Captive Insurance & 419 Plans Litigation: December 2013

Captive Insurance & 419 Plans Litigation: December 2013











  • News stories report that fabricated life insurance benefits denials are on the rise - read complete life insurance lawsuit information for persons who have been ...
  • 1 comment:


    1. Section 79 & 419 Plans Litigation
      412i, 419e plans litigation and IRS Audit Experts for abusive insurance based plans deemed reportable or listed transactions by the IRS.

      CSEA

      CSEA
      IRS Audits Focus on Captive Insurance Plans 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.Read more here

      412i, 419, Captive Insurance and Section 79 Plans; Buyer Beware

      California Broker, June 2011

      Employee Retirement Plans
      By Lance Wallach

      The 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. IRS is aggressively auditing various plans and calling them “listed transactions,” “abusive tax shelters,” or “reportable transactions,” participation in any of which must be disclosed to the Service. The result has been IRS audits, disallowances, and huge fines for not properly reporting under IRC 6707A.
      In a recent tax court case, Curico 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. It was substantially similar to the transaction described in IRS Notice 95-34. A subsequent case, McGehee Family Clinic, largely followed Curico, though it was technically decided on other grounds. The parties stipulated to be bound by Curico regarding whether the amounts paid

      ReplyDelete