Showing posts with label insurance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label insurance. Show all posts

Will Your Municipal Bond or Your Life Insurance Company Still Have Value Next Year?


Investor protection with municipal bonds is so spotty that there is potential for much mischief.

Disclosure, that bedrock of fair securities markets, is the heart of the problem facing municipal investors. Municipal issuers often don’t file the most basic reports outlining their operating results or material changes in their financial conditions.

Even though hospitals, cities and states that borrow money are required by their bond covenants to make such filings, nondisclosure among the nearly 60,000 issuers is common.

With the S.E.C. largely on the sidelines, disclosure enforcement in the municipal market is left to participants. Do you think they really want to police themselves very closely? That leaves individuals who trade the securities, the investors, and the dealers, to monitor the disclosure information. There is almost no penalty for not complying with those requirements. This is another disaster waiting to happen. If you own municipal bonds, you had better be careful. You may want to investigate www.financeexperts.org and select someone that knows what they are doing to assist you.

Do you have a life insurance or annuity policy? If so, you may be in trouble. The plummeting financial markets are dragging down the life insurance industry, which is an important component of the U.S. economy. Continuously escalating losses weaken the companies’ capital and eat away at investor confidence.

More than a dozen life insurers have been awaiting action on applications for aid from the government’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, and the industry is expecting an answer to its request for a bank-style bailout in the upcoming weeks. So far, the government hasn’t stated whether or not insurers qualify for the program.
Life insurers have undoubtedly been taking a beating in recent weeks. The Dow Jones Wilshire U.S. Life Insurance Index has fallen 82% since its May 2007 all time high. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has lost 21% this year to date.

Several of the hardest-hit companies are century-old names that insure the lives of millions of Americans. Shares of Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. are down 93% as of the close on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 from their 2008 high. MetLife Inc. and Prudential Financial Inc. are both suffering as the value of their vast investment portfolios declines.

As the economy weakens, analysts say many insurers face losses can eat away at the capital cushions regulators require them to maintain. In addition, experts say the industry is going through its most chaotic period in recent history and it’s a pretty scary situation right now.
The consequences of a weakened life-insurance industry for the overall economy are significant because life insurers are among the biggest holders of the nation’s corporate debt. For example, if life insurers stop buying bonds, the capital markets may not fully recover. Their buying activity has already declined.

Wall Street analysts say another problem for some life insurers is obligations for variable annuities, a retirement-income product that often guarantees minimum withdrawals or investment returns. As stock markets plunge to new lows, life insurers need to set aside additional funds to show regulators they can meet their obligations, further crimping sparse capital.

Life insurers’ woes have come largely from investment grade corporate bonds, commercial real estate and mortgages, regulatory filings show. Many insurers ended 2008 with high levels of losses that, due to accounting rules, they haven’t had to record on their bottom lines.
Hartford Financial had $14.6 billion in unrealized losses at year’s end. In addition, Hartford Insurance, through its agents, sold life insurance policies that were part of a welfare benefit plan popularly known as Niche Marketing, which has long been under IRS attack and is almost certainly regarded by the Service as an abusive tax shelter and/or listed transaction. Prudential, the second-largest insurer by assets, had nearly $11.3 billion in unrealized losses, up $5.4 billion in the fourth quarter from the previous quarter.

Lance Wallach, the National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year, speaks and writes extensively about retirement plans, Circular 230 problems and tax reduction strategies. He speaks at more than 40 conventions annually, writes for over 50 publications, is quoted regularly in the press, and has written numerous best-selling AICPA books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Business Hot Spots. He does extensive expert witness work and has never lost a case. Contact him at 516.938.5007 or visit www.taxadvisorexperts.org.
The information provided herein 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.

A warning for 419, 412i, Sec.79 and captive insurance



WebCPA


The dangers of being "listed"



Accounting Today: October 25, 2010
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.  

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 or www.taxlibrary.
us.

The information provided herein 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.



Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams


Lance Wallach
 Nov 12

Parts of this article are from the book published by John Wiley and Sons, Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams, authored by Lance Wallach.

Every financial expert out there knows that bad faith and bad planning can take down even the biggest firms, wiping out millions of dollars of value in an instant. Whether it's internal fraud, a scammer, or an incompetent planner that takes your client's cash, the bottom line is: The money is gone and the loss should have been prevented.

Filled with authoritative advice from financial expert Lance Wallach, Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence, and Scams equips you as an accountant, attorney, or financial planner with the weaponry you need to detect bad investments before they happen and protect your clients' wealth - as well as your own.

Sharp and savvy in its frank, often humorous, and authoritative examination of financial fraud and mismanagement, you'll learn about the dysfunctional sectors in the financial industry and:

  • Protecting your retirement assets
  • Asset protection basics
  • Shifting the risk equation: insurance maneuvers
  • Reevaluating existing insurance
  • What financial advisors and insurance agents "forget" to tell their clients
  • The truth about variable annuities
  • What you must know about life settlements
  • The smart way to approach college funding

The news for the past two years has been filled with gloom and dangers: Swindles, Bernie Madoff, rip-offs, and the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. But the party's over, and with that era done, it's more important than ever for you to perform the due diligence on all financial maneuvers affecting the money you oversee and provide your clients with assurance in the form of practical solutions for risk and asset management.

A pragmatic blueprint for identifying trouble spots you can expect and immediately useful solutions, Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence, and Scams equips you with the resources, strategies, and tools you need to effectively protect your clients from frauds and financial scammers.

Herewith is an excerpt from Lance Wallach's book, Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams:

The IRS has been cracking down on what it considers to be abusive tax shelters. Many of them are being marketed to small business owners by insurance professionals, financial planners, and even accountants and attorneys. I speak at numerous conventions, for both business owners and accountants. And after I speak, many people who have questions about tax reduction plans that they have heard about always approach me.

I have been an expert witness in many of these 419 and 412(i) lawsuits and I have not lost one of them. If you sold one or more of these plans, get someone who really knows what they are doing to help you immediately. Many advisors will take your money and claim to be able to help you. Make sure they have experience helping agents that have sold these types of plans. Make sure they have experience helping accountants who signed the tax returns. IRS calls them material advisors and fines them $200,000 if they are incorporated or $100,000 if not. Do not let them learn on the job, with your career and money at stake.

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, abusive tax shelters, financial, international tax, and estate planning.  He writes about 412(i), 419, Section79, FBAR, 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 the 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.taxadvisorexpert.com or www.taxaudit419.com.
The information provided herein 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.


Abusive 412(i) Retirement Plans Can Get Accountants Fined $200,000


California Enrolled Agent
January 2


By Lance Wallach & Ira Kaplan


Most insurance agents sell 412(i) retirement plans.  The large insurance commissions generate some of the enthusiasm.  Unlike other retirement plans, the 412(i) plan must have insurance products as the funding mechanism.  This seems to generate enthusiasm among insurance agents.  The IRS has been auditing almost all participants in 412(i) plans for the last few years.  At first, they thought all 412(i) plans were abusive.  Many participants’ contributions were disallowed and there were additional fines of $200,000 per year for the participants.  The accountants who signed the tax returns (who the IRS called “material advisors”) were also fined $200,000 with a referral to the Office of Professional Responsibility.  For more articles and details, see www.vebaplan.com and www.irs.gov/.

On Friday February 13, 2004, the IRS issued proposed regulations concerning the valuation of insurance contracts in the context of qualified retirement plans. 

The IRS said that it is no longer reasonable to use the cash surrender value or the interpolated terminal reserve as the accurate value of a life insurance contract for income tax purposes.  The proposed regulations stated that the value of a life insurance contract in the context of qualified retirement plans should be the contract’s fair market value.

The Service acknowledged in the regulations (and in a revenue procedure issued simultaneously) that the fair market value standard could create some confusion among taxpayers.  They addressed this possibility by describing a safe harbor position.

When I addressed the American Society of Pension Actuaries Annual National Convention, the IRS chief actuary also spoke about attacking abusive 412(i) pensions.

A “Section 412(i) plan” is a tax-qualified retirement plan that is funded entirely by a life insurance contract or an annuity.  The employer claims tax deductions for contributions that are used by the plan to pay premiums on an insurance contract covering an employee.  The plan may hold the contract until the employee dies, or it may distribute or sell the contract to the employee at a specific point, such as when the employee retires.

“The guidance targets specific abuses occurring with Section 412(i) plans”, stated Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy Pam Olson.  “There are many legitimate Section 412(i) plans, but some push the envelope, claiming tax results for employees and employers that do not reflect the underlying economics of the arrangements.”  Or, to put it another way, tax deductions are being claimed, in some cases, that the Service does not feel are reasonable given the taxpayer’s facts and circumstances. 

“Again and again, we’ve uncovered abusive tax avoidance transactions that game the system to the detriment of those who play by the rules,” said IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson. 

The IRS has warned against Section 412(i) defined benefit pension plans, named for the former IRC section governing them. It warned against certain trust arrangements it deems abusive, some of which may be regarded as listed transactions. Falling into that category can result in taxpayers having to disclose such participation under pain of penalties, potentially reaching $100,000 for individuals and $200,000 for other taxpayers. Targets also include some retirement plans.
One reason for the harsh treatment of 412(i) plans is their discrimination in favor of owners and key, highly compensated employees. Also, the IRS does not consider the promised tax relief proportionate to the economic realities of these transactions. In general, IRS auditors divide audited plans into those they consider noncompliant and others they consider abusive. While the alternatives available to the sponsor of a noncompliant plan are problematic, it is frequently an option to keep the plan alive in some form while simultaneously hoping to minimize the financial fallout from penalties.
The sponsor of an abusive plan can expect to be treated more harshly. Although in some situations something can be salvaged, the possibility is definitely on the table of having to treat the plan as if it never existed, which of course triggers the full extent of back taxes, penalties and interest on all contributions that were made, not to mention leaving behind no retirement plan whatsoever.  In addition, if the participant did not file Form 8886 and the accountant did not file Form 8918 (to report themselves), they would be fined $200,000.

Lance Wallach, the National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year, speaks and writes extensively about retirement plans, Circular 230 problems and tax reduction strategies.  He speaks at more than 40 conventions annually, writes for over 50 publications and has written numerous best selling AICPA books, including Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Business Hot Spots.  Contact him at 516.938.5007 or visit www.vebaplan.com.

The information provided herein 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.

The IRS and Treasury have issued major warnings about abusive 419 Plans! We've been warning about them for some time.



Under § 419A(c)(2)(A), the reserve for post-retirement medical benefits is further limited by the requirement that it be determined on the basis of current medical costs. In addition, for post-retirement life insurance the maximum insurance coverage that can be taken into account with respect to any covered employee is $50,000 of coverage. Moreover, in the case of post-retirement benefits for or on behalf of a key employee (as defined in § 416(i)(1)), § 419A(d) requires that a separate account be established for any medical or life insurance benefits provided with respect to the key employee, and any medical or life insurance benefits provided with respect to the key employee after retirement may only be paid from the separate account. Under § 419A(e)(1), in order for
reserves for post-retirement medical and life insurance benefits to be taken into account the plan must meet the nondiscrimination requirements of § 505(b) with respect to those benefits (even if those requirements do not otherwise apply to the plan).
A plan meets the nondiscrimination requirements of § 505(b) only if (i) each class of benefits under the plan is provided under a classification of employees which is set forth in the plan and which is found by the Secretary not to be discriminatory in favor of employees who are highly compensated individuals, and (ii) in the case of each class of benefits, such benefits do not discriminate in favor of employees who are highly compensated individuals. Under § 505(b)(3), in the case of any benefit for which another section of the Code provides nondiscrimination rules (e.g., § 105(h) in the case of a self insured medical reimbursement plan), those rules apply instead with respect to the benefit. Under §§ 105(h)(8) and 414(t), all employees who are treated as
employed by a single employer under the rules of § 414(b), (c), or (m) are treated as employed by a single employer for purposes of §§ 105(h), 79, and 505. Sections 104(a)(3) and 105(b),(c), and (d) exclude from gross income certain amounts received by an employee through accident and health insurance. Section 105(e) provides that for purposes of §§ 104 and 105, amounts received through an “accident and health plan for employees” are treated as amounts received through accident or health insurance. Thus, the plan must exist primarily for the benefit of employees, as opposed to shareholders. See, e.g., Larkin v. Commissioner, 48 T.C. 629 (1967), aff’d, 394 F.2d 494 (1st Cir. 1968) (holding that the plan was merely a device to use corporate earnings to meet the anticipated medical needs of the shareholders).
Section 4976(a) imposes on an employer an excise tax in the amount of 100 percent of the amount of any disqualified benefit provided with respect to a welfare benefit fund maintained by the employer. Under § 4976(b)(1), a “disqualified benefit” means (i) any post-retirement medical benefit or life insurance benefit provided with respect to a key employee if a separate account is required to be established for the key employee under § 419A(d) 

Google - Bookmarks

Google - Bookmarks

Sidley Updates News Publications Events Achievements Social Media Directory…

Sidley Updates News Publications Events Achievements Social Media Directory…

Ilakumari Patel, Naren Patel and MVP Consulting Plus, Inc. v. Comerica Bank,…

Ilakumari Patel, Naren Patel and MVP Consulting Plus, Inc. v. Comerica Bank,…

Our Team Defends Insurance Agents Who Sold 419 and 412i Benefit Plans "life…

Our Team Defends Insurance Agents Who Sold 419 and 412i Benefit Plans "life…

Lance Wallach and his associates provide Expert Witness Services |

Lance Wallach and his associates provide Expert Witness Services |

Insurance- Exception to the Rule Against Experience Rating

2.4.0          

The final regulations retained the special rules of application relating to insurance contracts that were set forth in the proposed regulations.

A special rule is provided in the case of a plan maintaining an experience rating arrangement with respect to a group of participating employers or a group of employees covered under the plan (a rating group). Under that rule, a plan will not be treated as maintaining an experience rating arrangement with respect to an individual employer merely because the cost of coverage under a plan with respect to the employer is based, in whole or in part, on the benefits experience or the overall experience of a rating group that includes the employer or one or more of its employees, provided that the employer does not normally contribute more than 10% of all contributions with respect to that rating group. The effect of this rule is to allow the plan to provide for experience rating on a planwide basis or on the basis of a subset of the employers within the plan, provided that the subset of employers is not overweighted by the experience of one employer and is not defined based on the experience of the employers.

Bisk Point:              The Service simply looks at the substance of each plan, not its form. Therefore, is an overcontribution would affect the benefits paid or the cost of coverage for the employer that made the overcontribution that automatically renders the plan an experience rating arrangement. However, where the costs and benefits remain fixed for all plan participants, there are no restrictions in how to structure the cost of coverage or the benefits package, even if it is based on an employee’s actual experience. However, as seen in the next section, other restriction may apply.



Want to get your money back from your broker, insurance agent, shoe salesman or Insurance Company. As an expert witness Lance Wallachs side has never lost a case.

Securities Fraud and Other Investment Losses/fraudulent sales practices: Some of the more common securities liability issues include: the placement of unauthorized transactions, the recommendation of unsuitable transactions, over-concentration of certain positions in an account, churning, annuity switching, failure to execute trades, excessive or unsuitable use of margin, selling away, theft from an account, negligent retirement advice, misrepresentations or omissions regarding investments, recommendation of variable annuities, forged documents, options fraud, unsuitable welfare benefit plans, abuse of a vulnerable adult, whistleblower, or negligent investment strategy.

Unauthorized transactions:

Unauthorized trading occurs when a trading account is non-discretionary (that is the broker is not provided with authority to execute trades on his/her own) and the broker places a trade without the customer’s authority.

Unsuitable investments:

Brokers are required to conduct a “Suitability Review” to determine if a specific investment or investment strategy is appropriate for a given customer. The NASD has specific conduct rules where a broker recommends to a customer the purchase, sale or exchange of any security. The broker/dealer and the registered representative shall have reasonable grounds for believing that the recommendation is suitable for each customer on the basis of the facts, if any, disclosed by the customer as to his other security holdings and as to his financial situation and needs. Prior to the execution of any transaction the broker/dealer and the registered representative involved shall make reasonable efforts to obtain information concerning (a) the customer’s financial status, (b) the customer’s tax status, (c) investment objectives and (d) such other information used or considered to be reasonable in making recommendations to the customer.

Duty to Know Your Customer:

The basic rule of broker-customer relationships is “know your customer”. Brokers are required to obtain a detailed knowledge of a customer’s assets, income, investment objectives and risk tolerance to be in compliance with the NASD/FINRA and other regulations. The surest indication of a failure to follow these rules in customer relationships is a pattern of sales or other transactions obviously designed to reward the Registered Representative rather than meet the customer’s needs.

Over Concentration:

Over concentration occurs when a stockbroker invests a large portion of a customer’s portfolio into a single investment or sector of the market or asset class. A stockbroker who fails to sufficiently diversify a client’s investment portfolio substantially increases the risk of potential investment losses.

Churning:

A claim for churning arises when a broker excessively trades securities in an investment account in order to generate commissions. Churning is a violation of industry standards and constitutes fraud.

Annuity Switching:

A form of churning, which involves switching a client from one annuity to another in order to earn an additional commission.

Failure to Execute:

A broker can be liable for a failure to execute if he/she fails to place a trade ordered by the customer. Sometimes this is referred to as a dropped ticket where the broker negligently fails to execute a trade.

Selling Away:

Private securities transactions (otherwise known as “selling away”) are outside business activities involving securities transactions and are governed by NASD Conduct Rules. Broker/dealers have very strict rules on the sale of securities that are not reported to the company and representatives are precluded from engaging in any private securities transactions without prior written permission from the company.

Excessive or Unsuitable Use of Margin:

Exposing an investor to substantial risk through a margin account (a brokerage account with a line of credit that makes substantial profit for the brokerage firm).

Theft from Account:

Theft occurs when a stockbroker takes money form a client’s personal accounts for the broker’s personal use without the knowledge of the client. Theft in an account may include transactions in discretionary accounts in excess of that approved by a client, unauthorized transactions or unauthorized borrowing or use of a client’s assets.

Negligent Retirement Advice:

In certain circumstances, stockbrokers or financial planners can be held liable for providing negligent advice on when to retire.

Misrepresentations or Omissions:

Securities brokers have a duty to ensure that the information they convey to their clients is accurate and complete. Otherwise, the broker can be held liable for a material misrepresentation or omission of material fact regarding an investment or investment strategy.

Variable Annuities:

Variable annuities are frequently unsuitable investments for certain individuals. Often the annuity contracts or promotions do not explicitly describe the high surrender charges, excessive commissions, and high cost of offering the variable annuity benefits such as tax deferral and death benefits. Investors are oftentimes misled with the promise of guaranteed returns when returns from variable annuities are not actually guaranteed and the return depends on market reactions or volatility of the stock market.

Forged Documents:

Sometimes brokers forge signatures on investment related forms such as new account forms and options account agreement. The attorneys at Mathews Wallace LLP are always on the lookout for forged documents.

Options Fraud:

Options are complicated and extremely risky investments only suitable for individuals who understand the enormous risk of options and can afford to lose a significant part of their investment.

Bogus Welfare Benefit Plans (419 Plans):



The IRS has sought penalties against individuals and companies of up to $200,000 per year for participating in bogus welfare benefit plans. Many companies attempted to obtain favorable tax treatment by creating plans that were set up pursuant to IRS Code section 419 (Section 419A(f)6 and Section 419(e)). Ultimately, the IRS has determined that abusive welfare benefit plans are “listed transactions” which require the participant in the plan to fill out a special IRS form, Form 8886, disclosing participation in a listed transaction. While not every plan is illegal, the IRS requires that you disclose your investment in the plan. If you fail to disclose your participation in a plan the penalties can be significant and even more for companies. If you or your company received a notice from the IRS about penalties and interest regarding your participation in a 419 Plan contact us to discuss your options. Such plans were sold as 419(e), 419A(f)(6) and 419 plans.