El Salvador Tax Amnesty Program | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/0 Comments/in , /by

On October 10, 2017, the Salvadorian Congress enacted the Legislative Decree No. 804, “La Ley Transitoria para el Cumplimiento Voluntario de Obligaciones Tributarias y Aduaneras”. After noting the experience of the past El Salvador voluntary disclosure options, the Decree announced a three-month long El Salvador Tax Amnesty Program. Let’s briefly explore the main contours of this new El Salvador Tax Amnesty Program.

The Duration of El Salvador Tax Amnesty Program

The Decree specifies that the program will become effective on October 27, 2017 and it will end on January 27, 2018.

The Terms of El Salvador Tax Amnesty Program

El Salvador Tax Amnesty Program basically allows El Salvadorian taxpayers to voluntarily come forward, correctly declare their income and pay any undeclared or understated taxes. In return for doing so, all penalties, charges and interest will be waived by the tax authorities of El Salvador, la Dirección General de Impuestos Internos. This Salvadorian voluntary disclosure program compares very favorably with the IRS OVDP now closed (which is not really an amnesty program and imposes a significant penalty for prior noncompliance).

The El Salvador Tax Amnesty Program is also very broad. The voluntary disclosure program is applicable to all taxpayers with outstanding tax liabilities that were due prior to October 27, 2017. The program covers understated taxes, undeclared taxes, withholding taxes, VAT, real estate transfer taxes and basically all other situations. The program is applicable to taxpayers irrespective of whether they ever filed their tax returns. El Salvador Tax Amnesty Program will even allow the taxpayers to simply pay their tax liability without any penalties, even if the income was already declared and taxes assessed.

Only a narrow category of taxpayers is not eligible to participate in El Salvador Tax Amnesty Program: the taxpayers already under a criminal investigation initiated by la Dirección General de Impuestos Internos and la Dirección General de Aduanas.

US Taxpayers May Participate in El Salvador Tax Amnesty Program and US Voluntary Disclosure at the Same Time

If you are a US taxpayer who has not declared his Salvadorian income in the United States and El Salvador, you may be eligible to participate in the voluntary disclosure programs of both countries at the same time.

It is important to remember, however, that these voluntary disclosures should be coordinated by your US and Salvadorian lawyers. The main reason for this coordination is a concern that an information disclosed under El Salvador Tax Amnesty Program may be automatically disclosed to the IRS by la Dirección General de Impuestos Internos, leading to an investigation that may prevent you from going through a voluntary disclosure in the United States.

OVDP & Streamlined Disclosure May Terminate Soon | Foreign Accounts Lawyer

/0 Comments/in , /by

On November 15, 2017, the IRS sent yet another signal that certain offshore voluntary disclosure options, particularly the OVDP & Streamlined Disclosure options, will be significantly modified or even terminated as the IRS proceeds with the LB&I Compliance Campaigns. This means that US taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts need to hurry up if they wish to proceed with their offshore voluntary disclosure utilizing the OVDP or the Streamlined Compliance Procedures.

OVDP & Streamlined Disclosure Termination: What Did the IRS Say?

The latest signal on the termination of the OVDP & Streamlined Disclosure options came from Mr. John Cardon (director of the withholding and international compliance area within IRS LB&I) and Mr. Daniel Price, an attorney with the IRS Office of Chief Counsel, Small Business/Self-Employed Division in Austin, Texas.

Both IRS officials emphasized that the current Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program and the Streamlined Filing Procedures are likely to terminate soon. Mr. Price emphasized the fact that these voluntary disclosure options were always intended as special offers that were bound to end at some point.

The possibility that the IRS wishes to terminate the Streamlined Disclosure options in addition to OVDP is somewhat sudden and premature. The IRS already stated in the past that it is no longer satisfied with the OVDP, but it never complained about the Streamlined Compliance Procedures (which have been highly successful with over 18,000 disclosures just in the last year). It is also not clear whether the IRS wishes to completely terminate all OVDP and Streamlined Disclosure options or whether the Streamlined Filing Procedures will survive in one form or another.

Why the IRS Wishes to End OVDP & Streamlined Disclosure Options

There is more than one reason behind the current IRS drive to end or significantly modify the existing voluntary disclosure options. Let’s focus on the two most important of them.

First, the existing voluntary disclosure options are rapidly losing value as a source of new information regarding offshore noncompliance with US taxes. FATCA has created an enormous and continuously expanding network of automatic information exchange between the IRS and foreign financial institutions. Moreover, other automatic information exchanges mechanisms have successfully filled most of the gaps left by FATCA.

In other words, now that offshore tax compliance and automatic international information exchanges have become a worldwide norm, the IRS does not need voluntary disclosures to obtain new information about offshore tax noncompliance.

Second, there has been a systemic change to a different model of tax administration. As the IRS officials emphasized on November 15, 2017, the IRS is shifting away from processing broad voluntary disclosure programs while it is embracing the model of focused enforcement. This is precisely why the IRS created the LB&I Compliance Campaigns – to concentrate its limited resources on tax enforcement where it is most needed rather than engage in broad efforts with respect to voluntary correction of past errors. Hence, in an environment where enforcement dominates over voluntary disclosures, the utility of the IRS voluntary disclosure options becomes more and more limited.

OVDP & Streamlined Disclosure Termination: When Will the IRS Announce the Termination of the Current OVDP & Streamlined Disclosure Programs?

It appears that the IRS will make the appropriate announcement for the termination of the voluntary disclosures prior to the end of January of 2018.

Will the Termination of Current OVDP & Streamlined Disclosure Programs Happen Immediately or Sometime After the Announcement?

It appears that, even after its announcement of the termination of the OVDP & Streamlined Disclosure options, the IRS will provide some time for the taxpayers to finalize their on-going disclosures. Mr. Cordone even stated that the voluntary disclosure programs’ termination date could be as far away as one year from the date of the IRS announcement of such a termination.

Will the End of OVDP & Streamlined Disclosure Programs Also Mark the End of IRS Voluntary Disclosures Per Se?

While the recent IRS moves are of great concern, they should not be taken as the end of the IRS voluntary disclosures per se with no options available to remedy one’s past tax noncompliance with respect to offshore accounts. Rather, I expect that the IRS voluntary disclosures will simply shift to different options. It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss these potential voluntary disclosure options, but it is reasonable to assume we will find ourselves in situation somewhat reminiscent of the period of time between the end of 2011 OVDI and the beginning of 2012 OVDP.

If, however, a taxpayer wishes to take advantage of the existing voluntary disclosure options, the taxpayer should contact Sherayzen Law Office as soon as possible to make sure that the voluntary disclosure can be completed before the IRS closes OVDP & Streamlined Disclosure Program.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help with Your Offshore Voluntary Disclosure, including the OVDP & Streamlined Disclosure Options

If you have undisclosed foreign accounts or any other foreign assets, you should contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help as soon as possible. Our international tax firm is highly experienced in successful completion of offshore voluntary disclosures for clients with foreign assets in close to 70 countries. We can help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

New PFIC Foreign Trust Rules by June of 2018 | PFIC Lawyer & Attorney

/0 Comments/in , /by

On November 9, 2017, the IRS gave a clear signal that it is working on new PFIC Foreign Trust rules and hopes to have these new regulations published by June of 2018. The IRS also indicated that other areas of PFIC rules will be affected and it expects the Subpart F regulations to come out before the new PFIC regulations.

The area of intersection of PFIC rules and Foreign Trust rules is an area of law that has remained murky since the late 1980s. Let’s explore in more detail what exactly the problem is and why the new PFIC Foreign Trust regulations are so important.

PFIC Foreign Trust Rules & Regulations

PFIC Foreign Trust Rules

PFIC Foreign Trust Rules: What is a PFIC?

In general, a foreign corporation that is not a “controlled foreign corporation” (CFC) as defined in IRC section 957, nor a “foreign personal holding company” (FPHC) as defined in IRC section 552, will be determined to be a Passive Foreign Investment Company or (PFIC) if it has at least one US shareholder and meets either one of the two tests found in IRC section 1297: (a) income test: at least 75% or more of the corporation’s gross income is passive income; or (b) asset test: at least 50% of the average percentage of its assets are investments that produce or are held for the production of passive income.

PFIC is a unique US classification that has no equivalents anywhere in the world. The PFIC designation was created by Congress in 1986 (as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986). In essence, this is an anti-deferral regime meant to deter US taxpayers from deferring or avoiding payment of US taxes by transferring money or investing in passive offshore entities. This is why the PFIC rules are so severe, imposing the highest marginal tax on the income considered as “excess distribution” and converting the rest of the income from capital gains into ordinary income.

PFIC Foreign Trust Rules: Foreign Trust Rules on Distribution of Accumulated Income

The IRS also has a special set of rules concerning foreign trust’s distribution of accumulated income from prior years. In order to analyze these rules, we need to understand two concepts: distributable net income (“DNI”) and undistributed net income (“UNI”). With respect to foreign trusts, in general (and there are exceptions), DNI includes all of the ordinary income and capital gains earned by a foreign trust in current taxable year. If a foreign trust does not distribute its entire DNI in the taxable year when DNI is earned, then, the undistributed portion of DNI (after taxes) becomes UNI.

Hence, whenever we discuss a distribution of a foreign trust’s accumulated income, this means a distribution of UNI in excess of DNI (on FIFO basis). So, what happens if a foreign trust distributes UNI to a US beneficiary?

In general, such distributions of UNI are taxed according to the infamous “throwback rule”. The throwback rule is complex and I can only state here a very simplified description of it. In general, under the throwback rule, distributed UNI will be taxed at the beneficiary’s highest marginal tax rate for the year in which UNI was earned. In other words, the throwback rule divides up UNI back into DNI portions for each relevant taxable year (but not exactly; this is an assumed DNI, not an actual one), adds these portions to the already-reported income on the beneficiary’s US tax returns and, then, imposes the tax on this income.

The throwback rule, however, does more than just add the income to the tax returns – it adds the income always as ordinary income, even if the original undistributed DNI consisted of long-term capital gains. Moreover, the throwback rule imposes an interest charge on the additional “throwback” taxes; the interest accumulates in a way somewhat similar to PFIC rules.

There is a way to mitigate the highly unfavorable consequences of the throwback rule called the “default method” (the name does not make much sense because you can use it only in specific circumstances). In general, you can use the default method in situations where the foreign trust does not provide its US beneficiaries with the information sufficient to identify the character of the distributed income. It is beyond the scope of this article to describe this method in detail, but, there are potentially highly unfavorable consequences to using the default method as well.

PFIC Foreign Trust Rules: the Inconsistency Between PFIC Rules and Foreign Trust Rules With Respect to Accumulated Income

Now that we have a general familiarity with PFIC rules and the foreign trust UNI distribution rules, we can now understand the area of confusion between PFIC rules and Foreign Trust rules that the IRS wishes to finally clear up by June of 2018. The confusion arises when both anti-deferral regimes are combined into PFIC Foreign Trust rules.

Let’s clarify this issue further. The basic problem occurs whenever a foreign trust distributes UNI that originates from accumulated PFIC income. For example, in a situation where a foreign trust received PFIC dividends and did not distribute them as part of its DNI distribution, such dividends would be added to the trust’s UNI. In this situation, if the trust distributes its PFIC UNI and we just follow the standard UNI rules, the PFIC rules would never be taken into account. The IRS, however, never said that the throwback rule or the default method should trump PFIC rules; it is also unclear about what should be reported on Form 8621 (for indirect ownership of PFICs).

On the other hand, if a taxpayer calculates his tax liability under the PFIC rules, then, he cannot comply with his Form 3520 requirements. The IRS also never stated that PFIC rules should triumph over either the throwback rule or the default method for UNI distributions. In other words, there is no clear guidance on what to do in this situation.

There is simply no compatibility between the foreign trust’s UNI distribution rules and the PFIC rules: one of them has to triumph or a completely new set of regulations has to be issued by the IRS to address the PFIC Foreign Trust rules. As an international tax attorney, I hope that the IRS keeps its word and resolves this highly important dilemma of the US international tax law.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With PFIC Foreign Trust Rules and Other International Tax Issues

If you are struggling with the PFIC Foreign Trust rules or you have any other issues concerning your compliance with your US international tax obligations, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help.

Sherayzen Law Office has helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the globe with their US tax compliance issues, including those concerning the PFIC rules and foreign trust rules. We can help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Manafort FBAR Violations Indictment | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/0 Comments/in , /by

On October 30, 2017, Mr. Paul Manafort was charged with FBAR violations among other charges. Manafort FBAR violations charges were filed as a result of an ongoing investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller.

While the investigation should have been searching for possible ties between Mr. Manafort and the Russian government, it found something completely different. Instead of finding any ties to the Russians, it found that Mr. Manafort was lobbying on behalf of the Ukrainian government (currently the archenemy of Russia and involved in a civil war with its eastern provinces) without registering as a foreign agent.

Moreover, it has led to the IRS Criminal Investigation with respect to Mr. Manafort’s FBAR noncompliance. Let’s explore this part of the investigation in more detail.

Manafort FBAR Violations Indictment: Alleged Facts

According to the indictment, Manafort failed to report his interest in over a dozen foreign entities, primarily in Cyprus, and used those entities to hide millions of dollars in foreign bank accounts from the U.S. government. Over $75 million allegedly flowed through the accounts, but only a portion of it was accessed. Manafort was accused of using over $18 million of proceeds on personal expenses.

The government further alleges that, during 2008-2014, Mr. Manafort falsely stated on his tax returns that he did not have an authority over any foreign bank accounts (I believe the reference here is to Part III of Schedule B, Form 1040).

Furthermore, the government claims that Mr. Manafort lied, in writing, to Mr. Manafort’s tax return preparer in order to conceal his authority over the undisclosed foreign accounts. It is obvious that this accusation is meant to preempt the reasonable cause reliance defense against FBAR penalties.

The indictment includes seven counts of willful FBAR violations under 31 U.S.C. section 5322. It is possible that Mr. Manafort may try to throw out some of the counts on the basis of the FBAR Statute of Limitations, but not all facts of the case are known at this point to estimate the success of this defense.

Manafort FBAR Violations Indictment: No Tax Evasion Charges

It is very strange, but the indictment does not contain a separate tax evasion charge, which requires the approval of the DOJ’s Tax Division. This omission is even more puzzling in light of the fact that the government alleges in its indictment that Mr. Manafort did not pay taxes on any income related to undisclosed foreign accounts. The government even specifically states that he purchased properties in Virginia and took out loans for the purpose of having access to untaxed income.

Manafort FBAR Violations Indictment: How Was $18 Million Calculated

The Manafort case is very good in one aspect: it allows us to see the government methodology for identifying potential willful FBAR violations. The main tool in this case was the government’s analysis of Mr. Manafort’s lifestyle.

The government alleged that, between 2008 and 2014, Mr. Manafort made domestic expenses of close to $18 million dollars which the government believes came from undisclosed foreign bank accounts and should be directly tied to Mr. Manafort FBAR violations. Most of this money was spent on improving real estate as well as purchases at antique shops, car dealerships and so on.

Manafort FBAR Violations Indictment: A Political Case With Important Lessons

It is important to remember that, at this point, these are merely government allegations and Mr. Manafort is presumed to be innocent until found otherwise by a court of law or a jury. While it is too early to state whether the government can prove its allegations and the case does have a very strong political background, it is still important to study the lessons of this case with respect to the government’s ability to pursue FBAR violations. The government’s methodology in this case is somewhat unusual, and all international tax lawyers should follow this case closely to see how the courts react to the government’s strategy.