offshore voluntary disclosure lawyers Minneapolis

What Needs to Be Included in the OVDP Preclearance Request

/0 Comments/in , /by

The OVDP Preclearance Request is a very important document that is required to be filed in order to commence a US taxpayer’s voluntary disclosure under the 2014 IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (2014 OVDP) which is still in existence at the time of this writing. This is why it is important to understand what actually needs to be included in the OVDP Preclearance Request.

FAQ 23 of the 2014 OVDP details three major requirements for the OVDP Preclearance Request. First, the OVDP Preclearance Request must include the identifying information of the applicant(s), including complete name(s), date(s) of birth, tax identification number(s), address (or adresses), and telephone number(s).

Second, the OVDP Preclearance Request should include the identifying information of all financial institutions at which undisclosed OVDP assets were held during the voluntary disclosure period. The “identifying information” includes complete names of the foreign institutions (including all DBAs and pseudonyms), addresses, and telephone numbers.

It is up to your international tax lawyer to determine the OVDP assets and the voluntary disclosure period prior to filing the OVDP Preclearance Request.

Finally, the OVDP Preclearance Request should include the identifying information of all foreign and domestic business entities (e.g., corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, foundations, et cetera) and trusts through which the undisclosed OVDP assets (again, this is the determination that needs to be made by your international tax lawyer) were held by the applicant.
Note that this request does not include the entities that are traded on a public stock exchange in the United States or overseas.

This information should be supplied for the entities that were in existence during any period of time during the Voluntary Disclosure Period, including any entities that were dissolved. The determination of the Voluntary Disclosure Period should be done by your international tax lawyer.

The identifying information that should be included in your OVDP Preclearance Request with respect to entities includes: complete names (including all DBAs and pseudonyms), employer identification numbers (if applicable), addresses, and the jurisdiction in which the entities were organized.

The OVDP Preclearance Requests should be accompanied by an executed Form 2848 (IRS Power of Attorney form) if the applicant is represented. I strongly advise that you retain an experienced international tax lawyer to conduct your voluntary disclosure process.

Note that, if your case involves jointly-filed US tax returns, the OVDP Preclearance Request should be prepared for both spouses.

Once the OVDP Preclearance Request is faxed to the IRS, the IRS-CI (Criminal Investigation) may take up to 30 days to notify the applicant’s representative (or the applicant himself (or herself), if the applicant is not represented). In my experience, if the IRS-CI is not busy, it will usually respond within a few weeks, but it can take the whole month. However, there are instances (like the August of 2014 deadline for US taxpayers to secure the 27.5% penalty, instead of 50%) when the IRS-CI is overwhelmed and it can take even a couple of months for them to make the decision on your OVDP Preclearance Request.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Experienced and Professional Help With the Voluntary Disclosure of Your Foreign Assets and Foreign Income

If you have undisclosed foreign accounts and you are considering entering the OVDP, you should contact the experienced voluntary disclosure team of Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. We will handle your entire case, including all legal and accounting documentation (including the preparation of amended tax returns and FBARs). We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers worldwide and we can help you!

Contact Sherayzen Law Office to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

50% Offshore Penalty of the 2014 OVDP

/0 Comments/in , /by

The 50% Offshore Penalty is a unique feature of the 2014 OVDP. What is so unusual about this penalty is that its impact widens with each passing month and year to include and affect more and more US taxpayers. In this article, I would like to explore the emergence of the 50% Offshore Penalty and its importance to US international tax compliance.

2014 OVDP Penalty Structure

On June 18, 2014, the IRS completely changed the entire legal landscape of US voluntary disclosure. The unwieldy and uncompromising penalty structure of the 2012 OVDP was replaced by the new Streamlined Procedures and a completely modified 2014 OVDP.

Under the new rules, the IRS eliminated the 5% and 12.5% penalties of the 2012 OVDP and replaced them with milder and more flexible Streamlined Domestic Offshore Penalty of 5% and Streamlined Foreign Offshore Penalty of 0%. On the other hand, the old default 25% penalty of the 2012 OVDP evolved into a new stringent system of dual penalty structure: 27.5% default Offshore Penalty and 50% Offshore Penalty.

FAQ 7.2 and 50% Offshore Penalty

The 27.5% default Offshore Penalty applies unless the participating US taxpayer has foreign accounts in a bank on a special IRS list as described in FAQ 7.2.

FAQ 7.2 states that, starting August 4, 2014, any taxpayer who enters OVDP will be subject to a 50% Offshore Penalty if, at the time the Preclearance letter is submitted to the IRS-CI (Criminal Investigation), a “public disclosure” has already occurred.

FAQ 7.2. further states that a “public disclosure” has occurred if one of the following three events occurs. First, if the foreign financial institution (FFI) where the undisclosed foreign account is held or another “facilitator who assisted in establishing or maintaining the taxpayer’s offshore arrangement” (“facilitator”) is under IRS or US DOJ investigation. The investigation should be the one that is related to accounts that are beneficially owned by a US person.

Second, the FFI or facilitator is cooperating with the IRS or the Department of Justice in connection with accounts that are beneficially owned by a U.S. person. In other words, where a foreign bank signs a Non-Prosecution Agreement with US DOJ; this means every Swiss bank that reached resolution with the DOJ under the Swiss Bank Program; OR

Third, the FFI or facilitator has been identified in a John Doe Summons seeking information about U.S. taxpayers who may hold financial accounts at this FFI or have accounts established or maintained by the facilitator.

FAQ 7.2 provides an example of when a public disclosure occurs: “a public filing in a judicial proceeding by any party or judicial officer; or public disclosure by the Department of Justice regarding a Deferred Prosecution Agreement or Non-Prosecution Agreement with a financial institution or other facilitator.

It is easy to see now why the 50% Offshore Penalty has been increasing in influence – every Non-Prosecution Agreement, every DOJ investigation, every John Doe summons automatically expands the application of the 50% Offshore Penalty to another FFI or even a set of FFIs.

Entire Penalty Base is Subject to 50% Offshore Penalty

If a public disclosure occurs with respect to the FFI or facilitor where the US taxpayer has one or more foreign accounts, the 50% Offshore Penalty applies not only to these accounts but to all of the taxpayer’s assets included in the penalty base. For example, if a US taxpayer has one account at UBS, ten accounts in an Australian bank (for which no public disclosure occurred) and a foreign rental property that generated unreported foreign income, the 50% Offshore Penalty will apply to all of these assets.

List of FFIs and Facilitators

The IRS published the list of all FFIs and Facilitators for which public disclosure has occurred with the dates when the 50% penalty is activated with respect to these FFIs and Facilitators. Here, I am only providing the list up to date through January 7, 2016:

UBS AG
Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Fides, and Clariden Leu Ltd.
Wegelin & Co.
Liechtensteinische Landesbank AG
Zurcher Kantonalbank
swisspartners Investment Network AG, swisspartners Wealth Management AG, swisspartners Insurance Company SPC Ltd., and swisspartners Versicherung AG
CIBC FirstCaribbean International Bank Limited, its predecessors, subsidiaries, and affiliates
Stanford International Bank, Ltd., Stanford Group Company, and Stanford Trust Company, Ltd.
The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited in India (HSBC India)
The Bank of N.T. Butterfield & Son Limited (also known as Butterfield Bank and Bank of Butterfield), its predecessors, subsidiaries, and affiliates
Sovereign Management & Legal, Ltd., its predecessors, subsidiaries, and affiliates (effective 12/19/14)
Bank Leumi le-Israel B.M., The Bank Leumi le-Israel Trust Company Ltd, Bank Leumi (Luxembourg) S.A., Leumi Private Bank S.A., and Bank Leumi USA (effective 12/22/14)
BSI SA (effective 3/30/15)
Vadian Bank AG (effective 5/8/15)
Finter Bank Zurich AG (effective 5/15/15)
Societe Generale Private Banking (Lugano-Svizzera) SA (effective 5/28/15)
MediBank AG (effective 5/28/15)
LBBW (Schweiz) AG (effective 5/28/15)
Scobag Privatbank AG (effective 5/28/15)
Rothschild Bank AG (effective 6/3/15)
Banca Credinvest SA (effective 6/3/15)
Societe Generale Private Banking (Suisse) SA (effective 6/9/15)
Berner Kantonalbank AG (effective 6/9/15)
Bank Linth LLB AG (effective 6/19/15)
Bank Sparhafen Zurich AG (effective 6/19/15)
Ersparniskasse Schaffhausen AG (effective 6/26/15)
Privatbank Von Graffenried AG (effective 7/2/15)
Banque Pasche SA (effective 7/9/15)
ARVEST Privatbank AG (effective 7/9/15)
Mercantil Bank (Schweiz) AG (effective 7/16/15)
Banque Cantonale Neuchateloise (effective 7/16/15)
Nidwaldner Kantonalbank (effective 7/16/15)
SB Saanen Bank AG (effective 7/23/15)
Privatbank Bellerive AG (effective 7/23/15)
PKB Privatbank AG (effective 7/30/15)
Falcon Private Bank AG (effective 7/30/15)
Credito Privato Commerciale in liquidazione SA (effective 7/30/15)
Bank EKI Genossenschaft (effective 8/3/15)
Privatbank Reichmuth & Co. (effective 8/6/15)
Banque Cantonale du Jura SA (effective 8/6/15)
Banca Intermobiliare di Investimenti e Gestioni (Suisse) SA (effective 8/6/15)
bank zweiplus ag (effective 8/20/15)
Banca dello Stato del Cantone Ticino (effective 8/20/15)
Hypothekarbank Lenzburg AG (effective 8/27/15)
Schroder & Co. Bank AG (effective 9/3/15)
Valiant Bank AG (effective 9/10/15)
Bank La Roche & Co AG (effective 9/15/15)
Belize Bank International Limited, Belize Bank Limited, Belize Corporate Services Limited, their predecessors, subsidiaries, and affiliates (effective 9/16/15)
St. Galler Kantonalbank AG (effective 9/17/15)
E. Gutzwiller & Cie, Banquiers (effective 9/17/15)
Migros Bank AG (effective 9/25/15)
Graubundner Katonalbank (effective 9/25/15)
BHF-Bank (Schweiz) AG (effective 10/1/15)
Finacor SA (effective 10/6/15)
Schaffhauser Kantonalbank (effective 10/8/15)
BBVA Suiza S.A. (effective 10/16/15)
Piguet Galland & Cie SA (effective 10/23/15)
Luzerner Kantonalbank AG (effective 10/29/15)
Habib Bank AG Zurich (effective 10/29/15)
Banque Heritage SA (effective 10/29/15)
Hyposwiss Private Bank Genève S.A. (effective 10/29/15)
Banque Bonhôte & Cie SA (effective 11/3/15)
Banque Internationale a Luxembourg (Suisse) SA (effective 11/12/15)
Zuger Kantonalbank (effective 11/12/15)
Standard Chartered Bank (Switzerland) SA, en liquidation (effective 11/13/15)
Maerki Baumann & Co. AG (effective 11/17/15)
BNP Paribas (Suisse) SA (effective 11/19/15)
KBL (Switzerland) Ltd. (effective 11/19/15)
Bank CIC (Switzerland) Ltd. (effective 11/19/15)
Privatbank IHAG Zürich AG (effective 11/24/15)
Deutsche Bank (Suisse) SA (effective 11/24/15)
EFG Bank AG (effective 12/3/15)
EFG Bank European Financial Group SA, Geneva (effective 12/3/15)
Aargauische Kantonalbank (effective 12/8/15)
Cornèr Banca SA (effective 12/10/15)
Bank Coop AG (effective 12/10/15)
Crédit Agricole (Suisse) SA (effective 12/15/15)
Dreyfus Sons & Co Ltd, Banquiers (effective 12/15/15)
Baumann & Cie, Banquiers (effective 12/15/15)
Bordier & Cie Switzerland (effective 12/17/15)
PBZ Verwaltungs AG (effective 12/17/15)
PostFinance AG (effective 12/17/15)
Edmond de Rothschild (Suisse) SA (effective 12/18/15)
Edmond de Rothschild (Lugano) SA (effective 12/18/15)
Bank J. Safra Sarasin AG (effective 12/23/15)
Coutts & Co Ltd (effective 12/23/15)
Gonet & Cie (effective 12/23/15)
Banque Cantonal du Valais (effective 12/23/15)
Banque Cantonale Vaudoise (effective 12/23/15)
Bank Lombard Odier & Co Ltd (effective 12/31/15)
DZ Privatbank (Schweiz) AG (effective 12/31/15)
Union Bancaire Privée , USP SA (effective 1/6/16)

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help with Your Undisclosed Foreign Accounts

If you have undisclosed foreign accounts, including those FFIs and Facilitators for which public disclosure has occurred, contact the experienced international tax team of Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. Our international tax law firm has helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the globe to bring their tax affairs into full compliance with US tax laws, while reducing their penalty exposure.

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Initial Consultation!

Swiss Bank Program Penalties Bring More than $1 Billion

/0 Comments/in , /by

On December 23, 2015, as US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it reached resolutions with Bank J. Safra Sarasin AG, Coutts & Co Ltd, Gonet & Cie and Banque Cantonal du Valais, it also announced that Swiss Bank Program Penalties reached a landmark – more than $1 Billion. At that time, in addition to Swiss Bank Program Penalties, DOJ also reached agreements with 75 Swiss Banks.

As a reminder to readers, the DOJ Swiss Bank Program was announced by DOJ on August 29, 2013 (per agreement with Swiss government). The Program provides a framework for Swiss Banks to resolve their US tax issues (or “cross-border criminal tax violations”) in exchange for information about the Banks’ US accountholders and, for Category 2 banks, Swiss Bank Program Penalties.

Moreover, according to the terms of the non-prosecution agreements signed by Swiss banks under the Program, Swiss Banks agree to cooperate in any related criminal and civil proceedings, show that the Banks implemented controls to avoid future misconduct with respect to US-held accounts.

While the percentages of Swiss Bank Program Penalties are firmly established, under the terms of the Program, the banks are allowed to mitigate their Swiss Bank Program Penalties if they can show that their US accountholders are either in compliance with their US tax obligations or they entered the IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (and, later, Streamlined Procedures).

It should be noted that more Swiss banks reached resolutions with DOJ under the Program since December 23, 2015. This means that the DOJ has already collected even more Swiss Bank Program Penalties.

These resolutions under the Program concern not only Swiss Banks and Swiss Bank Program Penalties, but they also have direct relevance to US owners of undeclared Swiss bank accounts. Two major consequences arise for US taxpayers with undisclosed accounts from their Swiss Bank participation in the Program. First, there is a direct impact of information exchange between the participating Bank and the IRS which may lead to the discovery of the undisclosed accounts by US tax authorities. The subsequent IRS investigation is likely to render any future participation of the taxpayer in the OVDP impossible.

Second, if the participating bank reaches resolution and pays its Swiss Bank Program Penalties to the DOJ before the taxpayer enters OVDP (or, more precisely, files the Preclearance Request), the OVDP penalty on all (not just the taxpayer’s accounts in the participating Bank’s) of the taxpayer’s accounts will jump to 50% (from the normal 27.5%).

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Your Undisclosed Foreign Accounts

If you have undisclosed foreign accounts or any other foreign assets, you should contact Sherayzen Law Office as soon as possible. Our experienced legal team has helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Initial Consultation!

Finter Bank Zurich AG Reaches Resolution with US DOJ

/0 Comments/in , /by

On May 15, 2015, Finter Bank Zurich AG (Finter Bank) became the third Swiss bank to sign a Non-Prosecution Agreement with US DOJ according to the terms of the DOJ Program for Swiss Banks.

DOJ Program for Swiss Banks

On August 29, 2013, the DOJ announced the creation of the “The Program for Non-Prosecution Agreements or Non-Target Letters for Swiss Banks (Program)” with the goal or creating a voluntary disclosure program for Swiss banks. Under the Program, the Swiss banks would prove DOJ with detailed description of specified activities with respect to US-owned accounts as well as the identification of all accounts held by US persons at any point since August of 2008. In exchange, the Program promised Swiss banks an opportunity to forever resolve their past US non-compliance issues (including criminal illegal activities) with respect to US-held accounts. For Category 2 banks, the Program also imposed various penalty requirements. The banks already under criminal investigation related to their Swiss-banking activities and all individuals were expressly excluded from the program.

Finter Bank timely entered the Program and payed the required penalties. This is why it became the third Swiss bank to resolve its issues under the Program.

Finter Bank Background

Finter Bank was founded in 1958 in Chiasso, Switzerland, and has a branch office in Lugano, Switzerland. Since August 1, 2008, Finter Bank has maintained 283 U.S.-related accounts with an aggregate maximum balance of approximately $235 million.

Since its establishment and continuing through at least October 2011, Finter Bank, through its managers, employees and others, aided and assisted U.S. clients in opening and maintaining undeclared accounts in Switzerland and concealing the assets and income they held in these accounts from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). After August 2008, when Swiss bank UBS AG publicly announced that it was the target of a criminal investigation by U.S. tax authorities, Finter Bank accepted accounts from U.S. persons exiting other Swiss banks.

Finter Bank provided services that allowed U.S. clients to eliminate the paper trail associated with the undeclared assets and income, including “hold mail” services and numbered and coded accounts. In addition, Finter Bank assisted clients in using sham entities as nominee beneficial owners of undeclared accounts, solicited Forms W-8BEN that falsely stated under penalties of perjury that the sham entities beneficially owned the assets in the undeclared accounts, and provided cash cards and credits cards linked to the undeclared accounts.

Finter Bank Non-Prosecution Agreement

According to the terms of the non-prosecution agreement signed on May 15, Finter Bank agreed to cooperate in any related criminal or civil proceedings, demonstrate its implementation of controls to stop misconduct involving undeclared U.S. accounts and pay a $5.414 million penalty in return for the department’s agreement not to prosecute Finter Bank for tax-related criminal offenses.

Consequences of Finter Bank Non-Prosecution Agreement for US Taxpayers

In resolving its criminal liabilities under the program, Finter Bank encouraged U.S. accountholders to come into tax compliance and participate in the IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program. However, the taxpayers who did not listen to Finter Bank’s pleas and have not disclosed their secret Swiss accounts now face an importance consequence as a result of Finter Bank Non-Prosecution Agreement – if these taxpayers wish to enter the OVDP now, the penalty percentage has increased from 27.5 percent to 50% of the highest balance of their accounts for the past eight years.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Disclosure of Your Foreign Bank Accounts

If you have undisclosed foreign bank accounts and any other assets, you should contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help as soon as possible. Our legal team consists of tax professionals who specialize in offshore voluntary disclosures and have helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world.

We can help You! Contact Us to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation Now!

Prison Sentence for Quiet Disclosure: the Kaminsky Case

/0 Comments/in , /by

On March 4, 2015, Gregg A. Kaminsky, a former UBS client, was sentenced for willfully failing to file a Foreign Bank Account Report (the “FBAR”) with the U.S. Department of Treasury in connection with his concealment of income and assets in accounts in Switzerland, Hong Kong, and Thailand over several years, as well as his failure to report certain income earned in the virtual world, “Second Life.”

“Federal tax revenue is crucial to protecting our borders; fighting terrorism, cybercrime, and other national security threats; providing disaster relief; and to performing other critical government functions,” said Acting U. S. Attorney John Horn. “This office is committed to investigating and prosecuting those who intentionally avoid paying their fair share, whether their schemes involve income earned or hidden offshore, here at home, or even in a virtual world.”

“U.S. citizens who seek to avoid their tax obligations by hiding income in undeclared bank accounts abroad should by now be fully on notice that they will be held accountable for their actions, both civilly and criminally,” stated IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agent in Charge, Veronica F. Hyman-Pillot. “Americans who file accurate, honest and timely returns can be assured that the government will hold accountable those who don’t.”

Facts of the Case

According to Acting U.S. Attorney Horn, the charges and other information presented in court:

Kaminsky was an Internet entrepreneur who served as the Chief Executive Officer of Circlenet LLC, based in Atlanta, Georgia. From 2000 through mid-2009, Kaminsky owned and controlled a foreign bank account with Union Bank of Switzerland AG (“UBS”). By 2006, Kaminsky’s UBS account held approximately $1.1 million. From time to time between 2002 and 2009, Kaminsky caused funds to be wire-transferred from his UBS account in Switzerland to other foreign bank accounts controlled by him in Thailand and Hong Kong. Also during that time, Kaminsky caused his income from at least two different U.S. companies to be direct-deposited into his UBS account in Switzerland.

Yet, over this period, Kaminsky did not disclose his UBS account or other foreign financial accounts to the U. S. Treasury Department as required, and thereby concealed several hundred thousand dollars in taxable income, interest, and dividends from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

In addition, in 2007 and 2008, Kaminsky omitted his UBS account and associated income from Free Applications for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) that he electronically filed with the U.S. Department of Education in order to qualify for need-based federal financial aid to fund his tuition for an Executive MBA program at Emory University. At the time of the FAFSA applications, Kaminsky controlled over a half million dollars in his UBS account, which would have made him ineligible for federal student loan assistance.

On June 30, 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice sought court approval to compel UBS to disclose the identities of U.S. account holders who may be using UBS accounts to hide assets overseas and thereby evade U.S. taxes. The request and the order authorizing it were widely reported by the media throughout the United States, and this coverage continued throughout 2008 and 2009 as the U.S., UBS, and Switzerland negotiated a resolution and UBS began disclosing U.S. account holders to the IRS.

Following this news, Kaminsky closed his UBS account and transferred the balance of his UBS account to an account that he controlled at HSBC Bank in Hong Kong. Further, in spring 2010, Kaminsky filed FBARs for his Swiss and Hong Kong accounts for the very first time, also filing amended individual income tax returns for 2007 and 2008 that disclosed the previously unreported income in his UBS account. However, in his amended 2007 and 2008 returns, and in his subsequently filed returns for 2009 through 2012, Kaminsky still failed to report nearly $150,000 in taxable income earned from his business activities in the virtual world, “Second Life.”

Participants in Second Life, referred to as “residents,” can engage in a wide variety of business activities, including buying, renting, and sub-leasing virtual land and buying and selling other virtual goods, services, and experiences for their “avatars.” Transactions are conducted using a virtual currency, “Linden Dollars.” Linden Dollars can be bought and traded on the “Linden Exchange,” and are redeemable for cash.

Including his virtual world income, Kaminsky failed to report over $400,000 in income to the IRS between 2000 and 2012, resulting in a loss to the IRS of approximately $125,000.

Kaminsky’s Sentence

Kaminsky was sentenced to serve four months in federal prison to be followed by two years of supervised release, two months of home confinement, and 200 hours of community service. Kaminsky was also ordered to pay restitution to the IRS in the amount of $91,983. Kaminsky was convicted on these charges on December 18, 2014, after he pleaded guilty. As part of his plea agreement with the United States, Kaminsky was also required to pay a civil penalty to the IRS in the amount of $250,635.20, which is equivalent to fifty percent of the value of the balance in Kaminsky’s HSBC account in Hong Kong as of June 30, 2009.

Lesson from the Kaminsky’s Case – the Dangers of Attempting Incomplete Quiet Disclosure

Kaminsky’s case is a good illustration of my last year’s article on the how quiet disclosure in the current enforcement environment can be a very dangerous option. Kaminsky amended two tax returns and disclosed income from his UBS account for those two years and filed the FBARs for 2009. This was a fairly standard way of doing quiet disclosure, but it could not in any form qualify as a voluntary disclosure – and Kaminsky paid dearly for this attempt.

However, there is another important lesson of Kaminsky’s case for the persons who intend to engage in a voluntary disclosure – you cannot do a partial voluntary disclosure. Kaminsky failed to report his worldwide income on his amended tax returns – he only reported income that was directly relevant to the foreign accounts. Failure to submit complete and accurate amended tax returns undoubtedly contributed to the criminal sentence in this case.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help with Conducting Proper Voluntary Disclosure

If you have undisclosed foreign accounts and foreign income, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional legal and tax help. Our international tax lawyer, Mr. Eugene Sherayzen will thoroughly analyze your case and advise you on your voluntary disclosure options. Once you choose your voluntary disclosure path, our firm will prepare all of the necessary documents and legal forms, and conduct your voluntary disclosure in a proper and expeditious manner.

We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the globe, and we can help you. So, Call Us Now to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!