IRS Tax Shelters and 419 Plans Litigation
412i, 419e plans litigation and IRS Audit Experts for abusive insurance based plans deemed reportable or listed transactions by the IRS.
Trust” “Penn Mont” “Real Veba” “United Financial Group” “Kenny Hartstein”…
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) C. Elements of RICO Actions 1. Establishing a Pattern of Racketeering Activity a. Predicate Offense for Racketeering Regional Employers’ Assurance Leagues Voluntary Employees’ Beneficiary Assoc. Trust v. Castellano, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112608 (E.D. Penn. Aug. 25, 2015) The defendant, Gretchen Castellano, is the widow of the owner and manager of a dental practice. Prior to his death, her husband adopted a welfare benefit plan through the plaintiff REAL VEBA trust. After the trust denied the defendant’s claim for benefits, she asserted a counterclaim alleging, inter alia, denial of benefits under ERISA and later sought to amend her counterclaim to assert a claim of civil RICO against the REAL VEBA trust and several related entities. After deciding that Castellano was entitled to the benefits under the plan, the court addressed her motion to amend the counterclaim to add a RICO claim. Although the defendant alleged that some entities connected to REAL VEBA had engaged in mail and wire fraud, the court denied her motion to amend the counterclaim to add a civil RICO claim because the record did not establish that entities related to the trust engaged in the requisite predicate acts.
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) C. Elements of RICO Actions 1. Establishing a Pattern of Racketeering Activity a. Predicate Offense for Racketeering Regional Employers’ Assurance Leagues Voluntary Employees’ Beneficiary Assoc. Trust v. Castellano, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112608 (E.D. Penn. Aug. 25, 2015) The defendant, Gretchen Castellano, is the widow of the owner and manager of a dental practice. Prior to his death, her husband adopted a welfare benefit plan through the plaintiff REAL VEBA trust. After the trust denied the defendant’s claim for benefits, she asserted a counterclaim alleging, inter alia, denial of benefits under ERISA and later sought to amend her counterclaim to assert a claim of civil RICO against the REAL VEBA trust and several related entities. After deciding that Castellano was entitled to the benefits under the plan, the court addressed her motion to amend the counterclaim to add a RICO claim. Although the defendant alleged that some entities connected to REAL VEBA had engaged in mail and wire fraud, the court denied her motion to amend the counterclaim to add a civil RICO claim because the record did not establish that entities related to the trust engaged in the requisite predicate acts.
Court holds promoter of abusive VEBA penalized for making false or fraudulent statements Post image for Court holds promoter of abusive VEBA penalized for making false or fraudulent statements SEPTEMBER 14, 2015
0
inShare Koresko v. US, (DC-PA 8/19/2015) 116 AFTR 2d ¶ 2015-5165 A district court has concluded that the promoter of an abusive voluntary employees’ benefit association (VEBA) had to pay the Code Sec. 6700(a)(2)(A) penalty for making a false or fraudulent statement. The promoter, an attorney-CPA and acknowledged tax expert, should have known that his statements misrepresented that the VEBA met the requirements to qualify for favorable “ten or more employer” (TOME) plan status.
Background on VEBAs and TOMEs. Under Code Sec. 501(c)(9), a VEBA providing for the payment of life, sick, accident or other benefits to its members or their dependents or designated beneficiaries is exempt if no part of its net earnings, exclusive of benefit payments, inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. To quat.
Court holds promoter of abusive VEBA penalized for making false or fraudulent statements Post image for Court holds promoter of abusive VEBA penalized for making false or fraudulent statements SEPTEMBER 14, 2015
0
inShare Koresko v. US, (DC-PA 8/19/2015) 116 AFTR 2d ¶ 2015-5165 A district court has concluded that the promoter of an abusive voluntary employees’ benefit association (VEBA) had to pay the Code Sec. 6700(a)(2)(A) penalty for making a false or fraudulent statement. The promoter, an attorney-CPA and acknowledged tax expert, should have known that his statements misrepresented that the VEBA met the requirements to qualify for favorable “ten or more employer” (TOME) plan status.
Background on VEBAs and TOMEs. Under Code Sec. 501(c)(9), a VEBA providing for the payment of life, sick, accident or other benefits to its members or their dependents or designated beneficiaries is exempt if no part of its net earnings, exclusive of benefit payments, inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. To quat.
Law firm sued for representing alleged embezzlers Michelle Lovrine Honeyager Dec. 16, 2014, 10:23am
A class-action lawsuit was filed against Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhodes, LLP (MMWR) on Dec. 9 over claims that the law firm represented alleged trust fund embezzlers.
The plaintiffs include: Dr. Harvey Kalan, the Harvey Kalan, M.D., Inc. Employee Welfare Benefit Plan, Dr. Pamela K. Erdman, the Dr. Pamela K. Erdman, M.D., Inc. Employee Welfare Benefit Plan, Gretchen Castellano, Drs. Martin and Elisa Zenni, and the M&E Zenni, Inc. Welfare Benefit Plan.
John Koresko retained MMWR to represent him in multiple lawsuits pertaining to his operation of a employer welfare arrangement, REAL VEBA. Koresko and his companies were converting assets held by the REAL VEBA Trust and the Single Employer Welfare Benefit Plan Trust (SEWBPT). The trusts were meant to hold assets for the participants and their beneficiaries.
Within days of MMWR agreeing to represent Koresko, the United State District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered a partial summary judgment against Koresko, Jeanne Bonney and PennMont Benefit Services, Inc., ruling that they had transferred trust assets to non-trust accounts. MMWR did not withdraw its appearance on behalf of any of the parties and did not stop representing Koresko, his alleged co-conspirators or his companies.
MMWR allegedly billed and accepted payments of $1.4 million from the trusts for the representation of Koresko and his alleged co-conspirators.
The lawsuit was brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and seeks reimbursement of all fees received by MMWR to the trusts.
Law firm sued for representing alleged embezzlers Michelle Lovrine Honeyager Dec. 16, 2014, 10:23am
A class-action lawsuit was filed against Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhodes, LLP (MMWR) on Dec. 9 over claims that the law firm represented alleged trust fund embezzlers.
The plaintiffs include: Dr. Harvey Kalan, the Harvey Kalan, M.D., Inc. Employee Welfare Benefit Plan, Dr. Pamela K. Erdman, the Dr. Pamela K. Erdman, M.D., Inc. Employee Welfare Benefit Plan, Gretchen Castellano, Drs. Martin and Elisa Zenni, and the M&E Zenni, Inc. Welfare Benefit Plan.
John Koresko retained MMWR to represent him in multiple lawsuits pertaining to his operation of a employer welfare arrangement, REAL VEBA. Koresko and his companies were converting assets held by the REAL VEBA Trust and the Single Employer Welfare Benefit Plan Trust (SEWBPT). The trusts were meant to hold assets for the participants and their beneficiaries.
Within days of MMWR agreeing to represent Koresko, the United State District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered a partial summary judgment against Koresko, Jeanne Bonney and PennMont Benefit Services, Inc., ruling that they had transferred trust assets to non-trust accounts. MMWR did not withdraw its appearance on behalf of any of the parties and did not stop representing Koresko, his alleged co-conspirators or his companies.
MMWR allegedly billed and accepted payments of $1.4 million from the trusts for the representation of Koresko and his alleged co-conspirators.
The lawsuit was brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and seeks reimbursement of all fees received by MMWR to the trusts.
Court holds promoter of abusive VEBA penalized for making false or fraudulent statements
PaulBy: Paul Court holds promoter of abusive VEBA penalized for maked tremendous control over benefits: the source of benefits, to whom payable, the mechanics of payment; and execution of the claim procedure. Penn-Mont’s discretion over the benefit claims process was sole and absolute.
The real trigger was whether Penn-Mont thought a claim for benefits should be paid and, in that sense, the REAL VEBA made no guarantees when benefits would be paid, if at all.
The district court also held that the presence of one of the two characteristics (not providing for a fixed welfare benefit, using a non-standard trigger for paying benefits) clearly pertained to material matters under Code Sec. 6700(a)(2)(A). Given Koresko’s educational background and own admissions, he knew or had reason to know that the REAL VEBA was not a TOME and that any statements he made to this effect would be false. He also clearly organized and participated in the sale of the REAL VEBA arrangement and, thus, the final element for triggering the Code Sec. 6700(a)(2)(A) penalty was met.
Court holds promoter of abusive VEBA penalized for making false or fraudulent statements
PaulBy: Paul Court holds promoter of abusive VEBA penalized for maked tremendous control over benefits: the source of benefits, to whom payable, the mechanics of payment; and execution of the claim procedure. Penn-Mont’s discretion over the benefit claims process was sole and absolute.
The real trigger was whether Penn-Mont thought a claim for benefits should be paid and, in that sense, the REAL VEBA made no guarantees when benefits would be paid, if at all.
The district court also held that the presence of one of the two characteristics (not providing for a fixed welfare benefit, using a non-standard trigger for paying benefits) clearly pertained to material matters under Code Sec. 6700(a)(2)(A). Given Koresko’s educational background and own admissions, he knew or had reason to know that the REAL VEBA was not a TOME and that any statements he made to this effect would be false. He also clearly organized and participated in the sale of the REAL VEBA arrangement and, thus, the final element for triggering the Code Sec. 6700(a)(2)(A) penalty was met.
Welfare benefit plans (419), 412i, captive insurance and Section 79 plans are under intense IRS scrutiny and no matter what plan you were in, you surely need help now. The IRS has been cracking down on 419, 412i, listed transactions and virtually all plans, making it difficult for anyone who has been involved with one of these plans. Listed below are some of the companies and names of salesmen,and others that you may recognize.
Plan Names: Niche BiSYS Veba Benistar SADI trust Beta plan Millennium plan Grist Mill trust Compass welfare benefit plan Sea Nine veba Professional Benefits Trust Integrity 419 Integrity Benefit Plan Veba Plan Sterling 419
People, law firms, etc., affiliated with plans: Doug Williams Arch Bonnema Steve Toth Michael Sonnenberg Ron Snyder Brian Cave Norman Bevan Dennis Cunning Williams Coulson Phil Rowe Judy Carsrud Michael Lloyd Greeberg Tarig
If you need help getting out of a plan, redoing a plan, or reviewing a plan, we can help you.
We have written books about the subject, given hundreds of lectures and have worked on these problems for many years.
Our team includes ex-IRS agents, tax attorneys, CPAs, Erisa attorneys and others substantially knowledgeable about these plans.
We have helped many others with these problems and look forward to helping you.
VEBA, John Koresko, get ALL your money back from the insurance company, sue the bastards. Edit article Published on July 18, 2017 LikedUnlikeVEBA, John Koresko, get ALL your money back from the insurance company, sue the bastards.1Comment0ShareShare VEBA, John Koresko, get ALL your money back from the insurance company, sue the bastards.0 Lance Wallach Lance Wallach Business Owner at National Offices of Lance Wallach 3rd Circuit Affirms Judgment In Enforcement Action Against Fiduciary
(April 12, 2016, 10:44 AM EDT) -- PHILADELPHIA — A Pennsylvania federal judge did not err in imposing liability on an individual fiduciary for breaching his duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act or in denying the fiduciary his request for a new trial, the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled April 5 (Secretary United States Department of Labor v. John J. Koresko V, Nos. 15-2470, -3141, 3rd Cir.; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6227).
VEBA promoter Koresko get ur money back Published on Published onNovember 2, 2017 Edit article View stats he also failed to do. He was subsequently arrested.
Abusive Welfare Benefit and Retirement Plans Can Lead to Severe Penalties for Accountants
By Lance Wallach Lance Wallach, 419 welfare benefit plans, 412i retirement plans, 412i, tax shelter litigation, abusive tax shelters, fight tax shelter penalty, Bankers Life, Hartford Life, CRESP, American General Life, Bisys, Benistar, United Financial Group, Grist Mill Trust Accountants who are unaware of recent developments are likely to encounter a nightmarish scenario that may play out something like this: you sign a client’s tax return that claims a tax deduction for participation in a “welfare benefit plan”. A few years pass, and nothing happens. Then, on audit, the deductions are disallowed and your client is hi
Searchve known the his statements regarding the accuracy of the purported REAL VEBA tax benefits were false, because he did not know that the final regulations would alter the validity of the REAL VEBA. The court rejected this argument due to the prior IRS notices, the years of IRS litigation, and the proposed rules which made the law clear regarding the definition a TOME. In evaluating whether Koresko knew or should have known that the REAL VEBA did not comply with legal requirements, the court looked at: (1) the extent of the promoter’s reliance upon knowledgeable professionals; (2) the promoter’s level of sophistication and education; and (3) the promoter’s familiarity with tax matters. Since Koresko was both an attorney and CPA as well as a self-proclaimed expert in tax and benefits law he did not consult outside professionals and drafted all of the VEBA documents himself. Based on these facts, the court found that imposition of penalties under Code Section 6700 on Koresko personally was appropriate
SearchA purported to allowed small business owners to purchase cash-value life insurance for themselves without treating that benefit as taxable income and to deduct the premium payments from the business’s income as a business expense. Currently, there are more than 100 cases pending in US Tax court regarding the tax treatment of the REAL VEBA. However, this case relates to Code Section 6700 penalties imposed directly on Koresko personally and Penn-Mont Services, the plan trustee which Koresko set up and controlled. The penalty was imposed on Koresko for false statements he made in promoting the REAL VEBA as an abusive tax shelter. To recover Section 6700 penalties, it was necessary for the government to demonstrate that Koresko: (1) organized or participated in the sale of the REAL VEBA; (2) made statements about the allowability of deductions or tax credits, excludability of income, or securing of other tax benefits; (3) knew or had reason to know the statements were false; and (4) the statements pertained to a material matter. Koresko marketed the REAL VEBA as a “ten or more employer” (TOME) plan under Code Section 419A(f)(6). Deductions for most VEBA contributions are typically limited to costs of current benefits for the current year or for limited prefunding of future benefits. However, the Internal Revenue Code carves out an exception for VEBAs operating as TOME plans. If ten or more employers join a single plan, Section 419A(f)(6) permits deductions to be taken in earlier tax years. For years, the definition of a Section 419 TOME plan, also called a “419 plan” had been controversial. In 1995, the IRS issued Notice 95-34, which clarified the Service’s position that plans similar to Koresko’s did not meet the requirements of Section 419. In subsequent years the IRS successfully sued taxpayers regarding their 419 plans. Nonetheless, some taxpayers continued to take the position that their 419 plans were permitted under the Code. In 2000, the IRS issued Notice 2000–15, 2000–1 C.B. 826 which designated 419 Plans as “listed transactions” or “tax avoidance transactions.” The IRS issued proposed regulations in 2002 intended to clarify the current law. Final regulations were issued in July 2003. Koresko’s REAL VEBA as amended and restated in 2002 did not fall within the definition of TOME under IRS guidance or the final regulations. Koresko widely promoted the REAL VEBA and the government claims that he knew or should have known that statements he made about the tax implications and benefits of the REAL VEBA were false or fraudulent. Koresko tried to argue that he could not have known the his statements regarding the accuracy of the purported REAL VEBA tax benefits were false, because he did not know that the final regulations would alter the validity of the REAL VEBA. The court rejected this argument due to the prior IRS notices, the years of IRS litigation, and the proposed rules which made the law clear regarding the definition a TOME. In evaluating whether Koresko knew or should have known that the REAL VEBA did not comply with legal requirements, the court looked at: (1) the extent of the promoter’s reliance upon knowledgeable professionals; (2) the promoter’s level of sophistication and education; and (3) the promoter’s familiarity with tax matters. Since Koresko was both an attorney and CPA as well as a self-proclaimed expert in tax and benefits law he did not consult outside professionals and drafted all of the VEBA documents himself. Based on these facts, the court found that imposition of penalties under Code Section 6700 on Koresko personally was appropriate
On July 23, 2013, the same date that the Court enjoined the Koresko Defendants2 in Perez v. Koresko, No. 09-cv-988 (Docket No. 436), from, among other things, taking any action that would reduce the value of the underlying policies, the Pennsylvania Debtors filed voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.3 Each petition was signed by Mr. John J. Koresko in his capacity as "debtor." See, e.g., In re Single Employer Welfare Benefit Plan Trust, No. 13-bk-16441 (Docket No. 1).
_______________________________________________________________________
ReplyDeleteTOPIC:**Abuse*of*Discretion*in*Administration*of*419*Plan
CITATION: Regional!Employers’!Assurance Leagues!Voluntary!Employees’!B
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)
DeleteC. Elements of RICO Actions
1. Establishing a Pattern of Racketeering Activity
a. Predicate Offense for Racketeering
Regional Employers’ Assurance Leagues Voluntary Employees’ Beneficiary Assoc.
Trust v. Castellano, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112608 (E.D. Penn. Aug. 25, 2015)
The defendant, Gretchen Castellano, is the widow of the owner and manager of a dental
practice. Prior to his death, her husband adopted a welfare benefit plan through the plaintiff
REAL VEBA trust. After the trust denied the defendant’s claim for benefits, she asserted a
counterclaim alleging, inter alia, denial of benefits under ERISA and later sought to amend her
counterclaim to assert a claim of civil RICO against the REAL VEBA trust and several related
entities. After deciding that Castellano was entitled to the benefits under the plan, the court
addressed her motion to amend the counterclaim to add a RICO claim. Although the defendant
alleged that some entities connected to REAL VEBA had engaged in mail and wire fraud, the
court denied her motion to amend the counterclaim to add a civil RICO claim because the record
did not establish that entities related to the trust engaged in the requisite predicate acts.
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)
DeleteC. Elements of RICO Actions
1. Establishing a Pattern of Racketeering Activity
a. Predicate Offense for Racketeering
Regional Employers’ Assurance Leagues Voluntary Employees’ Beneficiary Assoc.
Trust v. Castellano, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112608 (E.D. Penn. Aug. 25, 2015)
The defendant, Gretchen Castellano, is the widow of the owner and manager of a dental
practice. Prior to his death, her husband adopted a welfare benefit plan through the plaintiff
REAL VEBA trust. After the trust denied the defendant’s claim for benefits, she asserted a
counterclaim alleging, inter alia, denial of benefits under ERISA and later sought to amend her
counterclaim to assert a claim of civil RICO against the REAL VEBA trust and several related
entities. After deciding that Castellano was entitled to the benefits under the plan, the court
addressed her motion to amend the counterclaim to add a RICO claim. Although the defendant
alleged that some entities connected to REAL VEBA had engaged in mail and wire fraud, the
court denied her motion to amend the counterclaim to add a civil RICO claim because the record
did not establish that entities related to the trust engaged in the requisite predicate acts.
_______________________________________________________________________
ReplyDeleteTOPIC:**Abuse*of*Discretion*in*Administration*of*419*Plan
CITATION: Regional!Employers’!Assurance Leagues!Voluntary!Employees’!B
Court holds promoter of abusive VEBA penalized for making false or fraudulent statements
ReplyDeletePost image for Court holds promoter of abusive VEBA penalized for making false or fraudulent statements
SEPTEMBER 14, 2015
0
inShare
Koresko v. US, (DC-PA 8/19/2015) 116 AFTR 2d ¶ 2015-5165
A district court has concluded that the promoter of an abusive voluntary employees’ benefit association (VEBA) had to pay the Code Sec. 6700(a)(2)(A) penalty for making a false or fraudulent statement. The promoter, an attorney-CPA and acknowledged tax expert, should have known that his statements misrepresented that the VEBA met the requirements to qualify for favorable “ten or more employer” (TOME) plan status.
Background on VEBAs and TOMEs. Under Code Sec. 501(c)(9), a VEBA providing for the payment of life, sick, accident or other benefits to its members or their dependents or designated beneficiaries is exempt if no part of its net earnings, exclusive of benefit payments, inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. To quat.
Court holds promoter of abusive VEBA penalized for making false or fraudulent statements
ReplyDeletePost image for Court holds promoter of abusive VEBA penalized for making false or fraudulent statements
SEPTEMBER 14, 2015
0
inShare
Koresko v. US, (DC-PA 8/19/2015) 116 AFTR 2d ¶ 2015-5165
A district court has concluded that the promoter of an abusive voluntary employees’ benefit association (VEBA) had to pay the Code Sec. 6700(a)(2)(A) penalty for making a false or fraudulent statement. The promoter, an attorney-CPA and acknowledged tax expert, should have known that his statements misrepresented that the VEBA met the requirements to qualify for favorable “ten or more employer” (TOME) plan status.
Background on VEBAs and TOMEs. Under Code Sec. 501(c)(9), a VEBA providing for the payment of life, sick, accident or other benefits to its members or their dependents or designated beneficiaries is exempt if no part of its net earnings, exclusive of benefit payments, inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. To quat.
#realvebakoresko
ReplyDeleteLaw firm sued for representing alleged embezzlers
ReplyDeleteMichelle Lovrine Honeyager Dec. 16, 2014, 10:23am
A class-action lawsuit was filed against Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhodes, LLP (MMWR) on Dec. 9 over claims that the law firm represented alleged trust fund embezzlers.
The plaintiffs include: Dr. Harvey Kalan, the Harvey Kalan, M.D., Inc. Employee Welfare Benefit Plan, Dr. Pamela K. Erdman, the Dr. Pamela K. Erdman, M.D., Inc. Employee Welfare Benefit Plan, Gretchen Castellano, Drs. Martin and Elisa Zenni, and the M&E Zenni, Inc. Welfare Benefit Plan.
John Koresko retained MMWR to represent him in multiple lawsuits pertaining to his operation of a employer welfare arrangement, REAL VEBA. Koresko and his companies were converting assets held by the REAL VEBA Trust and the Single Employer Welfare Benefit Plan Trust (SEWBPT). The trusts were meant to hold assets for the participants and their beneficiaries.
Within days of MMWR agreeing to represent Koresko, the United State District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered a partial summary judgment against Koresko, Jeanne Bonney and PennMont Benefit Services, Inc., ruling that they had transferred trust assets to non-trust accounts. MMWR did not withdraw its appearance on behalf of any of the parties and did not stop representing Koresko, his alleged co-conspirators or his companies.
MMWR allegedly billed and accepted payments of $1.4 million from the trusts for the representation of Koresko and his alleged co-conspirators.
The lawsuit was brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and seeks reimbursement of all fees received by MMWR to the trusts.
Law firm sued for representing alleged embezzlers
ReplyDeleteMichelle Lovrine Honeyager Dec. 16, 2014, 10:23am
A class-action lawsuit was filed against Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhodes, LLP (MMWR) on Dec. 9 over claims that the law firm represented alleged trust fund embezzlers.
The plaintiffs include: Dr. Harvey Kalan, the Harvey Kalan, M.D., Inc. Employee Welfare Benefit Plan, Dr. Pamela K. Erdman, the Dr. Pamela K. Erdman, M.D., Inc. Employee Welfare Benefit Plan, Gretchen Castellano, Drs. Martin and Elisa Zenni, and the M&E Zenni, Inc. Welfare Benefit Plan.
John Koresko retained MMWR to represent him in multiple lawsuits pertaining to his operation of a employer welfare arrangement, REAL VEBA. Koresko and his companies were converting assets held by the REAL VEBA Trust and the Single Employer Welfare Benefit Plan Trust (SEWBPT). The trusts were meant to hold assets for the participants and their beneficiaries.
Within days of MMWR agreeing to represent Koresko, the United State District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered a partial summary judgment against Koresko, Jeanne Bonney and PennMont Benefit Services, Inc., ruling that they had transferred trust assets to non-trust accounts. MMWR did not withdraw its appearance on behalf of any of the parties and did not stop representing Koresko, his alleged co-conspirators or his companies.
MMWR allegedly billed and accepted payments of $1.4 million from the trusts for the representation of Koresko and his alleged co-conspirators.
The lawsuit was brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and seeks reimbursement of all fees received by MMWR to the trusts.
Court holds promoter of abusive VEBA penalized for making false or fraudulent statements
ReplyDeletePaulBy: Paul
Court holds promoter of abusive VEBA penalized for maked tremendous control over benefits: the source of benefits, to whom payable, the mechanics of payment; and execution of the claim procedure. Penn-Mont’s discretion over the benefit claims process was sole and absolute.
The real trigger was whether Penn-Mont thought a claim for benefits should be paid and, in that sense, the REAL VEBA made no guarantees when benefits would be paid, if at all.
The district court also held that the presence of one of the two characteristics (not providing for a fixed welfare benefit, using a non-standard trigger for paying benefits) clearly pertained to material matters under Code Sec. 6700(a)(2)(A). Given Koresko’s educational background and own admissions, he knew or had reason to know that the REAL VEBA was not a TOME and that any statements he made to this effect would be false. He also clearly organized and participated in the sale of the REAL VEBA arrangement and, thus, the final element for triggering the Code Sec. 6700(a)(2)(A) penalty was met.
Court holds promoter of abusive VEBA penalized for making false or fraudulent statements
ReplyDeletePaulBy: Paul
Court holds promoter of abusive VEBA penalized for maked tremendous control over benefits: the source of benefits, to whom payable, the mechanics of payment; and execution of the claim procedure. Penn-Mont’s discretion over the benefit claims process was sole and absolute.
The real trigger was whether Penn-Mont thought a claim for benefits should be paid and, in that sense, the REAL VEBA made no guarantees when benefits would be paid, if at all.
The district court also held that the presence of one of the two characteristics (not providing for a fixed welfare benefit, using a non-standard trigger for paying benefits) clearly pertained to material matters under Code Sec. 6700(a)(2)(A). Given Koresko’s educational background and own admissions, he knew or had reason to know that the REAL VEBA was not a TOME and that any statements he made to this effect would be false. He also clearly organized and participated in the sale of the REAL VEBA arrangement and, thus, the final element for triggering the Code Sec. 6700(a)(2)(A) penalty was met.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-5275 (E.D. Pa. Apr 03, 2014)
ReplyDeleteLANGLAIS V. PENNMONT BENEFIT SERVS., INC. (IN RE REAL VEBA TRUST)
Share
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-5275 (E.D. Pa. Apr 03, 2014)
ReplyDeleteLANGLAIS V. PENNMONT BENEFIT SERVS., INC. (IN RE REAL VEBA TRUST)
Share
ReplyDelete"Niche" "Bisys" "Veba" "Doug Williams" "arch bonnema" "steve toth" "captive insurance" "michael sonnenberg" "ron snyder" "brian cave" "benistar" "norm bevan"
"doug williams" " williams coulson" "dennis cunning" "phil rowe" "sadi trust" "beta plan" "millennium plan" "grist mill trust" "compass welfare benefit plan" "sea nine"
"professional benefits trust" "integrity 419" "integrity benefit plan" "veba plan" "sterling 419" "judy carsrud"
By Lance Wallach
October 23, 2010
Welfare benefit plans (419), 412i, captive insurance and Section 79 plans are under intense IRS
scrutiny and no matter what plan you were in, you surely need help now. The IRS has been
cracking down on 419, 412i, listed transactions and virtually all plans, making it difficult for
anyone who has been involved with one of these plans. Listed below are some of the companies
and names of salesmen,and others that you may recognize.
Plan Names:
Niche
BiSYS
Veba
Benistar
SADI trust
Beta plan
Millennium plan
Grist Mill trust
Compass welfare benefit plan
Sea Nine veba
Professional Benefits Trust
Integrity 419
Integrity Benefit Plan
Veba Plan
Sterling 419
People, law firms, etc., affiliated with plans:
Doug Williams
Arch Bonnema
Steve Toth
Michael Sonnenberg
Ron Snyder
Brian Cave
Norman Bevan
Dennis Cunning
Williams Coulson
Phil Rowe
Judy Carsrud
Michael Lloyd
Greeberg Tarig
If you need help getting out of a plan, redoing a plan, or reviewing a plan, we can help you.
We have written books about the subject, given hundreds of lectures and have worked on these
problems for many years.
Our team includes ex-IRS agents, tax attorneys, CPAs, Erisa attorneys and others substantially
knowledgeable about these plans.
We have helped many others with these problems and look forward to helping you.
VEBA, John Koresko, get ALL your money back from the insurance company, sue the bastards.
ReplyDeleteEdit article
Published on July 18, 2017
LikedUnlikeVEBA, John Koresko, get ALL your money back from the insurance company, sue the bastards.1Comment0ShareShare VEBA, John Koresko, get ALL your money back from the insurance company, sue the bastards.0
Lance Wallach
Lance Wallach
Business Owner at National Offices of Lance Wallach
3rd Circuit Affirms Judgment In Enforcement Action Against Fiduciary
(April 12, 2016, 10:44 AM EDT) -- PHILADELPHIA — A Pennsylvania federal judge did not err in imposing liability on an individual fiduciary for breaching his duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act or in denying the fiduciary his request for a new trial, the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled April 5 (Secretary United States Department of Labor v. John J. Koresko V, Nos. 15-2470, -3141, 3rd Cir.; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6227).
(Decision available. Document #54-160413-101Z.)
VEBA promoter Koresko get ur money back
ReplyDeletePublished on Published onNovember 2, 2017
Edit article
View stats he also failed to do. He was subsequently arrested.
VEBA promoter Koresko get ur money back
ReplyDeletePublished on Published onNovember 2, 2017
Edit articled to do. He was subsequently arrested.
Lance Wallach” “419 welfare benefit plans” “412i retirement plans” “412i” “tax
ReplyDeleteshelter litigation” “abusive tax shelters” “fight tax shelter penalty” “Bankers Life”
“Hartford Life” “CRESP” “American General Life” “Bisys” “Benistar” “United
Financial Group” “Grist Mill Trust” “Ridge Plan” “SADI Trust” “Professional benefits
Trust” “Sea Nine Veba” “Bisys” “Beta 419” “Beta Plan” “Millennium Plan”
“Benistar” “Niche 419” “Grist Mill Trust” “Compass Welfare Benefit Plan” “Sterling
Benefit Plan” “Penn Mont” “real Veba” “United Financial Group” “CRESP” “Pacific
Life Insurance” “tax shelter litigation” “412i plan abuse” “419 plan abuse”
“welfare benefit plan abuse" “Lance Wallach” “412i litigation” “419 litigation” “tax
shelter litigation” “tax shelter litigation expert witness” “investment fraud litigation”
“investment fraud litigation expert witness” “abusive retirement plans” “abusive
welfare benefit plans”
"lance wallach" “6707A” “captive insurance” “tax shelter fraud” “section 79”"tax
letter" "irs letter" "irs letters" "irs determination letter" “419 plan help” 412i 6707a
"form 8886" "listed transactions" "abusive tax shelter assistance" “insurance
scam” “retirement plan fraud” “life insurance fraud” “life insurance scam” “health
insurance scam” health insurance fraud” “tax shelter fraud” “tax shelter scam”
"expert witness irs" veba "expert witness services" "Grist Mill Trust" Benistar
"SADI Trust" "Beta 419" "Millennium Plan" Bisys "Creative Services Group"
"Sterling Benefit Plan" "Compass 419" “Niche 419” CRESP "Sea Nine Veba" “419
plan” 412i 419e "expert witness insurance fraud" "welfare benefit plans" "419
plan help" "expert witness irs" “Lance Wallach” “419 plan help” “412i plan help”
“tax resolution services” “irs problem solvers” “form 8886” 6707a “irs letter”
“abusive tax shelters” “abusive tax shelter” “listed transactions” “listed
transaction” “8886 help” “expert witness” “life insurance expert” “tax expert” “irs
audit defense” “abusive tax shelter help” "tax letter" "irs letter" "irs letters" "irs
determination letter" 419e 412i 6707A "form 8886" "listed transactions" veba
"expert witness services" “abusive tax shelter help”
Abusive Welfare Benefit and
Retirement Plans Can Lead to
Severe Penalties for Accountants
By Lance Wallach
Lance Wallach, 419 welfare benefit plans, 412i retirement plans, 412i, tax shelter litigation, abusive tax shelters, fight tax shelter penalty, Bankers Life, Hartford Life,
CRESP, American General Life, Bisys, Benistar, United Financial Group, Grist Mill Trust
Accountants who are unaware of recent developments are likely to encounter a nightmarish
scenario that may play out something like this: you sign a client’s tax return that claims a tax
deduction for participation in a “welfare benefit plan”. A few years pass, and nothing happens.
Then, on audit, the deductions are disallowed and your client is hi
Searchve known the his statements regarding the accuracy of the purported REAL VEBA tax benefits were false, because he did not know that the final regulations would alter the validity of the REAL VEBA. The court rejected this argument due to the prior IRS notices, the years of IRS litigation, and the proposed rules which made the law clear regarding the definition a TOME. In evaluating whether Koresko knew or should have known that the REAL VEBA did not comply with legal requirements, the court looked at: (1) the extent of the promoter’s reliance upon knowledgeable professionals; (2) the promoter’s level of sophistication and education; and (3) the promoter’s familiarity with tax matters. Since Koresko was both an attorney and CPA as well as a self-proclaimed expert in tax and benefits law he did not consult outside professionals and drafted all of the VEBA documents himself. Based on these facts, the court found that imposition of penalties under Code Section 6700 on Koresko personally was appropriate
ReplyDeleteSearchA purported to allowed small business owners to purchase cash-value life insurance for themselves without treating that benefit as taxable income and to deduct the premium payments from the business’s income as a business expense. Currently, there are more than 100 cases pending in US Tax court regarding the tax treatment of the REAL VEBA. However, this case relates to Code Section 6700 penalties imposed directly on Koresko personally and Penn-Mont Services, the plan trustee which Koresko set up and controlled. The penalty was imposed on Koresko for false statements he made in promoting the REAL VEBA as an abusive tax shelter. To recover Section 6700 penalties, it was necessary for the government to demonstrate that Koresko: (1) organized or participated in the sale of the REAL VEBA; (2) made statements about the allowability of deductions or tax credits, excludability of income, or securing of other tax benefits; (3) knew or had reason to know the statements were false; and (4) the statements pertained to a material matter. Koresko marketed the REAL VEBA as a “ten or more employer” (TOME) plan under Code Section 419A(f)(6). Deductions for most VEBA contributions are typically limited to costs of current benefits for the current year or for limited prefunding of future benefits. However, the Internal Revenue Code carves out an exception for VEBAs operating as TOME plans. If ten or more employers join a single plan, Section 419A(f)(6) permits deductions to be taken in earlier tax years. For years, the definition of a Section 419 TOME plan, also called a “419 plan” had been controversial. In 1995, the IRS issued Notice 95-34, which clarified the Service’s position that plans similar to Koresko’s did not meet the requirements of Section 419. In subsequent years the IRS successfully sued taxpayers regarding their 419 plans. Nonetheless, some taxpayers continued to take the position that their 419 plans were permitted under the Code. In 2000, the IRS issued Notice 2000–15, 2000–1 C.B. 826 which designated 419 Plans as “listed transactions” or “tax avoidance transactions.” The IRS issued proposed regulations in 2002 intended to clarify the current law. Final regulations were issued in July 2003. Koresko’s REAL VEBA as amended and restated in 2002 did not fall within the definition of TOME under IRS guidance or the final regulations. Koresko widely promoted the REAL VEBA and the government claims that he knew or should have known that statements he made about the tax implications and benefits of the REAL VEBA were false or fraudulent. Koresko tried to argue that he could not have known the his statements regarding the accuracy of the purported REAL VEBA tax benefits were false, because he did not know that the final regulations would alter the validity of the REAL VEBA. The court rejected this argument due to the prior IRS notices, the years of IRS litigation, and the proposed rules which made the law clear regarding the definition a TOME. In evaluating whether Koresko knew or should have known that the REAL VEBA did not comply with legal requirements, the court looked at: (1) the extent of the promoter’s reliance upon knowledgeable professionals; (2) the promoter’s level of sophistication and education; and (3) the promoter’s familiarity with tax matters. Since Koresko was both an attorney and CPA as well as a self-proclaimed expert in tax and benefits law he did not consult outside professionals and drafted all of the VEBA documents himself. Based on these facts, the court found that imposition of penalties under Code Section 6700 on Koresko personally was appropriate
ReplyDeleteOn July 23, 2013, the same date that the Court enjoined the Koresko Defendants2 in Perez v. Koresko, No. 09-cv-988 (Docket No. 436), from, among other things, taking any action that would reduce the value of the underlying policies, the Pennsylvania Debtors filed voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.3 Each petition was signed by Mr. John J. Koresko in his capacity as "debtor." See, e.g., In re Single Employer Welfare Benefit Plan Trust, No. 13-bk-16441 (Docket No. 1).
ReplyDelete