First Quarter of 2013 Underpayment and Overpayment Interest Rates

/in , /by

On November 30, 2012, the IRS announced that the underpayment and overpayment interest rates will remain the same for the calendar quarter beginning January 1, 2013. The rates will be:

  • three (3) percent for overpayments [two (2) percent in the case of a corporation];
  • three (3) percent for underpayments;
  • five (5) percent for large corporate underpayments; and
  • one-half (0.5) percent for the portion of a corporate overpayment exceeding $10,000.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, the rate of interest is determined on a quarterly basis. For taxpayers other than corporations, the overpayment and underpayment rate is the federal short-term rate plus 3 percentage points.

Generally, in the case of a corporation, the underpayment rate is the federal short-term rate plus 3 percentage points and the overpayment rate is the federal short-term rate plus 2 percentage points. The rate for large corporate underpayments is the federal short-term rate plus 5 percentage points. The rate on the portion of a corporate overpayment of tax exceeding $10,000 for a taxable period is the federal short-term rate plus one-half (0.5) of a percentage point.

The rate for large corporate underpayments is the federal short-term rate plus 5 percentage points. The rate on the portion of a corporate overpayment of tax exceeding $10,000 for a taxable period is the federal short-term rate plus one-half (0.5) of a percentage point.

Interest factors for daily compound interest for annual rates of 0.5 percent are published in Appendix A of Revenue Ruling 2011-32. Interest factors for daily compound interest for annual rates of 2 percent, 3 percent and 5 percent are published in Tables 7, 9, 11, and 15 of Rev. Proc. 95-17, 1995-1 C.B. 561, 563, 565, and 569.

Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States: General Overview

/in , /by

In 1988, the United States Congress enacted the Exon–Florio Amendment to authorize the executive branch’s review foreign investment within the United States. The amendment was passed into law under the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 and amended Section 721 of Defense Production Act of 1950. Generally, pursuant to this provision the President of the United States may block any foreign investments that may pose a threat to national security.

As a direct result of this law, President Reagan delegated the process of reviewing foreign investments to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (commonly known under its acronym “CFIUS”).

CFIUS is an inter-agency committee authorized to review transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person (“covered transactions”), in order to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the United States. As mentioned above, CFIUS operates pursuant to section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended by the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) (section 721) and as implemented by Executive Order 11858, as amended, and regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 800.

CFIUS review consists of a fairly complicated process, which has been the subject of significant reforms over the past several years (including numerous improvements in internal CFIUS procedures, enactment of FINSA in July 2007, amendment of Executive Order 11858 in January 2008, revision of the CFIUS regulations in November 2008, and publication of guidance on CFIUS’s national security considerations in December 2008).

CFIUS review can result from a voluntary notification by a domestic firm that is being acquired by a foreign firm or it can result from CFIUS’ own initiative. CFIUS reviews begin with a 30-day decision to authorize a transaction or begin a statutory investigation. If the latter is chosen, the committee has another 45 days to decide whether to permit the acquisition or order divestment.

While, most transactions submitted to CFIUS were approved without the statutory investigation, others were investigated by CFIUS. In some cases, CFIUS investigation had a material impact on proposed acquisitions.

U.S. Engaging with More than 50 Jurisdictions to Curtail Offshore Tax Evasion

/2 Comments/in , /by

The U.S. Department of the Treasury recently announced that it is engaged with more than 50 countries and jurisdictions around the world to improve international tax compliance and implement the information reporting and withholding tax provisions commonly known as the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). Enacted by Congress in 2010, these provisions target noncompliance by U.S. taxpayers using foreign accounts. Treasury’s engagement with this broad coalition of foreign governments to efficiently and effectively implement FATCA marks an important milestone in establishing a common intergovernmental approach to combating tax evasion.

Model Intergovernmental Agreement and Most Recent Developments

This year, the Treasury Department published a model intergovernmental agreement for implementing FATCA and announced the development of a second model agreement. These models serve as the basis for concluding bilateral agreements with interested jurisdictions.

The Treasury Department has already concluded a bilateral agreement with the United Kingdom. Additional jurisdictions with which Treasury is in the process of finalizing an intergovernmental agreement and with which Treasury hopes to conclude negotiations by year end include: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan, Switzerland, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Guernsey, Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Norway.

Jurisdictions with which Treasury is actively engaged in a dialogue towards concluding an intergovernmental agreement include: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, the Cayman Islands, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Israel, Korea, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Malta, New Zealand, the Slovak Republic, Singapore, and Sweden. Treasury expects to be able to conclude negotiations with several of these jurisdictions by year end.

The jurisdictions with which Treasury is working to explore options for intergovernmental engagement include: Bermuda, Brazil, the British Virgin Islands, Chile, the Czech Republic, Gibraltar, India, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Romania, Russia, Seychelles, Saint Maarten, Slovenia, and South Africa.

Aggressive Effort by the United States to Assure International Compliance with U.S. Tax Laws

All of these moves by the Treasury Department with respect to FATCA implementation agreements is part of a broader effort to assure international compliance with U.S. tax laws. FATCA has already gave birth to a powerful compliance weapon that must be filed by U.S. taxpayers in the United States – namely, Form 8938. In combination with other information returns, such as FBARs, Form 5471, Form 8865, Form 926, Form 3520 and others, FATCA hopes to achieve universal tax compliance among U.S. taxpayers who are engaging in international activities.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help with Disclosure of Foreign Accounts and Foreign Income

If you have undisclosed offshore accounts and you have not reported your foreign income, contact Sherayzen Law Office for legal help. Our experienced voluntary disclosure firm will thoroughly review your case, advise you on the available disclosure options, prepare your voluntary disclosure documentation (including tax returns and offshore information returns such as Forms 5471, 8865, 926, 3520, FBARs and others) and vigorously represent your interests during the entire disclosure process.

2013 Standard Mileage Rates

/in , /by

On November 21, 2012, the Internal Revenue Service issued the 2013 optional standard mileage rates used to calculate the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business, charitable, medical or moving purposes.

Beginning on January 1, 2013, the standard mileage rates for the use of a car (also vans, pickups or panel trucks) will be:

• 56.5 cents per mile for business miles driven
• 24 cents per mile driven for medical or moving purposes
• 14 cents per mile driven in service of charitable organizations

The rate for business miles driven during 2013 increases 1 cent from the 2012 rate. The medical and moving rate is also up 1 cent per mile from the 2012 rate.

The standard mileage rate for business is based on an annual study of the fixed and variable costs of operating an automobile. The rate for medical and moving purposes is based on the variable costs.

Taxpayers always have the option of calculating the actual costs of using their vehicle rather than using the standard mileage rates.

A taxpayer may not use the business standard mileage rate for a vehicle after using any depreciation method under the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) or after claiming a Section 179 deduction for that vehicle. In addition, the business standard mileage rate cannot be used for more than four vehicles used simultaneously.

IRS Increases Criminal Prosecutions for Willful Failure to File FBARs: U.S. v. Jacques Wajsfelner

/in , , /by

In U.S. v. Jacques Wajsfelner, the IRS’s criminal prosecution of the defendant for willful failure to file FBARs was completed when the defendant, Mr. Jacques Wajsfelner, decided to plead guilty. Mr. Wajsfelner pled guilty to willful failure to file the FBAR in Manhattan federal court and he now faces civil penalties of $2.84 million and restitution of $419,940. Under advisory guidelines, he faces 30 months to 37 months in prison at sentencing scheduled for December 20, 2012.

Basic Facts

Mr. Wajsfelner, an 83-year old Holocaust survivor, fled the Nazis as a teenager and became a U.S. citizen, working in real estate and advertisement in New York and Boston. He admitted that he held an account in his own name at Credit Suisse in 1995. In 2006, his advisor helped him open an account in the name of Ample Lion Ltd. At the end of 2007, the account held almost $5.7 million. In 2008, as Credit Suisse started to wind down its U.S. cross-border banking business, Mr. Wajsfelner opened an account with Wegelin and transferred the money from Credit Suisse to the new account. In the later years, the value on this account went down to only $4 million.

In addition to moving money among two accounts, Mr. Wajsfelner also made a huge error of not telling the truth to the IRS about the account, Ample Lion Ltd. (A Hong Kong corporation), and his advisor (Beda Singenberger’s corporation Sinco Treuhand AG) during an interview conducted by the IRS after the investigation commenced. As part of his plea agreement, the IRS agreed not to prosecute him for these statements.

In the end, Mr. Wajsfelner plead guilty to knowing and willful failure to file the FBARs from 2006 through 2011 with the IRS.

Additional Considerations

It is possible that the misleading and untruthful statements to the IRS alone may have been the cause for Mr. Wajsfelner to plead guilty. However, there was another highly unfavorable fact – moving the money between the accounts would have been considered as circumstantial evidence of conspiracy to conceal the money from U.S. government. Also, Mr. Wajsfelner maintained very close contact with the account and directed various transactions to and from the accounts.

Another important consideration is to understand that this is a case of pure willful failure to file the FBARs; there was no associated pleading with respect to tax evasion. This is a very important because it shows that the IRS is willing to prosecute FBAR cases criminally even without tax evasion charges.

US v. Jacques Wajsfelner is Part of a Wave of Prosecutions

U.S. v. Jacques Wajsfelner is not an isolated case or limited only to specific facts of Mr. Wajsfelner.

In addition to Mr. Wajsfelner, the IRS also indicted his former Swiss adviser, Beda Singenberger, on a charge of conspiring to help more than 60 U.S. taxpayers hide $184 million from the Internal Revenue Service in offshore accounts. Wegelin, the 270-year-old Swiss bank, was also indicted February 2, 2012, on charges of helping U.S. taxpayers hide money from the IRS. Also, Credit Suisse said in July of 2011 that it was a target of a U.S. criminal probe. On July 21, 2011, seven of Credit Suisse’s bankers were indicted on charges of helping U.S. clients evade taxes through secret accounts.

In fact, since 2009, U.S. prosecutors have criminally charged about fifty U.S. taxpayers and more than twenty offshore bankers, lawyers and advisers.

FBAR Criminal Prosecutions Will Increase Due to Voluntary Disclosure Programs

It is critically important for non-compliant U.S. taxpayers to understand that, instead of subsiding, this wave of IRS criminal prosecutions regarding the FBARs will only increase.

The primary reason for this growth of FBAR prosecutions are the voluntary disclosure programs, like 2009 OVDP, 2011 OVDI AND 2012 OVDP (now closed). For many years now, the IRS has been collecting detailed information from the participating taxpayers regarding their advisors, banks and other U.S. taxpayers. This mountain of information allows the IRS to identify high-risk banks, advisors as well as specific taxpayers who are likely to be non-compliant with U.S. tax rules. The end-product of this analysis are targeted investigation and, ultimately, criminal prosecutions of non-compliant U.S. taxpayers and their advisors.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Legal Help With FBARs

If you have undisclosed foreign financial accounts that should have been reported to the IRS, contact Sherayzen Law Office as soon as possible. Our experienced tax firm will analyze the facts of your case, identify you potential FBAR liability and propose a specific course of action to deal with your specific situation. Sherayzen Law Office will guide you though your entire voluntary disclosure, including the preparation of all of the necessary tax documents and rigorous IRS representation.