(a) General rule. Under § 1.6011–4(d) and the Instructions to Form 8886, Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement, the required disclosure must identify and describe the transaction in sufficient detail for the IRS to be able to understand the tax structure of the reportable transaction and the identity of all parties involved in the transaction.
(b) Information required of all participants. For all participants, describing the transaction in sufficient detail includes, but is not limited to, describing on Form 8886 when and how the taxpayer became aware of the transaction.
(c) Information required of Captive. For Captive, describing the transaction in sufficient detail includes, but is not limited to, describing the following on Form 8886:
(1) whether Captive is reporting because (i) the amount of the liabilities incurred by Captive for insured losses and claim administration expenses during the Computation Period is less than 70 percent of the amount specified in section 2.01(e)(1) of this notice; (ii) Captive has at any time during the Computation Period made available as financing or otherwise conveyed or agreed to make available or convey any portion of the payments under the Contract to A, Insured, or a person related (within the meaning of § 267(b) or 707(b)) to A or Insured through a separate transaction, such as a guarantee, a loan, or other transfer; or (iii) both (i) and (ii); (2) under what authority Captive is chartered; (3) a description of all the type(s) of coverage provided by Captive during the year or years of participation (if disclosure pertains to multiple years); (4) a description of how the amounts treated as premiums for coverage provided by Captive during the year or years of participation (if disclosure pertains to multiple years) were determined, including the name and contact information of any actuary or underwriter who assisted in these determinations; (5) a description of any claims paid by Captive during the year or years of participation (if disclosure pertains to multiple years), and of the amount of, and reason for, any reserves reported by Captive on the annual statement; and (6) a description of the assets held by Captive during the year or years of participation (if disclosure pertains to multiple years); that is, the use Captive has made of its premium and investment income, including but not limited to, securities (whether or not registered), loans, real estate, or partnerships or other joint ventures, and an identification of the related parties involved in any transactions with respect to those assets. .06 Penalties Persons required to disclose these transactions under § 1.6011–4 who fail to do so may be subject to the penalty under § 6707A. Persons required to disclose these transactions under § 6111 who fail to do so may be subject to the penalty under § 6707(a). Persons required to maintain lists of advisees under § 6112 who fail to do so (or who fail to provide such lists when requested by the IRS) may be subject to the penalty under § 6708(a). In addition, the IRS may impose other penalties on parties involved in these transactions, including the accuracy-related penalty under § 6662 or § 6662A.
SECTION 4. REQUEST FOR COMMENTS The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on how the transaction might be addressed in published guidance.
Comments should be submitted in writing on or before January 30, 2017. Send submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (Notice 2016–66), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (Notice 2016–66), Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20224. Comments may also be sent electronically, via the following e-mail address: Notice.comments@irscounsel.treas.gov. Please include “Notice 2016–66” in the subject line of any electronic communications. All comments submitted will be available for public inspection and copying.
Captive Insurance And The IRS The IRS continues to heavily scrutinize captive insurance arrangements. Certain captive insurance types have consistently appeared, including in 2019, on the IRS’s “Dirty Dozen” list of tax scams to avoid. Micro-captives in particular have been identified as potential vehicles for illegal tax shelters and the IRS is keen to crack down.
If the IRS believes that a captive insurance company is claiming deductions for non-insurance activities they will litigate. This includes going after captive insurance companies that are claiming unreasonable premium deductions. If the captive insurance company cannot show that they are distributing risk, selling insurance, shifting risk, or whether transactions involved insurance risk then that captive could be a target for the IRS.
Captive Insurance And The IRS The IRS continues to heavily scrutinize captive insurance arrangements. Certain captive insurance types have consistently appeared, including in 2019, on the IRS’s “Dirty Dozen” list of tax scams to avoid. Micro-captives in particular have been identified as potential vehicles for illegal tax shelters and the IRS is keen to crack down.
If the IRS believes that a captive insurance company is claiming deductions for non-insurance activities they will litigate. This includes going after captive insurance companies that are claiming unreasonable premium deductions. If the captive insurance company cannot show that they are distributing risk, selling insurance, shifting risk, or whether transactions involved insurance risk then that captive could be a target for the IRS.
The IRS has been cracking down on conservation easement transactions for over ten years. Nevertheless, taxpayers have continued to claim charitable contribution deductions attributable to the donation of conservation easements and promoters have continued to assemble investments utilizing conservation easement charitable deductions. The IRS began focusing on syndicated conservation easement transactions when it issued Notice 2017-10, designating syndicated conservation easement transactions as listed transactions. These syndicated investments involve the use of partnerships to raise funds from investors, who are allocated a share of a charitable contribution deduction attributable to conservation easements donated on land owned by the partnership. In fall of 2018, the IRS doubled down on its attacks of these investments when syndicated conservation easements were added to the list of LB&I compliance campaigns. While the IRS continues to crack down on these arrangements, taxpayers have continued litigating the finer points of these transactions. On the flipside, DOJ has begun cracking down on promoters who market these transactions. Below are details on the most recent developments.
Pine Mountain Preserve v. Comm’r
This case involves three conservation easements covering various portions of an assemblage of over 2,000 acres of land. The land was located in what sounds like a beautiful location in Alabama for development of recreational and horse properties. Over three years, three different easements were granted on various portions of 1,300 of the 2,000 acres. The first two easements reserved the right to allow for small parcels of development, in a location to be agreed upon between the property owner and the charity holding the easement.
Relying on its prior rulings in Belk v. Comm’r, 140 T.C. 1 (2013), supplemented by T.C. Memo. 2013-154, aff’d 774 F.3d 221 (4th Cir. 2014) and Bosque Canyon Ranch v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2015-130, vacated and remanded sub nom. 867 F.3d 547 (5th Cir. 2017), the court determined that the first two easements did not a qualified real property interest due to the uncertainty created by the reservation to create pockets of development on the property subject to the conservation easement. [We note that the Tax Court was not persuaded by the Fifth Circuit opinion in Bosque Canyon and declined to follow it since this case is not appealable to the Fifth Circuit.] However, while the third easement contained a reservation for installing a water tower, it did not allow for the parties to choose after the easement areas for development within the easement area. Thus, the third easement was determined to be a qualified real property interest.
Valuation of the third easement was discussed in a Memorandum opinion issued simultaneously with the full Tax Court opinion addressing the validity of the easement. The court found the taxpayer’s expert overvalued the potential development of the property in determining the value of the easement but that the IRS expert undervalued the easement by ignoring the development potential of the property. The court went to great lengths to discuss in detail the misgivings of both valuation expert’s opinions but the result for the taxpayer was not horrible. In the end, the court valued the easement based on 50% of the value determined by both experts. Considering this meant a $4.8 million charitable contribution deduction was allowed, this was not a total loss for the taxpayer.
Wendell Falls v. Comm’r
Sometimes developers want open space or a park included in a master plan for a residential community as a way to make the community more desirable. In that instance, because the developer expects to benefit as a result of the easement, the law does not allow a charitable contribution deduction, essentially because the contribution lacks donative intent or because the donation lacks value when weighed against the value of
The IRS has been cracking down on conservation easement transactions for over ten years. Nevertheless, taxpayers have continued to claim charitable contribution deductions attributable to the donation of conservation easements and promoters have continued to assemble investments utilizing conservation easement charitable deductions. The IRS began focusing on syndicated conservation easement transactions when it issued Notice 2017-10, designating syndicated conservation easement transactions as listed transactions. These syndicated investments involve the use of partnerships to raise funds from investors, who are allocated a share of a charitable contribution deduction attributable to conservation easements donated on land owned by the partnership. In fall of 2018, the IRS doubled down on its attacks of these investments when syndicated conservation easements were added to the list of LB&I compliance campaigns. While the IRS continues to crack down on these arrangements, taxpayers have continued litigating the finer points of these transactions. On the flipside, DOJ has begun cracking down on promoters who market these transactions. Below are details on the most recent developments.
Pine Mountain Preserve v. Comm’r
This case involves three conservation easements covering various portions of an assemblage of over 2,000 acres of land. The land was located in what sounds like a beautiful location in Alabama for development of recreational and horse properties. Over three years, three different easements were granted on various portions of 1,300 of the 2,000 acres. The first two easements reserved the right to allow for small parcels of development, in a location to be agreed upon between the property owner and the charity holding the easement.
Relying on its prior rulings in Belk v. Comm’r, 140 T.C. 1 (2013), supplemented by T.C. Memo. 2013-154, aff’d 774 F.3d 221 (4th Cir. 2014) and Bosque Canyon Ranch v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2015-130, vacated and remanded sub nom. 867 F.3d 547 (5th Cir. 2017), the court determined that the first two easements did not a qualified real property interest due to the uncertainty created by the reservation to create pockets of development on the property subject to the conservation easement. [We note that the Tax Court was not persuaded by the Fifth Circuit opinion in Bosque Canyon and declined to follow it since this case is not appealable to the Fifth Circuit.] However, while the third easement contained a reservation for installing a water tower, it did not allow for the parties to choose after the easement areas for development within the easement area. Thus, the third easement was determined to be a qualified real property interest.
Valuation of the third easement was discussed in a Memorandum opinion issued simultaneously with the full Tax Court opinion addressing the validity of the easement. The court found the taxpayer’s expert overvalued the potential development of the property in determining the value of the easement but that the IRS expert undervalued the easement by ignoring the development potential of the property. The court went to great lengths to discuss in detail the misgivings of both valuation expert’s opinions but the result for the taxpayer was not horrible. In the end, the court valued the easement based on 50% of the value determined by both experts. Considering this meant a $4.8 million charitable contribution deduction was allowed, this was not a total loss for the taxpayer.
Wendell Falls v. Comm’r sult with a tax attorney to consider strategies for mitigating any damages.
Today the IRS issued a press release announcing that it is significantly increasing enforcement actions for syndicated conservation easement donations and that these transactions are a priority compliance area for the agency. In the press release, the IRS stated that examinations of conservation easement donations are being coordinated across the agency. The IRS also announced that investigations relating to conservation easement deductions had been initiated by the IRS Criminal Investigation Division. Currently, there are more than 80 conservation easement cases pending in Tax Court, and the IRS outlined its commitment to bringing more cases to Tax Court where it believes the deduction should be disallowed.
Lance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals is a frequent speaker on abusive tax shelters, Captive Insurance and conservation Easements. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually and writes for over fifty publications. He also is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Public Radio’s All Things Considered, and others. Lance Wallach has written numerous books including Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams published by John Wiley and Sons, Bisk Education’s CPA’s Guide to Life Insurance and Federal Estate and Gift Taxation and as well as the AICPA best-selling books. Including, Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots, Sid Kess Practical Alternatives to Commonly Misused and Abused Small Business Tax Strategies: Insuring Your Client’s Future, Author/Moderator: Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC, CIMCLance Wallach does expert witness testimony and has never lost a case!Contact Lance Wallach at 516.938.5007wallachinc@gmail.com--
(a) General rule. Under § 1.6011–4(d) and the Instructions to Form 8886, Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement, the required disclosure must identify and describe the transaction in sufficient detail for the IRS to be able to understand the tax structure of the reportable transaction and the identity of all parties involved in the transaction.
ReplyDelete(b) Information required of all participants. For all participants, describing the transaction in sufficient detail includes, but is not limited to, describing on Form 8886 when and how the taxpayer became aware of the transaction.
(c) Information required of Captive. For Captive, describing the transaction in sufficient detail includes, but is not limited to, describing the following on Form 8886:
(1) whether Captive is reporting because (i) the amount of the liabilities incurred by Captive for insured losses and claim administration expenses during the Computation Period is less than 70 percent of the amount specified in section 2.01(e)(1) of this notice; (ii) Captive has at any time during the Computation Period made available as financing or otherwise conveyed or agreed to make available or convey any portion of the payments under the Contract to A, Insured, or a person related (within the meaning of § 267(b) or 707(b)) to A or Insured through a separate transaction, such as a guarantee, a loan, or other transfer; or (iii) both (i) and (ii);
(2) under what authority Captive is chartered;
(3) a description of all the type(s) of coverage provided by Captive during the year or years of participation (if disclosure pertains to multiple years);
(4) a description of how the amounts treated as premiums for coverage provided by Captive during the year or years of participation (if disclosure pertains to multiple years) were determined, including the name and contact information of any actuary or underwriter who assisted in these determinations;
(5) a description of any claims paid by Captive during the year or years of participation (if disclosure pertains to multiple years), and of the amount of, and reason for, any reserves reported by Captive on the annual statement; and
(6) a description of the assets held by Captive during the year or years of participation (if disclosure pertains to multiple years); that is, the use Captive has made of its premium and investment income, including but not limited to, securities (whether or not registered), loans, real estate, or partnerships or other joint ventures, and an identification of the related parties involved in any transactions with respect to those assets.
.06 Penalties
Persons required to disclose these transactions under § 1.6011–4 who fail to do so may be subject to the penalty under § 6707A. Persons required to disclose these transactions under § 6111 who fail to do so may be subject to the penalty under § 6707(a). Persons required to maintain lists of advisees under § 6112 who fail to do so (or who fail to provide such lists when requested by the IRS) may be subject to the penalty under § 6708(a). In addition, the IRS may impose other penalties on parties involved in these transactions, including the accuracy-related penalty under § 6662 or § 6662A.
SECTION 4. REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on how the transaction might be addressed in published guidance.
Comments should be submitted in writing on or before January 30, 2017. Send submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (Notice 2016–66), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (Notice 2016–66), Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20224. Comments may also be sent electronically, via the following e-mail address: Notice.comments@irscounsel.treas.gov. Please include “Notice 2016–66” in the subject line of any electronic communications. All comments submitted will be available for public inspection and copying.
Captive Insurance And The IRS
DeleteThe IRS continues to heavily scrutinize captive insurance arrangements. Certain captive insurance types have consistently appeared, including in 2019, on the IRS’s “Dirty Dozen” list of tax scams to avoid. Micro-captives in particular have been identified as potential vehicles for illegal tax shelters and the IRS is keen to crack down.
If the IRS believes that a captive insurance company is claiming deductions for non-insurance activities they will litigate. This includes going after captive insurance companies that are claiming unreasonable premium deductions. If the captive insurance company cannot show that they are distributing risk, selling insurance, shifting risk, or whether transactions involved insurance risk then that captive could be a target for the IRS.
Captive Insurance And The IRS
ReplyDeleteThe IRS continues to heavily scrutinize captive insurance arrangements. Certain captive insurance types have consistently appeared, including in 2019, on the IRS’s “Dirty Dozen” list of tax scams to avoid. Micro-captives in particular have been identified as potential vehicles for illegal tax shelters and the IRS is keen to crack down.
If the IRS believes that a captive insurance company is claiming deductions for non-insurance activities they will litigate. This includes going after captive insurance companies that are claiming unreasonable premium deductions. If the captive insurance company cannot show that they are distributing risk, selling insurance, shifting risk, or whether transactions involved insurance risk then that captive could be a target for the IRS.
The IRS has been cracking down on conservation easement transactions for over ten years. Nevertheless, taxpayers have continued to claim charitable contribution deductions attributable to the donation of conservation easements and promoters have continued to assemble investments utilizing conservation easement charitable deductions. The IRS began focusing on syndicated conservation easement transactions when it issued Notice 2017-10, designating syndicated conservation easement transactions as listed transactions. These syndicated investments involve the use of partnerships to raise funds from investors, who are allocated a share of a charitable contribution deduction attributable to conservation easements donated on land owned by the partnership. In fall of 2018, the IRS doubled down on its attacks of these investments when syndicated conservation easements were added to the list of LB&I compliance campaigns. While the IRS continues to crack down on these arrangements, taxpayers have continued litigating the finer points of these transactions. On the flipside, DOJ has begun cracking down on promoters who market these transactions. Below are details on the most recent developments.
ReplyDeletePine Mountain Preserve v. Comm’r
This case involves three conservation easements covering various portions of an assemblage of over 2,000 acres of land. The land was located in what sounds like a beautiful location in Alabama for development of recreational and horse properties. Over three years, three different easements were granted on various portions of 1,300 of the 2,000 acres. The first two easements reserved the right to allow for small parcels of development, in a location to be agreed upon between the property owner and the charity holding the easement.
Relying on its prior rulings in Belk v. Comm’r, 140 T.C. 1 (2013), supplemented by T.C. Memo. 2013-154, aff’d 774 F.3d 221 (4th Cir. 2014) and Bosque Canyon Ranch v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2015-130, vacated and remanded sub nom. 867 F.3d 547 (5th Cir. 2017), the court determined that the first two easements did not a qualified real property interest due to the uncertainty created by the reservation to create pockets of development on the property subject to the conservation easement. [We note that the Tax Court was not persuaded by the Fifth Circuit opinion in Bosque Canyon and declined to follow it since this case is not appealable to the Fifth Circuit.] However, while the third easement contained a reservation for installing a water tower, it did not allow for the parties to choose after the easement areas for development within the easement area. Thus, the third easement was determined to be a qualified real property interest.
Valuation of the third easement was discussed in a Memorandum opinion issued simultaneously with the full Tax Court opinion addressing the validity of the easement. The court found the taxpayer’s expert overvalued the potential development of the property in determining the value of the easement but that the IRS expert undervalued the easement by ignoring the development potential of the property. The court went to great lengths to discuss in detail the misgivings of both valuation expert’s opinions but the result for the taxpayer was not horrible. In the end, the court valued the easement based on 50% of the value determined by both experts. Considering this meant a $4.8 million charitable contribution deduction was allowed, this was not a total loss for the taxpayer.
Wendell Falls v. Comm’r
Sometimes developers want open space or a park included in a master plan for a residential community as a way to make the community more desirable. In that instance, because the developer expects to benefit as a result of the easement, the law does not allow a charitable contribution deduction, essentially because the contribution lacks donative intent or because the donation lacks value when weighed against the value of
The IRS has been cracking down on conservation easement transactions for over ten years. Nevertheless, taxpayers have continued to claim charitable contribution deductions attributable to the donation of conservation easements and promoters have continued to assemble investments utilizing conservation easement charitable deductions. The IRS began focusing on syndicated conservation easement transactions when it issued Notice 2017-10, designating syndicated conservation easement transactions as listed transactions. These syndicated investments involve the use of partnerships to raise funds from investors, who are allocated a share of a charitable contribution deduction attributable to conservation easements donated on land owned by the partnership. In fall of 2018, the IRS doubled down on its attacks of these investments when syndicated conservation easements were added to the list of LB&I compliance campaigns. While the IRS continues to crack down on these arrangements, taxpayers have continued litigating the finer points of these transactions. On the flipside, DOJ has begun cracking down on promoters who market these transactions. Below are details on the most recent developments.
ReplyDeletePine Mountain Preserve v. Comm’r
This case involves three conservation easements covering various portions of an assemblage of over 2,000 acres of land. The land was located in what sounds like a beautiful location in Alabama for development of recreational and horse properties. Over three years, three different easements were granted on various portions of 1,300 of the 2,000 acres. The first two easements reserved the right to allow for small parcels of development, in a location to be agreed upon between the property owner and the charity holding the easement.
Relying on its prior rulings in Belk v. Comm’r, 140 T.C. 1 (2013), supplemented by T.C. Memo. 2013-154, aff’d 774 F.3d 221 (4th Cir. 2014) and Bosque Canyon Ranch v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2015-130, vacated and remanded sub nom. 867 F.3d 547 (5th Cir. 2017), the court determined that the first two easements did not a qualified real property interest due to the uncertainty created by the reservation to create pockets of development on the property subject to the conservation easement. [We note that the Tax Court was not persuaded by the Fifth Circuit opinion in Bosque Canyon and declined to follow it since this case is not appealable to the Fifth Circuit.] However, while the third easement contained a reservation for installing a water tower, it did not allow for the parties to choose after the easement areas for development within the easement area. Thus, the third easement was determined to be a qualified real property interest.
Valuation of the third easement was discussed in a Memorandum opinion issued simultaneously with the full Tax Court opinion addressing the validity of the easement. The court found the taxpayer’s expert overvalued the potential development of the property in determining the value of the easement but that the IRS expert undervalued the easement by ignoring the development potential of the property. The court went to great lengths to discuss in detail the misgivings of both valuation expert’s opinions but the result for the taxpayer was not horrible. In the end, the court valued the easement based on 50% of the value determined by both experts. Considering this meant a $4.8 million charitable contribution deduction was allowed, this was not a total loss for the taxpayer.
Wendell Falls v. Comm’r
sult with a tax attorney to consider strategies for mitigating any damages.
Today the IRS issued a press release announcing that it is significantly increasing enforcement actions for syndicated conservation easement donations and that these transactions are a priority compliance area for the agency. In the press release, the IRS stated that examinations of conservation easement donations are being coordinated across the agency. The IRS also announced that investigations relating to conservation easement deductions had been initiated by the IRS Criminal Investigation Division. Currently, there are more than 80 conservation easement cases pending in Tax Court, and the IRS outlined its commitment to bringing more cases to Tax Court where it believes the deduction should be disallowed.
ReplyDeleteLance Wallach, National Society of Accountants Speaker of the Year and member of the AICPA faculty of teaching professionals is a frequent speaker on abusive tax shelters, Captive Insurance and conservation Easements. He speaks at more than ten conventions annually and writes for over fifty publications. He also is quoted regularly in the press and has been featured on television and radio financial talk shows including NBC, National Public Radio’s All Things Considered, and others. Lance Wallach has written numerous books including Protecting Clients from Fraud, Incompetence and Scams published by John Wiley and Sons, Bisk Education’s CPA’s Guide to Life Insurance and Federal Estate and Gift Taxation and as well as the AICPA best-selling books. Including, Avoiding Circular 230 Malpractice Traps and Common Abusive Small Business Hot Spots, Sid Kess Practical Alternatives to Commonly Misused and Abused Small Business Tax Strategies: Insuring Your Client’s Future, Author/Moderator: Lance Wallach, CLU, CHFC, CIMCLance Wallach does expert witness testimony and has never lost a case!Contact Lance Wallach at 516.938.5007wallachinc@gmail.com--
ReplyDelete