Posts

FBAR Noncompliance & Taxpayer’s Options | FBAR Lawyer & Attorney

FBAR noncompliance is the worst nightmare for US taxpayers due to enormous FBAR penalties even for non-willful taxpayers. US Taxpayers who are not facing an IRS examination or a DOJ (US Department of Justice) lawsuit have three options with respect to their FBAR noncompliance: (1) do nothing with respect to correcting their prior FBAR noncompliance, close the accounts and hope that the IRS will never discover them; (2) do a quiet disclosure; and (3) come forward and voluntarily disclose their unfiled FBARs.

I already explored the highly-risky strategy of a quiet disclosure in another article. In this article, I will focus on option #1 – doing nothing about prior FBAR noncompliance. In the next article, I will discuss the option of Offshore Voluntary Disclosure as a way to deal with prior FBAR noncompliance.

This article does not constitute legal advice, but merely provides information for educational purposes.

Advantages of Doing Nothing With Respect to Prior FBAR Noncompliance

Doing nothing with respect to FBAR noncompliance is a position that some taxpayers prefer, because it requires no action, no immediate legal expenses and no immediate payment of IRS penalties.

In other words, if a taxpayer chooses to do nothing with respect to his late unfiled FBARs and his strategy is successful, he stands to gain in two aspects: (1) he spends no effort, time or money on correcting his past FBAR noncompliance; and (2) if (and this is big “if”) the IRS never finds out about his past FBAR noncompliance, he will not pay any penalties. This whole strategy is based on the hope that the IRS will not find out about their FBAR noncompliance.

Disadvantages of Doing Nothing With Respect to Prior FBAR Noncompliance Even If the Strategy Is Successful

From legal perspective, this strategy of doing nothing can be classified as very risky. If unsuccessful, a noncompliant taxpayer who chooses to do nothing stands to lose a lot more than he could ever gain if his strategy works.

Let’s analyze the disadvantages of doing nothing based on two scenarios: the strategy is successful and the strategy is unsuccessful.

Even if the strategy is ultimately successful and the IRS does not find out about FBAR noncompliance, there is still a heavy psychological price to pay for this success, because the taxpayer will not find out about the success of his strategy until the FBAR statute of limitations expires. In other words, for six long years, the taxpayer will not have any peace of mind and will constantly worry about his potential FBAR penalty exposure. If the taxpayer does not close his foreign accounts, the waiting period could be extended even further.

Moreover, if FBAR noncompliance is combined with income noncompliance and failure to file other US international information returns, the statute of limitations on the tax returns might be open for an indefinite period of time (especially if the IRS can assert a fraud claim against the noncompliant taxpayer).

I have personally seen the psychological effects of such pressure on some of my clients. It was simply destroying their lives. Eventually, they could not live like this and came to me to do offshore voluntary disclosure to resolve their prior FBAR noncompliance.

Disadvantages of Doing Nothing With Respect to Prior FBAR Noncompliance Where the Strategy Fails

If the success of this strategy exhorts such a heavy price, its failure may potentially result in disastrous consequences. Let’s explore the main two reasons why the strategy of doing nothing is so disfavored among international tax lawyers.

First, as described above, the current international tax enforcement structure severely undermines the entire basis for the strategy – i.e. hope that the IRS will not find out about FBAR noncompliance is simply too risky in the contemporary world dominated by FATCA, CRS and a widely-spread web of bilateral and multilateral automatic information exchange treaties. It is still possible that the IRS will not find out about a US person’s foreign accounts, but it is becoming less and less likely.

Second, since the strategy of doing nothing implies a taxpayer’s conscious choice not to comply with the FBAR requirements, it may turn a relatively simple and non-willful situation into a complex and willful one. In other words, under these circumstances, if the IRS is able to find out about prior FBAR noncompliance, the IRS may pursue willful and, in extreme circumstances, even criminal FBAR penalties.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With Resolving FBAR Noncompliance Issues

If you never filed your required FBARs and other US tax forms, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. Our legal team is headed by one of the most experienced international tax lawyers in this area – Mr. Eugene Sherayzen. He has helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world to successfully resolve their prior FBAR noncompliance, and He can help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

IRS Requests Comments on OVDP Information Collection | OVDP Lawyer

On February 28, 2018, the IRS issued a request for comments from the general public with respect to the its OVDP Information Collection practices. Let’s explore this new development in more detail.

OVDP Information Collection: Background Information on the OVDP

The IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (“OVDP”) remains today the primary voluntary disclosure route for taxpayers who violated their US international tax requirements willfully. It is also a valid option for taxpayers who wish to avoid the uncertainty associated with the Streamlined Compliance Procedures. This uncertainty often arises with respect to being able to establish non-willfulness and the potential follow-up audit. Finally, given the differences between the OVDP penalty calculation rules and those of the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures (“SDOP”), some taxpayers may find it beneficial to go through the OVDP rather than SDOP.

The idea behind the OVDP is to allow US taxpayers to voluntarily disclose their prior noncompliance with US international tax requirements, including FBAR, in return for a fixed, lower penalty. One of the great benefits of the OVDP is that it generally eliminates the risk of a criminal prosecution.

OVDP Information Collection: Forms For Which Comments are Requested

The IRS requests comments for all Forms 14452, 14453, 14454, 14457, 14467, 14653, 14654, 14708 and 15023. In other words, while this request is formally made under the OVDP, it also covers the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures and Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures. Moreover, by including the brand-new Form 15023 (which was just created a few months ago), this request for comments (which supposed should cover only the OVDP Information Collection) also extends to the new IRS Decline and Withdrawal Campaign.

OVDP Information Collection: Requested Comments

The IRS requests comments on five matters related to the OVDP Information Collection, SDOP, SFOP and Form 15023:

“(a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.”

OVDP Information Collection: Deadline for Comments

The IRS requests that all written comments be received on or before April 30, 2018.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With OVDP and Other Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Options

If you have undisclosed foreign accounts and foreign income, you should contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help as soon as possible. We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers to resolve their prior US international tax noncompliance, and we can help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Julius Baer Deferred Prosecution Agreement

On February 4, 2016, the US DOJ announced that it filed criminal charges against Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd. (“Julius Baer” or “the company”). At the same time, the DOJ announced a Julius Baer Deferred Prosecution Agreement. Let’s explore this event in more detail.

Julius Baer Deferred Prosecution Agreement Background

Unlike many other Swiss Banks, Julius Baer could not participate in the Swiss Bank Program due to its classification as a Category 1 bank. Hence, the Julius Baer Deferred Prosecution Agreement comes as an independent agreement with the DOJ after the DOJ filed criminal charges against Julius Baer.

According to the IRS and the court documents, from at least the 1990s through 2009, Julius Baer helped many of its U.S. taxpayer-clients evade their U.S. tax obligations, file false federal tax returns with the IRS and otherwise hide accounts held at Julius Baer from the IRS (hereinafter, undeclared accounts). Julius Baer did so by opening and maintaining undeclared accounts for U.S. taxpayers and by allowing third-party asset managers to open undeclared accounts for U.S. taxpayers at Julius Baer. Casadei and Frazzetto, bankers who worked as client advisers at Julius Baer, directly assisted various U.S. taxpayer-clients in maintaining undeclared accounts at Julius Baer in order to evade their obligations under U.S. law. At various times, Casadei, Frazzetto and others advised those U.S. taxpayer-clients that their accounts at Julius Baer would not be disclosed to the IRS because Julius Baer had a long tradition of bank secrecy and no longer had offices in the United States, making Julius Baer less vulnerable to pressure from U.S. law enforcement authorities than other Swiss banks with a presence in the United States.

Julius Baer was aware that many U.S. taxpayer-clients were maintaining undeclared accounts at Julius Baer in order to evade their U.S. tax obligations, in violation of U.S. law. In internal Julius Baer correspondence, undeclared accounts held by U.S. taxpayers were at times referred to as “black money,” “non W-9,” “tax neutral,” “unofficial,” or “sensitive” accounts.

At its high-water mark in 2007, Julius Baer had approximately $4.7 billion in assets under management relating to approximately 2,589 undeclared accounts held by U.S. taxpayer-clients. From 2001 through 2011, Julius Baer earned approximately $87 million in profit on approximately $219 million gross revenues from its undeclared U.S. taxpayer accounts, including accounts held through structures.

However, the IRS noted that the behavior of Julius Baer started to change. By at least 2008, Julius Baer began to implement institutional policy changes to cease providing assistance to U.S. taxpayers in violating their U.S. legal obligations. For example, by November 2008, the company began an “exit” plan for U.S. client accounts that lacked evidence of U.S. tax compliance. In that same month, Julius Baer imposed a prohibition on opening accounts for any U.S. clients without a Form W-9.

Additionally, in November 2009, before Julius Baer became aware of any U.S. investigation into its conduct, Julius Baer decided proactively to approach U.S. law enforcement authorities regarding its conduct relating to U.S. taxpayers. Prior to self-reporting to the Department of Justice, Julius Baer notified its regulator in Switzerland of its intention to contact U.S. law enforcement authorities. This Swiss regulator requested that Julius Baer not contact U.S. authorities in order not to prejudice the Swiss government in any bilateral negotiations with the United States on tax-related matters. Accordingly, Julius Baer did not, at that time, self-report to U.S. law enforcement authorities.

After ultimately engaging with U.S. authorities, Julius Baer has taken extensive actions to demonstrate acceptance and acknowledgment of responsibility for its conduct. Julius Baer conducted a swift and robust internal investigation, and furnished the U.S. government with a continuous flow of unvarnished facts gathered during the course of that internal investigation. As part of its cooperation, Julius Baer also, among other things, (1) successfully advocated in favor of a decision provided by the Swiss Federal Council in April 2012 to allow banks under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice to legally produce employee and third-party information to the department, and subsequently produced such information immediately upon issuance of that decision; and (2) encouraged certain employees, including specifically Frazzetto and Casadei, to accept responsibility for their participation in the conduct at issue and cooperate with the ongoing investigation.

Julius Baer Deferred Prosecution Agreement Details

Under the Julius Baer Deferred Prosecution Agreement, the bank admitted to helping U.S. taxpayers hide assets and knowingly assisted many of its U.S. taxpayer-clients in evading their tax obligations under U.S. law. The admissions are contained in a detailed Statement of Facts attached to the agreement. The agreement requires Julius Baer to pay a total of $547 million by no later than February 9, 2016, including through a parallel civil forfeiture action also filed today in the Southern District of New York.

Julius Baer Deferred Prosecution Agreement Impact on U.S. Taxpayers

The Julius Baer Deferred Prosecution Agreement signifies yet another IRS victory over the now-defeated Swiss bank secrecy system. The IRS is simply “mopping-up” the left-over issues in Switzerland as it shifts its focus to other major offshore tax havens. Yet, the Julius Baer Deferred Prosecution Agreement is still a major event that has repercussions for U.S. taxpayers with undeclared foreign accounts.

First, the Julius Baer Deferred Prosecution Agreement is likely to continue to impact former Julius Baer U.S. taxpayers who transferred their funds out of this Swiss bank to another country or another bank in the hopes of avoiding IRS detection of their prior non-compliance. Under the agreement, Julius Baer will continue to cooperate with the IRS in the identification of such noncompliant U.S. taxpayers.

Second, Julius Baer is an important Swiss bank and the fact that the Julius Baer Deferred Prosecution Agreement was reached encourages other noncompliant banks (not only in Switzerland, but other countries) to follow its example. Therefore, U.S. taxpayers who believe they are safe outside of Switzerland are now in the ever increasing danger of IRS detection.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help with Your Undeclared Foreign Accounts

The Julius Baer Deferred Prosecution Agreement is another reminder on how dangerous is the current tax environment for noncompliant U.S. taxpayers. Therefore, if you have not disclosed your foreign accounts, foreign assets or foreign income, please contact Sherayzen Law Office as soon as possible. Our team of tax professionals is highly experienced in handling these matters and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Cambata Case: IRS Wins Against Former U.S. Citizen on Offshore Income

In the Cambata case, the IRS successfully demonstrated once again that renunciation of U.S. citizenship will not protect a taxpayer from being pursued for unreported income from foreign accounts. On February 3, 2016, Mr. Albert Cambata pleaded guilty to filing a false income tax return with respect to his unreported Swiss account income.

Facts Related to Mr. Cambata’s Unreported Swiss account income

According to court documents, in 2006, Mr. Albert Cambata established Dragonflyer Ltd., a Hong Kong corporate entity, with the assistance of a Swiss banker and a Swiss attorney. Days later, he opened a financial account at Swiss Bank 1 in the name of Dragonflyer. Although he was not listed on the opening documents as a director or an authorized signatory, Mr. Cambata was identified on another bank document (which the IRS obtained most likely through the Swiss Bank program) as the beneficial owner of the Dragonflyer account. That same year, Mr. Cambata received $12 million from Hummingbird Holdings Ltd., a Belizean company. The $12 million originated from a Panamanian aviation management company called Cambata Aviation S.A. and was deposited to the Dragonflyer bank account at Swiss Bank 1 in November 2006.

On his 2007 and 2008 federal income tax returns, Mr. Cambata failed to report interest income earned on his Swiss financial account in the amounts of $77,298 and $206,408, respectively. In April 2008, Mr. Cambata caused the Swiss attorney to request that Swiss Bank 1 send five million Euros from the Swiss financial account to an account Mr. Cambata controlled at the Monaco branch of Swiss Bank 3. In June 2008, Cambata closed his financial account with Swiss Bank 1 in the name of Dragonflyer and moved the funds to an account he controlled at the Singapore branch of Swiss Bank 2.

In 2012, Mr. Cambata, who has lived in Switzerland since 2007, went to the U.S. Embassy in Bratislava, Slovakia, to renounce his U.S. citizenship and informed the U.S. Department of State that he had acquired the nationality of St. Kitts and Nevis by virtue of naturalization.

Link between the Cambata Case and Swiss Bank Program

It appears that the IRS was able to focus on Mr. Cambata due to information provided by one of the Swiss Bank that participated in the Swiss Bank Program. This led to the IRS investigation that unraveled the whole scheme constructed by Mr. Cambata. Additional information might have been provided to the IRS by one of the Category 1 banks as part of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement.

This affirms what the IRS has stated in the past about its determination to continue to pursue older fraud cases based on the information it already obtained from the Swiss banks. “IRS Criminal Investigation will continue to pursue those who do not pay the taxes they owe to the United States,” said Special Agent in Charge Thomas Jankowski of the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation, Washington, D.C. Field Office. “Today’s plea is a reminder that we are committed to following the money trail across the globe and will not be deterred by the use of sophisticated international financial transactions that hide the real ownership of income taxable by the United States.”

The Global Reach of the IRS Investigations Grows

Mr. Cambata’s accounts were spread out among the local branches of Swiss banks in Monaco, Singapore and Switzerland. The funds originated from companies based in Belize and Panama (the information regarding these companies was probably obtained through John Doe summons issued in 2015).

It becomes obvious from this case that our earlier warnings about the spread of the IRS investigations beyond Switzerland were correct. The IRS now reaches far beyond Switzerland and focuses more and more on jurisdictions like Belize, Cayman Islands, Cook Islands, Monaco, Panama, Singapore and other favorite offshore jurisdictions. The Cambata case is a grave warning to U.S. taxpayers who still operate in offshore jurisdictions to hide assets from the U.S. government.

The Cambata Case is a Warning to Taxpayers Who Pursued Quiet Disclosure to Cover-Up Past Tax Noncompliance

One of the most curious aspects about the Cambata case is that the IRS never imposed any FBAR penalties or tax return penalties with respect to the later years. While it is not clear from the documents, it appears that Mr. Cambata probably did a quiet disclosure in the year 2009 and has properly filed his FBARs and tax returns ever since.

The FBAR statute of limitations probably did not allow the IRS to impose the FBAR penalties, but the IRS still ignored the quiet disclosure and pursued criminal penalties for the 2006 and 2007 fraudulent tax returns (in addition to restitution of $84,849 – presumable the tax Mr. Cambata would have owed had he filed his 2006 and 2007 returns correctly).

Therefore, U.S. taxpayers who filed quiet disclosure should heed one of the main lessons of the Cambata case – quiet disclosure will not protect you from the IRS criminal prosecution.

The Cambata Case is also a Warning to Taxpayers Who Renounced U.S. Citizenship to Hide Past Tax Noncompliance

The Cambata case also dispels another myth common to U.S. taxpayers: renouncing citizenship somehow prevents the IRS criminal prosecution for past noncompliance. On the contrary, U.S. taxpayers who renounce citizenship may draw the IRS attention because they have to certify that they are fully compliant with the tax laws of the United States.

If the IRS is able to prove that these taxpayers are not fully tax-compliant, then, as the Cambata case clearly demonstrates, the IRS can pursue criminal penalties against former U.S. citizens. It is possible that one of the chief purposes of the IRS in this case was to scare other U.S. citizens who renounced their citizenship to hide their past tax noncompliance.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Legal Help with Your Foreign Accounts

If you have undisclosed foreign accounts, you should contact Sherayzen Law Office as soon as possible. Whether your case involves complex beneficial ownership structures or you own your foreign accounts personally, our highly experienced team of tax professionals can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!