Source: https://lfdslaw.com/articles/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:56:23
Document Index: 322514211

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 831', '§ 419', '§ 412', '§ 831', '§ 1', '§ 5']

Articles - Loewinsohn Flegle Deary Simon LLP
Beckett G. Cantley & F. Hale Stewart, The IRS & SFC Anti-§ 831(b) Actions: Summary: In this article published in Captive Visions Magazine Online, Prof. Cantley and F. Hale Stewart discuss the recent listing of certain captive transactions on the IRS Dirty Dozen list as well as the U.S. Senate Finance Committee hearings on captive insurance. Many of the issues were addressed during the ABA roundtable discussion on Monday, March 2nd. IRS SFC Broad Based?
Beckett G. Cantley & F. Hale Stewart, IRS Loses Captive Insurance Case on Good Summary: In this Tax Analysts article, Prof. Cantley and F. Hale Stewart discuss why they believe the next wave of captive litigation cases will be more fruitful for the IRS, and why practitioners should be cautious. Tax Notes, Nov. 17, 2014
Summary: In this article published in Captive Visions Magazine, Prof. Cantley and F. Hale Stewart discuss the basic tenets of anti-avoidance law, as well as some of the ways the IRS might apply them to the captive insurance industry. What is Anti-Avoidance Law, and How Might it be Used by the IRS?
Summary: This article published in Captive Visions Magazine discusses how the IRS may take issue with investments being the driving force for the formation of a captive insurance company (CIC). Can An 831(b) Captive Become An Impermissible Virtual IRA?
Summary: This article by Profs. Cantley and Luna discusses the risks inherent in a captive insurance company (CIC) loaning paid-in premiums back to the joint owners of the CIC and insured business. CIC Premium Loan Backs Proper Investment or Improper Return of Capital?
Summary: In this article published in the Cayman Financial Review, Prof. Cantley discusses several of the current IRS compliance issues specifically facing captive insurance companies formed in foreign jurisdictions. Risks Posed by the IRS Offshore Crackdown and Recent Case Law to International IRC 831(b) Captive Insurance Companies
Summary: In this article published with the American Bar Association, Prof. Cantley and F. Hale Stewart provide an overview of several current IRS compliance issues with captive insurance companies. Current Tax Issues with Captive Insurance Companies | Business Law Section
Becket G. Cantley, Environmental Preservation and the Fifth Amendment: The Use and Limits of Conservation Easements by Regulatory Taking and Eminent Domain, Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, Vol. 20, No. 215 (2014).
Summary. Successful preservation of environmentally and historically significant property requires the utilization of various innovative land conservation strategies. The government has three alternative land conservation strategies, including (1) using the police power to issue environmental and land use regulations; (2) the use of the eminent domain power over environmentally sensitive lands; and (3) the use of conservation easement programs.
Beckett G. Cantley, Repeat as Necessary: Historical IRS Policy Weapons to Combat Conduit Captive Insurance Company Deductible Purchases of Life Insurance, 13 U.C. Davis Bus. L.J. 1 (2012).
Summary. This article argues that the IRS is likely to view an arrangement where a small business owner funds a CIC for the primary purpose of obtaining deductions on owner-insider life insurance premium payments as similarly abusive to prior listed transactions involving IRC § 419 plans, IRC § 412(e)(3) plans, and IRC § 831(b) PORCs, as well as in violation of its historical tax enforcement policies against discriminatory insider tax benefits, and improper uses of key man life insurance. The article states that the IRS should view the use of an entity as a direct conduit for achieving an impermissible tax-deductible premium payment in the same manner as it would the taxpayer taking the deduction directly. This article discusses (1) the history of IRS enforcement and tax policy in combating improper tax uses of life insurance, and (2) evaluates the likely success of applying these historical arguments to establish that insider life insurance premiums are not deductible, nor should any tax-deducted funds be used to purchase such policies.
Summary. This article analyzed certain Proposed Treasury Regulations (“Opinion Regs”) relating to the issuance of tax opinions by counsel on matters that are “reportable transactions”. The Opinion Regs were the seemingly final piece in Treasury’s offensive against tax shelters. The Opinion Regs put up significant barriers to a client being able to rely on advice of counsel in tax shelter matters. The main question this article discussed was whether the inability of a client to rely on a client’s counsel on such complicated matters as tax shelters is good public policy. This article answers the question by concluding that it is not good public policy.
Citations. This article has been cited in the following articles, cases, congressional reports, and/or books:
Peter A. Prescott, Taxpayer Civil Penalty Protection: Long Term Capital Holdings and Its Wake, 81 Temp. L. Rev. 995, 1016, 1033 (2008).
Marina Vishnepolskaya, Permissible Offshore Funding Arrangements for Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plans Under Treasury Regulation § 1.409A-1, 15 Journal of Deferred Compensation: Number 4 (Nonqualified Plans and Executive Compensation), at 27.
Cogdell, 620-2nd T.M. (BNA), Practice Before the IRS; Attorney’s Fees in Tax Proceedings.
Summary. This article discussed whether the IRS violated Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) when it disclosed the names of several prominent taxpayers in a public lawsuit involving KPMG, a “Big Four” CPA firm. The disclosure lead to a Wall Street Journal article titled “IRS Releases Names of People in Disputed KPMG Tax Shelters”. Section 6103(a) sets forth the general rule that taxpayer “return information” is generally confidential, subject to certain limited exceptions. Section 6103(b)(2) provides that “return information” includes taxpayer names as well as other information. The article concluded that it is likely that the United States (“US”) violated the general rule of Section 6103 because the US improperly disclosed taxpayer names in the KPMG case. However, the article further concluded that it is unlikely that the named taxpayers would recover damages because the US is likely to meet the exception where the disclosing party has a good faith, but erroneous, interpretation of Section 6103.
Summary. This article analyzed the most important sections of the draft “Tax Shelter Disclosure Act” (“TSDA”), including the significant amendments to the Internal Revenue Code that would have been made by the TSDA. Two of the main provisions of the TSDA define what constitutes a “tax shelter” and raise the penalties associated with tax shelters. The article synthesized and analyzed the criticisms of several important organizations who issued public comments on the legislation and provided policy assessments of its likely benefits and burdens.
James S. Eustice, Federal Income Taxation of Corporations and Shareholders: Corporate Tax Shelters § 5.10 (Thomson/RIA 6th ed. 2011).
5 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 89 (Originally published in 1975).
10 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 165 (Originally published in 1976).