Starting
in 2001, and continuing through 2007, Plaintiffs made annual contributions of
$40,000 to the BETA Plan and, "as advised by Rau and Defendants Moritt ... and
Designs," claimed the same amount as annual tax deductions. (Id. ¶¶ 4041.) In 2003, the IRS issued stricter
regulations on multiple-employer benefit plans under Section 419A(f)(6) of the
IRC. (Id. ¶ 34.) In response to those regulations,
Designs signed a BETA Plan Severance Agreement, effective January 1, 2003, that
effectively transformed the BETA Plan from one multiple-employer plan ("MEP")
into several single-employer plans ("SEP"). (Id. ¶¶ 34, 43.) This change in plan structure
resulted in a split-dollar life insurance arrangement for plan participants,
pursuant to which plan benefits would be separated between employers and
shareholder-employees. (Id. ¶ 34.)
In
February 2004, Rau sent a letter to Winebrenner (who presumably forwarded the
letter to Plaintiffs, as they have attached the letter to their Second Amended
Complaint) stating that the IRS regulations had made the BETA Plan strategy
"stronger than ever." (Id. ¶ 42, Ex. C.) Plaintiffs allege, instead,
that the changes made the plan strategy riskier, and that Designs should have
been aware of the risks associated with the regulations and alerted Plaintiffs
to such risks. (Id. ¶ 42.) In December 2004, the BETA Plan
Administrator sent plan participants a letter notifying them of the plan's
re-characterization as a SEP, as described above. (Id. ¶ 45.) The letter informed Plaintiffs that
the changes did not affect them and were made for compliance purposes only. (Id.)
Plaintiffs allege, however, that such changes "solidified the [BETA] Plan as a
deferred compensation plan rather than the legitimate welfare benefit plan it
was [785
F.Supp.2d 242] marketed to be," (id. ¶ 35); that, under the new plan structure,
plan participants' contributions were subject to funding limitations that
rendered Plaintiffs' contributions no longer tax-deductible, (id. ¶¶ 34, 43); and that, had they been properly
informed of how to comply with the IRS regulations, they would not have claimed
plan contributions as deductions, and would have paid the necessary taxes on
such contributions, (id. ¶ 46).