May 24, 2012

IRS Scores Another Win in 419A Case

On July 21st, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit affirmed the Tax Court’s decision in B.R. DeAngelis M.D. P.C. v. Commissioner, (2nd Cir., Case No. 08-1143-AG). The case involved payments to a “Severance Trust Executive Program Multiple Employer Supplemental Benefit Plan and Trust.” This plan was promoted as a welfare benefits fund that was part of a 10-or-more employer plan described in Code Section 419A(f)(6).

These plans provide “severance” payments which are (according to the IRS) in actuality intended to be a subterfuge to pay excess cash to the owner -- after funding it through life insurance policies. The arrangement purportedly qualifies for a deduction under Code Section 419A(f)(6) because it consists of ten or more separate employers.

The IRS has for many years viewed these arrangements as a scam and aggressively pursues enforcement against them. However, we continue to find instances where clients have had such plans promoted to them. If you are approached by a promoter about such an arrangement -- be very cautious!

© 2009 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Partner

 

Ben Wells is a Partner in the Corporate Department and is Chair of the firm's Tax, Benefits and Wealth Planning Practice Group. He leads the firm's Fringe Benefits Committee and is a member of its Practice Management Council. Over a period of more than 25 years, Ben has advised and counseled clients on a full range of issues relating to employee benefits and executive compensation.

Ben works with Fortune 500 companies, privately held employers, not-for-profit employers, state and local governmental entities, health care providers, private equity investors,...

513-977-8108

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.