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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT