Boy do I get a lot of blowback every time I share my findings about why the government has declared ROBS illegal!

Why is there not a specific government ruling on ROBS?

Great question!

It’s because once an issue has been ruled on, they don’t repeatedly consider it. “They” are the Department of Labor, and the first step of learning about Self-Directed IRA and 401(k) rules is finding out that “prohibited transactions” are an issue outside the jurisdiction of the IRS and in the hands of the Department of Labor (DOL).

When ROBS Was Ruled On

It was 2006. Debra Buchanan, the creator of the IRA LLC, asked the DOL a question about structuring an investment deal to avoid “prohibited transaction” status. (This was before she split with Guidant and became my legal counsel, but that’s another story.)

The DOL came back and said (paraphrased)

It doesn’t matter how you structure things or pursue exemptions. We’ve been clear throughout various rulings ["Advisory Opinions"] that a specific part of the law books [IRC 4975(c)(1)(D)] makes it prohibited for IRA or 401(k) funds to be used to benefit their account owner or family, unless it’s a taxable distribution.

That’s translated into humanspeak. You can see the actual ruling here. Untranslated legal language in it says:

…Department opinions interpreting [regulations] have made clear that a prohibited transaction occurs when a plan invests in a corporation as part of an arrangement or understanding under which it is expected that the corporation will engage in a transaction with a party in interest (or disqualified person).

The ROBS Coffin Is Sealed

This issue is so straightforward because DOL ruled on it as a bigger issue. DOL has received countless letters that ask “But what if I structure my Corporation this way or that way… do I then successfully evade the rules and regulations?”

And they always respond, “No. Using Self-Directed IRA or 401(k) funds to benefit the account owner or their family is always prohibited unless it’s through a taxable distribution.”

Tip: Don’t Piss Off The Government

I know that’s kind of common knowledge, but I wonder if you notice from the DOL language—”Department opinions interpreting [regulations] have made it clear”—that they are already (in 2006) annoyed at all the clever attempts at evading the rules and regulations.

Not a whole lot of wiggle room here. Zero, to be exact.

I know, I know… it’s bitter medicine. Especially if you dreamed up an awesome future all provided to you by ROBS.

But it’s quite easy to swallow if you get real and refocus your attention on legal strategies that actually work.

Why should you use my company to setup a Self-Directed IRA, IRA LLC, or Solo 401(k) instead of those others?

It’s quite simple really…

Those other companies all promote an illegal scheme called ROBS, and if you are a client of a company promoting an illegal scheme, you are a target for nasty IRS audits.

Best case audit scenario: After months or years of being audited, you are finally cleared. Your assets might be frozen during that time, and you may incur tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees to defend yourself.

Worst case scenario: If you used the ROBS strategy yourself with, say a couple hundred thousand dollars, you could incur MILLIONS of dollars in taxes. Yep, you read that right. The tax penalties are severe.

What is ROBS?

ROBS is a fancy, semi-complex strategy involving a C-Corp, a 401(k), and you using your retirement funds to start, purchase or grow a business. I’m a huge fan of starting, buying, and growing businesses.

I think you should start or buy a business if you don’t already own one.

And I think you should be able to do whatever you like with all of your money.

Buuuuut… the government disagrees. The government says ROBS is illegal, and they aren’t yet going after ROBS promoters or ROBS users. Yet.

So basically, if you become a client of any of these other companies, you are associated with the promoters of an illegal scheme that the government will probably eventually pursue.

That kind of messes up the idea of gaining freedom, control, and independence, doesn’t it? I mean, I’m just guessing that your idea of freedom is NOT having your assets frozen by the IRS and being subjected to a multi-year, grueling audit.

The Nabers Group Difference

So, that’s pretty straightforward, isn’t it? We here at Nabers Group don’t take you to a magic fountain of youth, mystically multiply your investments by 10,000% per hour or anything like that. (That would be nice though, wouldn’t it?)

All we do is refrain from promoting flimsy “loophole theory” strategies that could get you in big trouble. As a Nabers Group client, one of the things you’ll enjoy is the peace of mind that comes with knowing you are safe. If you’re not a client yet, check us out by calling 877-903-2220.

###

Odds and ends: Did you know that most Self-Directed IRA/401k investors FAIL? Learn how to steer clear of common, yet avoidable mistakes… and successfully preserve and grow your wealth.

Trademark notice: “Asset Exchange Strategies” is a registered trademark of Asset Exchange Strategies, LLC, which has no relationship of affiliation, endorsement, or sponsorship with the publisher.

Ok, now it’s time to solve the mystery. (Final Post) [see previous here]

In 1978 Jimmy Carter reorganized the government with this order, and this took the issue of retirement account prohibited transactions away from the domain of the IRS and gave it to the Department of Labor (DOL).

This fact was unknown to (or possibly ignored by) the ROBS promoters who claimed the IRS ROBS letter confirmed the validity of the ROBS strategy. The truth is that the IRS letter did not say whether or not the ROBS strategy creates a prohibited transaction because the IRS didn’t have the authority to say it. It was the authority of DOL. Ah, what fun bureaucracy can be.

Speaking with the Proper Authority

Now, I’ve known about this transfer of authority ever since the creator of the IRA LLC (late attorney Debra Buchanan) told me about it back in 2004. So I’ve been in close contact with DOL employees for several years. Here’s where the bureaucracy gets funny (or scary, depending on how you look at it).

A couple of weeks after the IRS ROBS letter came out, I called my friendly DOL contacts to ask, “What do you think of the ROBS strategy that the IRS just wrote a letter about?” They responded with, “What letter? What is ROBS?”

[If my friends at the IRS and DOL are reading this now, don't take offense. Everyone knows that government agency intercommunication is kind of like Big Foot and the Loch Ness Monster. It's not your fault.]

So I faxed the IRS ROBS letter over to DOL. I was happy to do this for the IRS because I know they are really busy.

Finally… the Meeting

My annual trip to Washington, D.C. was scheduled for about six weeks later. So this gave DOL plenty of time to review the letter so we could discuss it at our meeting.

When the meeting came in December, all of the mystery surrounding ROBS collapsed with a couple of straightforward sentences out of the mouths of the decision makers at DOL (paraphrased):

The ‘qualifying employer securities’ exemption means that transaction of the plan acquiring stock from the C corporation is exempt. BUT, this exemption doesn’t throw the rules out the window for looking at the whole strategy. This whole strategy generally provides an ‘outside-of-the-plan’ benefit to the participant, who is a disqualified person. Thus this strategy creates a prohibited transaction.

Bear in mind this unofficial conversation is, well, not official. What would make it official is if I (or anyone else) submitted a written request for a DOL “Advisory Opinion” letter that explains whether the ROBS strategy is a prohibited transaction.

These DOL guys indicated that such a request would be met with an Advisory Opinion declaring ROBS illegal.

Don’t Kill the Messenger

There it is, folks. End of story. ROBS is a prohibited transaction. Many people and attorneys can disagree, but it comes down to 4 guys at this government agency in Washington, D.C. to provide the interpretation of the prohibited transaction law. In other words, it doesn’t matter what anybody thinks except for them. And they think you owe the government a 115% tax (on the amount of money involved in the scheme) if you do a ROBS.

Up until this meeting, I was just as hopeful as anyone that ROBS would come out of the gray area in a favorable conclusion. I don’t want to end this topic on an disappointing note, so I will be throwing out some ROBS alternatives in a future post.

[This is a continuation of a previous post. You should read that one first so this makes sense.]

The IRS Responds

For the first time ever, the IRS actually addressed the “financing a small business with an IRA or 401(k)” strategy. They called it “ROBS” for “roll over business startup,” and issued a letter on October 1, 2008. This letter basically stated:

• We know about the ROBS strategy
• We are concerned about it for several reasons

Celebrate and Ignore

Most ROBS promoters spun the IRS ROBS letter as a long-awaited government blessing for the strategy. They said that the concerns that the IRS listed were administrative errors, such as not filing the plan’s annual valuation report, not telling the corporation’s employees that they can also participate in the plan, and not ever launching a bona fide business in the first place. “These can be avoided. Read between the lines here.”

According to ROBS promoters, what was between the lines is that the IRS implied that the ROBS strategy was legitimate in the first place.

You would think my quest for a final answer to “Is the ROBS strategy legal or illegal?” would lead me to the IRS building in Washington, D.C… Not so. What ROBS promoters were ignoring (or unaware of) is that a strange, mostly unknown Presidential move from the 70s placed this matter outside of the IRS and onto a different government agency. In fact, the IRS letter talked around the core ROBS issue and never faced “Is the ROBS strategy legal or illegal?” head on—because, after the move in the 70s, they actually don’t have the legal authority to comment or decide on the issue.

What Now?

Determined to get to the bottom of this, I went to the other government agency.

Oh yeah, let me tell you why this matter is so important: If the ROBS promoters are wrong, everyone who believed them will be subject to a tax of at least 115% of the amount of funds involved in the strategy. OUCH!

Continue to Final/Part-3 of this post