Showing posts with label expert testimony. Show all posts
Showing posts with label expert testimony. Show all posts
Abusive Trust Arrangements Utilizing Cash Value Life Insurance Policies Purportedly to Provide Welfare Benefits
Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2007-45
November 5, 2007
Notice 2007-83
Abusive Trust Arrangements Utilizing Cash Value Life Insurance Policies Purportedly to Provide Welfare Benefits
Concurrently with this notice, the IRS is publishing Rev. Rul. 2007-65 (concluding that for purposes of deductions allowable to an employer under § 419, a welfare benefit fund’s qualified direct cost does not include premium amounts for cash value life insurance policies paid by the fund, whenever the fund is directly or indirectly a beneficiary under the policy within the meaning of § 264(a)), and Notice 2007-84 (describing trust arrangements involving purported welfare benefit funds that, in form, provide post-retirement medical and life insurance benefits to employees on a nondiscriminatory basis but, in operation, result in the owner or owners receiving all or a substantial portion of the post-retirement and other benefits, and all or a substantial portion of any assets distributed from the trust).
BACKGROUND
1. Promoted Arrangements
Trust arrangements utilizing cash value life insurance policies and purporting to provide welfare benefits to active employees are being promoted to small businesses and other closely held businesses as a way to provide cash and other property to the owners of the business on a tax-favored basis. The arrangements are sometimes referred to by persons advocating their use as “single employer plans” and sometimes as “419(e) plans.” Those advocates claim that the employers’ contributions to the trust are deductible under §§ 419 and 419A as qualified cost, but that there is not a corresponding inclusion in the owner’s income.A promoted trust arrangement may be structured either as a taxable trust or a tax-exempt trust, i.e., a voluntary employees’ beneficiary association (VEBA) that has received a determination letter from the IRS that it is described in § 501(c)(9). The plan and the trust documents indicate that the plan provides benefits such as current death benefit protection, self-insured disability benefits, and/or self-insured severance benefits to covered employees (including those employees who are also owners of the business), and that the benefits are payable while the employee is actively employed by the employer. The employer’s contributions are often based on premiums charged for cash value life insurance policies. For example, contributions may be based on premiums that would be charged for whole life policies. As a result, the arrangements often require large employer contributions relative to the actual cost of the benefits currently provided under the plan.
Under these arrangements, the trustee uses the employer’s contributions to the trust to purchase life insurance policies. The trustee typically purchases cash value life insurance policies on the lives of the employees who are owners of the business (and sometimes other key employees), while purchasing term life insurance policies on the lives of the other employees covered under the plan.
It is anticipated that after a number of years the plan will be terminated and the cash value life insurance policies, cash, or other property held by the trust will be distributed to the employees who are plan participants at the time of the termination. While a small amount may be distributed to employees who are not owners of the business, the timing of the plan termination and the methods used to allocate the remaining assets are structured so that the business owners and other key employees will receive, directly or indirectly, all or a substantial portion of the assets held by the trust.
Those advocating the use of these plans often claim that the employer is allowed a deduction under § 419(c)(3) for its contributions when the trustee uses those contributions to pay premiums on the cash value life insurance policies, while at the same time claiming that nothing is includible in the owner’s gross income as a result of the contributions (or, if amounts are includible, they are significantly less than the premiums paid on the cash value life insurance policies). They may also claim that nothing is includible in the income of the business owner or other key employee as a result of the transfer of a cash value life insurance policy from the trust to the employee, asserting that the employee has purchased the policy when, in fact, any amounts the owner or other key employee paid for the policy may be significantly less than the fair market value of the policy. Some of the plans are structured so that the owner or other key employee is the named owner of the life insurance policy from the plan’s inception, with the employee assigning all or a portion of the death proceeds to the trust. Advocates of these arrangements may claim that no income inclusion is required because there is no transfer of the policy itself from the trust to the employees.
2. Intent to Challenge Transactions
The IRS intends to challenge the claimed tax benefits for the above-described transactions for various reasons. Depending on the facts and circumstances of a particular arrangement, contributions to a purported welfare benefit fund on behalf of an employee who is a shareholder may properly be characterized as dividend income to the owner, the value of which is includible in the owner’s gross income, and for which amounts are not deductible by the corporation. See Neonatology Associates v. Commissioner, 299 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2002). Depending on the facts and circumstances of a particular arrangement, the arrangement may properly be characterized as a plan deferring the receipt of compensation for purposes of § 404(a)(5), resulting in the application of the rules under § 404(a)(5) governing the timing of any otherwise available deductions. See Wellons v. Commissioner, 31 F.3d 569 (7th Cir. 1994). In addition, an arrangement may properly be characterized as a nonqualified deferred compensation plan for purposes of § 409A. Application of § 409A may result in immediate inclusion of income and additional taxes to the employee, as well as income tax withholding liabilities to the employer. The facts and circumstances of a particular arrangement may result in it coming within the definition of a split-dollar life insurance arrangement, so that the tax consequences to the employer and the employees are subject to the rules governing those types of arrangements, including potentially § 409A. Under the economic benefit regime of the split-dollar life insurance arrangement rules set forth in § 1.61-22, the employee must include in income the full value of the economic benefits provided to the employee under the arrangement for the taxable year without a corresponding employer deduction.If, based on the facts and circumstances, an arrangement described above is properly characterized as a welfare benefit fund for purposes of §§ 419 and 419A (rather than a dividend arrangement, a plan deferring the receipt of compensation, or a split-dollar life insurance arrangement), an employer is allowed a deduction for contributions to the trust or other welfare benefit fund only to the extent allowed under §§ 419 and 419A. Under §§ 419 and 419A, no deduction is allowed with respect to premiums paid for life insurance coverage provided to current employees if the welfare benefit fund or the employer is directly or indirectly a beneficiary under the life insurance policy within the meaning of § 264(a). In the promoted arrangements discussed above, the trust typically retains rights in the life insurance policies and is directly or indirectly a beneficiary under the policies, so that no deduction is allowed with respect to the life insurance premiums. See Situation 1 in Rev. Rul. 2007-65. Further, any deduction with respect to uninsured benefits (for example, uninsured medical, disability, or severance benefits) is not based on the premiums paid on the life insurance policies, but is generally limited to claims incurred and paid during the year.[1] See Situation 2 in Rev. Rul. 2007-65. Thus, contrary to the claims made by persons advocating the use of the arrangements discussed above, premiums on cash value life insurance policies paid through the trust are not a justification for claiming a deduction under §§ 419 and 419A.
Moreover, in appropriate cases, the IRS intends to challenge the value claimed by the taxpayer for property distributed from the trust, including cash value life insurance policies.
The above conclusions apply whether the trust used to provide the plan benefits is a taxable trust or a VEBA. While the trust may have received a determination letter stating the trust is exempt under § 501(c)(9), a letter of this type does not address the tax deductibility of contributions to the trust with respect to the employer nor the income inclusion with respect to the employees.
The IRS has previously identified certain other transactions that claim to be welfare benefit funds as listed transactions, concluding that the tax benefits claimed to be generated by these transactions are not allowable for federal income tax purposes. Notice 2003-24, 2003-1 C.B. 853, describes certain transactions purporting to meet the exception under § 419A(f)(5) for collectively bargained plans and identifies those and substantially similar transactions as listed transactions, and Notice 95-34, 1995-1 C.B. 309, describes transactions that purport to meet the 10-or-more employer plan exception under § 419A(f)(6). The transactions described in Notice 95-34 and substantially similar transactions have also been identified as listed transactions. See Notice 2004-67, 2004-2 C.B. 600.
LISTED TRANSACTIONS
1. Transactions Identified As Listed Transactions
Any transaction that has all of the following elements, and any transaction that is substantially similar to such a transaction, are identified as “listed transactions” for purposes of § 1.6011-4(b)(2) and §§ 6111 and 6112, effective October 17, 2007, the date this notice is released to the public.(1) The transaction involves a trust or other fund described in § 419(e)(3) that is purportedly a welfare benefit fund.
(2) For determining the portion of its contributions to the trust or other fund that are currently deductible the employer does not rely on the exception in § 419A(f)(5)(A) (regarding collectively bargained plans).
(3) The trust or other fund pays premiums (or amounts that are purported to be premiums) on one or more life insurance policies and, with respect to at least one of the policies, value is accumulated either:
(a) within the policy (for example, a cash value life insurance policy); or
(b) outside the policy (for example, in a side fund or through an agreement outside the policy allowing the policy to be converted to or exchanged for a policy which will, at some point in time, have accumulated value based on the purported premiums paid on the original policy).
(4) The employer has taken a deduction for any taxable year for its contributions to the fund with respect to benefits provided under the plan (other than post-retirement medical benefits, post-retirement life insurance benefits, and child care facilities) that is greater than the sum of the following amounts:
(a) With respect to any uninsured benefits provided under the plan,
(i) an amount equal to claims that were both incurred and paid during the taxable year; plus
(ii) the limited reserves allowable under § 419A(c)(1) or (c)(3), as applicable; plus
(iii) amounts paid during the taxable year to satisfy claims incurred in a prior taxable year (but only to the extent that no deduction was taken for such amounts in a prior year); plus
(iv) amounts paid during the taxable year or a prior taxable year for administrative expenses with respect to uninsured benefits and that are properly allocable to the taxable year (but only to the extent that no deduction was taken for such amounts in a prior year).
(b) With respect to any insured benefits provided under the plan,
(i) insurance premiums paid during the taxable year that are properly allocable to the taxable year (other than premiums paid with respect to a policy described in (3)(a) or (b) above); plus
(ii) insurance premiums paid in prior taxable years that are properly allocable to the taxable year (other than premiums paid with respect to a policy described in (3)(a) or (b) above); plus
(iii) amounts paid during the taxable year or a prior taxable year for administrative expenses with respect to insured benefits and that are properly allocable to the taxable year (but only to the extent that no deduction was taken for such amounts in a prior year).
(c) For taxable years ending prior to November 5, 2007, with respect to life insurance benefits provided through policies described in (3)(a) and (b) above, the greater of the following amounts:[2]
(i) in the case of an employer with a taxable year that is the calendar year, the aggregate amounts reported by the employer as the cost of insurance with respect to such policies on the employees’ Forms W-2 (or Forms 1099) for that year, plus an amount equal to the amounts that would have been reportable on the employees’ Forms W-2 for that year, but for the exclusion under section 79 (relating to the cost of up to $50,000 of coverage); or, in the case of an employer with a taxable year other than the calendar year, the portions of the aggregate amounts reported by the employer on the Forms W-2 (or Forms 1099) as described in (i), above, (or that would have been reported absent the exclusion under § 79) that are properly allocable to the employer’s taxable year; and
(ii) with respect to each employee insured under a cash value life insurance policy, the aggregate cost of insurance charged under the policy or policies with respect to the amount of current life insurance coverage provided to the employee under the plan (but limited to the product of the current life insurance coverage under the plan multiplied by the current year’s mortality rate provided in the higher of the 1980 or 2001 CSO Table).
(d) The additional reserve, if any, under § 419A(c)(6) (relating to medical benefits provided through a plan maintained by a bona fide association), but only to the extent amounts are not already included above in this paragraph (4), and only to the extent that no deduction was taken for such amounts in a prior taxable year.
2. Participation in the Listed Transactions
Whether a taxpayer has participated in the listed transaction described in this notice will be determined under § 1.6011-4(c)(3)(i)(A). However, an individual who is not the employer will be treated as a participant for a taxable year if, and only if the individual owns, directly or indirectly, 20 percent or more of an entity, other than a C corporation, that is a participant in the listed transaction for the taxable year. For this purpose, indirect ownership is determined under rules similar to the rules of § 318 but without regard to the family attribution rules of § 318(a)(1).3. Disclosure, List Maintenance, and Registration Requirements; Penalties; Other Considerations
In general, if a taxpayer has participated in a listed transaction, the rules of § 1.6011-4(e) determine when a disclosure statement must be filed by the taxpayer. However, if, under § 1.6011-4(e), a taxpayer is required to file a disclosure statement with respect to the listed transaction described in this notice after October 17, 2007, and prior to January 15, 2008, that disclosure statement will be considered to be timely filed if the taxpayer alternatively files the disclosure statement with the Office of Tax Shelter Analysis (OTSA) by January 15, 2008.Some transactions described in Notice 95-34 and substantially similar transactions may be identified as a listed transaction in this notice also. It should be noted that, independent of their classification as “listed transactions” for purposes of § 1.6011-4(b)(2) and §§ 6111 and 6112, transactions that are the same as, or substantially similar to, the transaction identified in this notice may already be subject to the requirements of §§ 6011, 6111, 6112, or the regulations thereunder. Persons required to disclose these transactions under § 1.6011-4 and who fail to do so may be subject to the penalty under § 6707A.[3] Persons required to disclose or register these transactions under § 6111 who have failed to do so may be subject to the penalty under § 6707(a). Persons required to maintain lists of investors under § 6112 who fail to do so (or who fail to provide such lists when requested by the IRS) may be subject to the penalty under § 6708(a).
In addition, the IRS may impose other penalties on persons involved in this transaction or substantially similar transactions (including the accuracy-related penalty under § 6662 or 6662A) and, as applicable, on persons who participate in the promotion or reporting of this transaction or substantially similar transactions (including the return preparer penalty under § 6694, the promoter penalty under § 6700, and the aiding and abetting penalty under § 6701).
Further, under § 6501(c)(10), the period of limitations on assessment may be extended beyond the general three-year period of limitations for persons required to disclose transactions under § 1.6011-4 who fail to do so. See Rev. Proc. 2005-26, 2005-1 C.B. 965.
The IRS and the Treasury Department recognize that some taxpayers may have filed tax returns taking the position that they were entitled to the purported tax benefits of the types of transactions described in this notice. These taxpayers should consult with a tax advisor to ensure that their transactions are disclosed properly and to take appropriate corrective action.
You get what you pay for, how much do people pay for business appraisals?
Lance Wallach
Like any other professional service, such as legal services, medical care, or accounting services, the price of appraisal services should always be one consideration in selecting the professional or professional firm. However, it's usually not appropriate to shop for the lowest priced vendor, or to use competitive bidding to obtain the lowest price. The heart patient, whose life may depend on the skill and judgment of his surgeon, wouldn't be smart to put his surgery out to bid. Similarly, the client whose financial fortunes may rely on the quality of work or the effectiveness of testimony by his valuation expert should probably not make a decision on hiring an appraiser based primarily on lowest fees.
In a business appraisal, the low-end software-driven product should be approached with caution. In general these products are designed to give quick, and not necessarily accurate answers to price shoppers, and by design deny the client the expertise of the appraiser's many years of valuation wisdom. Often these are done by part-time appraisers, or are loss leaders intended to lure clients into more expensive consulting agreements. People should beware of any appraiser who is willing to render an opinion of value without a personal interview, and hands-on inspection of the company's financial and administrative records.
The relationship between quality of services and fees is not linear: there are factors unrelated to the quality of the services that affect the fees demanded for them. For example, the basic amount of work the appraiser has to perform for an appraisal is driven by the professional standards he must follow in conducting the appraisal. The emergence of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) as the controlling rules for appraisal engagements has increased the amount of work appraisers must do, even for simple appraisal assignments.
Services Offered:
business valuation services, acquisitions, mergers, buy-sell
agreements,business evaluation, expert testimony, estate taxes,
valuation services, business planning, company valuation methods
The largest single driver of appraisal cost though, is the purpose to which the client desires to put the appraisal result. Appraisals for use as informal pricing guides for sellers or buyers require the least amount of work on the continuum of effort, and appraisals done for use in contentious litigation probably require the most effort. In between these extremes are appraisals for other purposes, such as buy/sell agreements, partnership agreements, estate planning, asset allocation, divorce, etc.
Preliminary Analyses, Value Studies - $3,000 to $10,000.
These kinds of less-than-comprehensive valuation efforts can be well suited for situations where a client needs a ballpark estimate of value, perhaps as a starting point for sales negotiations, or to achieve a better understanding of the value drivers in his company. Often this type of assignment is begun with a Value Study to identify the value drivers of the subject business entity, and followed-on with consulting over a period of time to prepare the business and the owner for subsequent sale.
Limited Partnership Appraisals - Value in Real Property Assets Only - Discount Study - $3,000 to $10,000.
The typical setting for this kind of appraisal is a Family Partnership formed to protect real property assets from estate taxation. Usually the partnership has no income distributions to the limited partners, and all of the profit is paid to the General Partner. The value of the entity is based on its assets, and the values of the real property assets are provided to us by the real estate appraiser. Our assignment is to estimate the value of small minority limited partnership holdings in the entity, and to assign marketability and minority discounts from the enterprise value, if applicable. These projects typically involve only a summary report. You also need to be aware that at some point the IRS may be looking at this. Maybe you want to use a firm with ex IRS people on staff?
Other Services:
valuation discounts, business valuation resources, valuation research, business value, business appraisers, valuer, company appraisal, small business valuation, appraiser,
Comprehensive Appraisal - Summary Report - $7,500- $35,000.
This is the most common type of assignment, and calls for the application of a full complement of appraisal procedures. This is the type of engagement suitable for most kinds of litigation, including family law, partnership disputes, shareholder oppression litigation, forced buy-outs, business torts, contract disputes, etc. The chief reason that appraisal engagements for litigation cost more is because the analysis and reporting must be performed to a standard of thoroughness that will allow them to survive rigorous cross-examination by opposing counsel. This takes time and costs money, just as all of the other components of litigation. The appraisal is not the place to cut corners. You may want to use someone that has been an expert witness in the past. You may want to use someone that gets excellent results in court. Do not forget to discuss this very important fact.
All of these pricing guidelines are predicated on the availability of good bookkeeping and accounting records. Generally, the appraiser cannot commence the engagement until there are good financial statements (income statements and balance sheets) available. These need not be uncontested, of course, but where the income of the entity or the values of the assets are in question, the appraiser must be given an instruction as to what assumptions to use in his appraisal.
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 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 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 and 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)