Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Retirement Life - The Benefits Of Being The Ant And Not
The Grasshopper!
IRS Field Service Guidance (FSA) Memorandum 20012...
Due to Swanson, the Internal Revenue Service concluded that a restricted transaction did not
happen under Code Area 4975(c...
Retirement Life - The Benefits Of Being The Ant And Not The Grasshopper!
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Retirement Life - The Benefits Of Being The Ant And Not The Grasshopper!

194 views

Published on

IRS Field Service Guidance (FSA) Memorandum 200128011 was the first IRS drafted viewpoint that valid...

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Retirement Life - The Benefits Of Being The Ant And Not The Grasshopper!

  1. 1. Retirement Life - The Benefits Of Being The Ant And Not The Grasshopper! IRS Field Service Guidance (FSA) Memorandum 200128011 was the first IRS drafted viewpoint that validated the judgment of Swanson that held that the funding of a brand-new entity by an Individual Retirement Account for self-directing possessions was not a forbidden transaction pursuant to Code Section 4975. An FSA is released by the Internal Revenue Service to IRS field representatives to assist them in the conduct of tax audits. USCorp is a domestic subchapter S Corporation. Father has a bulk of the shares of USCorp. Dad's 3 minor kids possess the remaining shares of USCorp equally. USCorp remains in the business of offering Product A and some of its sales are made for export. Father and each kid own different IRAs. Each of the four Individual retirement accounts got a 25 % interest in FSC A, an international sales corporation ("FSC"). During Taxable Year 1, FSC A made a cash distribution to its IRA investors, from earnings and revenues derived from international trade what do you think income associating with USCorp exports. The IRAs owning FSC A each got an equivalent amount of funds. Internal Revenue Service recommended that, based upon Swanson, neither issuance of stock in FSC to Individual retirement accounts nor payment of dividends by FSC to Individual retirement accounts constituted direct forbidden deal. o IRS cautioned that, based upon facts, transaction could be indirect.
  2. 2. Due to Swanson, the Internal Revenue Service concluded that a restricted transaction did not happen under Code Area 4975(c)(1)(A) in the original issuance of the stock of FSC A to the IRAs. Likewise, the IRS held that payment of dividends by FSC A to the Individual retirement accounts in this case is not a prohibited transaction under Code Area 4975(c)(1)(D). The IRS even more concluded that due to Swanson, the ownership of FSC A stock by the IRAs, together with the payment of dividends by FSC A to the IRAs, must not make up a prohibited deal under Code Section 4975(c)(1)(E). The Internal Revenue Service developed that the payments of dividends by an Individual Retirement Account owned entity to an IRA would not constitute a prohibited transaction. Like the Tax Court in Swanson, the IRS concluded that an investment into a newly established entity to make IRA investments would not be a prohibited transaction pursuant to Internal Earnings Code mouse click the following article Area 4975. The Internal Revenue Service, in confirming the Tax Court's judgment in Swanson, appeared to suggest that the focus on whether a deal is prohibited pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidelines should be analyzed based on how IRA funds are invested not on the structure made use of to effect the investment. T.L. Ellis, TC Memo. 2013-245, Dec. 59,674(M). On October 29, 2013, the Tax Court in T.L. Ellis, TC Memo. 2013-245, Dec. 59,674(M), held that establishing an unique purpose restricted liability business ("LLC") making an investment did not trigger a restricted transaction, as a newly developed LLC can not be deemed a disqualified individual pursuant to Internal Profits Code Area 4975. In TC Memo. 2013-245, Mr. Ellis retired with about $300,000 in his section 401(k) retirement plan, which he consequently rolled over into a freshly developed self-directed IRA. The taxpayer then developed an LLC taxed as a corporation and had his IRA move the $300,000 into the LLC. The LLC was formed to engage in the business of used vehicle sales. The taxpayer managed the used automobile business through the IRA LLC and received a modest salary. The IRS suggested that the development of the LLC was a prohibited transaction under section 4975, which restricts self-dealing. The Tax Court disagreed, holding that even though the taxpayer acted as a fiduciary to the Individual Retirement Account (and was for that reason a disqualified individual under area 4975), the LLC itself was not a disqualified individual at the time of the transfer. After the transfer, the LLC was a disqualified individual since it was possessed by the Mr. Ellis's Individual Retirement Account, a disqualified person. In addition, the Internal Revenue Service also claimed that the taxpayer had participated in a prohibited deal by getting an income from the LLC. The court agreed with the IRS. Although the LLC (and not the Individual Retirement Account) was formally paying the taxpayer's salary, the Tax Court concluded that given that the Individual Retirement Account was the sole owner of the LLC, and that the LLC was the IRA's only investment, the taxpayer (a disqualified person) was essentially being paid by his Individual Retirement Account. 2013-245 is considerable because it directly validates the legality of the self-directed IRA LLC solution by confirming that a retirement account can money a freshly established LLC without activating a prohibited transaction. 2013-245 is important because it will certainly silence the little portion of individuals still trying to deny the legality of the self-directed IRA LLC option even after the Swanson Case and the 2001 IRS opinion letter confirmed its credibility.

×