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

Guidant calls it Audeo. Benetrends calls it Rainmaker. SDCooper calls it ERSOP. It goes by many names and it’s gotten a lot of attention from the franchise industry and, as of about a year ago, the IRS. The IRS calls it “ROBS” for Roll-Over Business Startup.

What is it?

It’s a strategy where a person with retirement funds:

1. Forms a C corporation.
2. Uses the new C corporation to adopt a 401(k) or profit-sharing plan.
3. Performs a rollover from existing retirement funds (IRA, 401k, etc) into the new 401(k) plan.
4. Directs the new 401(k) plan to invest into the new C corporation by purchasing shares of stock.
5. Now this person has a C corporation with some or all of their retirement funds in it, and they are told they can use the funds to run the corporation, launch a venture, buy a franchise, and even pay themselves a salary.

Special Powers – For Good or Evil?

This is a tremendously powerful strategy. The problem? Many attorneys think it’s illegal because of the prohibited transaction rules. Those rules say that the accounthoder (a.k.a. plan participant) is classified as a “disqualified person,” meaning that the retirement plan can’t transact with him or do things designed to benefit him outside of growing the plan.

To complicate matters, many other attorneys think it’s legal and on very solid ground. Why the disagreement? The pro-ROBS attorneys say that a special exemption throws the prohibited transaction rules out the window when you classify the transfer of the C corporation stock as “qualifying employer securities.”

A Quest for the Final Answer

About a year ago, my phone was ringing off the hook from people saying, “Some say it’s legal, some say it’s illegal. What’s the truth? I don’t want to risk my retirement fund on something sketchy!”

So I set out to get to the bottom of it, and the outcome will surprise you. Stay tuned for the tale of my trip to Washington, D.C. to meet with the guys with whom the buck stops.

Continue to Part 2 of this post

Prohibited transactions is a chief topic when exploring self-directed IRA & Solo 401(k) investing. When a person first discovers that his retirement accounts have been chained to Wall Street brokerages without necessity, his mind starts to imagine the possibilities.

Real Estate? Yes.
Private Businesses? Sure.
Precious Metals? Absolutely.
Getting my hands on my retirement money now? Slow down there.

There are two types of limitations on the average retirement account. One is an unnecessary restriction of investment options to securities products. That can be eliminated through restructuring your accounts and funds. The second limitation is legal and cannot be removed.

Setting up a self-directed IRA or 401(k) is about removing limitations. Once you have it setup outside the nearly monopolistic network of securities dealers, you can invest in almost anything… but you must fully understand the legal limitations.

The general premise behind prohibited transaction rules is that the government wants you to grow your retirement account as big as possible because they plan to tax it later on when you distribute the funds to yourself for spending. Without prohibited transactions rules, anyone in their right mind would grow their retirement account and then make “losing investments” that actually put their retirement funds into their own hands.

For example, imagine you grow your IRA to $1 million and now you’re ready to get that money into your own hands so you can spend it. You could distribute it to yourself and pay ordinary income taxes on the distributions. Or you could invest it into your business that you personally own and operate. The latter could be an “investment” from the IRA. Once the money is in your business you could do whatever you want with it. And maybe your business doesn’t pay anything back to your IRA. Maybe it was a “losing investment” for your IRA. Taxes avoided. Woo hoo!

The only problem with the above scenario is that the real loser isn’t your IRA–it’s the government who didn’t collect distribution taxes because your IRA “lost” all its money. For this reason, the prohibited transaction rules make the above scenario illegal. The government made the PT rules to ensure that you don’t end up “losing” your retirement money. There are six PT rules. Four of the rules are commonly quoted, written about, and understood easily. The remaining two rules seem to elude or mystify most people, so let me bring clarity to the matter.

In order to be legally compliant, every retirement plan transaction must involve a genuine effort to benefit the retirement plan itself without benefiting the plan owner or his relatives. Let’s go ahead and knock out the most common strategies that are wrongly believed to successfully “get around” the rules:

Benefit Swapping

Joe & Frank are friends and each of them setup a self-directed IRA. Joe’s IRA loans $50,000 to Frank and Frank’s IRA loans $50,000 to Joe. This doesn’t break the 4 rules that are most focused on, but it does break the usually-ignored rules. For each loan transaction the borrower is not a “disqualified person” for the IRA to transact with, but the loan is a conflict of interest for the IRA owner because he expects to receive a loan back from the other person’s IRA. Because his decision to extend the loan from his IRA involves the expectation of a chain of events that is designed to benefit him personally, this is a prohibited transaction.

Another example would be if Joe’s IRA and Frank’s IRA each bought a vacation condo, and each IRA let the other person stay in the condo. Real estate is a popular investment for self-directed IRAs, but if an IRA owns real estate its owner (and his relatives) are not allowed to make personal use of the property, regardless of whether fair market rent is paid. If Joe vacationed in property owned by Frank’s IRA and Frank vacationed in property owned by Joe’s IRA, it would be a prohibited transaction. Just like the loan swapping, what makes it prohibited is the fact that when the IRA owner made the decision to enter into the transaction, he expected to receive a personal benefit as a result of the transaction. This applies to direct benefis and indirect benefits that come about as an expected chain of events.

Strawperson

Joe wants to sell his house, but he can’t find a buyer. His IRA has enough money in it to buy the house from Joe, but that would be a prohibited transaction because Joe is a disqualified person. So Joe arranges for his friend Frank to buy the house from him who will later sell the house to Joe’s IRA. Joe thinks he didn’t break any rules because Frank is not related to Joe and thus is not a disqualified person. In this scenario, in the eyes of the law Frank is a “strawperson”… a person who is not involved in the transaction for genuine reasons. Frank doesn’t really want to buy and then own Joe’s house. He is just entering into the transaction to add separation to the real transaction. The law removes the strawperson to examine the real transacting parties. In this case the real parties are Joe and his IRA. Effectively, Joe sold his house to his IRA. That is a prohibited transaction and it remains a prohibited transaction even with Frank the strawperson inserted into the chain of transactions.

The same strawperson strategy fails the test no matter how it is constructed. If Joe’s IRA loaned money to Frank and Frank subsequently loaned money to Joe, it would violate the PT rules.

The lesson

Setting up a self-directed IRA or Solo 401(k) brings your retirement funds to an unlimited investment platform in the sense that you can invest in virtually any type of asset. You will save yourself a lot of time and headache (and possibly tons of money) if you clearly understand the remaining limitation: you must invest solely to grow your retirement account without engaging in conflicts of interest.

Now that’s not so bad is it? The merits of whether the income tax is good for our country in the first place is a topic for another discussion. But within our current system, it’s not so much to ask that you avoid all conflicts of interest. Use your retirement account for its intended purpose–to grow massive wealth. There is a whole world of opportunities out there that don’t involve a potential conflict of interest!