WHAT EVERY SELF DIRECTED IRA INVESTOR SHOULD KNOW ABOUT PRECIOUS METALS

by | Sep 30, 2014 | Uncategorized

what-sdira-investors-should-know-about-metalsPrecious metals have been a popular investment for retirement plans since the financial market collapse in 2008. Most standard IRAs with financial institution custodians will typically only offer precious metals through funds or other complex structures whereby the IRA does not directly own the precious metals. A self directed IRA can hold actual precious metals as long as those metals are not considered collectibles under law and as long as they are properly stored.

Only precious metals which meet the requirements of IRC § 408(m)(3) may be owned by an IRA. All other metals or coins are considered collectible items and cannot be held by an IRA. IRC § 408(m)(2)(C), and (D).

There are two categories of approved precious metals. The first category are specifically approved coins, such as American Gold or Silver eagles. The second category is bullion (e.g bars, or coin form bullion) that is gold, silver, platinum, or palladium, AND that meets certain purity requirements. The purity requirements are outlined below.

  • Gold, meeting minimum fineness requirements of 99.5%.
  • Silver, meeting minimum fineness requirements of 99.9%.
  • Platinum, meeting minimum fineness requirements of 99.95%.
  • Palladium, meeting minimum fineness requirements of 99.95%

Precious metals must be stored with a licensed financial institution or trust company. Personal storage of precious metals owned by an IRA is not allowed. A broker-dealer, third-party administrator, or any company not licensed as a bank, credit union, or trust company may not store precious metals owned by an IRA. IRS Private Letter Ruling 200217059.

If an IRA purchases precious metals that do not meet the specific requirements of IRC § 408(m)(3), then the precious metals are deemed  collectible items. As a result, they are considered distributed from the IRA at the time of purchase. IRC § 408(m)(1). Similarly, if the storage requirement is violated, then the precious metals are also deemed distributed as of the date of the storage violation. IRS Private Letter Ruling 20021705. The consequence of distribution is that the value of the amount involved is deemed distributed and is subject to the applicable taxes and penalty.

By: Mat Sorensen, Attorney & Author of The Self Directed IRA Handbook

This article is an excerpt from Chapter 12: Precious Metals of The Self Directed IRA Handbook by Mat Sorensen

When Does Raising Money in an LLC, Joint Venture or Partnership Violate Securities Laws?

by | Aug 12, 2014 | Tax & Legal Updates and Policy Changes, Uncategorized

We’ve all heard the buzz words of crowdfunding, PPMs, and IPOs, but there are less complicated ways to raise money and start a business and one of the most reliable and most used methods is that of partnerships or joint ventures.

If you ‘re raising money from others in an LLC, partnership, or joint venture, you must take specific precautions in structuring your documents so that the investment of money from any member, partner, or joint venturer does not constitute a violation of federal or state securities laws. Failure to comply with the securities laws can result in civil and criminal penalties. Many real estate investments, real estate developments, and emerging companies rely on numerous strategies to raising capital that are outside of publicly traded stock and that do not require registration with a state securities division or the federal Securities and Exchange Commission. This article addresses those strategies and outlines some of the key issues to consider when raising funds through an LLC, partnership, or joint venture arrangement. This article addresses the legal considerations that should be analyzed when bringing in “cash partners” or “investors” into your LLC, partnership, or joint venture.

Is the LLC Member, Partner or Joint Venturer Contributing More Than Just Money?

The courts have widely held that an investment in an LLC, joint venture, or partnership is a security when the investor is investing solely cash and has no involvement, vote, or say in the investment. In these instances where the investor just puts in cash (sometimes called “silent cash partner” arrangements), the investment will likely be deemed a security. In a famous securities law case called Williamson, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a joint venture contract investment is a security if the investor has little say or voting power, no involvement in the business or investment, and no experience that would provide any benefit to the business or investment. Williamson, 645 F.2d 424. As a result, to avoid triggering these factors and having your investment or business deemed a security we strongly recommend that all investors in Joint Venture agreements, LLCs, or partnerships have voting rights and that they participate in the key decision-making functions of the investment or business. Investors do not have to be part of the management team but they do need to have voting rights and need to have real opportunities to use those voting rights. For example, they could have voting rights on incurring additional debt, on management compensation, and/or on buying or selling property.

Don’t Give Yourself Unlimited Control as Manager

In most LLCs with cash partners, the person organizing the investment and running the operations is often the manager of the LLC, partnership, or joint venture and has the ability to bind the company or partnership. When making this selection as the manager, it is key that you do not give yourself unlimited control and authority. If you do give yourself unlimited control as manager, your investors may be deemed to have purchased a security since their voting rights will have been extinguished by placing to much control and power in the manager/management. What is recommended is that the members have the ability to remove the manager by majority vote and that the manager may only make key decisions (e.g. incurring debt, selling an asset, setting management salaries, etc.) upon the agreement and majority vote of the investors. While key decisions and issues should be left to the members, day to day decisions can be handled by the manager without a vote of the members/investors.

Don’t Combine Too Many People Into One LLC, JV or Partnership

The Courts have consistently held that even if an investor is given voting rights and has an opportunity to vote on company matters that the investor’s interest can be deemed a security if there are too many other investors involved in the LLC, JV, or Partnership. Holden, 978 F.2d 1120. As a general rule of advice, you should only structure investments and partnerships that include 5 or less cash investors as the securities laws and the involvement of more individuals than this could potentially cause the investment to be deemed a security. When there are more than 10 investors it is critical for clients to consider structuring the investment as a Regulation D Offering and that they complete offering documents and memorandums and make a notice filings to the SEC. Many people refer to this type of investment structure as a PPM.  When there are a lot of investors involved, a Regulation D Offering provides the person organizing the investment with exemptions from the securities laws and can allow someone to raise an unlimited amount of money from an un-limited amount of investors.

In sum, there are many factors and issues to consider when raising money from others in an LLC, JV, or partnership and it is crucial that you properly structure and document these investments so that they can withstand thes challenges of securities law violations. For help in structuring your investments please contact the law firm at 602-761-9798.

INHERITED IRA U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE UPDATE & 3 OTHER IMPORTANT FACTS ON INHERITED IRAS & CREDITORS

by | Jun 24, 2014 | Retirement & IRAs

The United States Supreme Court recently issued a 9-0 opinion holding that inherited IRAs are not exempt and protected from creditors in bankruptcy. As a general rule, IRAs receive special protections from creditors and cannot be reached by the creditors of the account owner. In Clark v. Rameker Trustee, Clark inherited her mother’s large IRA upon her mother’s death. Nine years later, Clark filed bankruptcy and sought to protect the inherited IRA from the reach of her own creditors. Under the bankruptcy code, “retirement funds” are protected from the reach of creditors and may generally be kept by the owner following bankruptcy. Justice Sotomayor, who wrote the opinion of the Court, wrote that inherited IRAs (not to include spousal inherited accounts) do not constitute “retirement funds” for three reasons. First, the owner cannot continue to contribute to the account. Inherited IRAs remain in the deceased owner’s name and cannot receive additional contributions from an heir. Second, the new owner is forced to take required minimum distributions from the account under a different set of rules than typical retirement accounts. And third, the account owner may withdraw the balance at any time without a 10% early withdrawal penalty. Because of these reasons the Court held that inherited IRAs are not “retirement funds” within the meaning of IRC 408 and as a result they are not protected from creditors. Consequently, the Clark’s entire inherited IRA is subject to the claims of creditors in bankruptcy.

In addition to the Court’s ruling in Clark, it is important to note three other facts regarding inherited retirement accounts and creditors.

  1. IRAs Inherited From a Spouse. When a surviving spouse inherits a retirement plan from a deceased spouse, the surviving spouse may simply roll over the deceased spouses account into an IRA owned by the surviving spouse and the retirement funds become a new account or add to an existing account of the surviving spouse. This is different from a non-spousal inherited account that was involved in the Clark case. Spousal inherited IRA funds go into the surviving spouses own IRA and are subject to the typical retirement plan rules. Because of this, inherited spousal retirement plans funds are different than that of non-spousal inherited funds and are not subject to the Court’s holding in Clark.
  2. Certain States Specifically Protect Inherited IRAs. When in bankruptcy a debtor can seek the protection of certain assets from creditors under federal exemptions and/or they can seek the protection of certain assets (such as IRAs) under the laws of their State. Under the laws of a few states, inherited IRAs are specifically protected from creditors and as a result the Court’s opinion in Clark would likely not apply. Those states include, Arizona, Texas, and Florida.
  3. Consider an IRA Trust For Large IRAs. If you have an estate comprised of significant IRA holdings, you may be able to establish a special IRA Trust, which can be used to shelter your IRA funds from your heir’s creditors. A trust should only be listed as a beneficiary of an IRA upon careful planning and consideration as the Trust needs to contain certain provisions in order to qualify as a valid trust under retirement plan rules.

Since inherited IRAs have special rules and procedures, it is recommended that person’s with large IRAs seek the guidance and assistance of an attorney in planning their estate and retirement fund’s future. Also, if you have an inherited IRA and are considering bankruptcy, stop, consult, and plan with the proper counsel lest you lose the account to creditors.

By: Mat Sorensen, Attorney and Author of The Self Directed IRA Handbook

IRA ROLLOVER ROLLER-COASTER: HOW TO ROLLOVER AN IRA FOLLOWING BOBROW AND IRS ANNOUNCEMENT 2014-15

by | May 6, 2014 | Uncategorized

In a recent case known as Bobrow v. Commissioner,  the U.S. Tax Court held that an IRA owner may only conduct one 60-day IRA rollover within a one year period for all of their IRAs. This holding from the Tax Court, was in opposition to the customs of many IRA custodians, financial advisors, and to IRS Publication 590. For more on Bobrow, and the rationale from the Tax Court please check out my prior blog article here.

Following Bobrow, the IRS issued Announcement 2014-15 and stated that the IRS was going to amend its guidance to taxpayers in Publication 590 and was going to adopt the Tax Court’s position of one 60-day Rollover per IRA per year

As a result of Bobrow and IRS Announcement 2014-15, taxpayers should consider the following issues when rolling over an IRA.

  1. Trustee to Trustee Transfers – If you want to change IRA custodians, the best way is via a trustee to trustee transfer whereby your old custodian transfers your IRA funds to your new custodian. Funds are sent directly from your old IRA to your new IRA and you as the IRA owner never touch the funds. IRA owners can still do as many trustee-to-trustee transfers as they want.
  2. New Rule to be Enforced in 2015 – The One 60-Day Rollover Per One Year Period rule won’t be enforced by the IRS until 2015. So don’t stress if you’ve already conducted multiple 60-Day rollovers over multiple accounts within a one year period. That is, unless your last name isn’t Bobrow.
  3. One 60-Day Rollover per 1-Year Period, Not Per Tax Year- The new rule has been explained as One 60-Day Rollover Per Year, however, the actual code (IRC 408(d)(3)(B) states per “1-year period” from the date of the last 60 Day Rollover. As a result, don’t think of one per tax year but rather think one can be done 1-year following the last 60 Day Rollover conducted by the IRA owner.
  4. One 60-Day Rollover Per Roth IRA and One Per Traditional IRA Per 1-Year Period – Based on my analysis of the Code, individuals would be allowed one 60-Day Rollover per Traditional IRA and one per Roth IRA.  The analysis is certainly complex but I’ve tried to summarize it below. Traditional IRAs are governed by IRC 408. IRC 408(d)(3)(B) is the section which limits 60 day rollovers to one per 1 year period and this was the section the Tax Court relied on in Bobrow. Roth IRAs are governed by IRC 408A, and IRC 408A(e) is the section that enables 60-Day rollover contributions for Roth IRAs. Under, IRC 408A(e) the code allows Roth IRA qualified rollover contributions that meet the requirements of IRC 408(d)(3) [the traditional IRA code section] but specifically states that, “For purposes of IRC 408(d)(3)(B), there shall be disregarded any qualified rollover contribution from an individual retirement plan (other than a Roth IRA) to a Roth IRA.” In other words, the section enabling Roth IRA rollovers states that you only count the number of Roth IRA rollovers when considering the one-year rollover rule for a Roth IRA Rollover. As a result, even if the taxpayer had conducted a rollover of a traditional IRA in the prior twelve-month period, this rollover would not be counted in applying the one 60-Day rollover per year rule for the Roth IRA. This application of a separate One-Rollover-Per-Year  for Roth and Traditional IRAs is also the position the IRS appears to be taking. In the IRS summary of the IRA One-Rollover-Per Year Rule, the IRS explained the One-60 Day Rollover per IRA rule for traditional IRAs and then stated that, “A similar limitation would apply to Roth IRAs.” Rather than lumping the Roth IRAs into Traditional IRAs for purposes of the rule, the IRS seems to be treating them separately. It would be nice though if they could be more clear on this issue before 2015 “rolls” around.

So, in sum, always opt for trustee-to-trustee transfers of IRA funds (where possible) and avoid taking a 60-Day Rollover from an IRA unless you are certain you have not conducted one in the prior 1-year period.

60 DAY IRA ROLLOVERS: TAX COURT SAYS DON’T FOLLOW IRS GUIDANCE

by | Mar 18, 2014 | Uncategorized

A recent U.S. Tax Court case, Bobrow v. Commisioner, T.C. Memo 2014-21, held that a taxpayer may only conduct one 60-day rollover of retirement plan funds per 1-year period. The Court’s opinion was a drastic change from what most taxpayers and professionals understood and from what the IRS has explained in its own publications.

The relevant facts of Bobrow are as follows. Mr. Bobrow conducted two 60-day rollovers in a 1-year period with two separate IRA accounts. He received both sums of money personally and paid them back into his two respective IRAs each within 60 days. Mr. Bobrow, presumably, believed that since he had two different IRAs that he could do two separate 60-day rollovers with those accounts without having either account subject to withdrawal. While Mr. Bobrow relied on a commonly accepted practice that was supported clearly by IRS guidance, the Tax Court disagreed based on the language of IRC 408 (d)(3)(B).

A 60-day rollover is often used by retirement account owners who temporarily roll-over money to themselves personally from their existing retirement account and re-deposit the funds into a new custodian’s retirement account within 60 days.  A 60-day rollover, however, is not to be confused with a trustee to trustee transfer or even a direct rollover, whereby retirement account funds are sent from the prior custodian or trustee of the retirement account funds to the new custodian or trustee. These types of transactions can be done as many times as an account owner desires and do not result in a retirement account owner’s personal receipt of retirement account funds or withdrawal under the tax rules. A 60-day rollover, on the other hand, is sent to the retirement account owner in their own name and can be deposited and used by the retirement account owner during the 60-day period so long as the funds are returned to the retirement account or to a new account within 60-days. A 60-day rollover is sometimes used by retirement account owners who, for example, withdraw funds from their IRA for short-term personal use or investment and then return the withdrawn funds to their IRA within 60-days.

Under IRC 408 (d)(3)(A), an IRA owner’s withdrawal from an IRA is not taxable when returned or deposited into a new IRA within 60 days. However, the question posed in the Bobrow case was how many 60-day rollovers can an individual do in a 1-year period. The 60-day rollover exception is limited in the Code when an individual has already received one 60-day roll-over from an IRA in the past 12 months. The Code specifically states that the 60-day rollover exception cannot be used if the individual has already completed and relied on the exception for a 60-day rollover in the prior 1-year period. IRC 408(d)(3)(B). It has been unclear, however, whether the one 60-day rollover per year applied on a per IRA basis or whether it applied to the individual for all of their accounts.

The IRS had clarified that questions and has previously explained that an individual can conduct one 60-day rollover per 1-year period per IRA and thus interpreted IRC 408(d)(3)(b) to apply on a per IRA basis. This one 60-day rollover per IRA rule is explained by way of example in the current version of IRS Publication 590, page 25, as follows.

You have two traditional IRAs, IRA-1 and IRA-2. You make a tax-free rollover of a distribution from IRA-1 into a new traditional IRA (IRA-3). You cannot, within 1 year of the distribution from IRA-1, make a tax-free rollover of any distribution from either IRA-1 or IRA-3 into another traditional IRA. However, the rollover from IRA-1 into IRA-3 does not prevent you from making a tax-free rollover from IRA-2 into any other traditional IRA. This is because you have not, within the last year, rolled over, tax free, any distribution from IRA-2 or made a tax-free rollover into IRA-2

Based on this explanation, it is clear that the guidance from the IRS is that an individual can make one 60-day rollover per account per 1-year period. Yet, despite this publication, the IRS sought to make Mr. Bodrow’s second 60-day rollover from a separate IRA taxable as it was his second 60-day rollover in a one-year period. The IRS did not give any consideration to the fact that the second 60-day rollover was from a separate IRA (as it clearly explained in IRS Publication 590 to be acceptable).

The U.S. Tax Court agreed with the IRS and held that the limitations of IRC 408 (d)(3)(B) means that an individual can only conduct one 60-day rollover per 1-year period. After my own analysis of IRC 408 (d)(3)(B), I have to say that I agree with the Court’s opinion as the statutory language does not make a distinction between accounts but instead refers to 60-day rollovers taken per individual. Consequently, the intent of the statute is that a taxpayer can only conduct one 60-day rollover per 1-year period for all of their IRAs. Unfortunately, the error of the IRS in providing incorrect guidance does not go in favor of the taxpayer.

Based on the Court’s opinion, retirement account owners are well advised to only conduct one 60-day rollover per 1-year period. Keep in mind that you can conduct as many trustee to trustee or direct rollovers per year as you want as those transfers or rollovers result in money being sent directly to a new retirement account custodian or trustee and are not governed under the 60-day rollover rules.

As of March 18, 2014, the Bobrow case is still somewhat in limbo as there is currently a motion to reconsider filed by the taxpayer pending with the Court. Once the Court decides the motion to reconsider, the Judge will issue a final decision and after the decision is entered the taxpayer will have 90 days to appeal the Court’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Given the significance of the Court’s ruling, I presume that the case will likely be appealed and heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

By: Mat Sorensen, attorney and author of The Self Directed IRA Handbook.