Posts

Amato Case: 5-Years in Prison for Secret Russian Bank Accounts | FBAR News

/in , /by

Failure to file FBARs for secret Russian bank accounts and income tax evasion led to the imposition of a five-year prison sentence on a New Jersey chiropractor. This is the essence of the new IRS victory in the Amato case. Let’s explore this case in more detail, because the case demonstrates the long reach of the FBAR requirement even in unusual jurisdictions, like Russia.

The Amato Case: Factual Background

Mr. Amato is a US citizen. He was a chiropractor who resided and worked in New Jersey. He practiced medicine through two corporate entities: Chiropractic Care Consultations, Inc. (“Chiropractic Care”) and Accident Recovery Physical Therapy, Inc. (“Accident Recovery”).

It appears that, between January 1, 2013 and December 7, 2016, Mr. Amato over-billed at least six insurance companies. In many cases, he was simply billing for services that he never actually rendered. For these crimes, he was separately charged by the US Department of Justice. On April 9, 2018, in his guilty plea, Mr. Amato admitted that his over-billings were over $1 million.

In order to hide these illegal proceeds, sometime between January 1, 2013 and December 7, 2016, Mr. Amato opened bank accounts in Russia and wired over $1.5 million to these accounts.

On September 14, 2015, Mr. Amato filed his 2014 tax return, stating that he had no taxable income and he owed no taxes. In reality, his 2014 taxable income was about $561,258.

At about the same time, Mr. Amato also deposited checks from his businesses into accounts owned by his minor children. He never disclosed these checks as part of his earnings on his US tax returns. Additionally, there were more funds deposited in his corporate accounts which he also never disclosed on his personal and corporate tax returns.

The Amato Case: IRS investigation and Criminal Prosecution

It appears that the 2014 return was the trigger and huge contributing factor to the commencement of the subsequent IRS investigation of Mr. Amato’s dealings. In 2018, the US Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) filed criminal charges against Mr. Amato with respect to two different types of violations.

The first charge was tax evasion pursuant to 26 USC 7201. It was directly tied to his 2014 tax return, stating that Mr. Amato knowing and willfully attempted to evade his income taxes due.

The second charge was made under 31 USC 5314 & 5322(b) – these are FBAR criminal penalties. Again, the DOJ chose to focus only on 2014 FBAR.

The Amato Case: Tax Evasion and FBAR Criminal Sentence

As part of his deal with the DOJ, Mr. Amato pleaded guilty to both counts. On May 7, 2019, as a result of his failure to pay a large amount in taxes and failure to file FBARs, the New Jersey federal court sentenced him to five years in prison.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With the Reporting of Your Undisclosed Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts

The Amato case is one more reminder of the legal dangers that US taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts face. You do not want to be in Mr. Amato’s position.

This is why you need to contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with the reporting of your undisclosed foreign bank and financial accounts. We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers with the voluntary disclosure of their foreign assets and foreign income, and We Can Help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

IRS Loses Two Offshore Tax Cases: Weil & Baravarian

/0 Comments/in , /by

Last month, a federal jury in Fort Lauderdale, Florida acquitted Raoul Weil, a former top UBS Swiss banking executive, of tax evasion charges. Weil was indicted in 2008 under 18 U.S.C. § 371 (“Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States”) and it was alleged that he helped nearly 17,000 wealthy US persons hide $20 Billion in Swiss bank accounts from the IRS. Weil had been extradited to the US to stand trial after being arrested by Interpol while vacationing in Italy in 2013. He would have faced up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, if found guilty. Weil did not testify in the case.

From 2002 through 2007, Weil was head of Swiss Bank’s wealth management business, which included US cross-border business and other businesses. In July of 2007, he became the CEO a division that oversaw the United States cross-border business and world-wide private banking. The verdict for the trial (which began on October 14), was quickly reached in less than an hour and a half of deliberation. According to a news report, Weil’s attorney told the jury that Weil was not culpable because, “There’s no evidence in this case that Mr. Weil knew and much less participated in activities by low-level bankers who were violating the bank’s own policies.” In response, a former DOJ tax division assistant attorney general, Nathan Hochman, was quoted after the verdict stating, “The verdict shows you the difficulty of going after senior management who can at times blame the bank’s customers and lower-level employees for the bank’s mistakes.” Prosecutors also failed to show that “a single overall conspiracy” existed under the law.

Weil was the highest-ranking foreign banker to be charged by the US during its lengthy probe of offshore tax evasion cases. The failure by the IRS and DOJ to obtain a conviction in this case represents a significant setback as they have been very successful in prosecuting such cases (and UBS itself had previously paid a $780 million fine in 2009 and admitted to assisting clients evade US taxes in exchange for non-prosecution).

The jury verdict in Weil’s case comes on the heels of another case in which a retired senior vice president at the Los Angeles branch of a bank headquartered in Tel Aviv, Israel Mizrahi Tefahot Bank Ltd., Shokrollah Baravarian, was acquitted in a federal court of charges of conspiring to defraud the U.S. government and of helping clients prepare false tax returns. Baravarian was alleged to have conspired to conceal the existence of undeclared offshore accounts owned and controlled by U.S. customers by opening them under pseudonyms, code names and the names of nominee entities set up in the British Virgin Islands and the island of Nevis. Like Weil, he also would have faced a potential maximum prison term of five years and a maximum fine of $250,000, if convicted.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help with Your Offshore-Related US Tax Compliance Issues

As can be seen from the two acquittals highlighted above, legal challenges to the IRS and DOJ in offshore tax cases can be successful. Certain US persons who reported foreign accounts through the OVDP may also find that they wish to challenge their FBAR determinations in court. If you have any questions regarding OVDP-related litigation or compliance, please contact our experienced tax practice at Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd.

FBAR Penalties: Outrageous, Draconian but Real

/in , /by

If you have undisclosed foreign financial accounts that should have been reported on the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (“FBAR”), you may be facing the FBAR penalties. By far, the FBAR contains the most severe civil penalties and significant criminal penalties among all international tax forms. It is important to understand that these penalties, despite their apparently extreme nature, are real and you may be facing them.

FBAR Criminal Penalties

The two most common cases for criminal prosecution are willful failure to file an FBAR and willful filing a false FBAR, especially when combined with potential tax evasion. The criminal FBAR penalties in these cases may be up to the limit set in 31 U.S.C. § 5322. This means that, potentially, a person who willfully fails to file an FBAR or files a false FBAR may be subject to a prison term of up to 10 years, criminal penalties of up to $500,000 or both.

FBAR Civil Penalties

In addition to criminal penalties, FBAR penalties include a rich arsenal of civil penalties. The exact penalties that a person may be facing will depend on that person’s particular circumstances; these circumstances must be evaluated by an experienced international tax attorney.

In general, where the taxpayer willfully failed to file the FBAR, or destroyed or otherwise failed to maintain proper records of account, and the IRS learned about it (e.g. during an investigation), the taxpayer is likely to face the worst-case scenario with draconian penalties. The IRS may impose civil FBAR penalties of up to the greater of $100,000, or 50 percent of the value of the account at the time of the violation (in addition to the already discussed criminal FBAR penalties of up to $500,000, or 10 years of imprisonment, or both).

In certain circumstances, it is possible to mitigate the penalties, but this issue should be evaluated by an experienced international tax attorney. If mitigation is an option for you, then it may dramatically alter your calculation of willful penalties.

A less severe round of civil FBAR penalties may be imposed if a US person negligently and non-willfully failed to file the FBAR, and the IRS learned about it during an investigation. Unlike the first scenario, there are unlikely to be criminal penalties for the non-willful failure to file the FBAR. Rather, the taxpayer is likely to face non-willful FBAR penalties of up to $10,000 per violation (i.e. each unreported account in each year). However, where there is a pattern of negligence, additional civil FBAR penalties of no more than $50,000 may be imposed per each violation. Again, in limited circumstances, the taxpayer maybe eligible for the mitigation the penalties, but this issue should be evaluated by an experienced international tax attorney. While the impact of non-willful mitigation is not likely to be as dramatic as that of the willful penalties, such mitigation may still have a significant impact on the total number of penalties.

Reasonable Cause Exception and OVDP FAQ #17 (OVDP Is Now Closed)

There are two major exceptions to FBAR penalties. First, if you are able to establish reasonable cause, you may be able to escape all FBAR penalties. Again, an experienced international tax attorney should be consulted on whether you have a valid reasonable cause exception and the chances that this strategy will succeed. Second, in general, pursuant to OVDP FAQ #17, you may be able to avoid FBAR penalties if you have no additional U.S. tax liability as a result of  your voluntary disclosure and you already reported all of the income associated with the undisclosed foreign financial account on your tax returns. I cannot stress enough the importance of consulting an international tax attorney to  determine whether your case fits within the requirements of the OVDP Q&A #17.

IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program Closed

It is important to note that the FBAR penalty structure outlined above is not followed by the official IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP). Rather, OVDP replaces this penalty structure with its own three-tiered penalty system with the emphasis on the aggregate balance of all accounts, rather than the number of accounts. Moreover, there is no reasonable cause exception to the OVDP structure of penalties. However, OVDP FAQ #17 can still be applied to  the foreign financial accounts of the participating taxpayer whenever the situation warrants its application.

Given the enormous differences that exist between the IRS OVDP and the traditional statutory FBAR penalties, it is crucially important to consult an experienced international tax attorney in choosing your way to reduce your FBAR penalties.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Your FBAR Penalties

If you have undisclosed foreign financial accounts and you are facing the FBAR penalties, contact Sherayzen Law Office as soon as possible. Our international tax firm will thoroughly analyze your case, estimate your FBAR penalties (both, under the traditional and OVDP penalty structures), determine the options and strategies that may be used in your Offshore Voluntary Disclosure, and implement your case plan (including the creation of any necessary legal documents and tax forms).

We are the tax experts you are looking for to handle your case!

Definition of “U.S. person” for FBAR (Report on Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts) Purposes

/1 Comment/in , , /by

Since October of 2008, the definition of a “U.S. person” has been going through a turbulent phase of uncertainty with periodic expansions and retractions. The pre-2008 FBAR instructions (dating back to July of 2000 version) defined the “U.S. person” broadly as: “(1) a citizen or resident of the United States, (2) a domestic partnership, (3) a domestic corporation, or (4) a domestic estate or trust.” See IRS Announcement 2010-16.

Two important features of this definition stand out. First, the term “person” is defined to include not only individuals, but also virtually any type of business entity, estate or trust. 31 C.F.R. §103.11(z) Even a single-member LLC, which is generally disregarded for tax purposes, may be classified as a U.S. person because it has a separate juridical existence from its owner. A partnership or a corporation created or organized in the United States is considered to “domestic” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(4). Second, the definition of who should be considered as a U.S. resident is interpreted under 26 U.S.C. §7701. Under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b), an individual is a U.S. resident if he meets any of the three bright-line tests: (1) lawful admission for permanent residence to the United States (“green card”); (2) substantial presence in the U.S.: the sum of the number of days on which such individual was present in the United States during the current year and the 2 preceding calendar years (when multiplied by the applicable multiplier determined under the following table) equals or exceeds 183 days; (3) and first-year election to be treated as a resident under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(4). Thus, the definition of a U.S. resident under the tax rules is much broader than the one used in immigration law.

In October of 2008, the IRS revised the FBAR instructions and further expanded the definition of a “U.S. person” by including the persons “in and doing business in the United States.” This revision caused a widespread confusion among tax professionals. The outburst of comments and questions prompted the IRS to issue Announcements 2009-51 and 2010-16, suspending FBAR filing requirement through June of 2010 (i.e. for calendar years 2008 and 2009) for persons who are not U.S. citizens, U.S. residents, and domestic entities. Instead, the tax professionals were referred back to July of 2000 FBAR definition of a “U.S. person.”

In the meantime, in February of 2010, the IRS published new Proposed FBAR regulations under 31 C.F.R. §103. The proposed rules modify the definition of a “U.S. person” as follows: “a citizen or resident of the United States, or an entity, including but not limited to a corporation, partnership, trust or limited liability company, created, organized, or formed under the laws of the United States, any state, the District of Columbia, the Territories, and Insular Possessions of the United States or the Indian Tribes.” 75 Fed. Reg. 8845 (proposed February 23, 2010) (to be codified as 31 C.F.R. 103.24(b)). This definition applies even if an entity elected to be disregarded for tax purposes. Id. The determination of a U.S. resident status is to be done according to 26 U.S.C. §7701(b) and regulations there under, except the meaning of the “United States”(which is to be defined by 31 U.S.C. 103.11(nn)). Id.

Thus, if the proposed regulations will ultimately be codified in their current form, the definition of the “U.S. person” will be slightly broader than that of the July of 2000, but will represent a major regression from October 2008 definition. Nevertheless, based on even existing (July of 2000) definition of the “U.S. person,” the IRS has been able to cast a wide net over U.S. taxpayers, trying to force disclosure of as many foreign financial accounts as possible.