419e,412i,419,412,benefit plan penalties,audits,tax shelter.fraud

419e,412i,419,412,benefit plan penalties,audits,tax shelter.fraud

1 comment:


  1. Email Us
    Here







    Don't Get Caught in Common "Abusive Life Insurance" Hot Spots "

    Back to Home Page
    See What The
    Experts Say:

    Advisers Staring
    at a New “Slew”
    of Litigation
    from Small
    Business Clients

    Get Tax Advice

    Small Business
    Retirement Plans
    Penalized

    How To Choose
    Your Expert
    Additional
    Resources

    taxlibrary.us
    taxaudit419.com
    experttaxadvisors.org

    516-938-5007

    Copyright 2011
    All rights reserved



    IRS Audits Focus on Captive Insurance Plans
    April 2012 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 conta

    ReplyDelete