. In general, taxpayers who engage in a “listed transaction” must report such transaction to the IRS on Form 8886 every year that they “participate” in the transaction, and you do not necessarily have to make a contribution or claim a tax deduction to participate. Section 6707A of the Code imposes severe penalties for failure to file Form 8886 with respect to a listed transaction. But you are also in trouble if you file incorrectly. I have received numerous phone calls from business owners who filed and still got fined. Not only do you have to file Form 8886, but it also has to be prepared correctly. I only know of two people in the U.S. who have filed these forms properly for clients. They tell me that was after hundreds of hours of research and over 50 phones calls to various IRS personnel. The filing instructions for Form 8886 presume a timely filling. Most people file late and follow the directions for currently preparing the forms. Then the IRS fines the business owner. The tax court does not have jurisdiction to abate or lower such penalties imposed by the IRS.

"Many taxpayers who are no longer taking current tax deductions for these plans continue to enjoy the benefit of previous tax deductions by continuing the deferral of income from contributions and deductions taken in prior years."

Many business owners adopted 412i, 419, captive insurance and Section 79 plans based upon representations provided by insurance professionals that the plans were legitimate plans and were not informed that they were engaging in a listed transaction. Upon audit, these taxpayers were shocked when the IRS asserted penalties under Section 6707A of the Code in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Numerous complaints from these taxpayers caused Congress to impose a moratorium on assessment of Section 6707A penalties.

The moratorium on IRS fines expired on June 1, 2010. The IRS immediately started sending out notices proposing the imposition of Section 6707A penalties along with requests for lengthy extensions of the Statute of Limitations for the purpose of assessing tax. Many of these taxpayers stopped taking deductions for contributions to these plans years ago, and are confused and upset by the IRS’s inquiry, especially when the taxpayer had previously reached a monetary settlement with the IRS regarding its deductions. Logic and common sense dictate that a penalty should not apply if the taxpayer no longer benefits from the arrangement. Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.6011-4(c)(3)(i) provides that a taxpayer has participated in a listed transaction if the taxpayer’s tax return reflects tax consequences or a tax strategy described in the published guidance identifying the transaction as a listed transaction or a transaction that is the same or substantially similar to a listed transaction.

Clearly, the primary benefit in the participation of these plans is the large tax deduction generated by such participation. Many taxpayers who are no longer taking current tax deductions for these plans continue to enjoy the benefit of previous tax deductions by continuing the deferral of income from contributions and deductions taken in prior years. While the regulations do not expand on what constitutes “reflecting the tax consequences of the strategy,” it could be argued that continued benefit from a tax deferral for a previous tax deduction is within the contemplation of a “tax consequence” of the plan strategy. Also, many taxpayers who no longer make contributions or claim tax deductions continue to pay administrative fees. Sometimes, money is taken from the plan to pay premiums to keep life insurance policies in force. In these ways, it could be argued that these taxpayers are still “contributing,” and thus still must file Form 8886.

It is clear that the extent to which a taxpayer benefits from the transaction depends on the purpose of a particular transaction as described in the published guidance that caused such transaction to be a listed transaction. Revenue Ruling 2004-20, which classifies 419(e) transactions, appears to be concerned with the employer’s contribution/deduction amount rather than the continued deferral of the income in previous years. Another important issue is that the IRS has called CPAs material advisors if they signed tax returns containing the plan, and got paid a certain amount of money for tax advice on the plan. The fine is $100,000 for the CPA, or $200,000 if the CPA is incorporated. To avoid the fine, the CPA has to properly file Form 8918.

Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals, Wallach is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, financial and estate planning, and abusive tax shelters. He is also a featured writer and has been interviewed on television and financial talk shows including NBC, National Pubic Radio’s All Things Considered and others. Lance authored 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.

Contact him at:
516.938.5007,
wallachinc@gmail.com, or
www.taxadvisorexperts.org, or
www.taxlibrary.us

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 Attacks Retirement Plans, 412(i)

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.
September 24, 2010

Muhammad Ali: Superman don’t need no seat belt.
Flight Attendant: Superman don’t need no plane, neither
.

A 412(e)(3) plan (formerly known as a 412(i) plan), or a 401(k) plan, may be the proper fit for your business and investment strategy, but the IRS will be watching carefully how you form and operate your plan. We discuss the pluses and minuses of these plans further on in the book but warn you up front that cash-hungry IRS can scrutinize the legitimacy of any of these pension planning methods. It is essential to use the tools, advice, and strategy of competent tax and investment strategists.

The odds are stacked against the average investor, it seems. The opposite is true, however—if the average investor is willing to educate himself and team up with ethical professionals who have weathered this storm, and will weather the next one, too.

One thing is certain, though; when the Government is teetering toward insolvency, it will seek to make up lost revenues. Over the next 12 months, the Small Business and Self-Employed Division (SB/SE) of the Internal Revenue Service will focus on taxpayer services and increased enforcement. SB/SE owns the majority of the tax gap: to wit, the difference between what is due and what is actually received. Enforcement is a necessary presence when you are talking about tax administration. Let us review a cautionary tale regarding the methods it can utilize.

Bruce Hink, who has given me permission to utilize his name and circumstances, is a perfect example of what the IRS is doing to unsuspecting business owners. What follows is a story about Bruce Hink and how the IRS fined him $200,000 a year for being in what they called “a listed transaction.” In addition, I believe that the accountant who signed the tax return and the insurance agent who sold the retirement plan will each be fined $200,000 as material advisors. We have received a large number of calls for help from accountants, business owners, and insurance agents in similar situations. Don’t think this will not happen to you. It is happening to a lot of accountants and business owners, because these so-called listed, abusive plans, or substantially similar plans, are currently being sold by most insurance agents.

Bruce was a small business owner facing $400,000 in IRS penalties for 2004 and 2005 for his 412(i) plan. These penalties were imposed under Section 6707A of the Internal Revenue Code, which authorizes penalties of up to $200,000 per year simply for failing to disclose participation in what the Service deems a listed transaction. Here is how the story developed.

In 2002, an insurance agent representing a century old, well-established insurance company suggested he start a pension plan. Bruce was given a portfolio of information from the insurance company, which was given to the company’s outside CPA to review and to offer an opinion. The CPA gave the plan the green light and the plan was started for tax year 2002.

Contributions were made in 2003. Then the administrator came out with amendments to the plan, based on new IRS guidelines, in October 2004.

The business owner’s agent disappeared in May 2005 before implementing the new guidelines from the administrator with the insurance company. The business owner was left with a refund check from the insurance company, a deduction claim on his 2004 tax return that had not been applied, and without an agent.

It took six months of making calls to the insurance company to get a new insurance agent assigned. By then, the IRS had started an examination of the pension plan. Bruce asked for advice from the CPA and a local attorney (who had no previous experience in such cases), which made matters worse, with a “big name” law firm being recommended and more than $30,000 in additional legal fees being billed in three months.

To make a long story short, the audit stretched on for more than two years to examine a two year old pension with four participants and $178,000 in contributions.

During the audit, no funds went to the insurance company. The company was awaiting IRS approval on restructuring the plan as a traditional defined benefit plan, which the administrator had suggested, and which IRS had indicated would be acceptable. The $90,000 2005 contribution was put into the company’s retirement bank account along with the 2004 contribution.

In March 2008, the business owner received an apology from the IRS agent that headed the examination. Even this sympathetic IRS agent thinks there is a problem with the IRS enforcement of these Draconian penalties. Below is one of her e-mails to the business owner, who was fined $400,000.

From: xxxxxxxx xxxxx
Date: Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:12 AM
Subject: RE: Urgent
To: Bruce Hink
Thanks Bruce - yes - please just overnight them to the Grand Rapids address. Once again, I’m sorry about this. Basically, our Counsel told us that we needed language specific to the IRC 6707A penalty in order for that statute to be extended. I will ask the Reviewer to hold off an extra day.
I’m also very sorry that this is getting you down. Deeply sorry. It’s very difficult for me as well - before I started working this project (412(i)) I was doing audits of 401(k) and profit sharing plans. If there was an error in the plan, the employer would just fix it and the audit was over. There wasn’t anything controversial or adversarial about it - and I felt like I was helping people - employers and plan participants. I really liked my job. In two years’ time, that has completely changed. I know it’s not very “professional” to make such confessions - so forgive me. But I guess I just wanted you to know that I really sympathize with your situation - and have been doing whatever I can to help. I know that having this hanging over your head can’t be fun - but as this project goes forward - I think that the IRS is going to have to soften their position somewhat - so these delays may be to your benefit.
Also, I’m not really supposed to be sending emails to you - but when I went through the file I couldn’t find a good phone number for you. Could you just send me a note or an email with a current phone number?
Looking to receive the signed 872s on Thursday. If you have any questions at any time - please call me at xxx-xxx-xxxx. I’m usually in the office in the mornings.


The IRS subsequently denied any appeal and ruled in October 2008 that the $400,000 penalty would stand.

Tax and Finance Articles - 419, 412i, tax shelters

Tax and Finance Articles - 419, 412i, tax shelters

IRS Attacks Business Owners, Accountants, Lawsuits over 412(i)/419 and Similar Insurance Based Plans By Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC


A 412(i) plan is a “defined benefit plan” – a retirement plan, a pension plan that claims to offer very large tax deductions. It is funded with annuity and life insurance products.

Late 1990's/early 2000's, agents sold life insurance, and annuity policies to fund such plans. 

Type of policy typically had high surrender charges, depressed cash value in early years - premiums paid by employer

After premiums funded for a few years, employee purchases policy for the current depressed cash surrender value

After policy purchased, surrender charges dramatically reduced, cash value “springs” to a high level 

Employee could then borrow from high value policy for tax-free cash flow. They were called springing cash value policies.

Not all policies were of that type.

In 1995 IRS issued IRS notice 9534 warning that they would come after 419 plans. In 2004/2005, IRS began investigating and issued regulations deeming such plans as abusive tax shelters - began nationwide audits of such plans. 

Plaintiffs in these matters are typically professional groups (doctors, dentists, small business owners) audited by the IRS - plans deemed abusive tax shelters – subject to substantial fees and penalties. Participants must file under IRS 6707A to avoid additional large fines. Material advisors, people that sold the plans and accountants that gave tax advice and got paid also get fined a minimum of $100,000 if they do not properly file and tell on their client.

Professionals then file suit against insurance companies and agents claiming they were misled in the sale of these plans and policies. 

Allegations typically: 

defendants represented that policies used to fund plans would be valid and subject to favorable future tax consequences

To Date - Mixed Results for Carriers:

1. Breach of contract 

Claim dismissed - contract never promised to satisfy § 412 requirements, specifically stated that it did not guarantee any future tax consequences. Zarrella v. Pacific Life, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (S.D. FL March 29, 2011) (Florida law) 

Claim allowed to proceed - allegations pled existence of written and oral contracts promising tax benefits. Chau v. Aviva Life, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54828 (N.D. Tex May 20, 2011) (applying Washington law).

2. Negligence 

Claim dismissed because carrier is under no duty to advise its insured’s regarding tax consequences of transactions. Zarrella v. Pacific Life, (S.D. FL March 29, 2011).

3. Fraud/Misrepresentation 

A. Future statements: 

alleged misrepresentations made before the IRS pronouncements calling into question tax benefits of the various plans generally dismissed on grounds: 

(i) statements were not false when made, or 

(ii) statements were mere opinions or predictions that are not actionable. 

Berry v. Indianapolis Life, 608 F. Supp. 2d 785 (N.D. Tex. 2009, August 26, 2010) 

Zarrella v. Pacific Life, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (S.D. FL March 29, 2011) 

Chau v. Aviva Life, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54828 (N.D. Tex May 20, 2011) 

Courts generally determine that statements made by agents prior to 2004/2005 are “forward-looking” statements or “opinions” and that “as a matter of law, any representation or prediction by any alleged agent as to how the IRS would treat the 412(i) plans and finding thereof in the future is either an unactionable opinion or was unjustifiably relied upon.” Berry v. Indianapolis Life 

To Date - Mixed Results for Carriers:

B. “Disclaimer of Reliance” defense – results mixed 

Typically, in the plan documents, participant agrees he is not relying on carrier’s representations regarding the validity of the plan or its tax benefits - instead relying on own independent tax advisor

Cal. law – signed disclosure statements by plaintiffs preclude reasonable reliance on representations as a matter of law - claim dismissed. 

Berry v. Indianapolis Life 

Omni Home v. Hartford Life, 2008 Dist. LEXIS 35259 (S.D. Cal. April 29, 2008). 

Texas and Wisconsin law – disclosure documents do not preclude reliance as a matter of law. Berry v. Indianapolis Life

To date, success in dismissing claims depends upon the different courts, and applicable governing law.

Note: If alleged misrepresentations made after applicable IRS pronouncement, then representations are not predictions or opinions, but rather statements regarding the existing state of the law – probably allowed to proceed.


Source Here

Lance Wallach on 419, 412i, and more

Captive Insurance Plans, Want to Get Audited? - HG.org

Captive Insurance Plans, Want to Get Audited? - HG.org

The insurance industry have been conjuring ways to make life insurance premiums tax deductible. Over the years we have seen many schemes that have failed IRS scrutiny. Welfare benefit plans set up under I.R.C. section 419, 412(e) plans and Producer Owned Reinsurance Companies (PORCs) are all common examples.

When one scheme fails it isn’t long before a resourceful promoter comes up with a different product. Inevitably promoters find some lawyer or accountant to draft a favorable opinion letter and a new industry is born. In a few years, however, the IRS catches up and declares the arrangement to be a listed transaction and abusive tax shelter. As an expert witness I have never lost a case in this field. It is easy to beat the deep pockets of the insurance companies who provide product to these plans. Even though they have business owners sign fraudulent disclaimers saying that the owners will get their own tax advice. These disclaimers are then used when the inevitable happens, the IRS audits and the business owner sues the insurance company.

The latest entries seeking to find a way to make life insurance premiums deductible is a small business captive insurance company or CIC.

No Shelter Here: Beware of These Insurance Plans | Remodeling

No Shelter Here: Beware of These Insurance Plans | Remodeling

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.

The Irrevocable Trust Cash Release Program

The Irrevocable Trust Cash Release Program


     By Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC 


Through a special program, created by Money Watch Consultants Inc., called The Irrevocable Trust Cash Release Program, funds from the insured’s irrevocable trust can be released and made available to pay for long term care, in a facility or at home. And this care can even be provided by a family member.

The amounts of funds that can be made available are typically a vast multiple of the funds currently in the trust. Despite the leveraging, due to the unique structuring of the program, the funds in excess of the initial deposits, and prior to the death of the insured, are received by the trust, and paid out of the trust, on a tax free basis.



This program has recently attracted a lot of attention because Congress has just extended estate tax exemptions to 5 million dollars for individuals and 10 million dollars for married couples. Thus many people who have set up and funded various irrevocable trusts in order to pay their estate taxes, feel that they are no longer needed.



This program gives them the ability to dramatically leverage these funds to pay for health care that they anticipate may eventually be required, without worrying about liquidating assets or making withdrawals on retirement accounts.



The latest development in irrevocable trust management can solve the insured’s desire to get, tax free cash out of the underused insurance policy when most needed, and prior to dying.



Through a special legal loophole, needed funds from the insured’s irrevocable trust can be released and made available to whoever you want, including yourself. Lance Wallach, who wrote the CPA's guide to trusts and estates, and other continuing education books read by CPA's attorneys and financial planners and associate William Kaufman have spent years studying the problem... Most life insurance trusts are underperforming, often requiring [Bill Kaufman] much greater premiums than anticipated. If they were properly designed, no more premiums would be due. Many policies in trusts are rapidly using up their insurance cash values, dramatically underperforming, and are at risk of failing altogether. There are many other problems with almost all of the trusts examined. If you advised your client on these matters, or serve as trustee for him/her, you may have a contingent liability suit on these matters, should the life insurance fail.



Now cash can be released to be used when really needed. Most attorneys, CPA’S, planners etc. that have heard me speak at thousands of national conventions don’t have a clue about the problems. Most of them even created some of these problems for their clients, who are also not aware. As an expert witness Lance Wallach has never lost a case. This does not necessate a lawsuit, just a simple fix. Make sure if you advisor tries it, he has successfully helped others with the program. If done wrong the IRS will come calling, Google Lance Wallach for articles on point. Despite the leveraging, due to the unique structuring of the program, the funds in excess of the initial deposits, and prior to the death of the insured, are received by the trust, and paid out of the trust, on a tax free basis.



If you have an insurance or similar trust you probably have lots of money in it. You may also have lots of problems that will not be discovered until you die. We have been consulted by many beneficiaries with these problems, usually after being charged thousands of dollars by their law firms to tell them about the problems, but not fix them. The way most of the trusts that we have studied, usually set up by law firms, are structured; the big beneficiaries at death will be the law firms. Worse, insurance in the trusts easily falls apart before death, unless you die young. Get an experienced person to review your trust, either to free up lots of money, or to review for problems before it is too late. [Bill Kaufman] If you don‘t [Bill Kaufman] believe me, than Google Lance Wallach and then Google your advisor and see who is more credible. You have worked hard for your money. Don‘t let poor planning, lawyers greed, insurance agents with big commissions disrupt what you thought was sound planning.



ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Lance Wallach, Bill Kaufman

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. He does expert witness testimony and has never lost a case.



Copyright Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC

More information about 

Reportable Transactions &; 419 Plans Litigation: CJA and associates 419, 412i section 79, audits for scams

419 and 412i Plan Help

Reportable Transactions .com: 419 Plan, 412i Plan

Reportable Transactions .com: 419 Plan, 412i Plan, Welfare benefit plan assistan...: 419 Plan, 412i Plan, Welfare benefit plan assistance, audits & Abusive tax shelters

Big Trouble Ahead For 412i and 419 Plan Participants - Lance Wallach

Big Trouble Ahead For 412i and 419 Plan Participants - Lance Wallach

412IPROBLEM.COM