• Follow Essays, Opinions and Curated News for the Public Health, Economics, Finance & Policy Management Space on WordPress.com
  • Member Statistics

    • 682,019 Subscribers-to-Date [Sponsored by a generous R&D grant from iMBA, Inc.]
  • Our ME-P Channels

  • ME-P Archives Silo [2006 – 2017]

  • CERTIFIED MEDICAL PLANNER® program

    New "Self-Directed" Study Option SinceJanuary 1st, 2017
  • Dr. David Marcinko [Publisher-in-Chief]

    untitled

    Distinguished Professor, Endowed Chairman and Wall Street physician executive Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBBS DPM MBA MEd BSc CMP® is originally from Loyola University MD, Temple University in Philadelphia and the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center in PA; Oglethorpe University, and Atlanta Hospital & Medical Center in GA; and Aachen City University Hospital, Koln-Germany. He is one of the most innovative global thought leaders in health care business and entrepreneurship today. Dr. Marcinko is a board certified physician, surgical fellow, hospital medical staff Vice President, public and population health advocate, and Chief Executive & Education Officer with more than 400 published papers; 5,150 op-ed pieces and over 135+ domestic/international presentations to his credit; including the top 10 biggest pharmaceutical companies and financial services firms in the nation. He is also a best-selling Amazon author with 30 published text books in four languages [National Institute of Health, Library of Congress and Library of Medicine]. Dr. Marcinko is past Editor-in-Chief of the prestigious "Journal of Health Care Finance", and a former Certified Financial Planner®, who was named "Health Economist of the Year" in 2010, by PM magazine. He is a Federal and State court approved expert witness featured in hundreds of peer reviewed medical, business, management and trade publications [AMA, ADA, APMA, AAOS, Physicians Practice, Investment Advisor, Physician's Money Digest and MD News]. As a licensed insurance agent, RIA and SEC registered affiliate, Dr. Marcinko is Founding Dean of the fiduciary focused CERTIFIED MEDICAL PLANNER® chartered designation education program; as well as Chief Editor of the HEALTH DICTIONARY SERIES® Wiki Project. His professional memberships include: ASHE, AHIMA, ACHE, ACME, ACPE, MGMA, FMMA and HIMSS. Dr. Marcinko is a MSFT Beta tester, Google Scholar, "H" Index favorite and one of LinkedIn's "Top Cited Voices". Presently, Professor Marcinko is "ex-officio" and R&D Scholar-on-Sabbatical for iMBA, Inc.

    entrepreneur

    Frontal_lobe_animation

  • PodiatryPrep.org


    BOARD CERTIFICATION EXAM STUDY GUIDES
    Lower Extremity Trauma
    [Click on Image to Enlarge]

  • Most Recent ME-Ps

  • ME-P Free Adverting Sales Consultation

    The “Medical Executive-Post” is about connecting doctors, health care executives and modern consulting advisors. It’s about free-enterprise, business, practice, policy, personal financial planning and wealth building capitalism. We have an attitude that’s independent, outspoken, intelligent and so Next-Gen; often edgy, usually controversial. And, our consultants “got fly”, just like U. Read it! Write it! Post it! “Medical Executive-Post”. Call or email us for your FREE advertising and sales consultation TODAY [770.448.0769]

    Product Details

    Product Details

  • Medical & Surgical e-Consent Forms

    ePodiatryConsentForms.com
  • Hope Hetico RN MS [Managing Editor]

    Prof. Hetico

     

     

     

     

    ME-P SYNDICATIONS:
    WSJ.com,
    CNN.com,
    Forbes.com,
    WashingtonPost.com,
    BusinessWeek.com,
    USNews.com, Reuters.com,
    TimeWarnerCable.com,
    e-How.com,
    News Alloy.com,
    and Congress.org

    Comprehensive Financial Planning Strategies for Doctors and Advisors: Best Practices from Leading Consultants and Certified Medical Planners(TM)

    Product Details

    Product Details

    Product Details

  • iMBA White Papers

    2017 Customized Industry Topics [$1,500 unlimited corporate license]March 5th, 2017
    Medical Clinic Valuations * Endowment Fund Management * Health Capital Formation * Investment Policy Statement Analysis * Provider Contracting & Negotiations * Marketplace Competition * Revenue Cycle Enhancements; and more! HEALTHCARE FINANCIAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
  • Ann Miller RN MHA [Executive-Director]

    iMBA VIRTUAL OFFICES [1.770.448.0769] Atlanta, GA.
    Location doesn't matter. We welcome new long-distance clients and colleagues.

  • ME-P Publishing

  • SEEKING INDUSTRY PARTNERS?

    If you want the opportunity to work with leading health care industry insiders, innovators and watchers, the "ME-P" may be right for you? We are unbiased and operate at the nexus of theoretical and applied R&D. Collaborate with us and you’ll put your brand in front of a smart & tightly focused demographic; one at the forefront of our emerging healthcare free marketplace of informed and professional “movers and shakers.” Our Ad Rate Card is available upon request [770-448-0769].
  • Reader Comments, Quips, Opinions, News & Updates

  • Start-Up Advice for Businesses, DRs and Entrepreneurs

    ImageProxy “Providing Management, Financial and Business Solutions for Modernity”
  • Up-Trending ME-Ps

  • Capitalism and Free Enterprise Advocacy

    Whether you’re a mature CXO, physician or start-up entrepreneur in need of management, financial, HR or business planning information on free markets and competition, the "Medical Executive-Post” is the online place to meet for Capitalism 2.0 collaboration. Support our online development, and advance our onground research initiatives in free market economics, as we seek to showcase the brightest Next-Gen minds. ******************************************************************** THE ME-P DISCLAIMER: Posts, comments and all opinions do not necessarily represent iMBA, Inc.
  • OIG Fraud Warnings

    Beware of health insurance marketplace scams ================================================ OIG's Most Wanted Fugitives at oig.hhs.gov

Welfare Benefit Trust Plans for Physicians?

 Join Our Mailing List

A SPECIAL REPORT FOR THE ME-P

“Hall of Fame” for Egregious Investment Advice

By David K. Luke MIM, Certified Medical Planner™ – candidate

[Physician Financial Advisor – Fee Only]

www.NetWorthAdvice.com

www.CertifiedMedicalPlanner.org

Physicians unfortunately often become unwitting targets of some very egregious investment advice. Usually it involves an investment product with an imbedded fat commission just waiting to be deposited in a “financial advisor’s” bank account.

In the “Hall of Fame” of egregious investment advice is the Welfare Benefit Trust. About 10 years ago, while I was working for a top five national brokerage firm (this was before my fee-only days when I was still on the “dark side”) our internal Insurance Products Department at the brokerage firm’s head office presented an amazing investment product. This “Welfare Benefit Trust” we were told should be shown to our profitable small business owners as a cure for their every ill caused by paying too much taxes. A Welfare Benefit Trust essentially works like this:

  • The business provides a fringe benefit for their employees, such as health insurance and life insurance.
  • The benefit is established in the name of a trust and funded with a cash value life insurance policy
  • Here is the gravy: the entire amount deposited into the trust (insurance policy) is tax deductible to the company, and
  • The owners of the company can withdraw the cash value from the policy in later years tax-free.

Yes, the holy grail of tax avoidance has been achieved: tax deductible up front and tax-free when you withdraw. By the way, if you are not familiar with such investments there is a reason. They are not legal by the tax code. Physician practices, as well as other small and mid-sized businesses, became buyers into these welfare benefit trusts as they were sold as a way for the practice to “protect” a large profit in a certain year from being taxed. We were told it was not uncommon for a single transaction into a welfare benefit trust to be $200,000 to $300,000 dollars or more in a single premium payment, yielding typically a six-figure commission check.

A few years later the gig was up as it became obvious these could not be tax legal. My understanding is that most medical practices that bought these “unrolled” them when the major brokerage firms realized that avarice got the best of them and stopped selling them. In 2007, the IRS and the Treasury Department issued a formal warning cautioning “about certain Trust Arrangements Sold as Welfare Benefit Funds”. The IRS called these “abusive schemes” and made such a transaction what the IRS lovingly calls a “listed transaction”. Essentially, a listed transaction is a transaction that the IRS has determined to be a tax avoidance transaction. The IRS even keeps these Listed Transactions on their website, listed in chronological order from 1 to 34. Welfare Benefit Trusts is #33.

Good Welfare Benefit Trusts

First of all, it is important to mention that “there are many legitimate welfare benefit funds that provide benefits” according to the IRS. Internal Revenue Code Sections 419 and 419A spell out the rules allowing employers to make tax-deductible contributions to Welfare Benefit Plans. There is nothing wrong with these plans and no mystery to them. After all, a medical practice or any business for that matter is allowed to deduct the costs of doing business as an expense. This includes employee salary and benefits.

VEBAs (Voluntary Employee Benefits Association) have been around since 1928 and are used by employers to provide health, life, disability, education and other benefits for their employees and are the original Welfare Benefit Trusts. When properly established and executed, a VEBA can be a legitimate employee benefit structure. In 2007 the United Auto Workers, in order to relieve the Big 3 Automakers from carrying the liability for their health plans on their accounting books, formed the world’s largest VEBA with over $45 billion in assets.

Bad Welfare Benefit Trusts

However, the IRS does have a problem with Welfare Benefit Plans that are promoted to small business owners as a scheme to avoid taxes and provide medical and life insurance benefits to key employees that in substance primarily serve the owner(s) of the business. These 419 Welfare Benefit Plan schemes claim that the employer’s contributions are deductible under IRC section 419 as ordinary and necessary business expenses, allowing the business owner to provide a life insurance policy for his favorite employee, himself, and accumulate cash value in a life insurance policy.

Lest there be any confusion or debate, IRC 264(a)(1) states:

(a) General rule

No deduction shall be allowed for –

(1) Premiums on any life insurance policy, or endowment or

annuity contract, if the taxpayer is directly or indirectly a

beneficiary under the policy or contract.

While VEBAs have been used properly, as in the UAW example above, unfortunately they are often a front for an abusive tax shelter. In the 1970’s VEBAs were being used by the wealthy as a popular tool for tax reduction and asset protection. In 1984 Congress passed the Deficit Reduction Act, which limited the use of VEBAs. In the 1990’s however VEBAs were structured to give business owners tax benefits not allowed and got back on the IRS radar. Two state medical societies along with a neonatology group practice became test cases by the IRS that helped close those VEBAs with abusive tax structures and purporting to be employee welfare benefit plans: Southern California Medical Professionals Association VEBA, New Jersey Medical Profession Association VEBA and Neonatology Associates, PA. Although the VEBAs claimed to have favorable determination letters, the actual execution of the plan did not comply with the law, mainly by allowing the employees to hold term policies in the plan that could be converted into universal life policies at the same insurer and use the conversion credit account to spring cash value in the policy. This then allowed policyholders to borrow against the UL policy as a supposedly nontaxable source of retirement income, with the repayment of the loan paid out of the policy’s death benefits. (“Making Welfare Plans Work”, Advisor Today, September 2000 P 110). This of course is not allowed under the tax code.

Those that think that they may be in the clear with their abusive tax shelter because:

  1. A large passage of time has occurred since they have owned it
  2. They have a favorable determination letter
  3. Other honorable businesses/ Medical Societies also have the same tax shelter
  4. My insurance agent said it was legal

may want to read the 98-page ruling by the United States Tax Court filed on July 31, 2000 in the case of the above-mentioned Neonatology and related cases. The long arm of the IRS reached back 9 years to 1991, 1992, 1993 disallowing hundreds of thousands of dollars and assessing deficiencies and huge “accuracy-related” tax penalties. Even the doctors that had died since then were not given a break either; their estates and surviving widows were assessed the deficiencies and penalties.

In 2002 the IRS talked Congress into passing new laws basically killing the use of multiple employer 419 plans. Some TPAs (third party administrators) that had set up the multiple employer plans discovered that they could use single employer 419 welfare benefit trusts and VEBAs because Congress forgot to include them when they passed the negative laws shutting done the multiple employer plans. This forced the IRS to issue notices 2007-83 and 2007-84, Rev. Ruling 2007-65 and make welfare benefit trusts listed tax transactions now on the listed tax transactions list. (“Negative IRS Notices On 419 and VEBA Plans” Roccy M. Defrancesco Nov 1, 2007)

Ugly Welfare Benefit Trusts

I call these “Ugly” because these Welfare Benefit Trusts were sold to small business owners after the 2007 IRS listed transaction warning, and after the multiple IRS notices and revenue rulings. The major brokerage firms by 2004 had stopped selling Welfare Benefit Trusts to protect their own financial interests, realizing these were compliance and lawsuit time bombs. The 2007 IRS listed transaction notice along with multiple other notices however did not seem to stop some smaller broker dealer firms and life insurance agents from promoting these.

I have become aware of the fact that Welfare Benefit Trusts that are in violation of the basics of the tax code (unlimited full deduction of premium,  100% tax free distribution to owner of cash value) are still being sold even today and even affecting existing clients. These Welfare Benefit Trusts go by many different names and the insurance agents selling them are using a number of different insurance companies to fund the plan. These plans involve the sale of an insurance policy usually with a six-digit premium that often pays the insurance agent a six-digit commission, so perhaps I should not be surprised that individuals (physicians?) are still being victimized

Conversation with IRS Attorney on Welfare Benefit Trusts

On January 20, 2012 I discussed with Betty Clary, an IRS attorney that helped draft the listed transaction #33 on the IRS website, on what exactly the IRS considers an abusive Welfare Benefit Plan. She stated that, once you take out the fact that the trust cannot be offering a collective bargaining element which is covered by another IRS code, there were three elements they look for:

  1. There has to be a Trust that claims to be providing welfare benefits
  2. There is either a cash value policy involved that offers accumulation or a policy in which money is set aside for a future policy in which accumulation occurs, such as a term policy that can then offer a higher accumulated value.
  3. The plan cannot deduct in any year more than the benefit provided. For example if the plan just provides a death benefit, the most that can be deducted in a year is only the term cost of that benefit, not the entire premium. If the plan offers medical benefits, then only the cost (what was paid out to the employee) for that benefit can be deducted in that year.

I found it interesting that the IRS is pursuing this broader definition as an abusive plan. Betty explained that in the case of a discovered abusive Welfare Benefit Plan, the IRS would disallow the deductions, assert income back to the owner as a distribution of profits, and assess penalties. The courts are clear that you cannot get out of penalties by claiming you are relying on the person that sold you the Welfare Benefit Plan.

What if you currently have a Welfare Benefit Trust for your Practice?

Realizing that someone you trusted has financially devastated you, carelessly misguided you and sold you a bogus tax program in order to pay cash for his new 7 series BMW can be a difficult and rude awakening. After accepting the fact that your Welfare Benefit Plan you have for your practice meets the basic criteria as mentioned in this article as an abusive transaction, I would recommend that you consult an attorney that specializes in pursuing promoters of abusive Welfare Benefit Plans and discuss your options. I have had discussions with Lance Wallach, an accountant and expert witness used in a number of Welfare Benefit Trust cases, which has confirmed to me that you must be proactive. You may be advised to file an IRS form 8886, which is a disclosure form related to prohibited tax shelter transactions. The penalties for failure to file a form 8886 can be stiff. Of course, filing this form will open the Pandora’s Box on your Welfare Benefit Trust to the IRS. Lance has told me that many of these 8886 filings are done incorrectly. An incorrectly filed IRS form is an unfiled IRS form, so please consult a CPA who is experienced in this area. Your attorney that has expertise with Welfare Benefit Trusts will be able to guide you with this. Regarding recourse, according to Lance, most all cases are settled out of court, as the insurance company, the agent, and the agency prefer to avoid the publicity.

Conclusion

Your thoughts and comments on this ME-P are appreciated. Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, subscribe to the ME-P. It is fast, free and secure.

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Medical Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com

OUR OTHER PRINT BOOKS AND RELATED INFORMATION SOURCES:

Product DetailsProduct DetailsProduct Details

Product Details  Product Details

Product Details

Advertisements

2 Responses

  1. Can employers vary benefits across workers?
    [Related topic]

    David – Recently, Austin Frakt PhD asked Kevin Outterson and Paul Fronstin about the laws that prohibit employers from offering high- and low-compensation employees different health care benefits. Both told him that self-insured plans are prohibited by ERISA from offering better health benefits to highly compensated employees than those offered to other employees.

    Additionally, the ACA limits the ability of employers to vary premiums across employee groups and includes a “non-discrimination rule” for fully-insured plans.

    Paul Fronstin told him there are often insurer-imposed minimum participation requirements in the small-group market which is an incentive for coverage to be provided to all employees.

    Likely there are other state rules about these things, but I don’t know what they are or how widespread they are. Can some employers of some type(s) in some locations actually pick and choose who is offered health benefits and at what premium? Is that possible in America? If so where and how?

    Steve

    Like

  2. 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 used 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, N.Y. (516-938-5007), 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 an administrative claim for a refund.

    The suits allege misrepresentation, fraud and other consumer claims. “In street language, they lied,” said Peter Losavio, a plaintiffs’ attorney in Baton Rouge, La., who is investigating several cases. So far they have had mixed results. Losavio said that the strength of an individual case would depend on the disclosures made and what the sellers knew or should have known about the risks.

    In 2004, the IRS issued notices and revenue rulings indicating that the plans were listed transactions. But plaintiffs’ lawyers allege that there were earlier signs that the plans ran afoul of the tax laws, evidenced by the fact that the IRS is auditing plans that existed before 2004.

    “Insurance companies were aware this was dancing a tightrope,” said William Noll, a tax attorney in Malvern, Pa. “These plans were being scrutinized by the IRS at the same time they were being promoted, but there wasn’t any disclosure of the scrutiny to unwitting customers.”

    A defense attorney, who represents benefits professionals in pending lawsuits, said the main defense is that the plans complied with the regulations at the time and that “nobody can predict the future.”

    An employee benefits attorney who has settled several cases against insurance companies, said that although the lost tax benefit is not recoverable, other damages include the hefty commissions – which in one of his cases amounted to $860,000 the first year – as well as the costs of handling the audit and filing amended tax returns.

    Defying the individualized approach an attorney filed a class action in federal court against four insurance companies claiming that they were aware that since the 1980s the IRS had been calling the policies potentially abusive and that in 2002 the IRS gave lectures calling the plans not just abusive but “criminal.” A judge dismissed the case against one of the insurers that sold 412(i) plans.

    The court said that the plaintiffs failed to show the statements made by the insurance companies were fraudulent at the time they were made, because IRS statements prior to the revenue rulings indicated that the agency may or may not take the position that the plans were abusive. The attorney, whose suit also names law firm for its opinion letters approving the plans, will appeal the dismissal to the 5th Circuit.

    In a case that survived a similar motion to dismiss, a small business owner is suing Hartford Insurance to recover a “seven-figure” sum in penalties and fees paid to the IRS. A trial is expected in August.

    Last July, in response to a letter from members of Congress, the IRS put a moratorium on collection of §6707A penalties, but only in cases where the tax benefits were less than $100,000 per year for individuals and $200,000 for entities. That moratorium was recently extended until March 1, 2010.

    But tax experts say the audits and penalties continue. “There’s a bit of a disconnect between what members of Congress thought they meant by suspending collection and what is happening in practice. Clients are still getting bills and threats of liens,” Wallach said.

    “Thousands of business owners are being hit with million-dollar-plus fines. … The audits are continuing and escalating. I just got four calls today,” he said. A bill has been introduced in Congress to make the penalties less draconian, but nobody is expecting a magic bullet.

    “From what we know, Congress is looking to make the penalties more proportionate to the tax benefit received instead of a fixed amount.”

    Lance Wallach
    http://www.lancewallach.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.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: