FBAR Criminal Prosecution and Smaller Banks: The Case of Wegelin

/1 Comment/in , /by

On January 3, 2013, Wegelin & Co., the oldest Swiss private bank announced that it will close down following its guilty plea to criminal charges of conspiracy to help wealthy U.S. taxpayers evade taxes through secret financial accounts. The guilty plea and the closure of one of the most prestigious European banks that served its clients since the year 1741 constitute big victories for the U.S. authorities. It surely will inspire additional movement of non-compliant U.S. taxpayers into the 2012 OVDP (Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program) as well as ensure more widespread compliance with the FBAR, Form 8938 and other numerous international tax forms required by the IRS.

However, in addition to its significance to U.S. tax compliance, the Wegelin case also has other interesting features that may point to future trends in the IRS international tax enforcement. In this article, I will outline these trends and explore their potential implications for U.S. tax enforcement.

Jurisdiction to Prosecute Foreign Banks: Minimal Contact Will Suffice

In order to criminally charge a foreign bank, U.S. tax authorities need to establish some connection between the United States and the foreign bank. It appears that after the Wegelin case, proving U.S. exposure will not a be a significant problem for the IRS.

The main reason for Wegelin’s bold defiant behavior (Wegelin specifically advertised itself as a safe, tax-free alternative to U.S. taxpayers who were fleeing UBS after criminal prosecution charges were filed against UBS in 2008) was its deep belief that it cannot be criminally prosecuted in the United States because U.S. tax authorities have no jurisdiction over it. Unlike UBS, Wegelin had virtually no physical presence in the United States, no operating divisions and no branch offices in the United States.

However, Wegelin miscalculated. The IRS discovered that Wegelin did have presence in the United States because it “directly accessed” the U.S. banking system through a correspondent account that it held at UBS AG (“UBS”) in Stamford, Connecticut. The Justice Department successfully argued that this one correspondent account was sufficient to give the United States government the jurisdiction to criminally charge Wegelin.

Hence, one of the biggest consequences of the Wegelin case is that it will not be difficult for the U.S. tax authorities to establish jurisdiction to criminally charge foreign banks even with very insignificant presence in the United States.

Size Matters: Increased Risk for Smaller Banks

The other important lesson of the Wegelin case is that it appears that the IRS is more likely to aggressively pursue smaller banks than the bigger banks the demise of which can cause systemic instability in the world economy.

The collapse of Wegelin stands in stark contrast to the survival of its bigger Swiss rival, UBS. UBS offered pretty much the same services to U.S. taxpayers as Wegelin involving vastly larger number of U.S. persons and amounts of money (at the very least, 20 billion dollars versus Wegelin’s 1.2 billion dollars). The IRS did file criminal charges against UBS, but UBS entered into a deferred prosecution agreement and charges were dropped eighteen months later.

It could be that some of the aggressiveness of the U.S. government came precisely from Wegelin’s defiant stance. In order to reinforce its recent victory in the UBS case, the IRS had to adopt a more assertive stand. However, it did not necessarily have to end in Wegelin’s demise.

Some commentators argued that Wegelin was already a shadow of its former self at the time of its closure, because it aggressively sold-off all of its non-US related assets. Therefore, it may be argued that it is premature to draw general conclusions from the Wegelin’s case about the risks facing small foreign banks who find themselves indicted by the U.S. government. On the other hand, the very fact that Wegelin decided that it would be better for the bank to sell off its assets rather than fight the IRS and the fact that the U.S. government was not concerned about this decision do point to a conclusion that the Wegelin case may be demonstrative of the general vulnerability of smaller banks in such situations.

Unresolved Issues: Client Information and Sold-Off Practice

One of the most important issues, however, is still unresolved in the Wegelin case and makes it worthwhile to observe to its end. The issue is: will the bank disclose the names of its U.S. clients to the IRS?

Typically, disclosure of the names of U.S. taxpayers constitutes a key request by the IRS in such major investigations. Therefore, it does not seem likely that the IRS will simply leave this issue without at least attempting to obtain the names of non-compliant U.S. taxpayers as part of the final deal.

The other unresolved issue is whether a strategy similar to Wegelin’s sale of its non-US accounts to the Austrian Bank Raiffeisen just before the indictment is going to challenged by the IRS if the sale does involve U.S. clients and maybe even if it does not (especially where the bank is left without any assets). It is not known if we are going to get an answer at this time, but it is likely that this issue will show up again in a future case.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Voluntary Disclosure of Foreign Financial Accounts

If you have undisclosed offshore accounts (whether in the hard-hit Switzerland or any other country) ,contact Sherayzen Law Office to explore the voluntary disclosure options available in your case. Our experienced voluntary disclosure firm will thoroughly review your case, explore available options, propose a definite plan for moving forward, prepare all of the necessary legal documents and tax forms, and guide you though the entire case while rigorously representing your interests in your negotiations with the IRS.

Annual Inflation Adjustments for 2013: Overview

/in , /by

On January 11, 2013, the IRS announced annual inflation adjustments for the tax year 2013, including the tax rate schedules, and other tax changes from the recently passed American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.

Changes in Tax Brackets; Adjustment to Standard Deduction and Personal Exemption

Starting tax year 2013, a new tax rate of 39.6 percent has been added for individuals whose income exceeds $400,000 ($450,000 for married taxpayers filing a joint return). The other marginal rates — 10, 15, 25, 28, 33 and 35 percent — remain the same as in prior years, though the taxable income thresholds for each of the marginal rate have changed (see this article).

For the tax year 2013, the standard deduction increased to $6,100 for individuals and $12,200 for married couples filing jointly. This is up from the 2012 numbers of $5,950 for individuals and $11,900 for married couples filing jointly.

Note that the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 added a limitation for itemized deductions claimed on 2013 returns of individuals with incomes of $250,000 or more ($300,000 for married couples filing jointly).

For the tax 2013, the personal exemption rose to $3,900, up from the 2012 exemption of $3,800. However beginning in 2013, the exemption is subject to a phase-out that begins with adjusted gross incomes of $250,000 ($300,000 for married couples filing jointly). It phases out completely at $372,500 ($422,500 for married couples filing jointly.)

Alternative Minimum Tax Changes

The Alternative Minimum Tax (“AMT”) exemption amount for tax year 2013 is $51,900 ($80,800 for married couples filing jointly as set by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. The 2012 exemption amount was $50,600 ($78,750 for married couples filing jointly).

One of the most important changes introduced by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was the permanent “fix” of the AMT by indexing future exemption amounts for inflation.

Earned Income Tax Credit

For the year 2013, the maximum Earned Income Credit amount is $6,044 for taxpayers filing jointly with 3 or more qualifying children, up from a total of $5,891 for tax year 2012.

Other Inflation Adjustments

There are a number of other inflation adjustments published by the IRS. This essay merely attempts to clarify those which are most common. More details are contained in IRS Revenue Ruling 2013-15.

Overview of the New Investment Tax

/in , /by

The enactment of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the “Act”) has profound implications for U.S. investors. The Act imposes a new tax on investment income of certain individuals, estates and trusts. The focus of this article is on the new tax on individuals and how it operates.

IRC Section 1411: Imposition of 3.8% Tax

Section 1402(a) of the Act added section 1411 to a new chapter 2A of subtitle A (Income Taxes) of the Internal Revenue Code effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012. IRC Section 1411 imposes a 3.8 percent tax on the investment income of certain individuals, estates, and to some trusts.

It is important to note that the new tax is not deductible against any other income taxes.

Who is Affected by the New 3.8% Tax?

As mentioned above, the tax applies to certain individuals, annuities, estates, and to some trusts. It is widely expected that the 3.8% tax applies only to those who are considered to be high-wage earners (at least, at the time the new tax was enacted, because the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 seems to re-define who the high-wage earners are) who earn above certain thresholds and have investment income.

The tax does not apply to a nonresident alien and some other types of trusts (this is a complex subject that may be addressed in another article). If an nonresident alien is married to a U.S. citizen or resident and has made, or is planning to make, an election under IRC section 6013(g) to be treated as a resident alien for purposes of filing as Married Filing Jointly, the proposed regulations provide these couples with special rules and a corresponding IRC section 6013(g) election for the NIIT.

How Does the 3.8% Tax Work?

The application of the new tax can be quite complex, especially where the issues of subpart F and PFIC (Passive Foreign Investment Company) income are involved in the calculation of required thresholds. Generally, however, section 1411(a)(1) imposes a tax on the lesser of (A) the individual’s net investment income for such taxable year, or (B) the excess (if any) of (i) the individual’s modified adjusted gross income for such taxable year, over (ii) the threshold amount).

The threshold amounts are provided in Section 1411(b) and depend on the individual’s filing status (all amounts refer to modified adjusted gross income (“MAGI”)):

Single: $200,000
Married Filing Jointly: $250,000
Married Filing Separately: $125,00
Head of Household: $200,000
Qualifying Widow(er) with dependent child $250,000

Basically, this provision of Section 1411(a)(1) means that, in order for a taxpayer to be subject to the 3.8% tax, he has to have net investment income and MAGI above the thresholds listed above. The tax will be imposed either on the excess of income above MAGI or net investment income, whichever is less.

What Type of Income is Subject to the new 3.8% Tax?

Generally, any net investment income is potentially subject to the 3.8% tax. This includes net income from: interest, dividends, capital gains, rental and royalty income, non-qualified annuities and other income NOT derived in the ordinary course of trade or business (as specified in Section 1411(c)(2)). In order to arrive at the net income, the taxpayer may subtract from the gross investment income any allowable allocable deductions.

Also certain capital gains (that are not otherwise offset by capital losses),are taken into account in computing net investment income. Here is the list of common example: gains from the sale of stocks, bonds, mutual funds, capital gain distributions from mutual funds, gains from the sale of investment real estate (including gain from the sale of a second home that is not a primary residence). Even gains from the sale of interests in partnerships and S corporations (to the extent that the taxpayer was a passive owner) are potentially included.

It is important to note that income from businesses involved in trading of financial instruments or commodities and businesses that are passive activities to the taxpayer are considered investment income.

On the other hand, certain income is excluded from the definition of investment income. Here is the list of most common exclusions: wages, unemployment compensation; operating income from a nonpassive business, Social Security Benefits, alimony, tax-exempt interest, self-employment income, Alaska Permanent Fund Dividends and distributions from certain Qualified Plans

The rules regarding determining whether your income is subject to the investment tax are complex, especially when it comes to businesses. You should contact a tax attorney to determine if your income should be subject to the 3.8% tax.

Where Should the 3.8% Be Reported by Individual Taxpayers?

The new tax should be reported on Form 1040 and paid with the rest of the tax when Form 1040 is filed.

It is also important to note that the new tax should be included in the estimated tax payments. Failure to do so may result in underpayment penalties.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help with the New Investment Tax

If you are not sure whether you are facing the new investment tax or whether you wish to know if there is any tax planning available for dealing with the new investment tax in your particular situation, contact Sherayzen Law Office. Our experienced tax firm will thoroughly review your situation, determine whether the new investment tax applies to you and analyze alternative tax structures that would minimize the impact of the new tax in your particular situation.

Tax Withholding Update: Social Security and Medicare Tax for 2013

/in , /by

Following the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, the IRS issued Notice 1036 with respect to withholding tables for the year 2013, which includes the 2013 Percentage Method Tables for Income Tax Withholding.

Under the notice, the IRS requires the employers to implement the 2013 withholding tables as soon as possible, but not later than February 15, 2013. However, the use the 2012 withholding tables is permitted until employers implement the 2013 withholding tables; in such case, the employers should make an adjustment in a subsequent pay period to correct any under-withholding of social security tax by March 31, 2013.

One of the biggest news, of course, is the increase of the employee tax rate for social security to 6.2%. Previously, the employee tax rate for social security was 4.2%. The employer’s tax rate for social security remains unchanged at 6.2%. The social security wage base limit increases to $113,700. The Medicare tax rate is 1.45% each for the employee and employer, unchanged from 2012. There is no wage base limit for Medicare tax.

The second big news is that the withholding taxes will go up with Additional Medicare Tax for certain high-income wage earners. As described in an earlier article, starting January 1, 2013, Additional Hospital Insurance Tax (Additional Medicare Tax) of 0.9% will be imposed on employees who earn wages above certain thresholds. For the withholding purposes, the IRS requests that an additional 0.9% tax is withheld on wages paid to an employee in excess of $200,000 in a calendar year. The employer is required to begin withholding Additional Medicare Tax in the pay period in which he pays wages in excess of $200,000 to an employee and he should continue to withhold the Additional Medicare Tax each pay period until the end of the calendar year.

Note that Additional Medicare Tax is only imposed on the employee; there is no employer share of Additional Medicare Tax.

IRS Plans January 30, 2013 as Tax Season Opening Date For 1040 Filers

/in , /by

Following the January tax law changes made by Congress under the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA), the IRS announced on January 9, 2013, that it plans to open the 2013 filing season and begin processing individual income tax returns on January 30, 2013.

The IRS will begin accepting tax returns on that date after updating forms and completing programming and testing of its processing systems. This will reflect the bulk of the late tax law changes enacted on January 2, 2013. This should cover the great majority of the filers.

The IRS estimates that remaining households will be able to start filing in late February or into March because of the need for more extensive form and processing systems changes. This group includes people claiming residential energy credits, depreciation of property or general business credits. Most of those in this group file more complex tax returns and typically file closer to the April 15 deadline or obtain an extension.

“We have worked hard to open tax season as soon as possible,” IRS Acting Commissioner Steven T. Miller said. “This date ensures we have the time we need to update and test our processing systems.”

The IRS will not process paper tax returns before the anticipated Jan. 30 opening date. There is no advantage to filing on paper before the opening date, and taxpayers will receive their tax refunds much faster by using e-file with direct deposit.