FATCA Tax Lawyers Update: FATCA Financial Institution Definition

/0 Comments/in , /by

One of the key concepts in FATCA compliance is a “financial institution”. The definition of a financial institution (“FATCA Financial Institution”) is contained in the FATCA Model IGAs. In this article, I will explore some of the general concepts central to defining a FATCA Financial Institution.

Four Types of FATCA Financial Institutions

The concept of FATCA Financial Institution is defined in the Model IGA Agreements. Both Model 1 and Model 2 IGAs agree on the definition of FATCA Financial Institution: “The term ‘Financial Institution’ means a Custodial Institution, a Depository Institution, an Investment Entity, or a Specified Insurance Company.” Let’s go over each concept in more detail.

Definition of a FATCA Financial Institution: Custodial Institution

FATCA Model Agreements provide a fairly straightforward definition of a Custodial Institution: “The term ‘Custodial Institution’ means any entity that holds, as a substantial portion of its business, financial assets for the account of others.” In this context “substantial” means that, during the specified period of time, twenty percent or more of the entity’s gross income is derived from holding of financial assets and related financial services.

The specified period of time is defined in Model 1 IGA as “the shorter of: (i) the three-year period that ends on the December 31 (or the final day of a non-calendar year accounting period) prior to the year in which the determination is being made; or (ii) the period during which the entity has been in existence.”

Definition of a FATCA Financial Institution: Depository Institution

According to FATCA Model IGAs, “The term ‘Depository Institution’ means any Entity that accepts deposits in the ordinary course of a banking or similar business.”

This definition is fairly self-explanatory, but it should be noted that interest-paying client money accounts operated by insurance companies are included within the definition of a depository institution.

Definition of a FATCA Financial Institution: Specified Insurance Company

According to FATCA Model IGAs, “the term ‘Specified Insurance Company’ means any entity that is an insurance company (or the holding company of an insurance company) that issues, or is obligated to make payments with respect to, a Financial Account.” This definition basically applies to all insurance companies that issue or must make payments with respect to an Insurance Cash-Surrender Value Contract or Annuity contract (which is similar to an FBAR).

For the purposes of this essay, I am not going to engage in the discussion of a Financial Account definition (this is an issue that I addressed in another article); suffice it to say that the definition of a Financial Account under FATCA closely follows the FBAR definition of the same concept.

Definition of a FATCA Financial Institution: Investment Entity

Finally, FATCA Model IGAs provide a detailed definition of what constitutes an “Investment Entity”. This concept includes any entity that conducts as a business one or more of the following activities or operations for or on behalf of a customer:
“(1) trading in money market instruments (cheques, bills, certificates of deposit, derivatives, etc.); foreign exchange; exchange, interest rate and index instruments; transferable securities; or commodity futures trading;
(2) individual and collective portfolio management; or
(3) otherwise investing, administering, or managing funds or money on behalf of other persons. This subparagraph 1(j) shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with similar language set forth in the definition of “financial institution” in the Financial Action Task Force Recommendations.”

Notice that this definition encompasses any entity that is managed by an Investment Entity. Further note that the definition of an Investment Entity should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the definition of a “financial institution” in the Financial Action Task Force Recommendations.

Implications if FATCA Financial Institution Definition on Undisclosed Foreign Accounts

The broad definition of a FATCA Financial Institution has a profound impact on US taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts. The chief reason for this conclusion is the fact that as soon as an entity is classified as a FATCA Financial Institution, the entity must be FATCA compliant (unless it falls within a FATCA exemption) and should report all of its accounts owned (directly or indirectly) by US taxpayers.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Undisclosed Foreign Accounts

The consequences of the IRS discovery of an undisclosed foreign account can be disastrous for the US owner of this account, including extremely high monetary willful civil penalties as well as criminal penalties.

This is why, if you have an undisclosed foreign account, please contact Mr. Eugene Sherayzen, an experienced international tax attorney of Sherayzen Law Office as soon as possible. Our team is well versed in FATCA compliance, FBARs and other foreign reporting issues. We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the globe and we can help you.

So, Contact Us Now to Schedule Your Initial Consultation!

Costa Rica Corporations and U.S. Tax Reporting

/in , /by

It has become common for U.S. citizens to engage in business abroad through a foreign corporation.  Costa Rica is definitely one of the most favored countries in Central America, partially due to its reputation for stability.  It is important to understand, however, that U.S. citizens who engage in business abroad through a foreign corporation must comply with very important tax reporting requirements.   In this article, I will try to briefly go over some of the most common US tax reporting requirements that may concern U.S. owners of Costa Rica corporations.

Form 5471

IRS Form 5471 is the most direct reporting requirement that U.S. owners of Costa Rica corporations may face.  Form 5471 may undoubtedly be considered as one of the most complex U.S. tax forms, both in its content as well as its scope.

As of the time of this writing, there are four non-exclusive (i.e. a taxpayer can belong to multiple categories at the same time) categories of filers of Costa Rica corporations who must file Form 5471.  Determining the categories, if any, to which a taxpayer belongs is a legal decision and a very important one since the number and severity of the reporting requirements directly depends on the number of  categories applicable to the taxpayer.

If the taxpayer is required to Form 5471 for Costa Rica corporations, then he must do so by attaching the completed Form 5471 with all of the numerous attachments to his tax return.

Failure to file Form 5471 for Costa Rica corporations may have severe consequences.  Explore this article for more information on Form 5471 penalties.

Form 8938

IRS Form 8938 is a newcomer to the world of U.S. tax compliance – in fact, the tax year 2001 is the first year that the form must be filed with the taxpayer’s U.S. tax return.

Form 8938 should be filed only if certain threshold requirements are met.  In case the taxpayer already disclosed the information regarding the specified foreign asset on Form 5471, Form 8938 should be filed to cross-reference Form 5471.  Explore this article to learn more about Form 8938.

FBAR

As long as the basic threshold requirement is met, the Report on Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (“FBAR”) may be required if the taxpayer is the owner of a foreign corporation and has signatory authority (either as an officer of the corporation or an owner) over the corporate accounts.

It is highly important to comply with the FBAR requirement because the FBAR contains perhaps the most severe penalty structure of any other reporting requirement in the entire Internal Revenue Code (IRC).

Subpart “F” Income

If you are an owner of a Controlled Foreign Corporation (“CFC”) and the CFC has subpart “F” income, then you may be required to report subpart “F” income on your personal tax return (e.g. Form 1040).  This income is likely to be treated in a highly unfavorable way by the IRC.

Other Forms

Other forms may be required to be filed as a result of the your ownership of Costa Rica corporations.   Most of these additional tax reporting requirements are triggered by various transactional activities conducted by the corporation or between you and your corporation.  You should consult an international tax attorney for detailed analysis of your specific situation.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for U.S. Tax Compliance Requirements if You Own Shares of Costa Rica Corporations

If you own a corporation in Costa Rica or you intend to do so, you should contact Sherayzen Law Office.  Owner Eugene Sherayzen will analyze your particular situation, determine what U.S. tax reporting requirements apply to you and help you comply with them, and offer a rigorous ethical tax plan designed to make sure that you do not overpay your U.S. taxes under the current IRC provisions.

The Location of Your International Tax Lawyers Austin Texas

/0 Comments/in , /by

Choosing your lawyer among International Tax Lawyers Austin Texas is not a simple task, especially for a US taxpayer thinking about doing an offshore voluntary disclosure. One of the critical questions often arises is whether it is better to retain an international tax lawyer in Austin or in Minneapolis if you live in Austin? It is also related to a broader question: is the location of your international tax lawyer important?

Let’s analyze this question in the context of retaining one or more International Tax Lawyers Austin Texas.

International Tax Lawyers Austin Texas: US International Tax Law and Geography

One of the most critical aspects of US international tax law is that it does not respect national or state borders. Rather, it focuses on the individual taxpayer; if the taxpayer is a US person, then he is subject to US international tax law.

Another important aspect of US international tax law is that it applies uniformly (with a few exceptions, such blockades, sanctions, et cetera) irrespective of where the individual taxpayer is.

This means that, if you are in Austin and searching for International Tax Lawyers Austin Texas, it does not matter whether your lawyer is physically located in Austin, Minneapolis or Buenos Aires. The knowledge of international tax law of your lawyer and the application of that law to your specific case does not depend on the physical location of your lawyer.

International Tax Lawyers Austin Texas: Expertise and Experience in International Tax Law is the Critical Criteria, Not Geography

Based on this logic, it is easy to see that the geographical location of your International Tax Lawyers Austin Texas is not the most important factor in your decision to retain an attorney. Rather, it is a lawyer’s expertise in international tax law that should drive your decision.

If you feel comfortable with the lawyer’s grasp of the subject matter and his experience in handling cases involving issues similar to the ones involved in your case, then these factors should be the critical factors on which your decision to retain the an international tax lawyer should be based.

International Tax Lawyers Austin Texas: “Face-to-Face” Meetings Obstacle Has Been Overcome By Modern Technology

There is a common misconception that your international tax lawyer must be near you in order to understand you and be able to render advice.

About a third of my clients are overseas and, additionally, more than a third of my clients are located in the United States but outside of Minnesota, leaving me with only about a quarter of my clients physically located in Minnesota. Yet, this factor never influenced the outcome in any of my cases.

In the modern world of Video Skype Conferences, the value of the face-to-face meetings has deteriorated and, in most cases, completely disappeared.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With International Tax Issues

Hence, if you are searching for International Tax Lawyers Austin Texas, contact the international tax law team of Sherayzen Law Office (physically based in Minneapolis, MN). Our team of international tax professionals has developed deep expertise in international tax law based on the help that we have rendered to hundreds of US taxpayers worldwide.

So, if you have international tax issues with respect to undeclared foreign accounts, international tax compliance or international tax planning, please contact an experienced international tax attorney, Mr. Eugene Sherayzen of Sherayzen Law Office for comprehensive legal and tax help.

Call Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

FBAR Lawyers Warn That 2014 FBAR is Due on June 30, 2015

/0 Comments/in , /by

2014 FBAR may be the most important (in terms of potential penalties) of all 2014 information tax returns. The FBAR is an abbreviation for the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (the “FBAR”). The current official name of the FBAR is FinCEN Form 114 (prior to mandatory e-filing, Form TD F 90-22.1 was the FBAR).

Under the Bank Secrecy Act (31 U.S.C. §5311 et seq.), the Department of Treasury (the “Treasury”) requires that an FBAR is filed whenever a US person has a financial interest in or signatory authority over foreign financial accounts and the aggregate value of the foreign financial accounts exceeds $10,000 at any time during the calendar year. If you had such a situation in 2014, then you must seek an advice from an FBAR lawyer on whether you need to file the 2014 FBAR.

If you believe that the 2014 FBAR requirement applies in your case, then the 2014 FBAR must be e-filed with the IRS by June 30, 2015. There are no extensions available; the 2014 FBAR must be received by the IRS no later than June 30, 2015.

2014 FBAR Must Be Filed Timely and Accurately to Avoid Penalties

If your 2014 FBAR is not timely filed, then it will be considered delinquent and potentially subject to severe civil and criminal penalties. Similarly, if the 2014 FBAR is incomplete and/or incorrect, then it will also be considered delinquent with potentially an even higher probability of the assessment of the FBAR’s draconian penalties.

Multiple Years of FBAR Delinquency and 2014 FBAR

If you were required to file the FBARs in prior years and you have not done so, you should seek advice of an experienced FBAR lawyer with respect to your voluntary disclosure options. In most cases, the failure to file FBARs in the past should not deter you from filing your 2014 FBAR timely; however, this filing should be done in conjunction with your voluntary disclosure strategy as outlined by your FBAR lawyer.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for 2014 FBAR Assistance

If you need help with filing your 2014 FBAR or you have multiple years of FBAR delinquency and wish to bring your US tax affairs into full compliance, contact owner Eugene Sherayzen an experienced FBAR lawyer of Sherayzen Law Office as soon as possible. We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world to lower their FBAR penalties and bring themselves into full compliance with US tax laws. And, we can help You!

Contact Us NOW to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Introduction to US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regimes

/0 Comments/in , /by

Despite their enormous importance to tax compliance, there is a shocking level of ignorance of the US international tax anti-deferral regimes that is being displayed by US taxpayers, foreign bankers, foreign accountants, foreign attorneys, US accountants and even many US tax attorneys. In this article, for educational purposes only, I would like to provide a brief overview of the history and features of the main US international tax anti-deferral regimes.

What is a US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regime?

A US international tax anti-deferral regime is a set of US tax laws designed to prevent US taxpayers from utilizing various offshore strategies to defer US taxation of their income for a period of time or indefinitely.

Three Main US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regimes

Since 1937, there have been three main US international tax anti-deferral regimes: Foreign Personal Holding Company (“FPHC”) rules, subpart F rules, and PFIC rules. Let’s review the brief history and main features of each of these US international tax anti-deferral regimes.

First US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regime: FPHC

In 1937, the Congress for the first time addressed the offshore investment strategy problems by enacting the FPHC regime, which were designed to contemporaneously (i.e. in the year the income was earned) tax certain types of foreign corporations. In particular, FPHC rules targeted foreign corporations that had substantial investment income (i.e. passive income) compared to active business income – i.e. the FPHC rules effectively treat certain corporations as pass-through companies for the purposes of certain categories of passive income..

The FPHC rules were triggered only if both conditions of the then-Code §552(a) were satisfied. First, at least 60% of a foreign corporation’s gross income from the taxable year had to consist of “foreign personal holding company income”. The FPHC income included interest income, dividends, royalties, gains from the sale of securities or commodities, certain rents and certain income from personal services provided by shareholders of the FPHC. This was called the “income test”.

The second condition of the §552(a) was known as the “ownership test”. The ownership test was satisfied if at least 50% of either the total voting power or total value of the stock of the foreign corporation was owned by 5 or fewer individuals who were citizens or residents of the United States.

Despite the appearances, the FPHC regime was not very effective. It was actually not very hard to work around the FPHC rules with careful and creative tax planning. This is why, after the enactment of the Subpart F rules and the PFIC rules (which addressed some of the main inefficacies of the FPCH rules and made them redundant as a US international tax anti-deferral regime), the FPHC regime was finally repealed in the year 2004.

Second US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regime: Subpart F Rules

The second US international tax anti-deferral regime, the Subpart F rules, was enacted in 1962 and, despite numerous amendments, forms the core of the anti-deferral rules with respect to Controlled Foreign Corporations (“CFCs”). It is definitely one of the most important and complex pieces of US tax legislation.

The most important feature of the Subpart F regime is that it greatly expands the scope of the former FPHC regime by expanding the contemporaneous (i.e. pass-through) taxation to a much broader range of income and activities, including many kinds of active business activities as well as passive investment activities of a foreign corporation. Obviously, the focus of this US international tax anti-deferral regime is still on passive income or attempts to disguise passive income as active income.

Third US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regime: PFIC Rules

The third US international tax anti-deferral regime consists of the passive foreign investment company (“PFIC”) rules that were adopted by US Congress in 1986. Perhaps because it is the youngest of all US international tax anti-deferral regimes, the PFIC regime is more aggressive and less forgiving than Subpart F rules or FPHC regime. A lot of innocent taxpayers have fallen victims to this severe law.

The PFIC rules impose a unique additional US income tax in two circumstances: where (1) there is a gain on the disposition of the PFIC stock by the US person; or (2) there are PFIC distributions that are considered “excess distributions”. The PFIC rules also impose an additional PFIC interest (calculated similarly to underpayment interest) on the PFIC tax.

The definition of a PFIC is in some ways reminiscent of FPHC rules, but the PFIC regime is a lot more aggressive. Generally, a PFIC is any foreign corporation if it meets either the income tax or the assets test. The income tax is met if 75% of a foreign corporation’s gross income is passive; the assets test is satisfied if at least an average of 50% of a foreign corporation’s assets produce passive income.

Notice that the PFIC rules apply irrespective of the US ownership percentage of the company. This elimination of the FPHC and Subpart F ownership rules makes PFIC rules a much more comprehensive US international anti-deferral tax regime, because it is very easy to trigger PFIC rules – a lot of US naturalized citizens and permanent residents fall into the PFIC trap by simply owning foreign mutual funds as part of their former home countries’ investment portfolio.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With Dealing with US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regimes

If you have an ownership interest in a foreign business or have foreign investments, you may be facing the extremely complex rules of US international tax anti-deferral regimes.

Please contact Mr. Eugene Sherayzen, an experienced international tax attorney at Sherayzen Law Office. Our international tax firm has helped hundreds of clients around the globe and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!