ILNews

Summary judgment reversed in retroactive tax case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Finding a genuine issue of material fact as to when a company’s owners could have discovered that their plans investing in cash value life insurance were actually taxable, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in favor of the consultant who advised the company’s owners to invest in those plans.

Richard Yarger and Robert O’Brien, owners and operators of Custom Radio Corp. and sole employees of Custom Management Group, appealed summary judgment in favor of Actuaries & Benefit Consultants Inc. and John Fogle. Fogle provided services to Yarger and O’Brien from 1995 to 2004, telling the men that their investments in two specific Welfare Benefit Plans would be tax-deductible.

The plans were designed to comply with 26 U.S.C. Section 419(A)(f)(6) so they would be tax-deductible, but in July 2003, the IRS issued final regulations with regard to that subsection that rendered Yarger’s and O’Brien’s plans noncompliant. As a result, their contributions were retroactively taxable. In February 2004, Fogle recommended that Custom Management switch to a single employer plan, which Custom Radio’s CPA handled.

After being audited by the IRS in March 2008, Yarger and O’Brien were found to owe nearly $750,000 in back taxes, penalties and interest. They settled with the IRS to avoid penalties. In October 2010, after signing the settlement agreements, the two men sued Fogle and his company alleging negligent provision of consulting services and breach of oral contract.

The trial court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, ruling the applicable statutes of limitations had expired.

In Custom Radio Corp., Custom Management Group, Inc., Richard Yarger and Robert O'Brien v. Actuaries & Benefit Consultants, Inc., and John M. Fogle, 32A01-1303-CC-143, Yarger and O’Brien argued that the statutes of limitations didn’t begin until they signed the agreements with the IRS because they didn’t know their damages, but the Court of Appeals found this argument to be misplaced. Their causes of action accrued and the statutes of limitation began to run on the date they knew or, through the exercise of ordinary diligence, could have discovered that their Welfare Benefit Plans were non-compliant with Subsection 419(A)(f)(6) and that their plan contributions were retroactively taxable.

The question is whether they could have discovered this by April 30, 2004. The parties dispute whether Fogle told Yarger there would be no adverse tax consequences if Custom Management switched to a single employer plan. Fogle also said he told Yarger in February 2004 that the IRS had issued final regulations with respect to the subsection in question, but Yarger testified he was unaware of the final regulations and didn’t understand what the terms “experience rated” and “listed transactions” used by Fogle meant until they were audited.

The case is remanded for further proceedings.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT