Lance:

I would like to meet you in a debate. More about this later in this post.

I have a great deal of respect for your success at communicating to professionals nationwide your views about certain abuses that have become IRS targets. To many you seem to have become something of an industry watchdog. However with that soapbox comes greater responsibility, which I would like to see exhibited more often than I have to date. If you add that to your repertoire you will undoubtedly become a valuable resource to the entire accounting, legal and insurance fraternities.

To date I have mostly seen blanket comments from you attacking 419 plans, 412(i) plans, and captive insurance companies, among others. In many cases these attacks are merited. But what is lacking, like I recently wrote in the Journal of Accountancy in response to a recent article of yours (click here to read my letter to the editor "Not All 419 Plans Abusive" attached to this post), is a critical analysis of why they are abusive and how to recognize those programs that are not abusive. Failing to do so prevents those who rely on your sage advice from truly benefitting from it, and instead may drive them to abandon otherwise valuable planning tools altogether. By way of analogy, just because the highway patrol gives tickets to reckless drivers does not require all cars and drivers to abandon the road; if it did a valid mode of transportation would be denied to all.

To that end I challenge you to debate the validity of 419 plans at any sizable forum anywhere in the US at a time convenient for both of us. If you accept I will even go so far as to put this out to anyone with access to convention planning for any legal, accounting or insurance organization to see if they would like to make available a forum to once and for all dissect these issues at the highest intellectual and practical, rather than visceral, levels. This would provide a tremendously valuable educational resource to their members without having the sponsoring organization ascribe to either side of the issue (this way they avoid being identified as promoting or blocking 419 plans); it may even help their members who might have become entangled in problematic programs. Lance, if you wish to pick up the gauntlet contact me at 732-326-0900.

David Neufeld

I don't know about Lance, but I'll debate you. I will argue the affirmative (that properly designed 419 plans are legally appropriate) and you argue the negative.

Neufeld wants to debate taking the positive position (that properly designed 419 plans are legally appropriate); Vebaguru wants to debate the positive proposition (if Neufeld would take the negative); but we've not heard from Lance Wallach that he's accepting the challenge after the gauntlet was thrown down by Neufeld that Wallach argue the negative. Lance, will you meet face-to-face and debate the negative proposition?

John:
I understand that if one sees Lance face directly, he could die.
Don Levit

If you can survive his picture, you can survive Lance. Try http://www.natptax.com/LanceWallach.jpg or http://www.nsacct.org/profdev.asp?id=517.
I suggested to David that I take the affirmative and he the negative. However, we could switch for the second round. The fun of a debate is that you can argue either side.

I just read this. David and Ron are GOOD men. Ron is also a GOD man. How do we do this. We got great press in the AICPA Journal on this. Unlike some of the other members of this link, David and Ron actually get published in periodicals that lots of people read. They also speak at conventions, that lots of people attend, unlike most of the members of this link. Lots of people respect, and read their stuff, and I would be happy to debate, or whatever. When I attack 419, 412(i) etc. I mean to attack the junk and scams out there, which is most everything that I see. Ron and Dave know what they are doing. The problem is not them, it is the IRS. The IRS is auditing almost all the plans out there. That sometimes includes a good plan. I would love to talk about all of it with these very smart men.

Both the accountant and agent are probably material advisors. We are helping a lot of people in these situations. email lawallach@aol.com or call Lance Wallach 516 9385007 for answers to your questions. also see www.vebaplan.com www.irs.gov www.financeexperts.org www.taxlibrary.us good question A business owner just called us in who started a Pac Life 412(i) in 03 read one of my articles and tried to get out in 04 and 05. He made no plan contributions in 04 and 05 and was audited for those two years. IRS fined him $200,000 a year for being in a listed transaction. His big D.C. law firm lost on appeal. We probably will be able to help him. I have just published an article on point, and have details in my latest AICPA book. We have other cases like this one. they are 419 and 412(i) cases. On a 419 case IRS tried to fine the owner $300,000 and we got it down to $3,400. If you do these correct, and early, you get good resullts. We have great results geting money back from insurance cos.

So when and where is the debate? I want to attend and watch. Since the IRS approved GUST defined benefit plans using the 412(i) safe harbor provisions, I am really curious to hear why these plans are now considered toxic.

The plans are now considered "toxic" because IRS has launched a full frontal assault against many of them. Their idea is to scare as many taxpayers as possible away and to get as many participants as possible to settle and discontinue their participation in such arrangements. It will also help them if they can chalk up a few wins against clearly abusive plans and hapless clients with inferior attorneys along the way.
It appears that IRS is running away from taking on fiscally healthy taxpayers who have hired highly-skilled law firms. The IRS is offering very reasonable settlements rather than go to trial, or simply backing away from some plans rather than go to court.
Apparently David has lost interest, or simply doesn't check the board, while he waits for Lance to call him.

Let us not forgot that Lance was was of the biggest promoters of these plans back in the day.

here is one of his many article from way back when promoting Veba's

CPA Journal 97

He created articles all over the net. the article usually started with "How...Can Get Large Deductions". With CPAs the article was how CPAS can get new clients with VEBAs. With Dr's it was " How Doctors Can Get Large Tax Deductions."

As a matter of fact in 1998, Lance was on the lecture tour giving as many seminars, lectures, etc to get business. iOnce the IRS began attacking them, he switched to industry watchdog. It wasn't by choice that he became a watchdog, it was out of necessity.


I will say this about Lance, he is a great promoter.

I still don't understand how a pre-approved defined benefit volume submitter plan using the safe harbor 412i provision is now considered "toxic" by the IRS. Hoping the debate will provide clarity.

Is it a good idea for a peanut butter man to be throwing around the work toxic right now?

http://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/salmonellatyph.html

Nothing wrong with a VEBA if done correctly. Put Lance Wallach into Google and see how I get quoted on National Public Radio, NBC TV, The Washington Post, etc. about the General Motors etc. VEBAS.

When is the debate?

This message board is for posting messages, not published articles. If someone desires to refer to a published article, he may do so by including a link in his post such as this: Your Website
Posting long articles is obnoxious, as I informed you previously. Yet you persist. This board is for discussing issues and questions that arise in employee benefits. If you have questions, ask them. If you see questions that you have answers to, post them. But enough of the canned materials, especially the copyrighted materials that you have sometimes posted.

Aside from the obnoxious and abusive habit of continuing to post his articles over & over on this Board, is anyone but me offended by the back-handed--excuse me, full frontal--insults in post #7?

I, for one, will not abide this holier than thou attitude.

Go ahead and have your debate. I will not be there, but here's hoping you get your head handed to you on a platter

Maybe Lance's 're-publishing' here is because he subconsciously--or perhaps consciously--thinks that this is a more significant audience than the distributees of the print publications where his pieces have already appeared.

Maybe he's hoping for criticism so that he can hone his pieces and submit recycled versions to his print outlets again.

Maybe he just likes to annoy.

Lance, please do not post an article more than once.

Dave Baker
Webmaster

If Lance wants a debate, I know someone who will take the VEBA/419's don't work side. I guarantee that Lance would lose. This attorney is very good and convincing. He also lives in NY, so they could debate in person.

When is the debate??????????

Again I ask, when is the debate????????????

When is the debate???????

I will be happy to debate him on this board.

Sorry dave