Part
Two: the history of VEBAs
from the mid-1980's to
the present
In
the early-1990s, when
the IRS challenged
419A(f)(6) multiple
employer VEBA deductions,
U.S. tax courts denied
some taxpayers' VEBA
deductions, while other
taxpayers' deductions
were upheld. Some of
the cases upheld deductions
totaling more than
one million dollars.
By the late 1990s,
the tax courts had
established a clear
middle ground for 419A(f)(6)
VEBAs. Today, a good
advisor is able to
provide a 419A(f)(6)
VEBA compliant with
the law and structured
entirely on substantial
legal authority. However,
the final regulations
were issued by the
IRS in July 2003, and
they make it impossible
to comply with their
interpretation of the
law.
By
the year 2002, multiple
employer VEBAs had
again become very badly
abused, with numerous
VEBAs draining billions
of dollars in tax money.
The VEBAs promised
unlimited tax deductions
and through various
scams (usually involving
a "special" life insurance policy) the VEBAs delivered the money, tax free, back to the
taxpayer. The new 2003
regulations now make
it so that the use
of life insurance,
with the exception
of term policies, illegal
in a multiple employer
VEBA. Both the law
and the courts are
clear. The IRS cannot
enforce the regulations,
but they have cooled
the use of sham VEBAs.
(The sham artists have
now begun concentrating
on Section 412(I) retirement
plans which, until
now, have been a nice,
clean retirement tax
tool offering $100,000s
in annual deductions.)
The
1994 law seemed to
say that deductions
in single employer
VEBAs were limited
to the cost of the
benefit in the year
when the benefit was
delivered. To put it
simply, a large life
insurance policy could
be purchased, but its
cost wasn't deductible
until the employee
died and the benefit
was delivered. A case
which involved Wells
Fargo changed that
interpretation. The
court stated that Wells
Fargo could deduct
the cost of the life
insurance which was
gradually liquidated
over the working life
of the employee. This
would make a single
employer VEBA powerful,
because he would be
able to deduct $100k's
every year.
If
you would like more
information regarding
asset protection, trusts,
family limited partnerships
or the subject of this
article please call
or email our office.
|