Showing posts with label 419 plans litigation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 419 plans litigation. Show all posts
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
Material Advisors & 419 Plans Litigation: Lance Wallach
Material Advisors & 419 Plans Litigation: Lance Wallach National Society of Accountants Spea...
Section 79, captive insurance, 412i, 419, audits, problems and lawsuits
Section 79, captive insurance, 412i, 419, audits, problems and lawsuits
April 24, 2012 By Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC
Captive insurance, section 79, 419 and 412i problems
WebCPA
The dangers of being "listed" A warning for 419, 412i, Sec.79 and captive insurance
Accounting Today: October 25, 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 ($200,000 for a business and $100,000 for an individual) 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 has to be prepared correctly. I only
know of two people in the United States who have filed these forms properly for clients. They tell me that was 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 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. 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.
The dangers of being "listed" A warning for 419, 412i, Sec.79 and captive insurance
Accounting Today: October 25, 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 ($200,000 for a business and $100,000 for an individual) 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 has to be prepared correctly. I only
know of two people in the United States who have filed these forms properly for clients. They tell me that was 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 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. 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.
Reportable Transactions & 419 Plans Litigation
Specializing in the following services:
 | "IRS audit appeals" | |
| U.S. 'Tax Court' cases | |
| Multinational taxation consulting | |
| Incorporating your business | |
| Recovering losses from insurance companies |
| "Tax shelter analysis" | |
| "Pension plan reviews" & evaluations | |
| "419"& "412i" benefit plan analysis | |
| "419" & "412i plan" remediation | |
| Offshore tax shelter issues | |
| IRS "listed transactions" assistance |
Investment News - Lance Wallach - 412i and 419 plan litigatation
Investment News - Lance Wallach - 412i and 419 plan litigatation
Enrolled Agents Journal
By Ronald H.
Background: Section 419 of the Internal Revenue
Errors Commonly Made
Circular 230 Issues
Summary
Conclusion
Enrolled Agents Journal
March*April 2006
A Rose By Any Other Name, or
Whatever Happened to All
Those 419A(f)(6) Providers?
Those 419A(f)(6) Providers?
By Ronald H.
Snyder, JD, MAAA, EA & Lance Wallach, CLU, ChFC, CIMC
For years promoters of life insurance companies and agents have tried to find ways of claiming that the premiums paid by business owners were tax deductible. This allowed them to sell policies at a “discount”.
The problem became especially bad a few years ago with all of the outlandish claims about how §§419A(f)(5) and 419A(f)(6) exempted employers from any tax deduction limits. Many other
inaccurate statements were made as well, until the IRS finally put a stop to such assertions by issuing regulations and naming such plans as “potentially abusive tax shelters” (or “listed transactions”) that needed to be disclosed and registered. This appeared to put an end to the scourge of such scurrilous
promoters, as such plans began to disappear from the landscape.
inaccurate statements were made as well, until the IRS finally put a stop to such assertions by issuing regulations and naming such plans as “potentially abusive tax shelters” (or “listed transactions”) that needed to be disclosed and registered. This appeared to put an end to the scourge of such scurrilous
promoters, as such plans began to disappear from the landscape.
And what happened to all the providers that were peddling §§419A(f)(5) and (6) life insurance plans a couple of years ago? We recently found the answer: most of them found a new life as promoters of so-called “419(e)” welfare benefit plans.
We recently reviewed several §419(e) plans, and it appears that many of them are nothing more than recycled §419A(f)(5) and §419A(f)(6) plans.
The “Tax Guide” written by one vendor’s attorney is illustrative: he confuses the difference between a “multi-employer trust” (a Taft-Hartley, collectively-bargained plan), a “multiple-employer trust” (a plan with more than one unrelated employer) and a “10-or-more employer trust” (a plan seeking to comply with IRC §419A(f)(6)).
Background: Section 419 of the Internal Revenue
Code
Section 419 was added to the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) in 1984 to curb abuses in welfare benefit plan tax deductions. §419(a) does not authorize tax deductions, but provides as follows: “Contributions paid or accrued by an employer to a welfare benefit fund * * * shall not be deductible under this chapter * * *.”. It simply limits the amount that would be deductible under another IRC section to the “qualified cost for the taxable year”. (§419(b))
Section 419(e) of the IRC defines a “welfare benefit fund” as “any fund-- (A) which is part of a plan of an employer, and (B) through which the employer provides welfare benefits to employees or their beneficiaries.” It also defines the term "fund", but excludes from that definition “amounts held by an insurance company pursuant to an insurance contract” under conditions described.
None of the vendors provides an analysis under §419(e) as to whether or not the life insurance policies they promote are to be included or excluded from the definition of a “fund”. In fact, such policies will be included and therefore subject to the limitations of §§419 and 419A.
Errors Commonly Made
Materials from the various plans commonly make several mistakes in their analyses:
1. They claim not to be required to comply with IRC §505 non-discrimination requirements.
While it is true that §505 specifically lists “organizations described in paragraph (9) or (20) of section 501(c)”, IRC §4976 imposes a 100% excise tax on any “post-retirement medical benefit or life insurance benefit provided with respect to a key employee” * * * “unless the plan meets the requirements of section 505(b) with respect to such benefit (whether or not such requirements apply to such plan).” (Italics added) Failure to comply with §505(b) means that the plan will never be able to distribute an insurance policy to a key employee without the 100% penalty!
While it is true that §505 specifically lists “organizations described in paragraph (9) or (20) of section 501(c)”, IRC §4976 imposes a 100% excise tax on any “post-retirement medical benefit or life insurance benefit provided with respect to a key employee” * * * “unless the plan meets the requirements of section 505(b) with respect to such benefit (whether or not such requirements apply to such plan).” (Italics added) Failure to comply with §505(b) means that the plan will never be able to distribute an insurance policy to a key employee without the 100% penalty!
2. Vendors commonly assert that contributions to their plan are tax deductible because they fall within the limitations imposed under IRC §419; however, §419 is simply a limitation on tax
deductions. Providers must cite the section of the IRC under which contributions to their plan would be tax-deductible. Many fail to do so. Others claim that the deductions are ordinary and necessary business expense under §162, citing Regs. §1.162-10 in error: there is no mention in that section of life insurance or a death benefit as a welfare benefit.
deductions. Providers must cite the section of the IRC under which contributions to their plan would be tax-deductible. Many fail to do so. Others claim that the deductions are ordinary and necessary business expense under §162, citing Regs. §1.162-10 in error: there is no mention in that section of life insurance or a death benefit as a welfare benefit.
3. The reason that promoters fail to cite a section of the IRC to support a tax deduction is because, once such section is
cited, it becomes apparent that their method of covering only selected key and highly-compensated employees for participation in the plan fails to comply with IRC §414(t) requirements relative to coverage of controlled groups and affiliated service groups.
cited, it becomes apparent that their method of covering only selected key and highly-compensated employees for participation in the plan fails to comply with IRC §414(t) requirements relative to coverage of controlled groups and affiliated service groups.
4. Life insurance premiums could be treated as W-2 wages and deducted under §162 to the extent they were reasonable. Other than that, however, no section of the Internal Revenue Code authorizes tax deductions for a discriminatory life insurance arrangement. IRC §264(a) provides that “[n]o deduction shall be allowed for * * * [p]remiums on any life insurance policy * * * if the taxpayer is directly or indirectly a beneficiary under the policy.” As was made clear in
the Neontology case (Neonatology Associates v. Commissioner, 115 TC 5, 2000), the appropriate treatment of employer-paid life insurance premiums under a putative welfare benefit plan is under §79, which comes with its own nondiscrimination requirements.
the Neontology case (Neonatology Associates v. Commissioner, 115 TC 5, 2000), the appropriate treatment of employer-paid life insurance premiums under a putative welfare benefit plan is under §79, which comes with its own nondiscrimination requirements.
5. Some plans claim to impute income for current protection under the PS 58 rules. However, PS58 treatment is available only to qualified retirement plans and split-dollar plans. (Note: none of the 419(e) plans claim to comply with the split-dollar regulations.) Income is imputed under Table I to
participants under Group-Term Life Insurance plans that comply with §79. This issue is addressed in footnotes 17 and 18 of the Neonatology case.
participants under Group-Term Life Insurance plans that comply with §79. This issue is addressed in footnotes 17 and 18 of the Neonatology case.
6. Several of the plans claim to be exempt from ERISA. They appear to rely upon the ERISA Top-Hat exemption (applicable to deferred compensation plans). However, that only exempts a plan from certain ERISA requirements, not ERISA itself. It is instructive that none of the plans claiming exemption from ERISA has filed the Top-Hat notification with the Dept. of Labor.
7. Some of the plans offer severance benefits as a “welfare benefit”, which approach has never been approved by the IRS. Other plans offer strategies for obtaining a cash benefit by terminating a single-employer trust. The distribution of a cash benefit is a form of deferred compensation, yet none of the plans offering such benefit complies with the IRC §409A requirements applicable to such benefits.
8. Some vendors permit participation by employees who are self-employed, such as sole proprietors, partners or members of an LLC or LLP taxed as a partnership. This issue was also addressed in the Neonatology case where contributions on behalf of such persons were deemed to be dividends or personal payments rather than welfare benefit plan expenses.
[Note: bona fide employees of an LLC or LLP that has elected to be taxed as a corporation may participate in a plan.]
9. Most of the plans fail under §419 itself. §419(c) limits the current tax deduction to the “qualified cost”, which includes the “qualified direct cost” and additions to a “qualified asset account” (subject to the limits of §419A(b)). Under Regs. §1.419-1T, A-6, “the "qualified direct cost" of a welfare benefit fund for any taxable year * * * is the aggregate amount which would have been allowable as a deduction to the employer for benefits provided by such fund during such year (including insurance coverage for such year) * * *.” “Thus, for example, if a calendar year welfare benefit fund pays an insurance company * * * the full premium for coverage of its current employees under a term * * * insurance policy, * * * only the portion of the premium for coverage during [the year] will be treated as a "qualified direct cost" * * *.” (Italics added)
Most vendors pretend that the whole or universal life insurance premium is an appropriate measurement of cost for Key Employees, and those plans that cover rank and file employees use
current term insurance premiums as the appropriate measure of cost for such employees. This approach doesn’t meet any set of nondiscrimination requirements applicable to such plans.
current term insurance premiums as the appropriate measure of cost for such employees. This approach doesn’t meet any set of nondiscrimination requirements applicable to such plans.
10. Some vendors claim that they are justified in providing a larger deduction than the amount required to pay term insurance costs for the current tax year, but, as cited above, the only justification
under §419(e) itself is as additions to a qualified asset account and is subject to the limitations imposed by §419A. In addition, §419A adds several additional limitations to plans and contributions, including requirements that:
A. contributions be limited to a safe harbor amount or be certified by an actuary as to the amount of such contributions (§419A(c)(5));
under §419(e) itself is as additions to a qualified asset account and is subject to the limitations imposed by §419A. In addition, §419A adds several additional limitations to plans and contributions, including requirements that:
A. contributions be limited to a safe harbor amount or be certified by an actuary as to the amount of such contributions (§419A(c)(5));
B. actuarial assumptions be “reasonable in the aggregate” and that the actuary use a level annual cost method (§419A(c)(2));
C. benefits with respect to a Key Employee be segregated and their benefits can only be paid from such account (§419A(d));
D. the rules of subsections (b), (c), (m), and (n) of IRC section 414 shall apply to such plans (§419A(h)).
E. the plan comply with §505(b) nondiscrimination requirements (§419A(e)).
Circular 230 Issues
Circular 230 imposes many requirements on tax professionals with respect to tax shelter transactions. A tax practitioner can get into trouble in the promotion of such plans, in advising clients with
respect to such transactions and in preparing tax returns. IRC §§6707 and 6707A add a new concept of “reportable transactions” and impose substantial penalties for failure to disclose participation in certain reportable transactions (including all listed transactions).
respect to such transactions and in preparing tax returns. IRC §§6707 and 6707A add a new concept of “reportable transactions” and impose substantial penalties for failure to disclose participation in certain reportable transactions (including all listed transactions).
This is a veritable minefield for tax practitioners to negotiate carefully or avoid altogether. The advisor must exercise great caution and due diligence when presented with any potential
contemplated tax reduction or avoidance transaction. Failure to disclose could subject taxpayers
and their tax advisors to potentially Draconian penalties.
contemplated tax reduction or avoidance transaction. Failure to disclose could subject taxpayers
and their tax advisors to potentially Draconian penalties.
Summary
Key points of this article include:
Practitioners need to be able to differentiate between a legitimate §419(e) plan and one that is legally inadequate when their client approaches them with respect to such plan or has the practitioner to
prepare his return;
prepare his return;
·
Many plans incorrectly purport to be exempt from compliance with ERISA, IRC §§414, 505, 79, etc.
Many plans incorrectly purport to be exempt from compliance with ERISA, IRC §§414, 505, 79, etc.
·
Tax deductions must be claimed under an authorizing section of the IRC and are limited to the qualified direct cost and additions to a qualified asset account as certified by the plan’s actuary.
Tax deductions must be claimed under an authorizing section of the IRC and are limited to the qualified direct cost and additions to a qualified asset account as certified by the plan’s actuary.
Conclusion
Irresponsible vendors such as most of the promoters who previously promoted IRC §419A(f)(6) plans were responsible for the IRS’s issuing restrictive regulations under that Section. Now many of the same individuals have elected simply to claim that a life insurance plan is a welfare benefit plan and therefore tax-deductible because it uses a single-employer trust rather than a "10-or-more-employer plan".
This is an open invitation to the IRS to issue new onerous Regulations and more indictments and legal actions against the unscrupulous promoters who feed off of the naivety of clients and
the greed of life insurance companies who encourage and endorse (and even own)
such plans.
the greed of life insurance companies who encourage and endorse (and even own)
such plans.
The last line of defense of the innocent client is the accountant or attorney who is asked by a client to
review such arrangement or prepare a tax return claiming a deduction for contributions to such a plan. Under these circumstances accountants and attorneys should be careful not to rely upon the materials made available by the plan vendors, but should review any proposed plan thoroughly, or refer the review to a specialist.
review such arrangement or prepare a tax return claiming a deduction for contributions to such a plan. Under these circumstances accountants and attorneys should be careful not to rely upon the materials made available by the plan vendors, but should review any proposed plan thoroughly, or refer the review to a specialist.
Ron Snyder practices as an ERISA attorney and Enrolled Actuary in the field of employee benefits.
Lance Wallach speaks and writes extensively about VEBAs retirement plans, and tax reduction strategies. He speaks at more than 70 conventions annually and writes for more than 50
publications. For more information and additional articles on these subjects,
call 516-938-5007 or visit www.vebaplan.com..
publications. For more information and additional articles on these subjects,
call 516-938-5007 or visit www.vebaplan.com..
This information 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.
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.
Section 79 Plans: IRS Attacks Business Owners in 419, 412, Section 79
Lance Wallach helps with 419 problems. 412i 419 abusive tax shelters IRS audits, lawsuits, Lance Wallach will help 419, 412i, IRS audits, Lance Wallach, Google him helps, The following had something to do with this.
Dennis Cunning Steve Toth Randall Smith Paul Kaplan Herb Green Casey Hermansen
Larry Bell Scott Ridge Judy Carsrud Jeffrey Glasberg Herb McDowel
Greg Roper Joseph Donnelly
Norm Bevan Michael Sonnenberg
r Anthony Fakouri
Steve Burgess
Robin Weingast
IRS audits 419 412i captive insurance and section 79 plans. Lance Wallach will help you.
IRS audits section 79 419 412i plans. www.lancewallach.com for help
, IRS raids, Niche, Robin Weingast, Lance Wallach helps, Sadi trust, grist Mill trust, nova 419 welfare benefit plan problems and how Lance Wallach helps.www.vebaplan.com for more help. Sea Nine VEBA, 419, 412i, IRS audits,Sea Nine VEBA, are all audited by the IRS and people in them probably need help.
Sea Nine VEBA, 419,412i are all IRS audit targets. Lance Wallach can help, www.tazaudit419.com
419, 412i, IRS audits, Lance Wallach, Google him helps, The following had something to do with this. Author to write about these problems.
Dennis Cunning Steve Toth Randall Smith Paul Kaplan Herb Green Casey Hermansen
Larry Bell Scott Ridge Judy Carsrud Jeffrey Glasberg Herb McDowel
Greg Roper Joseph Donnelly
Norm Bevan Michael Sonnenberg
Anthony Fakouri
Steve Burgess
Robin Weingast
" Lance Wallach will help fix the problems that people have that are or were in the plans.
"Professional Benefits Trust" PBI
"Sea Nine Veba"
Bisys
The "Beta Plan"
The "Millennium Plan"
Niche
The "Ridge Plan"
The "Compass Welfare Benefit Plan"
"Section 79 Plans"
"Captive Insurance"
and other similar "412i retirement plans" and "419 welfare benefit plans
Lance Wallach, www.taxaudit419.com will help you with these problems and more like section 79, captive insurance lawsuits and IRS audits. People in the section 79 plans 419 welfare benefit plans captive insurance and 412i pension plans are getting audited by the IRS and then they sue. Google Lance Wallach for help with this. If you need help Lance Wallach as an expert witness has never lost a case. You need help NOW. Google lance wallach or www.vebaplan.com for 419 412i captive insurance or section 79 audits lawsuits get your money back etc.
Customers of James Cunningham d/b/a Cunningham Financial or CFG Consulting LLC?
We want to speak with you!
IRS audits and lawsuits result from 419 412i captive insurance and section 79 plans. As an expert witness Lance Wallach has never lost a case.
Dennis Cunning Steve Toth Randall Smith Paul Kaplan Herb Green Casey Hermansen
Larry Bell Scott Ridge Judy Carsrud Jeffrey Glasberg Herb McDowel
Greg Roper Joseph Donnelly
Norm Bevan Michael Sonnenberg
r Anthony Fakouri
Steve Burgess
Robin Weingast
IRS audits 419 412i captive insurance and section 79 plans. Lance Wallach will help you.
IRS audits section 79 419 412i plans. www.lancewallach.com for help
, IRS raids, Niche, Robin Weingast, Lance Wallach helps, Sadi trust, grist Mill trust, nova 419 welfare benefit plan problems and how Lance Wallach helps.www.vebaplan.com for more help. Sea Nine VEBA, 419, 412i, IRS audits,Sea Nine VEBA, are all audited by the IRS and people in them probably need help.
Sea Nine VEBA, 419,412i are all IRS audit targets. Lance Wallach can help, www.tazaudit419.com
419, 412i, IRS audits, Lance Wallach, Google him helps, The following had something to do with this. Author to write about these problems.
Dennis Cunning Steve Toth Randall Smith Paul Kaplan Herb Green Casey Hermansen
Larry Bell Scott Ridge Judy Carsrud Jeffrey Glasberg Herb McDowel
Greg Roper Joseph Donnelly
Norm Bevan Michael Sonnenberg
Anthony Fakouri
Steve Burgess
Robin Weingast
" Lance Wallach will help fix the problems that people have that are or were in the plans.
"Professional Benefits Trust" PBI
"Sea Nine Veba"
Bisys
The "Beta Plan"
The "Millennium Plan"
Niche
The "Ridge Plan"
The "Compass Welfare Benefit Plan"
"Section 79 Plans"
"Captive Insurance"
and other similar "412i retirement plans" and "419 welfare benefit plans
Lance Wallach, www.taxaudit419.com will help you with these problems and more like section 79, captive insurance lawsuits and IRS audits. People in the section 79 plans 419 welfare benefit plans captive insurance and 412i pension plans are getting audited by the IRS and then they sue. Google Lance Wallach for help with this. If you need help Lance Wallach as an expert witness has never lost a case. You need help NOW. Google lance wallach or www.vebaplan.com for 419 412i captive insurance or section 79 audits lawsuits get your money back etc.
Customers of James Cunningham d/b/a Cunningham Financial or CFG Consulting LLC?
We want to speak with you!
IRS audits and lawsuits result from 419 412i captive insurance and section 79 plans. As an expert witness Lance Wallach has never lost a case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)