by Structured Settlement Watchdog
Jack Meligan, Co-Founder of Settlement Professionals, Inc. and the founding President of The Society of Settlement Planners was up on his soap box in a video posted on LBN earlier today. In a video podcast entitled "Treasury Hearings on 104(a)(2)" it was virtually ANYTHING BUT!
Interviewer and LBN President Mark Wahlstrom tried his best to steer the good ship "Sticky Beak" on course. but the majority of the 16 minute video was replete with Meligan's "same ole same ole" generalized diatribe against the NSSTA and its members that was filled with inaccuracies.
Six Jack Meligan Inaccuracies in the Legal Broadcast Network video
- Meligan inaccurately generalizes that single claimant QSFs give claimants a tax benefit from structured settlements that they cannot get without them.
- Meligan inaccurately generalizes that NSSTA and its membership provide a blanket endorsement of approved lists of annuity issuers.
- Meligan inaccurately generalizes that NSSTA and its membership do not care about people with disabilities, when NSSTA is one of the largest donors and many of its members are actively involved with the American Association of Persons With Disabilities or similar organizations throughout the country. As a Platinum sponsor for the AAPD 2009 Gala, NSSTA donated $50,000 on behalf of its members to AAPD. Another $50,000 was donated in 2008.
- Meligan inaccurately generalizes that NSSTA and its membership provide a blanket endorsement of approved lists of annuity brokers
- Meligan admits that the removal of 468B consideration from the Treasury 2009-2010 guidance plan was a surprise.
- Refers to Dick Risk as one of the leading attorneys in the country and yet neither he nor Dick Risk follow Risk's legal opinion related by the Society of Settlement Planner's Executive Director during Meligan's reign as President of that organization. Meligan's howler is that Risk wrote his comments in October 2009, BEFORE Treasury removed single claimant 468B from its 2009-2010 priority guidance plan and then a month later purportedly stated that such guidance was not necessary.
I want to remind readers that the upcoming hearings are about IRC 104(a)(2), the tax exclusion for damages paid for physical injury or physical sickness NOT whether or not the issue of IRC 468B qualified settlement funds for single claimants needs to be clarified next week. That ship has sailed!
This author first questioned the relevance or Risk's writing in a post on January 1, 2010.
It is the opinion of this author that NSSTA was well within its rights to issue its own commentary the major thrust of which was that the IRC 468B scope was not part of the original intent of the hearings, a point well taken by legal scholar Jeremy Babener in his recent commentary.
Ignoring for the moment the intent of the hearings, I believe that a sticking point for some, and opportunistically exploited by Meligan, is the verbiage of the NSSTA message which could be interpreted to mean that the NSSTA stated position on IRC 468B represents the opinion of all of its members on the issue. I agree with Meligan that it absolutely DOES NOT.
Hence the reason for my sarcasm in my prior post