Lance Wallach and his associates provide Expert Witness Services |

Lance Wallach and his associates provide Expert Witness Services |

Abusive Insurance and Retirement Plans

Abusive Insurance and Retirement Plans

Captive Insurance & 419 Plans Litigation: September 2013

Captive Insurance & 419 Plans Litigation: September 2013

Offers in Compromise (IRS settlements)

Offers in Compromise (IRS settlements) are very difficult to get, but the IRS does grant them.
I put together this short questionnaire for taxpayers to use to determine whether or not they qualify for an IRS settlement.
Form 656 is the Offer in Compromise (Offer) form. On its face the form seems simple enough, but if you read the instructions carefully you will soon see that most of the work is in assembling and presenting detailed financial information in support of the Offer.
Far too many taxpayers have tried to file an Offer themselves only to get rejected for failure to comply with the instructions.
The IRS receives hundreds of thousands of Offers in Compromise each year, most of which do not comply with the instructions or are incomplete. A thorough Offer filed in compliance with the instructions stands out.
The proper initial filing of an Offer greatly increases the chances of IRS acceptance.
The Questionnaire
In deciding whether or not to pursue the Offer in Compromise option, you should ask yourself the following questions:
1. Are you in bankruptcy proceedings?
If so, the IRS cannot consider and will not accept your offer.
2. Are you current with all your tax returns?
The IRS will not consider an Offer in Compromise unless you are completely current with all of your tax filing requirements.
3. Are you paying taxes on your current income?
A condition of the Offer is that you are now complying with the tax laws. This means you must have the proper amount of taxes withheld from your paycheck and remitted to the IRS or, if you are self-employed, you must make your quarterly estimated tax payments.
4. Do you own assets having a value (after deducting encumbrances mortgages and secured loans) that is exceeds the amount you owe the IRS (including penalties and interest)?
If the answer is “yes”, you do not qualify for an Offer in Compromise based on doubt as to collectability.
Points to Remember
If after answering the above questions, you believe an Offer in Compromise might be right for you, remember the following:
The IRS Will Ask for Additional Financial Information after the Offer is Filed
You can count on the IRS making several requests for additional information and clarification of the information already provided. You must respond to these requests thoroughly and on a timely basis or the IRS will reject the offer.
You Must Pay a 20% Non-Refundable Down Payment on the Offer at the Time of Filing
Remember, when you first submit your Offer in Compromise (if it is based on doubt as to collectability) you must include 20% of the amount offered and the $150 dollar application fee. If your offer rejected, your money will not be refunded but the 20% will be applied to reduce your liability.
If an Offer is Worth Filing, it’s Worth Filing Properly: Seek the Advice of Experienced Tax Counsel
The Offer in Compromise is a complex document that must be completed carefully and thoroughly.
The IRS is not going to give up something for nothing. You have to prove that it is in the government’s best interest to accept your offer.
Use a CPA who was with the IRS, or a tax lawyer CPA.

 

Tax Crimes - Is the IRS Coming to Get You? Lance Wallach, expert witness.

People who have money in other countries are a target of the IRS. I get a lot of phone calls with people who have these problems. 419, 412i, hiding money offshore etc. The IRS may be looking for you if you had anything to do with this. Tax crime attacks by the IRS are up almost 50% so you need to be careful. Last year IRS raided the offices of Benistar, Grist Mill Trust, Nova with about 50 agents and took all the files. If you did business with them the IRS will probably come to you.

The numbers are out and they aren’t good for people convicted of tax crimes. While the U.S. Department of Justice Tax Division has always enjoyed a very high conviction rate, many people convicted of tax crimes never went to jail. Not anymore. In 2001, the average tax offender received a sentence of 18 months. Now those sentences average 25 months.

The statistics are a bit misleading because a decade ago, half the people convicted never went to jail. The average sentence may have been 18 months but many folks got house arrest while others received sentences of several years. Now, those convicted are probably going to jail. In other words, not only has the average sentence increased but also so has the likelihood of receiving a prison sentence.

Sentences in federal criminal cases are governed by the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Although no longer binding on judges, they are the court’s starting point and most judges’ stay within guidelines.

The sentencing guidelines attempt to account for a wide range of factors including one’s criminal history, whether the defendant used “sophisticated means” to carry out the crime and whether the defendant took early acceptance of responsibility for his or her actions. For tax cases, the guidelines also look at “relevant conduct” tax loss. The higher the tax loss, the longer the recommended sentence.

The current guidelines impose suggest stiff penalties for tax crimes and many judges now believe that house arrest is not a strong enough deterrent to insure voluntary compliance.

What does this mean for people with tax problems? Plenty.

First, if you know you have a problem, don’t bury your hand in the sand. The IRS operates on a “first contact” basis. That means if you come clean before you are caught, criminal penalties can generally be avoided.

Second, if you are indicted and convicted, it pays to have a lawyer with extensive federal criminal tax appearance. Adjustments to the sentencing guideline calculations often can mean the difference between prison and freedom. Although there are many good lawyers that can negotiate a fair plea agreement, the final sentence is up to the court. Mastery of the federal sentencing guidelines and the thousands of court cases interpreting those guidelines separates great criminal tax lawyers from the rest of the pack.

As an expert witness Lance Wallach's side has never lost a case. People need to be careful of 419 Welfare Benefit Plans, 412i plans, Section 79 plans and Captive Insurance Plans. Most of these plans are sold by insurance agents. If you are in an abusive, listed or similar transaction plan you need to file under IRS 6707a. The participant files form 8886, and the salesmen or accountant who signs the tax returns files form 8918 if they got paid over $10,000. They are called Material Advisors and face a minimum $100,000 fine. Some plans are offshore which could involve FBAR or OVDI filings. If you have money overseas you probably need to file for IRS tax amnesty. If you want to reduce the tax we suggest that you first file and then opt out. For more information Google Lance Wallach.

Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.

Legal Challenge to ACA Contraceptive Coverage Mandate Could Portend More Complications for Self-Insurance Marketplace

The United States Supreme Court is now expected to consider Hobby Lobby’s legal challenge to the contraceptive coverage mandate implemented as part of the Affordable Care Act.  The owners of the national retailer claim that the law’s requirement that the company’s group health plan includes coverage for contraceptive services violates their religious beliefs. 

This blog remains agnostic with regard to the religious liberty issues, but there are evolving self-insurance angles related to this story that deserve attention.

We recently reported that federal regulators contend the final contraceptive coverage mandate rules incudes a practical accommodation for most self-insured religious organizations (non-profit entities), but  it’s really just a bureaucratic illusion.  The rules allow such organizations a functional exemption from the requirements by transferring all financial and administration responsibilities to their third party administrator (TPA) partners.

While this firewall approach may have satisfied the Administration’s political considerations, it is so far proving unworkable in the real world as multiple TPAs servicing this market segment report that they cannot perform the required responsibilities, citing specific substantive reasons.  The end result is that these self-insured religious non-profit organizations may simply have to dissolve their self-insured group health plans to the extent that they wish to stick to their religious convictions.

The Hobby Lobby case potentially adds a new twist specific to for-profit self-insured companies.  In other words, companies that do not have a primary religious mission but whose owners may have strong religious beliefs.

There are actually about 60 similar cases pending in various federal courts and we expect that some companies are self-insured and others are not.  (This blog has not independently verified the funding structure of Hobby Lobby’s group health plans, but it is likely self-insured given the company’s size.)   Hobby Lobby is the highest profile case both because of its size and because its position was affirmed by the 10^thCircuit Court of Appeals in June of this year.

In addition to the central constitutional issue,  Court may also need decide whether the ACA is in conflict with the 1993 Religious Freed Restoration Act (RFRA), which says the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling government interest.

A broad ruling by Court declaring the ACA contraceptive coverage mandate provisions unconstitutional outright would take this issue off the table.  An equally broad ruling in the other direction would certainly not be welcome by Hobby Lobby and other similar plaintiffs, but it would at least bring some clarity to their legal obligations.

The more interesting scenario is if the Court charts a middle course in its ruling and determines that the exemption arrangement designed for self-insured religious organization could satisfy the RFRA’s “least restrictive means test” and therefore opens this option up for companies like Hobby Lobby.

In other words, allow these for profit companies to self-certify as exempt organizations for purpose side-stepping compliance with the contraceptive coverage mandate.

But for self-insured companies it would not be that simple because their TPA partners will be put in the same tenuous position as the current non-profit exempt organizations have already done, which could force these companies into more expensive fully-insured health insurance arrangements or drop coverage altogether.

Yes, companies may be able to rely on legally permissible firewalls should the Court rule accordingly, but both their TPAs and sponsored self-insured group health plans may end up getting burned in the process.  Perhaps this may be an unanticipated example of being careful of what you ask for…or on this case, what you pray for. 

DOL Teams Up With Vermont on the Latest ERISA Preemption Attack

The practice of individual states enacting laws that arguably infringe on ERISA preemption is not new.  In fact, some states have become increasingly creative in poking and prodding at the limits of this federal law, which has raised obvious concerns among those involved in the self-insurance marketplace.  (See previous blog posts commenting on the Michigan health care claims tax.)

A new twist worth reporting on is the fact that the Department of Labor has apparently decided to take a more hands-on (political) role in shaping the evolving legal landscape, positioning the agency as a powerful accomplice in the effort to make self-insurance a more challenging risk management strategy.

 This intent was demonstrated last month by the DOL’s decision to file an Amicus brief in the case of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Susan L. Dorgan, in her Capacity as the Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Regulation.  The case is currently pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

 At issue is whether Vermont’s Health Care Database” statute is preempted by ERISA.  Among other things, the statute requires health insurers, providers, facilities and government agencies to “file reports, data, schedules, statistics, or other information determined by the commissioner.”  The term “health insurer” is defined broadly to include any administrator of a self-insured group health plans, including third party administrators and pharmacy benefit managers.

The purpose of these requirements is to enable the state to build a comprehensive database it believes is necessary in order to effectively carry out health care administration functions.   Liberty Mutual, a self-insured employer, refused to provide the requested data.  The company subsequently sued the state, arguing that the collection and reporting of the requested data created administrative burdens for the plans, therefore triggering ERISA preemption.

Siding with the state, a federal trial court judge granted summary judgment, finding that the Vermont law did not affect ERISA plan administration and further concluding that it was appropriate for the state to regulate in this area.

Admittedly, ERISA preemption law can be complicated and highly technical in many cases.  In this regard, to be charitable, we suppose that a good faith argument could be made the requirements set forth  in this stature do not, in fact, affect plan administration so criticism of the state should be put in proper context – a disagreement on legal and policy grounds.

The DOL’s participation is another matter.  By putting its large thumb on the scale, an ambitious political agenda is exposed for those who care to notice.

As the agency primarily responsible for administrating and enforcing ERISA, DOL has historically defended the law’s broad federal preemption provisions.   But with its provocative interpretation that Vermont is essentially regulating the business of insurance (the key exception to ERISA preemption), DOL has clearly signaled it has changed course, presumably to support the Administration’s implicit objective of squeezing the private health care marketplace when possible and where few people are watching.

We commented recently that Tom Perez’s nomination as secretary of DOL portended a more political agency.  Given that he was subsequently confirmed after this Amicus brief was filed, his fingerprints aren’t on this one but it can be reasonably concluded that under his watch the DOL will continue to back Vermont if the case is ultimately heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

And so it goes.  A huge federal bureaucracy quietly imposes the Administration’s political will in ways too nuanced to attract attention.  But that’s where the real action is.