Neonatology Assocs., P.A. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 1201–97
| Decision Date | 31 July 2000 |
| Docket Number | 2994–97,1208–97,4572–97.,2995–97,2985–97,2981–97,2795–97,No. 1201–97,1201–97 |
| Citation | 115 T.C. No. 5,115 T.C. 43 |
| Parties | NEONATOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.A., et al.,1 Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Taxpayers, professional medical corporations and sole proprietorship, in consolidated test cases, petitioned for redetermination of deficiency arising from disallowed deduction for contributions into Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association (VEBA) plans and treatment of contributions as taxable constructive dividends to physicians who owned the entities. The Tax Court, Laro, J., held that: (1) corporate employer/participants could not deduct contributions to VEBAs in excess of cost of term life insurance; (2) corporation could deduct payments made outside its VEBA for life insurance on two employees to the extent the payments funded term life insurance; (3) sole proprietorship/participant could not deduct contributions to its VEBA to purchase life insurance for certain nonemployee; (4) proprietorship could not deduct contributions to its VEBA to purchase life insurance for its two employees for which it was beneficiary; (5) disallowed deductions were constructive dividends to entities' employee/owners; (6) accuracy-related penalty and addition to tax for failure to timely file return were warranted; and (7) penalties for frivolous positions or delay were not warranted.
Decision for IRS in part, and for taxpayer in part.
Judgment affirmed, 299 F.3d 221. Certain insurance salesmen formed two purported voluntary employees' beneficiary associations (VEBA's) to generate commissions on their sales of life and other insurance products purchased through the VEBA's. Each employer/participant contributed to its own plan formed under the VEBA's, and each plan generally provided that a covered employee would receive current-year (term) life insurance on his or her life. Premiums on the underlying insurance policies were substantially greater than the cost of term life insurance because they funded both the cost of term life insurance and credits which would be applied to conversion universal life policies of the individual insureds. The credits applied to a conversion policy were “earned” on that policy evenly over 120 months, meaning that policyholders generally could withdraw any earned amount or borrow against it with no out-of-pocket expense.Held: The corporate employer/participants (N and L) may not deduct contributions to their plans in excess of the cost of term life insurance.Held, further, L may deduct payments made outside its plan for life insurance on two of its employees to the extent the payments funded term life insurance.Held, further, neither M, a sole proprietorship/participant, nor N may deduct contributions to its plan to purchase life insurance for certain nonemployees.Held, further, sec. 264(a)(1), I.R.C., precludes M from deducting contributions to its plan to purchase life insurance for its two employees.Held, further, in the case of N and L, the disallowed deductions are constructive dividends to their employee/owners.Held, further, Ps are liable for the accuracy-related penalties for negligence or intentional disregard of rules or regulations determined by R under sec. 6662(a), I.R.C.; L also is liable for the addition to tax for failure to file timely determined by R under sec. 6651(a), I.R.C.Held, further, no P is liable for a penalty under sec. 6673(a)(1)(B), I.R.C.Neil L. Prupis, Kevin L. Smith, and Theresa Borzelli, for petitioners.
Randall P. Andreozzi, Peter J. Gavagan, Mark A. Ericson, and Matthew I. Root, for respondent.
The docketed cases, consolidated for purposes of trial, briefing, and opinion, represent three test cases selected by the parties to resolve their disagreements as to certain voluntary employees' beneficiary association (VEBA) plans; namely, the Southern California Medical Profession Association VEBA (SC VEBA) and the New Jersey Medical Profession Association VEBA (NJ VEBA). 2 The parties in 19 other cases pending before the Court have agreed to be bound by the decisions we render herein as to these VEBA issues.
Two of the test cases involve a corporate employer and one or more employee/owners. These employer/employee groups are the Neonatology Associates, P.A (Neonatology), group and the Lakewood Radiology, P.A. (Lakewood), group. These groups relate to two purported welfare benefit funds formed under the SC VEBA; namely, the Neonatology Employee Welfare Plan (Neonatology Plan) and the Lakewood Employee Welfare Plan (Lakewood Plan).3
The third test case involves an individual working as a sole proprietor and two of his employees. This group is the Wan B. Lo, Ph .D., D.O., d.b.a. Marlton Pain Control and Acupuncture Center (Marlton) group. The Marlton group relates to the Marlton Employee Welfare Plan (Marlton Plan), a purported welfare benefit fund formed under the NJ VEBA.4
In regard to each test case, respondent determined that the employer or sole proprietor could not deduct its or his contributions to the respective plan and, in the case of Neonatology and Lakewood, that the employee/owners had income to the extent that he or she benefited from a contribution.5 Respondent determined that each petitioner was liable for deficiencies in Federal income tax as a result of the VEBA determinations and that each petitioner was liable for a related accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) for negligence or intentional disregard of rules or regulations. In the case of Lakewood, respondent also determined that it was liable for a 15–percent addition to tax under section 6651(a) for failure to file timely its 1992 Federal income tax return and a section 6621 increased rate of interest on its 1991 deficiency as to interest accruing after July 20, 1995.
Each petitioner petitioned the Court to redetermine respondent's determinations. Respondent's notices of deficiency list the following deficiencies, addition to tax, and accuracy-related penalties: 6
Neonatology, docket No. 1201–97
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦Year¦Deficiency¦Addition to Tax Sec. 6651 ¦Accuracy-Related Penalty Sec. ¦
¦ ¦ ¦(a)(1) ¦6662(a) ¦
+----+----------+---------------------------+---------------------------------¦
¦1992¦$1,620 ¦— ¦$324 ¦
+----+----------+---------------------------+---------------------------------¦
¦1993¦6,262 ¦— ¦1,252 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
John J. and Ophelia J. Mall, docket No. 1208–97
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦Year¦Deficiency¦Addition to Tax Sec. 6651 ¦Accuracy-Related Penalty Sec. ¦
¦ ¦ ¦(a)(1) ¦6662(a) ¦
+----+----------+---------------------------+---------------------------------¦
¦1992¦$6,186 ¦— ¦$1,237 ¦
+----+----------+---------------------------+---------------------------------¦
¦1993¦7,404 ¦— ¦1,481 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦Year¦Deficiency¦Addition to Tax Sec. 6651 ¦Accuracy-Related Penalty Sec. ¦
¦ ¦ ¦(a)(1) ¦6662(a) ¦
+----+----------+---------------------------+---------------------------------¦
¦1991¦$169,437 ¦— ¦$33,887 ¦
+----+----------+---------------------------+---------------------------------¦
¦1991¦— ¦— ¦— ¦
+----+----------+---------------------------+---------------------------------¦
¦1992¦71,110 ¦$10,667 ¦14,222 ¦
+----+----------+---------------------------+---------------------------------¦
¦1993¦93,111 ¦— ¦18,622 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Estate of Steven Sobo, Deceased, Bonnie Sobo, Executrix, and Bonnie Sobo, docket No. 2795–97
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦Year¦Deficiency¦Addition to Tax Sec. 6651 ¦Accuracy-Related Penalty Sec. ¦
¦ ¦ ¦(a)(1) ¦6662(a) ¦
+----+----------+---------------------------+---------------------------------¦
¦1991¦$27,729 ¦— ¦$5,546 ¦
+----+----------+---------------------------+---------------------------------¦
¦1992¦5,107 ¦— ¦1,021 ¦
+----+----------+---------------------------+---------------------------------¦
¦1993¦3,018 ¦— ¦604 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Akhilesh S. and Dipti A. Desai, docket No. 2981–97
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦Year¦Deficiency¦Addition to Tax Sec. 6651 ¦Accuracy-Related Penalty Sec. ¦
¦ ¦ ¦(a)(1) ¦6662(a) ¦
+----+----------+---------------------------+---------------------------------¦
¦1991¦$42,047 ¦— ¦$8,409 ¦
+----+----------+---------------------------+---------------------------------¦
¦1992¦15,751 ¦— ¦3,150 ¦...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank One Corp. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...to evaluate the cogency of an expert's analysis (including that of a Court-appointed expert). Neonatology Associates, P.A. v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 43, 85, 2000 WL 1048512 (2000), affd. 299 F.3d 221 (3d Cir.2002); see also Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand–Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 943 (Fed.Cir.......
-
Bank One Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...broad discretion to evaluate the cogency of an expert's analysis (including that of a Court-appointed expert). Neonatology Associates, P.A. v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 43, 85 (2000), affd. 299 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2002); see also Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 943 (Fed. Ci......
-
Trustmark Nat'l Bank v. Tegeler (In re Tegeler)
...light of the circumstances. See In re Wyly, 552 B.R. 338, 485 n.772 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2016) (citing Neonatology Assocs., P.A. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue , 115 T.C. 43, 99 (T.C. 2000) ).The Court finds that the Debtors have satisfied the first two elements because Stephens is a duly licen......
-
Nev. Partners Fund, L.L.C. v. United States
...in good faith on the adviser's judgment. See SAS Inv. P's v. Comm'r, 103 T.C.M. (CCH) 1845 (T.C.2012) (citing Neonatology Assocs., P.A. v. Comm'r, 115 T.C. 43, 98–99 (T.C.2000), aff'd,299 F.3d 221 (3d Cir.2002); 26 C.F.R. § 1.6664–4(c)(1)). The partnerships' argument that they are entitled ......
-
Tax Court In Brief | Estate Of Hoenshied v. Commissioner | Anticipatory Assignment Of Income, Charitable Contribution Deduction, And Qualified Appraisals
...and (3) that the taxpayer actually relied in good faith on the adviser's judgment. See Neonatology Assocs., P.A. v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 43, 99 (2000), aff'd, 299 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2002). "Unconditional reliance on a tax return preparer or C.P.A. does not by itself constitute reasonable r......
-
Tax Court In Brief | Scheizer v. Comm'r | Charitable Contribution Substantiation And Reliance On Tax Professional
...relied in good faith on the professional's advice." Crimi, 105 T.C.M. (CCH) at 1353; see Neonatology Assocs., P.A. v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 43, 98-99 (2000), aff'd, 299 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2002); Treas. Reg. ' Professional Advice. Professional advice in this context has been defined as "any ......
-
Updates & Other Tidbits
...7. Code '6039F(c)(1)(B). 8. Code '6039F(c)(2). 9. United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241 (1985); Neonatology Associates PA v. Commr., 115 T.C. 43 (2000), aff'd 299 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice sho......
-
Tax Court In Brief | Estate Of Spizzirri v. Commissioner | Gifts, Bequests, Deductible Expenses, And Estate Tax
...to the adviser, and (3) the taxpayer actually relied in good faith on the adviser's judgment." Neonatology Assocs., P.A. v. Comm'r, 115 T.C. 43, 99 (2000), aff'd, 299 F.3d 221 (3d Insights: Among the insights that can be gleaned from this case, perhaps the most fundamental are 1) a taxpayer......
-
Is a single-employer welfare benefit plan appropriate for a small business?
...AND DANEA M. KEHOE, ESQ., DBK CONSULTING, WASHINGTON, DC (1) See Notice 2002-8, 2002-1 CB 398. (2) See Neonatology Associates, P.A., 115 TC 43 (2000), aff'd, 299 F3d 221 (3d Cir. (3) See Wells Fargo & Co., 120 TC 69 (2003). (4) See Notice 2005-75, IRB 2005-45, 929. (5) See Regs. Sec. 1.......
-
Return preparer's advice does not prevent accuracy-related penalty.
...information to the adviser; and * The taxpayer actually relied in good faith on the adviser's judgment (Neonatology Associates, P.A., 115 T.C. 43, 99 [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] However, reliance on a return preparer is not reasonable where a cursory review of the return would reveal inaccurate ......