The Long Reach of the FATCA Letter Notice

/0 Comments/in , /by

The FATCA Letter Notice is a critical component of a FATCA Letter that is causing significant problems for millions of US owners of foreign financial accounts. Yet, a lot of the FATCA letter recipients are completely unaware of the full impact of the FATCA Letter Notice. In this article, I will provide a general explanation of the FATCA Letter Notice and its importance to US owners of foreign bank and financial accounts.

What is a FATCA Letter?

When FATCA was implemented in July of 2014, foreign banks and financial institutions (“FFIs”) started to mail letters to their clients aimed to verify information required for the FFI reporting under FATCA. These letters are called “FATCA Letters”.

The FATCA Letters serve two important functions for the FFIs. First, the questions contained in or referred to by a FATCA Letter are designed to help FFIs verify whether the account holder is a US person. Second, the FATCA Letter is designed to give notice to the US account holders that their accounts will be disclosed to the IRS.

In this article, I will concentrate only on the FATCA Letter Notice and its most significant impact on US taxpayers.

The FATCA Letter Notice

Very few people understand that the there is not just one FATCA Letter Notice, but two different FATCA Letter Notices that serve different functions – the express FATCA Letter Notice and the implicit FATCA Letter Notice. The express FATCA Letter Notice is the official notice with respect to the FFI’s own FATCA compliance. The implicit FATCA Letter Notice is the notice forced upon the US account holders with respect to their US tax compliance.

The Express FATCA Letter Notice

The express FATCA Letter Notice is very simple – the FFI puts the US account holder on notice that his or her account will disclosed to the IRS. This means that the FFI has complied with its due diligence requirements for the US tax purposes as well as the local bank privacy purposes.

The express FATCA Letter Notice is the one that most US taxpayers understand and the one that they are most concerned about. This is understandable because the express FATCA Letter Notice tells US account holders that their accounts will be disclosed to the IRS irrespective of whether the account holders want this disclosure and whether the timing of this disclosure is convenient to them.

The Implicit FATCA Letter Notice

The implicit FATCA Letter Notice consists of the forcing upon the US account holder the knowledge of their past non-compliance with US tax laws. This “forcing” element is accomplished by the FATCA Letter’s statements that all foreign accounts owned by US persons must be disclosed to the IRS by these very persons. As soon as he receives a FATCA Letter, the US person is on notice that his foreign accounts are subject to complex US tax compliance rules and, if it turns out that these accounts were never properly disclosed, he is non-compliant with respect to past filings. In essence, this is a “shock therapy” method of inducing US tax compliance.

This implicit FATCA Letter Notice of past US tax non-compliance is very dangerous for three interrelated reasons. First, it forces the US recipient of a FATCA Letter to conduct current year’s tax compliance to avoid willful non-compliance designation. The current year’s compliance is done irrespective of the recipient’s circumstances and his ability to do so. At the same time, it provides the IRS with the information that this US person owns foreign financial accounts that were never reported previously.

Second, the receipt of the FATCA letter means that the US account holder should promptly take the necessary steps to conduct some form of an offshore voluntary disclosure. Failure to take these steps or a significant delay in conducting a voluntary disclosure may result in the IRS investigation and the account holder’s inability to conduct a voluntary disclosure. Moreover, the delayed reaction to the FATCA Letter Notice may strengthen the IRS case for arguing willful non-compliance with respect to any delinquent FBARs and any other information returns.

Finally, since the US taxpayer is forced to react swiftly to the implicit FATCA Letter Notice (due to the other two factors described above), his ability to choose the right path of his voluntary disclosure may be constrained by the lack of the necessary documentation or knowledge of other important facts. With the changes that the IRS implemented with respect to the 2014 OVDP (now closed), SDOP and SFOP, it is important to remember that engaging in one form of a voluntary disclosure may result in the subsequent inability to switch to another voluntary disclosure path.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Your FATCA Letter

As you can see, receiving a FATCA Letter Notice is an event of potentially important implications. An inadequate response to a FATCA Letter Notice may have a highly deleterious effect on the US account holder’s ability to conduct voluntary disclosure (which means facing the draconian FBAR civil and criminal penalties) or choose the right type of voluntary disclosure.

This is why, if you received a FATCA Letter, contact Sherayzen Law Office for help immediately. Our experienced international tax law firm has helped hundreds of US taxpayers like you to bring their US tax affairs into full compliance with US tax laws, and we can help you as well.

So, Contact Us Now to Schedule Your Initial Consultation! Remember, contacting Sherayzen Law Office is Confidential.

The IRS Onslaught Against Bank Leumi Clients Continues: The Fogel Case

/0 Comments/in , /by

On February 2, 2015, one of Bank Leumi clients, Dr. Baruch Fogel of Laguna Beach, California, pleaded guilty today in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to willfully failing to file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) for tax year 2009. In this article, I would like to explore some of the most pertinent facts of the Fogel Case and analyze this case in the context of the continuous IRS onslaught against Bank Leumi clients.

The Facts and Outcome of the Fogel Case

According to court documents, Fogel, a U.S. citizen, maintained an undeclared bank account held in the name of a foreign corporation at the Luxembourg branch of Bank Leumi. The undeclared foreign bank account and foreign corporation were set up with the assistance of David Kalai, a tax return preparer who owned United Revenue Service (URS). In December 2014, David Kalai and his son, Nadav Kalai, were convicted in the Central District of California of conspiracy to defraud the United States for helping certain URS clients set up foreign corporations and undeclared bank accounts to evade U.S. income taxes and for willfully failing to file FBARs for an undeclared foreign account that they controlled.

According to court documents and evidence introduced at the trial of David and Nadav Kalai, Fogel was a doctor who operated several managed health care businesses. David Kalai suggested to Fogel that he could reduce his taxes by transferring money to a foreign bank account held in the name of a foreign corporation. David Kalai advised Fogel to open up the bank account that was set up in the name of a British Virgin Islands corporation. At a meeting facilitated and attended by David Kalai at the Beverly Hills branch of Bank Leumi, Fogel executed documents to open his Luxembourg bank account at Bank Leumi, becoming one of the many Bank Leumi clients to do so. According to court documents, Fogel diverted at least $8 million to his undeclared bank account at Bank Leumi’s branch in Luxembourg.

Fogel has agreed to pay a civil penalty in the amount of approximately $4.2 million to resolve his civil liability with the IRS for failing to file FBARs. Fogel faces a statutory maximum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss to any person, whichever is greater.

IRS Recent Onslaught Against Bank Leumi Clients Continues

The Fogel Case is another example of the recent IRS series of victories against former Bank Leumi clients. It is also a direct fallout of the Kalai Case (David Kalai worked with a number of Bank Leumi clients). Bank Leumi itself already admitted late last year to helping its US customers evade income taxes and hide assets.

Bank Leumi Clients and Clients from Other Israeli Banks Should Expect Continuous Pressure from the IRS

With the information already disclosed by other Bank Leumi clients to the IRS as part of their voluntary disclosures through 2011 OVDI, 2012 OVDP and 2014 OVDP, it becomes clear that the IRS has gathered sufficient evidence to investigate and successfully prosecute other Bank Leumi clients, current and former. Bank Leumi itself also agreed to help DOJ efforts against its Bank Leumi clients. It appears that this IRS onslaught against Bank Leumi clients is likely to affect disproportionately the Jewish communities in New York, California and Florida.

However it is not only the Bank Leumi clients that should be worried; as part of its deal with the US Department of Justice, Bank Leumi is required to help the DOJ investigations of other Israeli banks. Given the fact that Bank Leumi is the second largest bank in Israel, one can expect that the information provided by Bank Leumi and Bank Leumi clients is likely to affect all major banks in Israel.

Voluntary Disclosure Options Should Be Explored by Bank Leumi Clients and Clients of Other Israeli Banks

The Fogel case is a somber reminder to Bank Leumi clients that time is running out. For Bank Leumi clients with undisclosed foreign accounts, there is now a high chance of an IRS investigation, imposition of civil penalties and even of criminal prosecution.  Hence, it appears that the best course of action of the Bank Leumi clients and customers of other Israeli banks is to explore their voluntary disclosure options as soon as possible.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Your Undisclosed Israeli Accounts

If you have undisclosed foreign financial accounts and other foreign assets in Israel or through an Israeli bank (and especially if you are one of the Bank Leumi clients), contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional legal and tax help as soon as possible.

Once our experienced international tax law firm will review the facts of your case and recommend the voluntary disclosure options available in your case; you will be able to choose the voluntary disclosure option that best appeals to you. We will then prepare all of the necessary legal documents and tax forms, and Mr. Sherayzen will personally negotiate the final settlement of your case with the IRS, bringing you into full US tax compliance.

So, Contact Us Now to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Who is Required to File IRS Form 1041

/0 Comments/in , /by

IRS Form 1041 (“U.S. Income Tax Return for Estates and Trusts”) is used by a fiduciary of a domestic decedent’s estate, trust, or bankruptcy estate for a number of important reporting reasons. It is utilized to report income, deductions, gains, losses, and related items of an estate or trust; income that is either accumulated or held for future distribution or distributed currently to its beneficiaries; any income tax liability of the estate or trust; and employment taxes on wages paid to household employees. (It is also used to report the Net Investment Income Tax from Form 8960, line 21, on the Tax Computation section under Schedule G).

This article will cover the basics of who is required to file IRS Form 1041 for decedent’s estates and trusts in general; it is not intended to convey tax or legal advice. If you have further questions regarding filing IRS Form 1041, please contact Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd.

Who Must File IRS Form 1041?

In general, the fiduciary (or one of the joint fiduciaries) for a decedent’s domestic estate must file IRS Form 1041 if the estate has gross income for the tax year of $600 or more, or if it has a beneficiary who is a nonresident alien.

An estate is considered to be a “domestic” estate if it is not a foreign estate; a foreign estate is one in which its income is from sources outside the United States that is not effectively connected with the conduct of a U.S. trade or business, and is not includible in gross income. Note that fiduciaries of foreign estates file Form 1040NR, U.S. Nonresident Alien Income Tax Return, rather than IRS Form 1041.

In addition, the fiduciary (or one of the joint fiduciaries) of domestic trusts that are taxable under Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) Section 641 must file the form if the trust has any taxable income for the tax year, if it has gross income of $600 or more (regardless of whether it has taxable income), or if it has a beneficiary who is a nonresident alien.

A trust is considered to be “domestic” if a U.S. court is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of the trust (the “court test”), and one or more U.S. persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust (the “control test”). Additionally, a trust may be treated as a domestic trust (other than a trust treated as wholly owned by the grantor) if it was in existence on August 20, 1996, was treated as a domestic trust on August 19, 1996, and elected to continue to be treated as a domestic trust.

Trusts that are not considered to be domestic trusts will be deemed foreign trusts, and the trustees for such trusts file Form 1040NR instead of IRS Form 1041, and a foreign trust with a U.S. owner may also be required to file Form 3520-A, (“Annual Information Return of Foreign Trust With a U.S. Owner”). Further, if a domestic trust becomes a foreign trust, it will be treated as having transferred all of its assets to a foreign trust, except to the extent that a grantor or another person is treated as being the owner of the trust when the trust becomes a foreign trust (See IRC Section 684 for more information).

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With the IRS Form 1041, Estate and Trust Tax Compliance

Tax compliance for trusts and estates often involves many complex issues, and you are advised to seek the advice of a tax attorney. Eugene Sherayzen, an experienced international tax attorney of Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. can assist you in all of your tax and legal needs.

2015 UBS Probe Poses Threat to US Owners of Undisclosed UBS Accounts

/0 Comments/in , /by

This week, UBS Group AG confirmed that it was under a new investigation over whether the Switzerland bank sold unregistered securities to US taxpayers in violation of US law. This article will discuss the new UBS probe and the threat it poses to US owners of undisclosed UBS accounts who never went through an offshore voluntary disclosure. This article is not intended to convey tax or legal advice.

Prior Investigations and 2009 Deferred-Prosecution Agreement

The 2015 bearer bond investigation of UBS is the latest in the series of DOJ investigations of UBS. Previously, in 2009, as a result a landmark DOJ victory that started the today’s rout of bank secrecy laws throughout the world, UBS paid a $780 million dollar fine and disclosed 250 previously undisclosed UBS accounts of US taxpayers to the DOJ (some of the owners of these undisclosed UBS accounts were later criminally prosecuted by the IRS). The bank promised that it would be compliant with US law under its deferred-prosecution agreement with the DOJ. The agreement expired in October, 2010. This was a critical agreement for the US owners of undisclosed UBS accounts, and we will come back to this subject below.

In addition to the deferred-prosecution agreement in 2009, UBS also settled an antitrust case in 2011 concerning the municipal-bond investments market, and resolved a 2012 DOJ investigation involving alleged rigging of the London interbank offered rate (Libor). UBS was granted an agreement to extend the term of its non-prosecution deal in the latter investigation until later this year. Additionally, in a probe not involving the DOJ, UBS paid US, UK and Swiss authorities nearly $800 million in November to settle allegations that they did not have satisfactory controls to prevent traders from attempting to rig Forex dealing.

The DOJ also has reportedly also opened a new investigation concerning certain currency-linked structured products sold by UBS. International tax attorneys who worked with undisclosed UBS accounts for their US clients in the past know how common it was for UBS to sell these products to their US clients.

The 2015 UBS Investigation

As noted above, the new investigation is being conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York and from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. UBS stated in its fourth-quarter report, “In January 2015, we received inquiries from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York and from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which are investigating potential sales to U.S. persons of bearer bonds and other unregistered securities.” UBS added that it was cooperating with the authorities in the probes. According to various new sources, the bank is also being probed as to whether the alleged sales occurred while the bank was under DOJ supervision from its earlier 2009 tax evasion case.

Bearer bonds can be redeemed by anybody physically holding them. Because of the ease with which these instruments can be transferred, they are a potentially useful tool for enabling individuals to hide assets and evade taxes. While bearer bonds were not deposited on undisclosed UBS accounts, some US owners of undisclosed UBS accounts were owners of these unregulated instruments.

Undisclosed UBS Accounts and the 2015 UBS Investigation

According to various sources, if UBS is found to have breached the agreement by selling the unregistered bearer bonds to US persons in violation of US law during the time period in which the agreement was still in effect, it is possible that the DOJ will prosecute the bank under the original conspiracy charge, in addition to filing new charges and penalties.

The significance of this scenario lies in the fact that there may still be US taxpayers with undisclosed UBS accounts (whether owned directly, indirectly or constructively). Many of these taxpayers were trying to hide in the relative safety of the UBS 2009 Deferred-Prosecution Agreement, hoping that the worst was over for UBS.

Moreover, because UBS was classified as a Category 1 bank, it could not participate in the DOJ Program for Swiss Banks. This gave a wrong type of encouragement to some US owners of undisclosed UBS accounts not to come forward and go through a voluntary disclosure program.

In reality, however, due to the fact that UBS was the first bank that succumbed to the pressure from the US DOJ and disclosed previously undisclosed UBS accounts owned by US persons, the DOJ’s deal with UBS was relatively mild compared to the later penalties on other large Swiss Banks (such as Credit Suisse). Hence, there is a great incentive for the DOJ to re-open the investigation into UBS to force the bank to pay an amount equivalent to its other Swiss peers.

This means that, if the 2015 investigation is successful and the DOJ can get around the 2009 Deferred-Prosecution Agreement, the UBS may, in a new deal with DOJ, conduct a wholesale disclosure of the US owners of undisclosed UBS accounts – not only the current owners, but also the US owners who had undisclosed UBS accounts in the years 2008-2010.

What Should the US Owners of Undisclosed UBS Accounts Do?

Thus, the 2015 DOJ investigation of UBS could have disastrous consequences for US persons who owned undisclosed UBS accounts between the years 2008 and the present time. The premature disclosure of undisclosed UBS accounts may foreclose very important voluntary disclosure options for the US owners of these undisclosed UBS accounts. The subsequent investigations by the IRS may result in draconian civil penalties and even criminal prosecutions.

This is why US persons who owned undisclosed UBS accounts should contact an experienced international tax attorney to discuss their voluntary disclosure options as soon as possible.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help with Your Undisclosed Foreign Accounts

If you are have not disclosed your foreign accounts (including undisclosed UBS accounts) to the IRS, you are advised to immediately contact the experienced international tax law firm of Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. For many years now, we have been helping US taxpayers like you to bring their US tax affairs into full compliance, and we can help you.

Contact Us to Schedule Your Initial Consultation! Remember, contacting Sherayzen Law Office is Confidential!

IRS Form 14654 for Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures

/0 Comments/in , /by

IRS Form 14654 is probably the most important part of the taxpayer’s voluntary disclosure under the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures (“SDOP”). In this article, I would like to explore the various parts of IRS Form 14654 and explain why this form is so important.

Please, note that IRS Form 14654 was just revised in January of 2015. (Note: Latest update is September of 2017).

SDOP and IRS Form 14654

In June of 2014, the IRS announced the creation of a brand-new voluntary disclosure option for the taxpayers who reside in the United States – SDOP. As part of the disclosure package under SDOP, the IRS required U.S. taxpayers to submit a Certification of Non-Willfulness with respect to the taxpayers’ failure to timely disclose their foreign income and assets. At the end of August of 2014, this Certification became the new IRS Form 14654.

Purpose of IRS Form 14654

IRS Form 14654 constitutes an essential part of SDOP because this is the form used by the taxpayer to certify his non-willfulness with respect to his failure to timely and accurately report his foreign income and assets. Moreover, IRS Form 14654 also functions as a convenient summary of the calculation of the income tax liability as well as the SDOP Title 26 Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty (“Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty”). Finally, IRS Form 14654 allows the taxpayer to make a statement in support of his non-willfulness.

In order to accomplish these multiple tasks, IRS Form 14654 incorporates three different parts: income tax summary, Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty calculation, and the Certification with Explanation of Non-Willfulness.

Let’s take a closer look at each of these three parts of IRS Form 14654.

IRS Form 14654: Income Tax Summary

The very first part of the Certification is with respect to income tax liability. There is a pre-set language in IRS Form 14654 that requires the taxpayer to certify that: he is providing amended tax returns for each of the three most recent years, he filed the original tax returns previously, and he properly calculated his additional tax due with statutory interest on IRS Form 14654.

There is already a self-calculating table in the form that allows the taxpayer to quickly summarize his additional income tax liability with statutory interest per each covered year and the total amount due (which should be included on the checks written to the IRS).

IRS Form 14654: Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty Base

The second part of the certification is concerned with the taxpayer’s calculation of the Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty, or more precisely its penalty base. IRS Form 14654 provides a set of self-calculating tables to be completed by the taxpayer for all of the foreign accounts and other assets subject to the Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty. Each table requires the taxpayer to disclose the financial institution with address and description of the asset, the account number (where applicable), when the account was opened or asset acquired, and the end-of-year balance/asset value in U.S. dollars.

If additional space is needed, my experience has been that it would be best to attach to IRS Form 14654 a detailed statement disclosing all of this information. Note, the attachment should contain the taxpayer’s name, TIN and original signature.

In addition to the Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty’s penalty base calculation, IRS Form 14654 already contains the language which states that the taxpayer already filed his FBARs for the past six years and he met all of the eligibility requirements for SDOP.

IRS Form 14654: Calculation of Payments Due

The next part of the certification requires the taxpayer to summarize all of the payments due – the calculation of the Miscellaneous offshore Penalty, the total due and the total interest due. At the end of this section, the taxpayer should add all of these payments together to equal to the “Total Payment” due.

IRS Form 14654: “Comprehensive Certification” and Explanation of Non-Willfulness

Following the completion of the payment calculations section, IRS Form 14654 turns to the most important part of a SDOP case – the certification of non-willfulness with respect to income, tax payments and information returns.

The actual language for the certification of non-willfulness is already provided by the IRS on IRS Form 14654; this is a standard text that the taxpayer must agree to if he wishes to do a SDOP disclosure (i.e. this language cannot be modified). It is very important for international tax lawyers to discuss this language with their clients to make sure that they understand what they are agreeing to.

In addition to providing the standard certification text, IRS Form 14654 requires the taxpayer to provide a statement of facts and specific reasons for the original failure to report all income, pay all tax and submit all required information returns, including FBARs.

Please, note that the January of 2015 revision of IRS Form 14654 specifically allows the taxpayer to provide the explanation not only on the form itself, but also on a separate signed attachment (this clarified a previous confusion over the statement must be provided on the form only). Moreover, the new revision specifically states that the failure to provide a narrative statement of facts will result in the certification being deemed incomplete and the taxpayer will not qualify for the SDOP penalty relief.

The explanation of non-willfulness is undoubtedly the most important part of IRS Form 14654, because here the taxpayer has a unique opportunity to establish his legal case for non-willfulness. If this explanation is not deemed satisfactory to the IRS, the taxpayer may face willful FBAR penalties, civil fraud penalties and potentially even criminal penalties (see note below on the certification under the penalty of perjury).

In fact, the explanation of non-willfulness is so crucial to the taxpayer’s SDOP case, that I strongly recommend that the taxpayer refrains from completing the Streamlined certification himself or letting his accountant to do it. This is the job only for the taxpayer’s international tax attorney.

IRS Form 14654: Signature under the Penalties of Perjury

The last part of certification requires the taxpayer to sign the Form under the penalties of perjury. By signing IRS Form 14654, the taxpayer is certifying (1) that he is eligible for the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures; (2) that all required FBARs have now been filed; (3) that the failure to report all income, pay all tax, and submit all required information returns, including FBARs, resulted from non-willful conduct; and (4) that the miscellaneous offshore penalty amount is accurate.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help with IRS Form 14654 and Your Voluntary Disclosure Under the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures

If you wish to do the voluntary disclosure of your foreign accounts under the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. Despite the fact that SDOP only appeared last June and IRS Form 14654 was created at the end of August of 2014, our international tax law firm has already completed SDOP disclosures for a number of our clients, and we can also help you.

Contact Us to Schedule Your Initial Consultation! Remember, contact Sherayzen Law Office is Confidential!