2013 FBAR is Due on June 30, 2014

/in , /by

The most dangerous information report – the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (the “FBAR”) – is due at the end of this month. The 2013 FBAR (i.e. the FBAR for the calendar year 2013) is due on June 30, 2014.

Pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act, 31 U.S.C. §5311 et seq., the Department of Treasury (the “Treasury”) has established certain recordkeeping and filing requirements for United States persons with financial interests in or signature authority (and other comparable authority) over financial accounts maintained with financial institutions in foreign countries. If you had such a situation in 2013 and if the aggregate balances of such foreign accounts exceed $10,000 at any time during 2013, the 2013 FBAR must be filed with the Treasury.

What constitutes an account for the purpose of complying with 2013 FBAR can be a complex question. Generally, the IRS is using a very broad definition of the “account” to include the great majority of custodial situations, even those that are not usually associated with the concept of an “account” (for example, a precious metals storage or a foreign life insurance policy may have to be reported on the 2013 FBAR). You need to contact an experienced international tax attorney to determine what accounts need to be reported on your 2013 FBAR.

The FBAR must be filed by June 30 of each relevant year, including this year (2013). Thus, the 2013 FBAR must be received by the Treasury by June 30, 2014. This rule is contrary to your regular tax returns where the mailing date determines whether the filing is timely. There are no extensions available – the 2013 FBAR must be received by June 30 or it will be considered delinquent.

If the 2013 FBAR becomes delinquent, it may be subject to severe penalties.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for FBAR Assistance

If you have any questions or concerns regarding whether you need to file the 2013 FBAR, please contact Sherayzen Law Office directly. If you have not previous filed FBARs and you were required to do so, you may be subject to severe penalties and you may need to do some form of a voluntary disclosure.

If this is the case, you need to contact our experienced international tax law office to schedule a consultation as soon as possible. Attorney Eugene Sherayzen will assess your situation, determine your potential FBAR liability, explain the available options, prepare all of the required tax forms and the necessary legal documentation, guide you through this complex process of voluntary disclosure, and vigorously represent your interests during your negotiations with the IRS.

Credit Suisse Pleaded Guilty; Disclosure of US-Held Bank Accounts

/in , /by

On May 19, 2014, Credit Suisse AG pleaded guilty to conspiracy to aid and assist U.S. taxpayers in filing false income tax returns and other documents with the IRS. Credit Suisse agreed to pay huge fines and disclose certain information to the IRS and the US DOJ. Let’s look closer at certain parts of this deal and what this means to U.S. taxpayers who still hold undisclosed bank accounts at Credit Suisse or who held such accounts in any years since 2008.

Illegal Activities of Credit Suisse Acknowledged as Part of the Plea

The DOJ stated that, as part of the plea agreement, Credit Suisse acknowledged that, for decades prior to and through 2009, it operated an illegal cross-border banking business that knowingly and willfully aided and assisted thousands of U.S. clients in opening and maintaining undeclared accounts and concealing their offshore assets and income from the IRS.

According to the statement of facts filed with the plea agreement, Credit Suisse employed a variety of means to assist U.S. clients in concealing their undeclared accounts, including by:

assisting clients in using sham entities to hide undeclared accounts;

soliciting IRS forms that falsely stated, under penalties of perjury, that the sham entities were the beneficial owners of the assets in the accounts;

failing to maintain in the United States records related to the accounts;

destroying account records sent to the United States for client review;

using Credit Suisse managers and employees as unregistered investment advisors on undeclared accounts

facilitating withdrawals of funds from the undeclared accounts by either providing hand-delivered cash in the United States or using Credit Suisse’s correspondent bank accounts in the United States;

structuring transfers of funds to evade currency transaction reporting requirements; and

providing offshore credit and debit cards to repatriate funds in the undeclared accounts.

Fines that Credit Suisse Will Pay – A Huge Victory for the US Department of Justice

The giant bank agreed to pay a total of $2.6 billion – $1.8 billion to the Department of Justice for the U.S. Treasury, $100 million to the Federal Reserve, and $715 million to the New York State Department of Financial Services. Earlier this year, Credit Suisse already paid approximately $196 million in disgorgement, interest and penalties to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for violating the federal securities laws by providing cross-border brokerage and investment advisory services to U.S. clients without first registering with the SEC.

Credit Suisse has also agreed to implement programs to ensure its compliance with U.S. laws, including its reporting obligations under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act and relevant tax treaties, in all its current and future dealings with U.S. customers.

“This case shows that no financial institution, no matter its size or global reach, is above the law,” said Attorney General Holder. “Credit Suisse conspired to help U.S. citizens hide assets in offshore accounts in order to evade paying taxes. When a bank engages in misconduct this brazen, it should expect that the Justice Department will pursue criminal prosecution to the fullest extent possible, as has happened here.”

“This prosecution and plea should serve notice that secret accounts and assisting the evasion of income taxes have a high cost,” said U.S. Attorney Boente. “Concealing financial accounts from the U.S. government is not a legitimate part of wealth management or private banking services.”

“Pursuing international tax evasion is a priority area for IRS Criminal Investigation, and we will continue to follow the money here in the United States and around the world” said IRS Commissioner Koskinen. “I want to commend the special agents in IRS-Criminal Investigation for all of their hard work in this area and the close cooperation with the Department of Justice. Today’s guilty plea is another important milestone in ongoing law enforcement efforts to investigate the use of offshore accounts to evade taxes. People should no longer feel comfortable hiding their assets and income from the IRS.”

What Credit Suisse Will Further Disclose as Part of the Plea

This is the part which is most relevant to the U.S. taxpayers who had (or still have) undisclosed bank accounts at Credit Suisse at any point after January 1, 2008.

As part of the plea agreement, Credit Suisse agreed to make a complete disclosure of its cross-border activities, cooperate in treaty requests for account information, provide detailed information as to other banks that transferred funds into secret accounts or that accepted funds when secret accounts were closed, and to close accounts of account holders who fail to come into compliance with U.S. reporting obligations.

What Credit Suisse Guilty Plea Means to US Taxpayers with Undisclosed Credit Suisse Accounts

The guilty plea of Credit Suisse is likely to have a profound impact on U.S. taxpayers with undisclosed accounts. While the UBS case was a landmark victory for the IRS that changed the nature of the international tax enforcement, it was actually much more limited in “exposure” scope with respect to its own US accountholders than the Credit Suisse guilty plea (this is a true testament to how much more powerful the DOJ has become in Switzerland since 2008).

In essence, at this point, any US taxpayers with undisclosed Credit Suisse accounts should now assume that their non-compliant accounts now be closed (unless they do some type of voluntary disclosure) and/or they are likely to be disclosed by Credit Suisse to the IRS if the IRS makes a treaty request. Even worse, for any US taxpayers who had accounts at some point in 2008 and closed them prior to the guilty plea by Credit Suisse, there is no guarantee that these accounts will not be disclosed by Credit Suisse to the IRS. I would even venture to guess that the likelihood of the exposure of these accounts is very high now.

However, the IRS victory over Credit Suisse does not just stop at the Credit Suisse accountholders, but also all banks that dealt with Credit Suisse with respect to these US-owned accounts. This means that US taxpayers who transferred their funds out of Credit Suisse (presumably when they closed their non-compliant accounts) are likely to be at high risk of IRS detection.

Finally, Credit Suisse is likely to disclose to the IRS its main strategies with respect to opening, closing and maintaining non-compliant accounts through a business entity or a trust. This means that the IRS will now be able to initiate investigations based on patterns of activity, without necessarily having specific information about a given account. This means that all US taxpayers who benefitted from Credit Suisse help prior to the guilty plea by the bank, are likely to now be exposed (whether the intention behind this planning was tax evasion or legitimate asset protection).

The upshot of all of these factors is that US taxpayers who have had any undisclosed foreign bank accounts in Credit Suisse since 2008 are likely to be at high risk of IRS criminal investigation with huge FBAR monetary penalty exposure and potential jail sentence.

This means that these US taxpayers with undisclosed Credit Suisse bank accounts should consider their voluntary disclosure options as soon as possible. If the IRS learns about their identity prior to entering into a voluntary disclosure problem, the path to the OVDP (Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program) may be closed with potentially huge disadvantages to such taxpayers.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help with the Voluntary Disclosure of Your Credit Suisse Accounts

If you have undisclosed Credit Suisse accounts, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. Owner Eugene Sherayzen is an experienced international tax lawyer who will thoroughly review the facts of your case, analyze your voluntary disclosure options, create a comprehensive voluntary disclosure strategy and implements (including preparation of all legal documents and tax forms as well as rigorous IRS representation).

Contact Us to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Surgeon Indicted for Secret Bank Accounts in Panama and Costa Rica

/in , /by

Previously, I already discussed the high exposure of the US-owned undisclosed bank accounts in Panama and Costa Rica. Last week, the IRS gave a perfect example (thought with an unusual set of facts) of such exposure of bank accounts in Panama and Costa Rica. On May 23, 2014, the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that a federal grand jury in Anchorage, Alaska, returned a superseding indictment charging Michael D. Brandner, an Anchorage physician specializing in plastic surgery, on three counts of tax evasion.

Facts of the Case

The unusual aspect of this case is that one of the major motivations for opening the accounts in Panama and Costa Rica was the divorce that Dr. Bradner was going through.

According to court documents, Dr. Brandner engaged in a scheme to hide and conceal millions of dollars of assets from the Alaska courts and from his wife of 28 years who was divorcing him. Shortly after the divorce was filed, Dr. Brandner left Alaska and drove to Central America after converting assets into five cashier’s checks worth over $3,000,000.

Then, in 2008, after the Alaska court ordered Dr. Bradner to give up the $1.26 million self-directed IRA, he moved all of that money to his Panama account. Later, he moved another $200,000 to Panama.

In 2011, Dr. Bradner’s tax advisor in Panama (who was an informant cooperating with the IRS) advised Dr. Bradner about the tax treaty signed by Panama in 2010 on the disclosure of foreign accounts. He was able to convince Dr. Bradner to create a foreign corporation which opened a bank account in the United States. This account was supposed to hold the funds from Central America to avoid their disclosure to the IRS, but the Department of Homeland Security seized the funds when Dr. Bradner attempted to wire-transfer them to his corporation’s U.S. account.

According to the superseding indictment, Dr. Brandner attempted to evade his taxes, including making false and misleading statement to IRS special agents and filing false tax returns for 2008, 2009 and 2010. In the three false returns, Dr. Brandner failed to report the existence of financial accounts in Panama and Costa Rica over which he had signature authority, and also failed to report foreign interest income of more than $9,000 for 2008, more than $150,000 for 2009, and more than $150,000 for 2010. The indictment also alleges that Dr. Brandner attempted to evade more than $600,000 in federal income taxes over the three years.

The last interesting fact of this case is that (in a secretly-taped conversation) the Panamanian advisor specifically stated to Dr. Bradner and advised him about the FBAR form – a statement which was allegedly acknowledged by the doctor.

IRS Focus Expands to Undisclosed Bank Accounts in Panama and Costa Rica

There are some very interesting facts about this case. Some facts, like the conceded knowledge of the FBAR and the use of foreign corporation to conceal unreported assets and income, will undoubtedly greatly complicate Dr. Bradner’s legal position. They also correspond to the general pattern of facts for cases which are chosen by the IRS for criminal prosecution.

The most interesting side of this case, however, is that this case testifies to the ever expanding scope of IRS investigation of undisclosed foreign accounts, with the particular focus on the bank accounts in Panama and Costa Rica. About two years ago, I predicted that there will be more criminal prosecutions coming out of Central America once the IRS gradually expands its focus beyond Switzerland and Israel.

While there are other prominent candidates, the bank accounts in Panama and Costa Rica offer special rewards to the IRS: there is a large concentration of retired Americans (and Israeli-Americans) in Central America, the Panamanian tax cooperation and exchange agreement signed in 2010 (i.e. almost two years after the UBS case, allowing the IRS to pursue more cases down the road without any major statute of limitations hassles), and there has certainly been a certain amount of abuse committed by tax professionals in Central America in cooperation with Swiss tax advisors (shockingly, a lot of tax attorneys in Central America are still oblivious to important U.S. tax requirements, including FBARs).

This is why the investigations of the undisclosed bank accounts in Panama and Costa Rica will only grow in prominence in the coming years as IRS will seek to deepen U.S. tax compliance in this region.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help with Your Voluntary Disclosure of Bank Accounts in Panama and Costa Rica

If you have undisclosed bank accounts in Panama and Costa Rica, you may face severe FBAR penalties. This is why you need to contact the experienced international tax law firm of Sherayzen Law Office as soon as possible. We can guide you through your voluntary disclosure options, create and help you implement the voluntary disclosure plan, and defend your interests against the IRS.

Contact Us to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Businessman Jailed for Using Nevis Bank Account to Conceal Income

/in , /by

On May 7, 2014, the IRS and the DOJ announced the Robert C. Sathre was sentenced to serve thirty-six months in federal prison for tax evasion; Mr. Sathre was also ordered to pay $3,113,882 in restitution to the IRS and to serve three years of supervised release. Sathre pleaded guilty on February 26, 2014, to willfully evading the payment of his 1995 and 1996 tax liability.

Facts of the Case

According to court documents and proceedings, Mr. Sathre sold a Minnesota business and received installment payments in 1995 and 1996 of more than $3 million. Mr. Sathre concealed his income by filing a 1995 tax return in which he reported only $64,928 in total income. Mr. Sathre then purchased land and set up another business, a gas station and convenience store in Sheridan, Wyoming, known as the Rock Stop.

According to the DOJ, Mr. Sathre concealed assets by opening a foreign bank account in the Caribbean island of Nevis and by using purported trusts. During the ten-month period during 2005-2006, Mr. Sathre sent over $500,000 to the account in Nevis to keep the funds out of reach from the IRS. When Mr. Sathre sold the Rock Stop in 2007, he wired over $1,250,000 from the sale proceeds to the trust account of a Wyoming law firm. He later directed the law firm to wire $900,000 from the trust account to his account at the Bank of Nevis. Mr. Sathre also provided a false declaration and false promissory note to the Bank of Nevis to conceal the source of this transfer and obtained a debit card linked to the foreign account to access funds locally. In addition, Mr. Sathre provided the Bank of Sheridan with an IRS form on which he falsely claimed that he was neither a citizen nor a resident of the United States.

Analysis of Relevant Facts

The first interesting detail here is the period of time involved – 1995 and 1996. This is something to keep in mind for U.S. taxpayers with undisclosed offshore accounts – the IRS can look beyond the three- and six-year statutes of limitations in certain cases involving fraud and other criminal conduct.

Second, this seems to be one of the cases that would not have come out had the defendant not broken the U.S. tax laws again. It appears that the under-reporting on the 1995 and 1996 returns was not detected originally. However, when Mr. Sathre appears to have engaged in tax evasion with the second sale of Rock Stop in 2007 and commenced to transfer money to Nevis, he must have triggered an IRS investigation.

In fact, this case is an excellent illustration of the difference in the international tax enforcement between the pre-2001 period (i.e. prior to the IRS enforcement of FBAR and the DOJ campaign to enforce U.S. tax laws internationally) and the post-2001 period, especially after the UBS case and FATCA global enforcement.

Finally, as in many other criminal cases involving foreign accounts, the engagement in complex planning (i.e. using foreign trusts) to conceal the transaction must have greatly contributed to the decision by the IRS and the DOJ to pursue criminal penalties.

A Warning to U.S. Taxpayers with Undisclosed Nevis Bank Accounts

The Sathre case should be considered a warning to the U.S. taxpayers with undisclosed Nevis bank accounts. The IRS was able to retrace all of the transactions between the United States and Nevis. With FATCA global enforcement gaining steam, it is highly important for these taxpayers to realize that their undisclosed Nevis bank accounts may be discovered by the IRS and it may happen soon.

The consequences of such an investigation by the IRS may be grave as the present Sathre case demonstrates: large monetary penalties and incarceration.

This is why it is highly important for U.S. taxpayers with undisclosed Nevis Bank accounts to consider their voluntary disclosure options as soon as possible. My strong suggestion is to retain an international tax lawyer for this process.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With the Voluntary Disclosure of Your Nevis Bank Accounts

If you have an undisclosed Nevis bank account, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. Our international tax law firm is highly experienced in the matters of offshore voluntary disclosures. We have helped hundreds of taxpayers around the world and we can help you!

Contact Us to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation Now!

Attorney Jailed for Helping Hide Money for Clients at Their Swiss Bank Accounts

/in , /by

On March 18, 2014, the IRS and U.S. Department of Justice announced the California attorney Christopher M. Rusch was sentenced to serve 10 months in prison for helping his clients Mr. Stephen M. Kerr and Mr. Michael Quiel, both businessmen from Phoenix, hide millions of dollars in secret Swiss bank accounts at UBS AG and Pictet & Cie. Additionally, U.S. District Judge James A. Teilborg also ordered Rusch to serve three years of supervised release following his prison sentence.

The sentencing following the February 6, 2013, Mr. Rusch guilty plea to conspiracy to defraud US government and failing to file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR). Mr. Kerr and Mr. Quiel were sentenced in September of 2013 to each serve 10 months in prison after both were tried and convicted of filing false income tax returns for 2007 and 2008. The jury also convicted Mr. Kerr of failing to file FBARs for 2007 and 2008 (with respect to the Swiss bank accounts).

Facts of the Case

According to the DOJ, Mr. Kerr and Mr. Quiel, with the assistance of Mr. Rusch and others (including Swiss nationals) established nominee foreign entities and corresponding bank accounts in Switzerland to conceal Mr. Kerr and Mr. Quiel’s ownership and control of stock and income they deposited in these accounts. Mr. Rusch testified at trial, admitting that he and others caused the sale of the shares of stock through the undeclared accounts.

Rusch further testified that, at Mr. Kerr and Mr. Quiel’s direction, he transferred some of the money in the secret accounts back to the United States through Mr. Rusch’s Interest on Lawyer’s Trust Account before dispersing the money for Mr. Kerr and Mr. Quiel’s benefit, including the purchase of a multi-million dollar golf course in Erie, Colorado. According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, with Mr. Rusch’s assistance, Mr. Kerr and Mr. Quiel each failed to report more than $ 4,600,000 and $2,000,000 of income, respectively, during 2007 and 2008 which they hid in the undeclared accounts with Mr. Rusch’s assistance.

IRS and DOJ Continue Pursuit of US Tax Advisors for US Taxpayers with Undisclosed Swiss Bank Accounts

Since the 2008 UBS case victory, the IRS and the DOJ have been continuously increasing the pressure on the US and foreign tax advisors who help their US clients hide money in offshore accounts, particularly Swiss bank accounts.

“This prosecution serves notice that the Department of Justice will not tolerate fraudulent activity designed to undermine the integrity of our income tax system,” said U.S. Attorney John S. Leonardo for the District of Arizona.

“Today, Mr. Rusch has been held accountable for his actions in assisting wealthy individuals hide millions of dollars in secret offshore bank accounts and dodge the tax system,” said Chief of IRS-Criminal Investigation Richard Weber. “In addition, Mr. Rusch used his attorney trust account to funnel money from the secret offshore accounts back to Mr. Kerr and Mr. Quiel for their personal benefit, including the purchase of a multi-million dollar golf course. As the investigation into offshore tax evasion continues, Criminal Investigation will leave no financial stone unturned as we continue to vigorously pursue new leads.”

Top Three Lessons from Rusch Case

Mr. Rusch has committed three “cardinal sins” of tax advising. First, he helped his clients in their pursuit of tax evasions. Second, he used the nominee corporate structures to help his clients evade taxes, thereby tinting the first sin with additional degree of consciousness, willfulness and complexity, providing the IRS with an additional incentive to pursue criminal charges. Finally, Mr. Rusch abused his position as an attorney with a client trust account (which is an ethical violation in addition to legal violation).

The combination of these factors really hurt the Mr. Rusch’s case and provide the IRS and the DOJ with ample ammunition to pursue criminal charges. Of course, the fact that Swiss bank accounts were involved only aggravated Mr. Rusch’s already difficult legal position.