Captive, IRS update, 6544 views, 211 likes Edit post Published on November 15, 2016 LikeCaptive, IRS update, 6544 views, 211 likes0Comment0ShareShare Captive, IRS update, 6544 views, 211 likes0 Lance Wallach Lance Wallach Business Owner at National Offices of Lance Wallach As I have been warning for the last few years some captive insurance plans are being looked at and audited. If you are in a captive, which may be legal, you still may have to file under IRS 6707A. Most people who file do it wrong and then you have compounded the problem by lying to the IRS. Make one mistake on the forms and you have another problem.
On November 1, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued Notice 2016-66 identifying certain transactions relating to small captive insurance companies as a “transaction of interest.” Prior to this notice, the IRS had identified certain small captives as amongst its list of “Dirty Dozen Tax Scams.” Also, the IRS has been actively examining captives and their owners and litigating cases in the U.S. Tax Court. The new “transaction of interest” designation throws small captive insurance company transactions into a tax reporting regime that can potentially lead to significant penalties and IRS income tax and promoter examinations.
Under section 831(b) of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”), so-called small or “micro” captives can elect to exclude from income up to $1.2 therefore, subject to penalties.
Captive insurance, 831b Micro, the IRS is looking at YOU. 6933 views, 43 likes Published on Published onFebruary 16, 2018 Edit article View stats Lance Wallach Lance Wallach Abusive tax shelters, 419, section 79, 412i micro captive insurance, VEBA, expert witness, author, speaker 765 articles Unlike 1 Comment 0
I have been warning about small micro captives for years and have received hundreds of calls for help.
In Avrahami, 149 T.C. No. 7 (2017), a case of first impression, the Tax Court held that amounts that the taxpayers' passthrough business entities paid to a purported insurance company they owned (a captive) were not premiums paid for insurance contracts and were not deductible by the business entities under Sec. 162.
Moreover, the court held that the contracts issued by the captive were not insurance contracts, based in part on its determination that the unrelated offshore company from which the captive accepted pooled terrorism risk was not a bona fide insurance company. Consequently, the court held, the captive was not taxable as an insurance company, and its elections to be taxed as a small (micro) insurance company under Sec. 831(b) and as a domestic corporation under Sec. 953(d) were invalid. The court declined, however, to impose accuracy-relatedpenalties on the Avrahamis, other than with respect to certain unreported distributions made to them by the captive.
Avrahamis' businesses and captive insurance company Benyamin and Orna Avrahami owned jewelry stores and other businesses in Arizona, which reported for federal tax purposes as either S corporations or partnerships. In 2006, these entities paid about $150,000 to insure the businesses. In 2007, the Avrahamis' CPA referred them to a lawyer, Neil Hiller, for estate planning advice. The CPA also suggested that a captive insurance company might be a good fit for the Avrahamis and referred them for this purpose to another lawyer, Celia Clark. Clark had helped draft captive insurance legislation for the Caribbean island nation of St. Kitts and Nevis and had a number of captive insurance clients there, which constituted a large part of herbusiness.
In November 2007, after consulting with Hiller, the Avrahamis signed a retainer agreement with Clark, providing that the Avrahamis would set up a captive insurance company, with Clark and Hiller acting as co-counsel in exchange for a $75,000 fee. To this end, they incorporated Feedback Insurance Co. Ltd. in St. Kitts. Orna Avrahami wholly owned Feedback, and both Avrahamis had signature authority over its bank account. Feedback hired a St. Kitts company to assist with management and compliance with local regulations. In 2008, Feedback made two elections: (1) to be treated as a domestic corporation under Sec. 953(b) for federal tax purposes (an election available only to entities that would be taxed as insurance companies if organized in the United States); and (2) to be taxed as a small insurance company under Sec. 831(b).
Captive insurance payments and reinsurance The Avrahamis' businesses began purchasing various types of insurance coverage from Feedback in 2007. Also in 2007, the Avrahamis' businesses purchased terrorism coverage from an unrelated Nevis corporation, Pan American Reinsurance Co. Ltd. (Pan Am Re) established by Clark to form a pool encompassing risks of multiple clients that could be reinsured by her clients' captives to provide the captives with risks sourced from unrelated insureds. Feedback entered a quota share reinsurance arrangement with Pan Am Re and accepted a portion of the pooled risk proportionate to the portion of the pool's risk attributable to the Avrahamis' entities insured by Pan Am Re. The reinsurance premium paid to Feedback equaled the insurance premiums paid to Pan Am Re by the Avrahamis' businesses.
The Avrahamis' businesses continued to pay premiums to Feedback and to Pan Am Re in 2009 and 2010, the years at issue, and during those years Feedback continued to reinsure risk from Pan Am
Captive, IRS update, 6544 views, 211 likes
ReplyDeleteEdit post
Published on November 15, 2016
LikeCaptive, IRS update, 6544 views, 211 likes0Comment0ShareShare Captive, IRS update, 6544 views, 211 likes0
Lance Wallach
Lance Wallach
Business Owner at National Offices of Lance Wallach
As I have been warning for the last few years some captive insurance plans are being looked at and audited. If you are in a captive, which may be legal, you still may have to file under IRS 6707A. Most people who file do it wrong and then you have compounded the problem by lying to the IRS. Make one mistake on the forms and you have another problem.
On November 1, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued Notice 2016-66 identifying certain transactions relating to small captive insurance companies as a “transaction of interest.” Prior to this notice, the IRS had identified certain small captives as amongst its list of “Dirty Dozen Tax Scams.” Also, the IRS has been actively examining captives and their owners and litigating cases in the U.S. Tax Court. The new “transaction of interest” designation throws small captive insurance company transactions into a tax reporting regime that can potentially lead to significant penalties and IRS income tax and promoter examinations.
Under section 831(b) of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”), so-called small or “micro” captives can elect to exclude from income up to $1.2 therefore, subject to penalties.
Captive insurance, 831b Micro, the IRS is looking at YOU. 6933 views, 43 likes
ReplyDeletePublished on Published onFebruary 16, 2018
Edit article
View stats
Lance Wallach
Lance Wallach
Abusive tax shelters, 419, section 79, 412i micro captive insurance, VEBA, expert witness, author, speaker
765 articles
Unlike 1
Comment
0
I have been warning about small micro captives for years and have received hundreds of calls for help.
In Avrahami, 149 T.C. No. 7 (2017), a case of first impression, the Tax Court held that amounts that the taxpayers' passthrough business entities paid to a purported insurance company they owned (a captive) were not premiums paid for insurance contracts and were not deductible by the business entities under Sec. 162.
Moreover, the court held that the contracts issued by the captive were not insurance contracts, based in part on its determination that the unrelated offshore company from which the captive accepted pooled terrorism risk was not a bona fide insurance company. Consequently, the court held, the captive was not taxable as an insurance company, and its elections to be taxed as a small (micro) insurance company under Sec. 831(b) and as a domestic corporation under Sec. 953(d) were invalid. The court declined, however, to impose accuracy-relatedpenalties on the Avrahamis, other than with respect to certain unreported distributions made to them by the captive.
Avrahamis' businesses and captive insurance company
Benyamin and Orna Avrahami owned jewelry stores and other businesses in Arizona, which reported for federal tax purposes as either S corporations or partnerships. In 2006, these entities paid about $150,000 to insure the businesses. In 2007, the Avrahamis' CPA referred them to a lawyer, Neil Hiller, for estate planning advice. The CPA also suggested that a captive insurance company might be a good fit for the Avrahamis and referred them for this purpose to another lawyer, Celia Clark. Clark had helped draft captive insurance legislation for the Caribbean island nation of St. Kitts and Nevis and had a number of captive insurance clients there, which constituted a large part of herbusiness.
In November 2007, after consulting with Hiller, the Avrahamis signed a retainer agreement with Clark, providing that the Avrahamis would set up a captive insurance company, with Clark and Hiller acting as co-counsel in exchange for a $75,000 fee. To this end, they incorporated Feedback Insurance Co. Ltd. in St. Kitts. Orna Avrahami wholly owned Feedback, and both Avrahamis had signature authority over its bank account. Feedback hired a St. Kitts company to assist with management and compliance with local regulations. In 2008, Feedback made two elections: (1) to be treated as a domestic corporation under Sec. 953(b) for federal tax purposes (an election available only to entities that would be taxed as insurance companies if organized in the United States); and (2) to be taxed as a small insurance company under Sec. 831(b).
Captive insurance payments and reinsurance
The Avrahamis' businesses began purchasing various types of insurance coverage from Feedback in 2007. Also in 2007, the Avrahamis' businesses purchased terrorism coverage from an unrelated Nevis corporation, Pan American Reinsurance Co. Ltd. (Pan Am Re) established by Clark to form a pool encompassing risks of multiple clients that could be reinsured by her clients' captives to provide the captives with risks sourced from unrelated insureds. Feedback entered a quota share reinsurance arrangement with Pan Am Re and accepted a portion of the pooled risk proportionate to the portion of the pool's risk attributable to the Avrahamis' entities insured by Pan Am Re. The reinsurance premium paid to Feedback equaled the insurance premiums paid to Pan Am Re by the Avrahamis' businesses.
The Avrahamis' businesses continued to pay premiums to Feedback and to Pan Am Re in 2009 and 2010, the years at issue, and during those years Feedback continued to reinsure risk from Pan Am