TAS Significant Hardship Definition | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

Sometimes, a taxpayer may find himself in a situation where his problem cannot be resolved through normal IRS channels. In this case, one of the options is to secure the help of the Taxpayer Advocate Service (“TAS”). TAS can issue a Taxpayer Assistance Order (TAO) to require the IRS to desist from a certain action that causes the taxpayer to suffer or about to suffer a significant hardship. At this point a logical question arises: what does “significant hardship” mean in this context? In this article, I will try to answer this question and introduce the readers to the Significant Hardship definition.

Significant Hardship Definition: Background Information

The Taxpayer Advocate Service is an independent organization within the IRS, led by the National Taxpayer Advocate (“NTA”). Each state has at least one Local Taxpayer Advocate (“LTA”), who is independent of the local IRS office and reports directly to the NTA.

 TAS helps individual and business taxpayers resolve problems with the IRS by:

  • • Ensuring that taxpayer problems not resolved through normal IRS channels are promptly and impartially handled;
  • • Assisting taxpayers who are facing hardships; identifying issues that impact taxpayer rights, increase taxpayer burden or otherwise create problems for taxpayers, and bringing these issues to the attention of IRS management; and
  • • Recommending administrative and legislative changes through the National Taxpayer Advocate’s Annual Report to Congress.

Pursuant to §7811(a); 7803(c); Reg. §301.7811-1(a)(1), NTA has the authority to issue TAO when the taxpayer is suffering or is about to suffer a significant hardship as a result of the manner in the administration of tax laws, including action or inaction on the part of the IRS. TAO may have broad implications, including obligating the IRS to release a levy, stop a collection action and even stop an audit.

Significant Hardship Definition: General Definition

Treas. Reg. §301.7811-1(a)(4)(ii) defines “significant hardship” as “a serious privation caused or about to be caused to the taxpayer as the result of the particular manner in which the revenue laws are being administered by the IRS.”  Significant hardship includes situations in which “a system or procedure fails to operate as intended or fails to resolve the taxpayer’s problem or dispute with the IRS”.

The regulations state a non-exclusive list of four situations that the IRS classifies as significant hardship:

“(A) An immediate threat of adverse action; (B) A delay of more than 30 days in resolving taxpayer account problems; (C) The incurring by the taxpayer of significant costs (including fees for professional representation) if relief is not granted; or (D) Irreparable injury to, or a long-term adverse impact on, the taxpayer if relief is not granted.” Id.

It should be pointed out that even if the taxpayer’s situation falls within any of these four situations (or a similar situation that the NTA agrees that it constitutes significant hardship), it does not mean that NTA will automatically issue TAO.  Rather, NTA must still determine whether the facts and the law support such a dramatic relief for the taxpayer.

Let’s go over each of the four categories of significant hardship one by one.

Significant Hardship Definition: Immediate Threat of Adverse Action

The Treasury Regulations do not detail the definition of this category except to provide the following example of what “immediate threat of adverse action” means:

“The IRS serves a levy on A’s bank account. A needs the bank funds to pay for a medically necessary surgical procedure that is scheduled to take place in one week. If the levy is not released, A will lack the funds necessary to have the procedure. A is experiencing an immediate threat of adverse action.”

Significant Hardship Definition: Delay of More Than 30 Days

There are two situations when a delay of more than 30 days may result in significant hardship. First, “when a taxpayer does not receive a response by the date promised by the IRS.” Treas. Reg. §301.7811-1(a)(4)(iii). Second, “when the IRS has established a normal processing time for taking an action and the taxpayer experiences a delay of more than 30 days beyond the normal processing time.” Id.

The regulations give the following example of a delay causing significant hardship: “B files a Form 4506, ‘Request for a Copy of Tax Return.’ B does not receive the photocopy of the tax return after waiting more than 30 days beyond the normal time for processing.”

Significant Hardship Definition: Significant Costs

The Treasury Regulations again do not detail the definition of this category except to provide the following example of what “significant costs” means:

“The IRS sends XYZ, Inc. a notice requesting payment of the outstanding employment taxes and penalties owed by XYZ, Inc. The notice indicates that XYZ, Inc. has small employment tax balances with respect to 12 employment tax quarters totaling $10x. XYZ, Inc. provides documentation to the IRS that it contends shows that if all payments were applied to each quarter correctly, there would be no balance due. The IRS requests additional records and documentation. Because there are 12 quarters involved, to comply with this request XYZ, Inc. asserts that it will need to hire an accountant, who estimates he will charge at least $5x to organize all the records and provide a detailed analysis of how to apply the deposits and payments. XYZ, Inc. is facing significant costs.”  Treas. Reg. §301.7811-1(a)(4)(iv).

Significant Hardship Definition: Irreparable Injury

The IRS again fails to detail the definition of this category beyond providing an example of an “irreparable injury”:

“D has arranged with a bank to refinance his mortgage to lower his monthly payment. D is unable to make the current monthly payment. Unless the monthly payment amount is lowered, D will lose his residence to foreclosure. The IRS refuses to subordinate the Federal tax lien, as permitted by section 6325(d), or discharge the property subject to the lien, as permitted by section 6325(b). As a result, the bank will not allow D to refinance. D is facing an irreparable injury if relief is not granted.” Id.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help with IRS Audits

If the IRS has informed you that your federal tax returns are subject to an audit and you have foreign assets/foreign income, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help.  We are a team of dedicated tax professionals, headed by an international tax attorney Mr. Eugene Sherayzen, with extensive experience in IRS audits of US taxpayers with foreign assets. We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Big Spring FBAR Attorney | International Tax Lawyer Texas

/in , /by

If you reside in Big Spring, Texas and have unreported foreign bank and financial accounts, you may be looking for a Big Spring FBAR Attorney.  Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. is a leader in FBAR compliance, including offshore voluntary disclosures concerning delinquent FBARs, and you should consider us in your search. Let’s understand why this is the case.

Big Spring FBAR Attorney: International Tax Lawyer

First of all, it is very important to understand that, by looking for Big Spring FBAR attorney, in reality, you are searching for an international tax lawyer who specializes in FBAR compliance.

The reason for this conclusion is the fact that FBAR enforcement belongs to a very special field of US tax law – US international tax law. FBAR is an information return concerning foreign assets, which necessarily involves US international tax compliance concerning foreign assets/foreign income. Moreover, ever since the FBAR enforcement was turned over to the IRS in 2001, the term FBAR attorney applies almost exclusively to tax attorneys.

Hence, when you look for an FBAR attorney, you are looking for an international tax attorney with a specialty in FBAR compliance.

Big Spring FBAR Attorney: Broad Scope of Compliance and Offshore Voluntary Disclosures

When retaining Big Spring FBAR attorney, consider the fact that such an attorney’s work is not limited only to the preparation and filing of FBARs. Rather, the attorney should be able to deliver a variety of tax services and freely operate with experience and knowledge in all relevant areas of US international tax law, including the various offshore voluntary disclosure options concerning delinquent FBARs.

Moreover, as part of an offshore voluntary disclosure, an FBAR Attorney often needs to amend US tax returns, properly prepare foreign financial statements according to US GAAP, correctly calculate PFICs, and complete an innumerable number of other tasks.

Mr. Sherayzen and his team of motivated experienced tax professionals of Sherayzen Law Office have helped hundreds of US taxpayers worldwide to bring their tax affairs into full compliance with US tax laws. This work included the preparation and filing of offshore voluntary disclosures concerning delinquent FBARs. Sherayzen Law Office offers help with all kinds of offshore voluntary disclosure options, including: SDOP (Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures), SFOP (Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures), DFSP (Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures), DIIRSP (Delinquent International Information Return Submission Procedures), IRS VDP (IRS Voluntary Disclosure Practice) and Reasonable Cause disclosures.

Big Spring FBAR Attorney: Out-Of-State International Tax Lawyer

Whenever you are looking for an attorney who specializes in US international tax law (which is a federal area of law, not a state one), you do not need to limit yourself to lawyers who reside in Big Spring, Texas. On the contrary, consider international tax attorneys who reside in other states and help Big Spring residents with their FBAR compliance.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional FBAR Help

Sherayzen Law Office is an international tax law firm that specializes in US international tax compliance, including FBARs. While our office is in Minneapolis, Minnesota, we help taxpayers who reside throughout the United States, including Big Spring, Texas.

Thus, if you are looking for a Big Spring FBAR Attorney, contact Mr. Sherayzen as soon as possible to schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Offshore Voluntary Disclosure: Client Records | International Tax Lawyer

/in , , /by

One of the first things a client must get in order to pursue an offshore voluntary disclosure are all of the client records from his former accountant. Sometimes, however, the clients are having difficulty obtaining their documents from their accountants. In this article, I would like to briefly describe an accountant’s obligations with respect to the return of client records to their clients.

Return of Client Records: General Obligation to Return All Client Documents

Subsection 10.28(a) of Circular 230 requires an accountant to promptly return, upon a client’s request, any and all of the records of the client that are necessary for the client to comply with his federal tax obligations. Hence, a failure of an accountant to return all clients records to his or her client is a violation of the accountant’s IRS obligations.

Return of Client Records: Documents Included

31 CFR §10.28(b) defines the documents that an accountant must return to his client:

  1. All documents or written or electronic materials provided to the practitioner, or obtained by the practitioner in the course of the practitioner’s representation of the client, that preexisted the retention of the practitioner by the client;
  2. All materials that were prepared by the client or a third party (not including an employee or agent of the practitioner) at any time and provided to the practitioner with respect to the subject matter of the representation; and
  3. Any return, claim for refund, schedule, affidavit, appraisal or any other document prepared by the practitioner, or his or her employee or agent, that was presented to the client with respect to a prior representation if such document is necessary for the taxpayer to comply with his or her current federal tax obligations.

Return of Client Records: Documents Excluded

31 CFR §10.28(b) also expressly excludes from the definition of client records “any return, claim for refund, schedule, affidavit, appraisal or any other document prepared by the practitioner or the practitioner’s firm, employees or agents if the practitioner is withholding such document pending the client’s performance of its contractual obligation to pay fees with respect to such document”.

Hence, in most cases, it is important for a client to pay his outstanding fees to the accountant in order to make sure that he has all relevant documents. Later, if he wishes, the client may file a lawsuit against the accountant for negligence (if there are legal grounds for such a lawsuit) to recover the fees paid.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office to Help With the Voluntary Disclosure of Your Prior US Tax Noncompliance

If you have not disclosed your foreign income and/or foreign assets to the IRS in violation of your US tax obligations, you should contact Sherayzen Law Office as soon as possible for professional help.  We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers to bring their tax affairs into compliance with US tax laws, including through a voluntary disclosure such as SDOP (Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures), SFOP (Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures), DFSP (Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures), DIIRSP (Delinquent International Information Return Submission Procedures), IRS VDP (IRS Voluntary Disclosure Practice) and Reasonable Cause disclosures. We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Reasonable Cause Written Advice Standard | International Tax Lawyer

/in , /by

Reliance on a written advice of a tax practitioner (attorney, CPA, etc.) may provide the basis for a reasonable cause exception to imposition of IRS noncompliance or late filing penalties with respect to pretty much every single US international tax compliance requirement. In this short article, I will describe the reasonable cause written advice standard concerning how the written advice should be written in order to satisfy and strengthen your legal case before the IRS.

Reasonable Cause Written Advice Standard: What A Practitioner May Advise On

First of all, it is important to understand that a practitioner may provide a written advice pretty much on any US tax matter.  In other words, a taxpayer may obtain a written advice from a practitioner on any matter concerning the application and/or interpretation of any provision of the Internal Revenue Code, any provision of law impacting the taxpayer’s US tax obligations, any Treasury regulations and any other law or regulation that the IRS administers.

Reasonable Cause Written Advice Standard: What Written Advice Should Include

When he writes a tax advice, the practitioner should make sure that he complies with some important rules:

  1. The practitioner should consider all relevant facts and circumstances that the practitioner knows or would reasonably know. This means that two things must happen: (a) practitioner should conduct a reasonable investigation, including an interview with the taxpayer, to secure the necessary facts; and (b) the taxpayer must disclose all facts that he believes to be relevant and/or the practitioner asked him about. The disclosure of relevant facts by the taxpayer is absolutely crucial to the strength of the reasonable cause exception argument.
    At the same time, a failure by the practitioner to do a reasonable investigation of relevant facts may in of itself constitute a reasonable cause. He also should not rely on what he believes unreasonable, incorrect, incomplete and/or inconsistent representations, statements, findings, or agreements (including projections, financial forecasts, or appraisals) of the taxpayer or any other person.
  2. The practitioner should base his written advice on reasonable factual and legal assumptions (including assumptions of future events).
  3. The practitioner should apply the relevant law to the facts of the case. In other words, a written advice cannot simply state the law and assume that it should apply to the taxpayer’s case without the analysis of whether the facts of this particular case fit the relevant legal standard.

A failure to comply with all of these three rules may not necessarily be lethal to your legal case, but it may greatly affect its strength.

Reasonable Cause Written Advice Standard: Reliance on Advice from Third Parties

Sometimes, a practitioner may incorporate an advice from a third person into his own written advice.  He can do it only if the advice was reasonable in light of all facts and circumstances of the case.

The IRS is clear that such reliance on a third-party advice cannot be reasonable in three circumstances. First, the practitioner knows or reasonably should know that the opinion of the other person is not reliable. Second, the practitioner knows or reasonably should know that the other person does not have the necessary competence and necessary qualifications to provide the advice.  Finally, the practitioner knows or reasonably should know that the other person has a conflict of interest in violation of the IRS Circular 230.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office to Help With the Voluntary Disclosure of Your Prior US Tax Noncompliance

If you have not disclosed your foreign income and/or foreign assets to the IRS in violation of your US tax obligations, contact Sherayzen Law Office as soon as possible for professional help.  We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers to bring their tax affairs into compliance with US tax laws, including through a voluntary disclosure such as SDOP (Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures), SFOP (Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures), DFSP (Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures), DIIRSP (Delinquent International Information Return Submission Procedures), IRS VDP (IRS Voluntary Disclosure Practice) and Reasonable Cause disclosures. Mr. Eugene Sherayzen, an international tax attorney, can help you evaluate the strength of your legal case, including whether it meets the reasonable cause standard.  We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Banque Pictet Deferred Prosecution Agreement | Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Lawyer

/in , /by

On December 4, 2023, Banque Pictet et Cie SA (“Banque Pictet” – a Swiss private bank) entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the US government. In this article, I will discuss Banque Pictet Deferred Prosecution Agreement and explain its importance.

Banque Pictet Deferred Prosecution Agreement: Facts Leading Up to the Agreement

The Pictet Group was founded in 1805; it is a privately held Swiss financial institution headquartered in Geneva. It has historically operated as a general partnership and, since 2014, as a corporate partnership. A limited number of managing partners, generally eight or fewer, collectively known as “The Salon,” own and manage the Pictet Group.

As of December 31, 2014, the Pictet Group had approximately 3,800 employees in various locations, primarily in Switzerland, but also in Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Singapore and the Bahamas. The Pictet Group operates two main business divisions: institutional asset management and private banking for individuals. From 2008 to 2014, Pictet Group’s private banking division was operated by the group’s following banking entities: the Swiss bank (Banque Pictet & Cie SA); Pictet & Cie (Europe) SA, headquartered in Luxembourg; Bank Pictet & Cie (Asia) Ltd. in Singapore and the Bahamian bank, Pictet Bank & Trust Ltd.

The Pictet Group provided offshore corporation, trust formation and administration services to its US clients. It provided these services first through the Estate Planning and Trust Services unit and later through a wholly owned subsidiary called Rhone Trust and Fiduciary Services SA (“Rhone”).

As of December 31, 2014, the Pictet Group’s private banking division managed or held custody of approximately $165 billion in assets under management (“AUM”). From 2008 to 2014, the Pictet Group served approximately 3,736 private accounts that had US taxpayers as beneficial owners, whose aggregate maximum AUM, including declared assets, was approximately $20 billion.

According to documents filed in Manhattan federal court, even though Pictet Group adopted early measures to confirm that US clients complied with US international tax laws, from 2008 through 2014, the Pictet Group assisted certain US clients with Pictet Group accounts in evading their US tax obligations and otherwise hiding undeclared accounts from the IRS.

In total, from 2008 through 2014, the Pictet Group held 1,637 US Penalty Accounts (I.e. accounts that the Pictet Group and the US Department of Justice agreed that should be subject to penalty as part of the Banque Pictet Deferred Prosecution Agreement) with aggregate maximum AUM of approximately $5.6 billion in January of 2008.  The IRS estimates that the US owners of these accounts collectively evaded approximately $50.6 million in US taxes.

Banque Pictet Deferred Prosecution Agreement: How Pictet Group Assisted Its US Clients Evade US taxes

According to the IRS and the US Department of Justice, the Pictet Group assisted its US clients with evading their US taxes by opening and maintaining undeclared accounts for U.S. taxpayer-clients at the Pictet Group, either directly or through external asset managers. The Pictet Group also maintained accounts of certain US clients within the Pictet Group in a manner that allowed the them to further conceal their undeclared accounts from the IRS.  

As further detailed below, the Pictet Group used a variety of means to assist its US clients in concealing their undeclared accounts, including by:

  • forming or administering offshore entities in whose name the Pictet Group opened and maintained accounts, some of which were undeclared, for its US clients; 
  • opening and maintaining undeclared accounts in the names of offshore entities formed by others for for its US clients;
  • opening and maintaining Private Placement Life Insurance policy accounts, also called insurance wrappers, held in the name of insurance companies but beneficially owned by for its US clients and improperly managed or funded through undeclared accounts at the Pictet Group;
  • transferring funds from undeclared accounts to accounts nominally held by non-US clients but still controlled by for its US clients via fictitious donations, thus assisting for its US clients in continuing to maintain undeclared funds offshore;
  • providing traditional Swiss banking products such as hold-mail account services (where account-related mail is held at the bank rather than sent to the client) and coded or numbered accounts and
  • accepting IRS Forms W-8BEN or Pictet Group’s substitute forms that the group knew or should have known falsely stated or implied under penalty of perjury that offshore entities beneficially owned the assets in the undeclared accounts.

Banque Pictet Deferred Prosecution Agreement: Pictet Group’s Knowledge of Evasion

The IRS and the US Department of Justice state the Pictet Group and certain of its employees knew or should have known that some of their US clients were evading their US tax obligations. In every instance, managing partners approved the opening of new private client relationships and were informed of the closing of US-held accounts, which included some undeclared accounts.

“As it has admitted today, Banque Pictet knowingly conspired to conceal from the IRS the income generated by accounts which held more than $5.6 billion,” said U.S. Attorney Damian Williams for the Southern District of New York.

Banque Pictet Deferred Prosecution Agreement: Fines & Cooperation Requirement

As part of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, Banque Pictet entered into a deferred prosecution agreement and agreed to pay approximately $122.9 million. This amount consists of: (i) $52,164,201 to the United States, which represents gross fees (not profits) that the bank earned on its undeclared accounts between 2008 and 2014; (ii) $31,844,192 in restitution to the IRS, which represents the unpaid taxes resulting from Banque Pictet’s participation in the conspiracy and (iii) a $38,950,998 penalty.

In addition to the payment, Banque Pictet also agrees under the deferred prosecution agreement to accept responsibility for its conduct by stipulating to the accuracy of an extensive statement of facts. Banque Pictet further agreed to refrain from all future criminal conduct, implement remedial measures and cooperate fully with further investigations into hidden bank accounts. 

Specifically, the Bank agreed to cooperate fully with ongoing investigations and affirmatively disclose any information it may later uncover regarding US-owned accounts. The Bank should also disclose information consistent with the Justice Department’s Swiss Bank Program relating to accounts closed between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2022.

If Banque Pictet continues to comply with its agreement, the United States has agreed to defer prosecution of Banque Pictet for a period of three years, after which time the United States will seek to dismiss the charge against Banque Pictet.

Banque Pictet Deferred Prosecution Agreement: Lessons

The Banque Pictet Deferred Prosecution Agreement is another in a long string of the IRS victories over the now-defeated Swiss bank secrecy system. The IRS is simply “mopping-up” the left-over issues in Switzerland. Yet, this Agreement is still a major event that has repercussions for US taxpayers with undeclared foreign accounts. Let’s look at the major lessons from this case.

First, the Banque Pictet Deferred Prosecution Agreement is likely to continue to impact its former US clients 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, Banque Pictet will continue to cooperate with the IRS in the identification of such noncompliant U.S. taxpayers.

Second, this continuous winning streak of the IRS over Swiss banks is likely to act as a continuous deterrent for any banks who wish to help noncompliant US clients not only in Switzerland, but other countries as well.

Finally, noncompliant US taxpayers should look very closely at how easily the IRS won over the former bank secrecy bastion of Switzerland and how eagerly the Swiss banks helped (and continue to help) the IRS and the US Department of Justice to pursue their former US clients.  It is important for these taxpayers to realize that there is no true safe haven from the IRS . Even if they have been successfully evading US taxes for years, at any point their noncompliance may be detected by the IRS. These taxpayers should also remember that a deferred prosecution agreement with the bank does not protect any individual US taxpayers from Banque Pictet Deferred Prosecution Agreement

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

The Banque Pictet Deferred Prosecution Agreement is another reminder on how dangerous the current tax environment is for noncompliant U.S. taxpayers. Therefore, if you have not disclosed your foreign accounts, other foreign assets or foreign income, you 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!