Small Business Retirement Plans Fuel Litigation
Small businesses facing audits and potentially huge tax penalties over certain types of retirement plans are filing lawsuits against those who marketed, designed and sold the plans. The 412(i) and 419(e) plans were marketed in the past several years as a way for small business owners to set up retirement or welfare benefits plans while leveraging huge tax savings,but the IRS put them on a list of abusive tax shelters and has more recently focused audits on them.The penalties for such transactions are extremely high and can pile up quickly - $100,000 per individual and $200,000 per entity per tax year for each failure to disclose the transaction - often exceeding the disallowed taxes.There are business owners who owe $6,000 in taxes but have been assessed $1.2 million in penalties.The existing cases involve many types of businesses, including doctors' offices,dental practices, grocery store owners, mortgage companies and restaurant owners.Some are trying to negotiate with the IRS. Others are not waiting. A class action has been filed and cases in several states are ongoing. The business owners claim that they were targeted by insurance companies; and their agents to purchase the plans without any disclosure that the IRS viewed the plans as abusive tax shelters. Other defendants include financial advisors who recommended the plans, accountants who failed to fill out required tax forms and law firms that drafted opinion letters legitimizing the plans, which were sed as marketing tools.A 412(i) plan is a form of defined benefit pension plan. A 419(e) plan is a
similar type of health and benefits plan. Typically, these were sold to small, privately held businesses with fewer than 20 employees and several million
dollars in gross revenues. What distinguished a legitimate plan from the plans at issue were the life insurance policies used to fund them. The employer would make large cash contributions in the form of insurance premiums, deducting the entire amounts. The insurance policy was designed to have a "springing cash value," meaning that for the first 5-7 years it would have a near-zero cash value, and then spring up in value. Just before it sprung, the owner would purchase the policy from the trust at the low cash value, thus making a tax-free transaction. After the cash value shot up, the owner could take tax-free loans against it.
Meanwhile, the insurance agents collected exorbitant commissions on the premiums - 80 to 110 percent of the first year's premium, which could exceed $1 million.Technically, the IRS's problems with the plans were that the "springing cash" structure disqualified them from being 412(i) plans and that the premiums, which dwarfed any payout to a beneficiary, violated incidental death benefit rules.Under §6707A of the Internal Revenue Code, once the IRS flags something as an abusive tax shelter, or "listed transaction," penalties are imposed per year for each failure to disclose it. Another allegation is that businesses weren't told that they had to file Form 8886, which discloses a listed transaction.
According to Lance Wallach of Plainview, New York who testifies as an expert in cases involving the plans,the vast majority of accountants either did not file the forms for their clients or did not fill them out correctly.Because the IRS did not begin to focus audits on these types of plans until some years after they became listed transactions, the penalties have already stacked up by the time of the audits.Another reason plaintiffs are going to court is that there are few alternatives the penalties are not appealable and must be paid before filing anadministrative claim for a refund.
6707A Penalties & 419 Plans Litigation: A warning for 419, 412i, Sec.79 and captive insura...
6707A Penalties & 419 Plans Litigation: A warning for 419, 412i, Sec.79 and captive insura...: Web CPA The dangers of being "listed" Accounting Today: October 25, 2010 By: Lance Wallach Taxpayers who previously adopted 419 pl...
IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program Report
Offshore International Today
IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program Reopens
By Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC
Abusive Tax Shelter, Listed Transaction, Reportable Transaction Expert Witness
Abusive Tax Shelter, Listed Transaction, Reportable Transaction Expert Witness
Today, the Internal Revenue Service reopened the offshore voluntary disclosure program to help people hiding offshore accounts get current with their taxes. Additionally, the IRS revealed the collection of more than $4.4 billion so far from the two previous international programs.
The Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) was reopened following continued strong interest from taxpayers and tax practitioners after the closure of the 2011 and 2009 programs. The third offshore program comes as the IRS continues working on a wide range of international tax issues and follows ongoing efforts with the Justice Department to pursue criminal prosecution of international tax evasion. This program will remain open indefinitely until otherwise announced.
Lance Wallach and his associates have received thousands of phone calls from concerned clients with questions about the prior programs. Some of Lance’s associates are still very busy helping people with the last program. Not a single person has been audited and most are pleased with the results and are now able to sleep easily without worrying about the IRS. According to Lance, it requires years of experience to obtain a good result from the program.
He suggests using a CPA-certified, ex-IRS agent with lots of international tax experience. While this is not a requirement to file under the program, Lance has heard many horror stories from people who have tried to file by themselves or who have used inexperienced accountants.
“Our focus on offshore tax evasion continues to produce strong, substantial results for the nation’s taxpayers,” said IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman. “We have billions of dollars in hand from our previous efforts, and we have more people wanting to come in and get right with the government. This new program makes good sense for taxpayers still hiding assets overseas and for the nation’s tax system.”
The new program is similar to the 2011 program in many ways, but it has a few key differences. Unlike last year, there is no set deadline for people to apply. However, the terms of the program could change at any time going forward. For example, the IRS may increase penalties in the program for all or some taxpayers or defined classes of taxpayers – or decide to end the program entirely at any point.
“As we've said all along, people need to come in and get right with us before we find you,” Shulman said. “We are following more leads and the risk for people who do not come in continues to increase.”
The third offshore effort accompanies another announcement that Shulman made today, that the IRS has collected $3.4 billion so far from people who participated in the 2009 offshore program. That figure reflects closures of about 95 percent of the cases from the 2009 program. On top of that, the IRS has collected an additional $1 billion from up front payments required under the 2011 program. That number will grow as the IRS processes the 2011 cases.
In all, the IRS has seen 33,000 voluntary disclosures from the 2009 and 2011 offshore initiatives. Since the 2011 program closed last September, hundreds of taxpayers have come forward to make voluntary disclosures. Those who come in after the closing of the 2011 program will be able to be treated under the provisions of the new OVDP program.
The overall penalty structure for the new program is the same for 2011, except for taxpayers in the highest penalty category.
The new program’s penalty framework requires individuals to pay a penalty of 27.5 percent of the highest aggregate balance in foreign bank accounts/entities or the value of foreign assets during the eight full tax years prior to the disclosure. That is up from 25 percent in the 2011 program. Some taxpayers will be eligible for 5 or 12.5 percent penalties; these remain the same in the new program as in 2011.
Participants must file all original and amended tax returns and include payment for back-taxes and interest for up to eight years as well as paying accuracy-related and/or delinquency penalties.
Participants face a 27.5 percent penalty, but taxpayers in limited situations can qualify for a 5 percent penalty. Smaller offshore accounts will face a 12.5 percent penalty. People whose offshore accounts or assets did not surpass $75,000 in any calendar year covered by the new OVDP will qualify for this lower rate. As under the prior programs, taxpayers who feel that the penalty is disproportionate may opt instead to be examined.
The IRS recognizes that its success in offshore enforcement and in the disclosure programs has raised awareness related to tax filing obligations. This includes awareness by dual citizens and others who may be delinquent in filing, but owe no U.S. tax.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tax Shelter Penalty Cases Hurt Thousands of Small Business Owners
Mar 08
Taxpayers must report certain transactions to the IRS under Section 6707A of the Tax Code, which was enacted in 2004 to help detect, deter, and shut down abusive tax shelter activities. For example, reportable transactions may include being in a 419,412i, or other insurance plan sold by insurance agents for tax deduction purposes. Other abusive transactions could include captive insurance and section 79 plans, which are usually sold by insurance agents for tax deductions. Taxpayers must disclose their participation in these and other transactions by filing a Reportable Transactions Disclosure Statement (Form 8886) with their income tax returns. People that sell these plans are called material advisors and must also file 8918 forms properly. Failure to report the transactions could result in very large penalties. Accountants who sign tax returns that have these deductions can also be called material advisors and should also file forms 8918 properly.
The IRS has fined hundreds of taxpayers who did file under 6707A. They said that they did not fill out the forms properly, or did not file correctly. The plan administrator or a 412i advised over 200 of his clients how to file. They were then all fined by the IRS for filling out the forms wrong. The fines averaged about $500,000 per taxpayer.
A report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) found that the procedures for documenting and assessing the Section 6707A penalty were not sufficient or formalized, and cases often are not fully developed.
TIGTA evaluated the IRS's effectiveness in identifying, developing, and applying the Section 6707A penalty. Based on its review of 114 assessed Section 6707A penalties, TIGTA determined that many of these files were incomplete or did not contain sufficient audit evidence. TIGTA also found a need for better coordination between the IRS's Office of Tax Shelter Analysis and other functions.
"As penalties are meant to encourage voluntary
taxpayer compliance, it is important that IRS procedures for documenting and
assessing them be well developed and fully documented," said TIGTA
Inspector General J. Russell George in a statement. "Any failure to do so
raises the risk that taxpayers will not receive consistent and fair treatment under
the law, and could further reduce their willingness to comply
voluntarily."
The Section 6707A penalty is a stand-alone penalty and does not require an
associated income tax examination; therefore, it applies regardless of whether
the reportable transaction results in an understatement of tax. TIGTA
determined that, in most cases, the Section 6707A penalty was substantially
higher than additional tax assessments taxpayers received from the audit of
underlying tax returns. I have had phone calls from taxpayers that contributed
less than $100,000 to a listed transaction and were fined over $500,000. I have
had phone calls from taxpayers that went into 419, or 412i plans but made no
contributions and were fined a large amount of money for being in a listed
transaction and not properly filing forms under IRC section 6707A. The IRS
claims that the fines are non appealable.On July 7, 2009, at the request of Congress, the IRS agreed to suspend collection enforcement actions. However, this did not preclude the issuance of notices of assessment that are required by law and adjustment notices that inform the taxpayer of any account activity. In addition, taxpayers continued to receive balance due and final notices of intent to levy, and demands to pay Section 6707A penalties.
TIGTA recommended that the IRS fully develop, document, and properly process Section 6707A penalties. The IRS agreed with TIGTA's recommendation and plans to take appropriate corrective actions. I think as a result of this many taxpayers who have not yet been fined will shortly receive the fines. Unless a taxpayer files properly there is no statute of limitations. The IRS has, and will continue to go back many years and fine people that are in listed, reportable or substantially similar to transactions.
If you are, or were in a 412i, 419, captive insurance or section 79 plan you should immediately file under 6707A protectively. If you have already filed you should find someone who knows what he is doing to review the forms. I only know of two people who know how to properly file. The IRS instructions are vague. If a taxpayer files wrong, or fills out the forms wrong he still gets the fine. I have had hundreds of phone calls from people in that situation.
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 more than 20 publications, is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Pubic 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 his side 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 type of advice for any specific
individual or other entity. You should contact an appropriate professional for
any such advice.
Welfare Benefit Plans - Big Risks for Accountants
Brian
Tens of
thousands of welfare benefit plans are in existence. Some are legitimate but
many are not. Unfortunately for taxpayers and their financial advisers, the IRS
views all such plans with suspicion. These plans carry big risks for both the
participants and the promoters. New enforcement actions by the IRS and civil
claims by participants reveal the dangers for accountants as well.
Every year, many accountants sign returns in which their client claims a deduction for a welfare benefit plan. The IRS often considers these plans, created by section 419 of the Internal Revenue Code, to be listed transactions. In addition to the normal tax return disclosures, listed transactions must also be reported on Form 8886. Failure to properly file can lead to penalties of $100,000 for individuals and $200,000 for entities. Those penalties are per year!
Accountants must be certain they fully understand what transactions the IRS considers abusive. These transactions include certain 401(k) accelerated deductions, collectively bargained welfare benefit funds (sec. 419a(f)(5)), certain trust arrangements under section 419 and deductions for certain defined benefit plans (sec. 4129i)). It is important to remember that the IRS defines listed transactions to include any transaction that is substantially similar to one of the above.
Accountants can also get caught up in the penalty web if they were a material advisor. If you sign a return taking a deduction for one of these listed plans or if you sold the plan, you could find yourself facing significant penalties of $200,000 or more. (Material advisors must file IRS form 8918.)
Unscrupulous promoters often package their plans with legal opinion letters suggesting that their particular plan is not an abusive tax shelter and that the taxpayer need not comply with the Form 8886 filing requirement. Don't rely on those opinions. A third party opinion is no substitute for proper due diligence and review.
A second trap for unwary accountants is the civil liability they face. Financial planners and promoters market many of these plans. Often they are marketed through seminars. Some promoters offer commissions to lawyers and accountants who refer their clients. Earn a commission or opine on the tax deductibility of the plan and you may find yourself as a defendant in a lawsuit.
Many of these plans not only fail to deliver the promised tax benefits, they are complete scams or are constructed in such a way that taxpayers can't get their money back if circumstances change. When that happens, these same taxpayers will seek any deep pocket they can find. Often that is the accountant.
If a client has already made a contribution and purchased a plan, think long and hard as to whether you should sign the return without a thorough review and all required disclosures. It may be worthwhile to suggest the taxpayer find tax counsel. There is a risk of losing the client, of course, but is the risk worth the potential civil liability and penalties if the plan does not pass IRS muster?
Lance Wallach take on this article. I do not think it is all up to date. For more on 419 scams Google me or try www.taxaudit419.com for lots of articles. We have been helping people for years with these problems.
Every year, many accountants sign returns in which their client claims a deduction for a welfare benefit plan. The IRS often considers these plans, created by section 419 of the Internal Revenue Code, to be listed transactions. In addition to the normal tax return disclosures, listed transactions must also be reported on Form 8886. Failure to properly file can lead to penalties of $100,000 for individuals and $200,000 for entities. Those penalties are per year!
Accountants must be certain they fully understand what transactions the IRS considers abusive. These transactions include certain 401(k) accelerated deductions, collectively bargained welfare benefit funds (sec. 419a(f)(5)), certain trust arrangements under section 419 and deductions for certain defined benefit plans (sec. 4129i)). It is important to remember that the IRS defines listed transactions to include any transaction that is substantially similar to one of the above.
Accountants can also get caught up in the penalty web if they were a material advisor. If you sign a return taking a deduction for one of these listed plans or if you sold the plan, you could find yourself facing significant penalties of $200,000 or more. (Material advisors must file IRS form 8918.)
Unscrupulous promoters often package their plans with legal opinion letters suggesting that their particular plan is not an abusive tax shelter and that the taxpayer need not comply with the Form 8886 filing requirement. Don't rely on those opinions. A third party opinion is no substitute for proper due diligence and review.
A second trap for unwary accountants is the civil liability they face. Financial planners and promoters market many of these plans. Often they are marketed through seminars. Some promoters offer commissions to lawyers and accountants who refer their clients. Earn a commission or opine on the tax deductibility of the plan and you may find yourself as a defendant in a lawsuit.
Many of these plans not only fail to deliver the promised tax benefits, they are complete scams or are constructed in such a way that taxpayers can't get their money back if circumstances change. When that happens, these same taxpayers will seek any deep pocket they can find. Often that is the accountant.
If a client has already made a contribution and purchased a plan, think long and hard as to whether you should sign the return without a thorough review and all required disclosures. It may be worthwhile to suggest the taxpayer find tax counsel. There is a risk of losing the client, of course, but is the risk worth the potential civil liability and penalties if the plan does not pass IRS muster?
Lance Wallach take on this article. I do not think it is all up to date. For more on 419 scams Google me or try www.taxaudit419.com for lots of articles. We have been helping people for years with these problems.
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.
419 and 412 Plan Fraud
You think you
know what you are getting when you buy an insurance plan, but what do you do
when you find out that your plan does not work they way you thought? If you
have been misled by your insurance broker, you may have been the victim of
fraud. We protect the rights of the victims of 419 and 412 plan fraud.
- Have you purchased an IRC 419 Employee Welfare
Benefit Plan after being told the contributions were fully deductible from
federal and state income taxes, only to find out that this was not the
case?
- Did you purchase a trust you may not have
needed, funded with substantial amounts of life insurance because you were
told you could build up cash value tax-free and then have use of the funds
tax-free?
When consumers are misled and given false information by insurance brokers, they have the right to sue the fraudulent agents and insurance company that sold the plan.
LanceWallach, CLU, ChFC, CIMC, speaks and writes extensively about financial planning, retirement plans, and tax reduction strategies. He is an American Institute of CPA’s course developer and instructor and has authored numerous best selling books about abusive tax shelters, IRS crackdowns and attacks and other tax matters. He speaks at more than 20 national conventions annually and writes for more than 50 national publications. For more information and additional articles on these subjects, visit www.vebaplan.com, www.taxlibrary.us, lawyer4audits.com or call 516-938-5007.
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 Insurance, Welfare Benefit, and Retirement Plans
The IRS has various task forces auditing all section 419, section 412(i), and other
plans that tend to be abusive. These plans are sold by most insurance agents. The IRS
is looking to raise money and is not looking to correct plans or help taxpayers. The
fines for being in a listed, abusive, or similar transaction are up to $200,000 per year
(section 6707A), unless you report on yourself. The IRS calls accountants, attorneys,
and insurance agents "material advisors" and also fines them the same amount, again
unless the client's participation in the transaction is reported. An accountant is a material
advisor if he signs the return or gives advice and gets paid. More details can be found on
http://www.irs.gov and http://www.vebaplan.com.
Bruce Hink, who has given me written permission to use his name and circumstances,
is a perfect example of what the IRS is doing to unsuspecting business owners. What
follows is a story about how the IRS fines him $200,000 a year for being in what they
called a listed transaction. Listed transactions can be found at http://www.irs.gov. Also
involved are what the IRS calls abusive plans or what it refers to as substantially similar.
Substantially similar to is very difficult to understand, but the IRS seems to be saying, "If
it looks like some other listed transaction, the fines apply." Also, I believe that the
accountant who signed the tax return and the insurance agent who sold the retirement plan will each be fined $200,000 as material advisors. We have received many calls
for help from accountants, attorneys, business owners, and insurance agents in similar
situations. Don't think this will happen to you? It is happening to a lot of accountants
and business owners, because most of theses so-called listed, abusive, or substantially
similar plans are being sold by insurance agents.
Recently I came across the case of Hink, a small business owner who is facing $400,000
in IRS penalties for 2004 and 2005 because of his participation in a section 412(i) plan.
(The penalties were assessed under section 6707A.)
In 2002 an insurance agent representing a 100-year-old, well established insurance
company suggested the owner start a pension plan. The owner was given a portfolio of
information from the insurance company, which was given to the company's outside CPA
to review and give an opinion on. The CPA gave the plan the green light and the plan
was started.
Contributions were made in 2003. The plan administrator came out with amendments to
the plan, based on new IRS guidelines, in October 2004.
The business owner's insurance agent disappeared in May 2005, before implementing the
new guidelines from the administrator with the insurance company. The business owner
was left with a refund check from the insurance company, a deduction claim on his 2004
tax return that had not been applied, and no agent.
It took six months of making calls to the insurance company to get a new insurance agent
assigned. By then, the IRS had started an examination of the pension plan. Asking
advice from the CPA and a local attorney (who had no previous experience in these
cases) made matters worse, with a "big name" law firm being recommended and over
$30,000 in additional legal fees being billed in three months.
To make a long story short, the audit stretched on for over 2 ½ years to examine a 2-
year-old pension with four participants and the $178,000 in contributions. During the
audit, no funds went to the insurance company, which was awaiting formal IRS approval
on restructuring the plan as a traditional defined benefit plan, which the administrator
had suggested and the IRS had indicated would be acceptable. The $90,000 in 2005
contributions was put into the company's retirement bank account along with the 2004
contributions.
In March 2008 the business owner received a private e-mail apology from the IRS agent
who headed the examination, saying that her hands were tied and that she used to believe
she was correcting problems and helping taxpayers and not hurting people.
The IRS denied any appeal and ruled in October 2008 the $400,000 penalty would stand.
The IRS fine for being in a listed, abusive, or similar transaction is $200,000 per year for
corporations or $100,000 per year for unincorporated entities. The material advisor fine
is $200,000 if you are incorporated or $100,000 if you are not.
Could you or one of your clients be next?
To this point, I have focused, generally, on the horrors of running afoul of the IRS by
participating in a listed transaction, which includes various types of transactions and the
various fines that can be imposed on business owners and their advisors who participate
in, sell, or advice on these transactions. I happened to use, as an example, someone
in a section 412(i) plan, which was deemed to be a listed transaction, pointing out the
truly doleful consequences the person has suffered. Others who fall into this trap, even
unwittingly, can suffer the same fate.
Now let's go into more detail about section 412(i) plans. This is important because these
defined benefit plans are popular and because few people think of retirement plans as
tax shelters or listed transactions. People therefore may get into serious trouble in this
area unwittingly, out of ignorance of the law, and, for the same reason, many fail to take
necessary and appropriate precautions.
The IRS has warned against the section 412(i) defined benefit pension plans, named for
the former code section governing them. It warned against 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 the 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 some 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 the transactions. In
general, IRS auditors divide audited plan into those they consider noncompliant and other
they consider abusive. While the alternatives available to the sponsor of 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 than participants.
Although in some situation 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.
Another plan the IRS is auditing is the section 419 plan. A few listed transactions
concern relatively common employee benefit plans the IRS has deemed tax avoidance
schemes or otherwise abusive. Perhaps some of the most likely to crop up, especially
in small-business returns, are the arrangements purporting to allow the deductibility of
premiums paid for life insurance under a welfare benefit plan or section 419 plan. These
plans have been sold by most insurance agents and insurance companies.
Some of theses abusive employee benefit plans are represented as satisfying section
419, which sets limits on purposed and balances of "qualified asset accounts" for the
benefits, although the plans purport to offer the deductibility of contributions without
any corresponding income. Others attempt to take advantage of the exceptions to
qualified asset account limits, such as sham union plans that try to exploit the exception
for the separate welfare benefit funds under collective bargaining agreements provided
by section 419A(f)(5). Others try to take advantage of exceptions for plans serving 10
or more employers, once popular under section 419A(f)(6). More recently, one may
encounter plans relying on section 419(e) and, perhaps, defines benefit sections 412(i)
pension plans.
Sections 419 and 419A were added to the code by the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 in
an attempt to end employers' acceleration of deductions for plan contributions. But it
wasn't long before plan promoters found an end run around the new code sections. An
industry developed in what came to be known as 10-or-more-employer plans.
The IRS steadily added these abusive plans to its designations of listed transactions.
With Revenue Ruling 90-105, it warned against deducting some plan contributions
attributable to compensation earned by plan participants after the end of the tax year.
Purported exceptions to limits of sections 419 and 419A claimed by 10-or-more-
employer benefit funds were likewise prescribed in Notice 95-24 (Doc 95-5046, 95 TNT
98-11). Both positions were designated as listed transactions in 2000.
At that point, where did all those promoters go? Evidence indicates many are now
promoting plans purporting to comply with section 419(e). They are calling a life
insurance plan a welfare benefit plan (or fund), somewhat as they once did, and
promoting the plan as a vehicle to obtain large tax deductions. The only substantial
difference is that theses are now single-employer plans. And again, the IRS has tried
to rein them in, reminding taxpayers that listed transactions include those substantially
similar to any that are specifically described and so designated.
On October 17, 2007, the IRS issues Notices 2007-83 (Doc 2007-23225, 2007 TNT 202-
6) and 2007-84 (Doc 2007-23220, 2007 TNT 202-5). In the former, the IRS identified
some trust arrangements involving cash value life insurance policies, and substantially
similar arrangements, as listed transactions. The latter similarly warned against some
postretirement medical and life insurance benefit arrangements, saying they might be
subject to "alternative tax treatment." The IRS at the same time issued related Rev.
Rul. 2007-65 (Doc 2007-23226, 2007 TNT 202-7) to address situations in which an
arrangement is considered a welfare benefit fund but the employer's deduction for its
contributions to the fund id denied in whole or in part for premiums paid by the trust on
cash value life insurance policies. It states that a welfare benefit fund's qualified direct
cost under section 419 does not include premium amounts paid by the fund for cash value
life insurance policies if the fund is directly or indirectly a beneficiary under the policy,
as determined under sections264(a).
Notice 2007-83 targets promoted arrangements under which the fund trustee purchases
cash value insurance policies on the lives of a business's employee/owners, and
sometimes key employees, while purchasing term insurance policies on the lives of other
employees covered under the plan.
These plans anticipate being terminated and anticipate that the cash value policies will
be distributed to the owners or key employees, with little distributed to other employees.
The promoters claim that the insurance premiums are currently deductible by the business
and that the distributed insurance policies are virtually tax free to the owners. The ruling
makes it clear that, going forward, a business under most circumstances cannot deduct
the cost of premiums paid through a welfare benefit plan for cash value life insurance on
the lives of its employees.
Should a client approach you with one of these plans, be especially cautious, for both
of you. Advise your client to check out the promoter very carefully. Make it clear that
the government has the names of all former section 419A(f)(6) promoters and, therefore,
will be scrutinizing the promoter carefully if the promoter was once active in that area, as
many current section 419(e) (welfare benefit fund or plan) promoters were. This makes
an audit of your client more likely and far riskier.
It is worth noting that listed transactions are subject to a regulatory scheme applicable
only to them, entirely separate from Circular 230 requirements, regulations, and
sanctions. Participation in such a transaction must be disclosed on a tax return, and the
penalties for failure to disclose are severe – up to $100,000 for individuals and $200,000
for corporations. The penalties apply to both taxpayers and practitioners. And the
problem with disclosure, of course, is that it is apt to trigger an audit, in which case even
if the listed transaction was to pass muster, something else may not.
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/TaxHelp.html 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.
plans that tend to be abusive. These plans are sold by most insurance agents. The IRS
is looking to raise money and is not looking to correct plans or help taxpayers. The
fines for being in a listed, abusive, or similar transaction are up to $200,000 per year
(section 6707A), unless you report on yourself. The IRS calls accountants, attorneys,
and insurance agents "material advisors" and also fines them the same amount, again
unless the client's participation in the transaction is reported. An accountant is a material
advisor if he signs the return or gives advice and gets paid. More details can be found on
http://www.irs.gov and http://www.vebaplan.com.
Bruce Hink, who has given me written permission to use his name and circumstances,
is a perfect example of what the IRS is doing to unsuspecting business owners. What
follows is a story about how the IRS fines him $200,000 a year for being in what they
called a listed transaction. Listed transactions can be found at http://www.irs.gov. Also
involved are what the IRS calls abusive plans or what it refers to as substantially similar.
Substantially similar to is very difficult to understand, but the IRS seems to be saying, "If
it looks like some other listed transaction, the fines apply." Also, I believe that the
accountant who signed the tax return and the insurance agent who sold the retirement plan will each be fined $200,000 as material advisors. We have received many calls
for help from accountants, attorneys, business owners, and insurance agents in similar
situations. Don't think this will happen to you? It is happening to a lot of accountants
and business owners, because most of theses so-called listed, abusive, or substantially
similar plans are being sold by insurance agents.
Recently I came across the case of Hink, a small business owner who is facing $400,000
in IRS penalties for 2004 and 2005 because of his participation in a section 412(i) plan.
(The penalties were assessed under section 6707A.)
In 2002 an insurance agent representing a 100-year-old, well established insurance
company suggested the owner start a pension plan. The owner was given a portfolio of
information from the insurance company, which was given to the company's outside CPA
to review and give an opinion on. The CPA gave the plan the green light and the plan
was started.
Contributions were made in 2003. The plan administrator came out with amendments to
the plan, based on new IRS guidelines, in October 2004.
The business owner's insurance agent disappeared in May 2005, before implementing the
new guidelines from the administrator with the insurance company. The business owner
was left with a refund check from the insurance company, a deduction claim on his 2004
tax return that had not been applied, and no agent.
It took six months of making calls to the insurance company to get a new insurance agent
assigned. By then, the IRS had started an examination of the pension plan. Asking
advice from the CPA and a local attorney (who had no previous experience in these
cases) made matters worse, with a "big name" law firm being recommended and over
$30,000 in additional legal fees being billed in three months.
To make a long story short, the audit stretched on for over 2 ½ years to examine a 2-
year-old pension with four participants and the $178,000 in contributions. During the
audit, no funds went to the insurance company, which was awaiting formal IRS approval
on restructuring the plan as a traditional defined benefit plan, which the administrator
had suggested and the IRS had indicated would be acceptable. The $90,000 in 2005
contributions was put into the company's retirement bank account along with the 2004
contributions.
In March 2008 the business owner received a private e-mail apology from the IRS agent
who headed the examination, saying that her hands were tied and that she used to believe
she was correcting problems and helping taxpayers and not hurting people.
The IRS denied any appeal and ruled in October 2008 the $400,000 penalty would stand.
The IRS fine for being in a listed, abusive, or similar transaction is $200,000 per year for
corporations or $100,000 per year for unincorporated entities. The material advisor fine
is $200,000 if you are incorporated or $100,000 if you are not.
Could you or one of your clients be next?
To this point, I have focused, generally, on the horrors of running afoul of the IRS by
participating in a listed transaction, which includes various types of transactions and the
various fines that can be imposed on business owners and their advisors who participate
in, sell, or advice on these transactions. I happened to use, as an example, someone
in a section 412(i) plan, which was deemed to be a listed transaction, pointing out the
truly doleful consequences the person has suffered. Others who fall into this trap, even
unwittingly, can suffer the same fate.
Now let's go into more detail about section 412(i) plans. This is important because these
defined benefit plans are popular and because few people think of retirement plans as
tax shelters or listed transactions. People therefore may get into serious trouble in this
area unwittingly, out of ignorance of the law, and, for the same reason, many fail to take
necessary and appropriate precautions.
The IRS has warned against the section 412(i) defined benefit pension plans, named for
the former code section governing them. It warned against 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 the 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 some 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 the transactions. In
general, IRS auditors divide audited plan into those they consider noncompliant and other
they consider abusive. While the alternatives available to the sponsor of 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 than participants.
Although in some situation 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.
Another plan the IRS is auditing is the section 419 plan. A few listed transactions
concern relatively common employee benefit plans the IRS has deemed tax avoidance
schemes or otherwise abusive. Perhaps some of the most likely to crop up, especially
in small-business returns, are the arrangements purporting to allow the deductibility of
premiums paid for life insurance under a welfare benefit plan or section 419 plan. These
plans have been sold by most insurance agents and insurance companies.
Some of theses abusive employee benefit plans are represented as satisfying section
419, which sets limits on purposed and balances of "qualified asset accounts" for the
benefits, although the plans purport to offer the deductibility of contributions without
any corresponding income. Others attempt to take advantage of the exceptions to
qualified asset account limits, such as sham union plans that try to exploit the exception
for the separate welfare benefit funds under collective bargaining agreements provided
by section 419A(f)(5). Others try to take advantage of exceptions for plans serving 10
or more employers, once popular under section 419A(f)(6). More recently, one may
encounter plans relying on section 419(e) and, perhaps, defines benefit sections 412(i)
pension plans.
Sections 419 and 419A were added to the code by the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 in
an attempt to end employers' acceleration of deductions for plan contributions. But it
wasn't long before plan promoters found an end run around the new code sections. An
industry developed in what came to be known as 10-or-more-employer plans.
The IRS steadily added these abusive plans to its designations of listed transactions.
With Revenue Ruling 90-105, it warned against deducting some plan contributions
attributable to compensation earned by plan participants after the end of the tax year.
Purported exceptions to limits of sections 419 and 419A claimed by 10-or-more-
employer benefit funds were likewise prescribed in Notice 95-24 (Doc 95-5046, 95 TNT
98-11). Both positions were designated as listed transactions in 2000.
At that point, where did all those promoters go? Evidence indicates many are now
promoting plans purporting to comply with section 419(e). They are calling a life
insurance plan a welfare benefit plan (or fund), somewhat as they once did, and
promoting the plan as a vehicle to obtain large tax deductions. The only substantial
difference is that theses are now single-employer plans. And again, the IRS has tried
to rein them in, reminding taxpayers that listed transactions include those substantially
similar to any that are specifically described and so designated.
On October 17, 2007, the IRS issues Notices 2007-83 (Doc 2007-23225, 2007 TNT 202-
6) and 2007-84 (Doc 2007-23220, 2007 TNT 202-5). In the former, the IRS identified
some trust arrangements involving cash value life insurance policies, and substantially
similar arrangements, as listed transactions. The latter similarly warned against some
postretirement medical and life insurance benefit arrangements, saying they might be
subject to "alternative tax treatment." The IRS at the same time issued related Rev.
Rul. 2007-65 (Doc 2007-23226, 2007 TNT 202-7) to address situations in which an
arrangement is considered a welfare benefit fund but the employer's deduction for its
contributions to the fund id denied in whole or in part for premiums paid by the trust on
cash value life insurance policies. It states that a welfare benefit fund's qualified direct
cost under section 419 does not include premium amounts paid by the fund for cash value
life insurance policies if the fund is directly or indirectly a beneficiary under the policy,
as determined under sections264(a).
Notice 2007-83 targets promoted arrangements under which the fund trustee purchases
cash value insurance policies on the lives of a business's employee/owners, and
sometimes key employees, while purchasing term insurance policies on the lives of other
employees covered under the plan.
These plans anticipate being terminated and anticipate that the cash value policies will
be distributed to the owners or key employees, with little distributed to other employees.
The promoters claim that the insurance premiums are currently deductible by the business
and that the distributed insurance policies are virtually tax free to the owners. The ruling
makes it clear that, going forward, a business under most circumstances cannot deduct
the cost of premiums paid through a welfare benefit plan for cash value life insurance on
the lives of its employees.
Should a client approach you with one of these plans, be especially cautious, for both
of you. Advise your client to check out the promoter very carefully. Make it clear that
the government has the names of all former section 419A(f)(6) promoters and, therefore,
will be scrutinizing the promoter carefully if the promoter was once active in that area, as
many current section 419(e) (welfare benefit fund or plan) promoters were. This makes
an audit of your client more likely and far riskier.
It is worth noting that listed transactions are subject to a regulatory scheme applicable
only to them, entirely separate from Circular 230 requirements, regulations, and
sanctions. Participation in such a transaction must be disclosed on a tax return, and the
penalties for failure to disclose are severe – up to $100,000 for individuals and $200,000
for corporations. The penalties apply to both taxpayers and practitioners. And the
problem with disclosure, of course, is that it is apt to trigger an audit, in which case even
if the listed transaction was to pass muster, something else may not.
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/TaxHelp.html 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.
Lance Wallach tells national radio audience how IRS can collect billions by eliminating its bureaucracy & incompetence & going after the real culprits
Click hear to listen to the radio interview on this subject.
Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the American Institute of CPAs faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, financial and estate planning, and abusive tax shelters. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually and writes for over fifty publications. 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. Mr. Wallach may be reached at 516/938.5007, wallachinc@gmail.com, or at www.taxaudit419.com or www.lancewallach.com.
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.
Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the American Institute of CPAs faculty of teaching professionals, is a frequent speaker on retirement plans, financial and estate planning, and abusive tax shelters. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually and writes for over fifty publications. 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. Mr. Wallach may be reached at 516/938.5007, wallachinc@gmail.com, or at www.taxaudit419.com or www.lancewallach.com.
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)