A number of settlement planners continue to suffer from "shrinkage". No, not THAT kind of "shrinkage".
I'm talking about the kind of "shrinkage" that mischaracterizes a useful settlement planning tool for "solid waste". What I'm referring to is the major difference that exists between " IRC 468B" and IRC 468b or 468(b)
Fact: A 468(b) trust is NOT used to facilitate the creation of a qualified settlement fund (QSF) or any of the things that a number of settlement planners say or write. They are dead wrong. You see IRC 468(b) has to do with special rules for mining and solid waste reclamation and closing costs (more specifically the allocation for property where election not in effect for all taxable years) and states verbatim:
"If the election under subsection (a) (1) is not in effect for 1 or more taxable years in which the reserved property is disturbed (or production occurs), items with respect to the reserve property shall be allocated to the reserve in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe by regulations".
ON THE OTHER HAND...Section 468B of the United States Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 468B) states that in general, "for purposes of section 461(h), economic performance will occur as qualified payments are made by the taxpayer to a designated settlement fund". Some people use the phrase 468B trust interchangeably with Qualified Settlement Fund or Qualified Settlement Trust.
If a settlement planner claims it "can help attorneys determine whether a 468(b) trust is likely to come into play, and can help you", that's fine if you're dealing with solid waste, but not much use for anything else.
MESSAGE: "Reduce" shrinkage! When it come to IRC Section 468, SIZE MATTERS!
