Form 872 Refund Claims | Foreign Accounts International Tax Lawyer

/0 Comments/in , /by

The subject of this article is the discussion of the Form 872 Refund Claims, particularly whether filing Form 872 can extend the time for the taxpayer to claim a refund for the relevant years. Stated broadly, the key question that this article seeks to explore is whether an extension of time for assessment of tax can effect the taxpayer’s ability to file a refund claim for the extended years.

Form 872 Refund Claims – Form 872 and Offshore Voluntary Disclosures

Form 872 is a form used by the IRS to obtain the consent from the taxpayer to extend the time to assess tax. This consent can be obtained for income tax, self-employment tax of FICA tax on tips.

The form is used in a great variety of cases, but, in the US international tax context, it is mostly known for its use in the IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) now closed. Form 872 is in fact obligatory in the OVDP due to the fact that the OVDP voluntary disclosure period is eight years whereas the standard statute of limitations is only three years (even with 25% gross income, there are still at least two years that cannot be opened by the IRS without claiming fraud). Moreover, Form 872 is also used to prevent the statute of limitations from expiring for the rest of the years while the OVDP case is pending.

Form 872 Refund Claims: Form 872 Extends the Statute of Limitations for Refund Claims

According to IRC §6511(c), if the taxpayer and the IRS agree to extend the time within which the IRS can assess a tax, the taxpayer receives a corresponding extension of the time within which he may file a credit or refund claim. Form 872 itself states in paragraph 4 that:

Without otherwise limiting the applicability of this agreement, this agreement also extends the period of limitations for assessing any tax (including penalties, additions to tax and interest) attributable to any partnership items (see section 6231 (a)(3)), affected items (see section 6231(a)(5)), computational adjustments (see section 6231(a)(6)), and partnership items converted to nonpartnership items (see section 6231(b)). Additionally, this agreement extends the period of limitations for assessing any tax (including penalties, additions to tax, and interest) relating to any amounts carried over from the taxable year specified in paragraph (1) to any other taxable year(s). This agreement extends the period for filing a petition for adjustment under section 6228(b) but only if a timely request for administrative adjustment is filed under section 6227. For partnership items which have converted to nonpartnership items, this agreement extends the period for filing a suit for refund or credit under section 6532, but only if a timely claim for refund is filed for such items.

Limitations on Form 872 Refund Claims

There is an important limitation on Form 872 Refund Claims. Form 872 Refund Claims will only be accepted if the extension agreement is entered into before the expiration of the claim period. See IRC §6511(c)(1). This means that, if Form 872 is entered into by the parties by the time that the statute of limitations had already expired, the taxpayer is unlikely to succeed in his Form 872 Refund Claims.

The Form 872 agreement becomes effective when signed by the taxpayer and the District Director or an Assistant Regional Commissioner (See Treas. Reg. § 301.6511(c)-1).

Let’s look at a basic example to understand this limitation on Form 872 Refund Claims better.  Let’s suppose that a taxpayer X filed his 2003 US tax return on April 15, 2004. In March of 2007, the IRS decided to audit X’s 2003 US tax return and Form 872 was entered into by both parties at that time. In this case, without an agreement (and absent other special circumstances such as foreign tax credit issues, 25% under-reporting of income, et cetera), the presumed expiration of the assessment period would be on April 15, 2007; similarly, X’s refund claim period would have expired on April 15, 2007. Since Form 872 was entered into by both parties in March of 2007 (i.e. prior to the expiration of the normal refund claim period), however, X can file his Form 872 refund claims during the period that covers the duration of the extension plus six months thereafter.

Time to File Form 872 Refund Claims

As it was hinted in the example above, the period within which a taxpayer may file a credit or refund claim arising from the tax liability covered by Form 872 is extended for the period of the extension plus an additional six months. See IRC §6511(c)(1).

What Can Be Claimed on Form 872 Refund Claims

With respect to timely Form 872 Refund Claims, the taxpayer can claim an amount limited to the amount that would have been allowable under the normal limitation rules if the claim had been filed on the date the agreement was executed AND any tax paid after the execution of the agreement but before the filing of the claim. IRC §6511(c)(2).

What is the amount allowable under the normal limitation rules? It varies widely based on for what the refund is claimed (i.e. the type of the claim) and what is the filing period. For example, if Form 872 Refund Claims are filed within the three-year filing period, the amount of the refund or credit is limited to the tax paid on the liability at issue within the three years immediately preceding the filing of the claim plus the period of any extension of time for filing the return. IRC §6511(b)(2)(A). On the other hand, Form 872 Refund Claims based on a foreign tax credit adjustment can be granted many years back because the statute of limitations is ten years.

Form 872 Cannot Reduce the Claim Period for Form 872 Refund Claims

One final point that should be mentioned is that Form 872 and any other agreement to extend the assessment period cannot reduce the refund and credit claim period. The law clearly states that, when an extension agreement is executed, the taxpayer’s claim period shall not expire before the expiration of the additional assessment period plus six months.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Your Form 872 Refund Claims

If you entered into a Form 872 agreement to extend the time to assess tax (whether as a result of OVDP, opt-out OVDP audit, FBAR Audit or regular audit) or any other type of agreement to extend the assessment period, contact Sherayzen Law Office for help with filing your Form 872 refund claims.

Totalization Agreement with Romania Progresses | Minnesota Tax Lawyer

/0 Comments/in , /by

On October 26, 2016, the Totalization Agreement with Romania entered a new stage – the government of Romania approved for signature a draft social security (also known as “Totalization”) agreement with the United States.

The Totalization Agreements are authorized by Section 233 of the Social Security Act. The United States currently has Totalization Agreements with 26 countries – Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary (the most recent addition), Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom

The purpose of a Totalization Agreement is to eliminate the burden of dual social security taxes. Such situation arise usually in the context of workers from one country working in another country while they are covered by the social security systems in both countries. In such cases, the Totalization Agreement protects the workers from paying social security taxes in both countries on the same earnings.

The Totalization Agreement with Romania is intended to benefit the Romanian workers who work in the United States and US workers who work in Romania. This is why any advance in the progress of the Totalization Agreement with Romania is of high interest to workers and businesses who work in both countries, United States and Romania.

Obviously, there is still a very long road to go for the Totalization Agreement with Romania. First, the Totalization Agreement with Romania has to be finalized (and it seems that this stage has been reached), then signed by both countries and, finally, ratified by both countries. This process, especially ratification, can take years especially if the US Congress and the new President do not see “eye to eye” on this issue. However, the obvious benefits of the Totalization Agreement with Romania should eventually pave the way to its ratification in both countries.

PATH Act and New January 31 Filing Deadline | Tax Attorney News

/0 Comments/in , /by

On October 28, 2016, the IRS reminded employers and small business owners of the new January 31, 2017 deadline as a result of the PATH Act.

PATH Act’s Impact on the Filing Deadlines for Forms W-2 and 1099-MISC

In the past, employers typically had until the end of February, if filing on paper, or the end of March, if filing electronically, to submit their copies of these forms. Starting 2017, the new strict W-2 filing deadline of January 31, 2017, will be enforced.

The reason for this change in the deadline is The Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act of 2015. According to PATH, the employers will now have one filing deadline on January 31 for both employee copies of Forms W-2 and the filing of Forms W-2 with the Social Security Administration.

Moreover the PATH Act also affects the filing deadline for certain Forms 1099-MISC, particularly those reporting amounts in Box 7, Nonemployee Compensation. These Forms 1099-MISC will now also have to be filed on January 31, 2017.

PATH Act’s Impact on Requesting Form W-2 Filing Extension

The PATH Act also has an impact on the availability of Form W-2 filing extensions. Starting 2017, only one 30-day extension to file Form W-2 will be available and this extension is no longer automatic. If an extension is necessary, a Form 8809 “Application for Extension of Time to File Information Returns” must be completed as soon as you know an extension is necessary, but no later than January 31.

PATH Act May Delay Some Refunds Until February 15

The other major impact of the PATH Act that will be felt by many Americans is the potential hold on their refunds until February 15. The PATH Act requirest the IRS to hold the refund for any tax return claiming either the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) or Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC); the IRS must hold the entire refund, not just the portion related to the EITC or ACTC.

PATH Act is Meant to Help IRS Fight Fraud and Spot Tax Return Errors

The PATH Act was enacted by Congress and signed into law in December of 2015 in order to make it easier for the IRS to detect and prevent fraud associated with tax refunds. The idea is to give the IRS more time to identify fraudulent refunds through accelerated W-2 filing deadline for employers and holding refunds (which are frequently subject to fraud) until February 15.

Of course, the additional time will allow the IRS to also spot any errors on the tax returns.

Omaha FBAR Attorney | OVDP IRS International Tax Lawyer

/0 Comments/in , /by

As the headquarters of Berkshire Hathaway, Omaha (Nebraska) draws a large number of foreign-born professionals. A high percentage of these professionals still have foreign accounts overseas and they are in great needs of assistance from an Omaha FBAR attorney. Oftentimes, they cannot find an attorney they like in Omaha (especially, since this is not a very large city with a lot of international tax attorneys) and they not sure they can use the help of out-of-state FBAR attorneys who offer their services in Omaha. This essay is meant to help these persons by defining the term Omaha FBAR Attorney.

Omaha FBAR Attorney: What is FBAR

The Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (“FBAR”) is probably the most important information return with respect to disclosure of foreign accounts by US tax residents. Its importance stems from the low filing threshold and very high civil and criminal penalties.

As of the calendar year 2016, under the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) §5314 and in accordance with the FinCEN regulations, the FBAR must be filed by a US person who has a financial interest in or signatory authority over one or more foreign financial accounts with an aggregate value greater than $10,000 at any time during the calendar year. See 31 U.S.C. §5314; 31 C.F.R. §1010.350; 31 C.F.R. §1010.306(c).

Thus, there are five requirements that must be satisfied in order for the FBAR filing requirement to arise. First, the filer must be a US person. Second, this US person had a bank or financial account (or accounts) during the calendar year in question. Third, this foreign bank or financial account must be foreign – i.e. in the foreign country. Fourth, during the calendar year, the US person had a financial interest in the account or signature or other authority over the financial account. Finally, the fifth requirement is that the aggregate value of the account or accounts (converted to US dollars) exceeded $10,000 at any point during the calendar year.

All five of these requirements contain important terms (such as “US person”, “financial account” and “financial interest”) which have very specific definitions; so, one must be very careful before making any assumptions about the applicability of FBARs to his situation (in fact, this is really the job for FBAR attorney). The definition of “financial account” is especially fraught with danger and may include anything from a normal investment account to a gold bar stored under the custody of a foreign bank. Please, see other relevant articles on sherayzenlaw.com for more details.

Omaha FBAR Attorney: Definition

Armed with this understanding of FBARs, we can now turn to the main subject of this article – who is considered to be an Omaha FBAR Attorney. There are two aspects to this concept: geographical and substantive.

From the outset, it should be stated that the geographical location of an attorney does not matter. An attorney can reside in Omaha, Nebraska or Minneapolis, Minnesota and still be considered an Omaha FBAR Attorney if this attorney offers his services in this city.

The reason for this geographical indifference lies in the fact that FBAR is a purely federal compliance requirement; it has no particular ties to Omaha or any other specific city or state (or a foreign country, for that matter). As long as a person is a US tax resident and he has foreign accounts, he is potentially subject to FBAR requirement even if he physically resides outside of the United States. Since FBAR is a uniform requirement that does not respect borders and jurisdictions, the same is almost true of the FBAR attorneys, except that an attorney must be licensed to practice in any of the fifty states or Washington D.C. and FBAR must be within the realm of his main area of practice.

The substantive requirement that forms part of the definition of an Omaha FBAR attorney is related to what I just mentioned – FBAR must be within the realm of the main area of an attorney’s legal practice in order for this attorney to be considered an Omaha FBAR attorney.

What is this main area of practice? US international tax law – an Omaha FBAR attorney must be an international tax attorney, because FBAR compliance is part of the much broader US international tax law.

Retain Sherayzen Law Office as Your Omaha FBAR Attorney

If have undisclosed foreign accounts or if you need assistance with your annual FBAR compliance, you should contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. Sherayzen Law Office is a leading international tax law firm in the area of FBAR compliance. Our highly-experienced international tax team, headed by its founder Attorney Eugene Sherayzen, has helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the globe with their FBAR compliance and other international tax issues (including offshore voluntary disclosures under the OVDP, Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures, Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures, Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures, Delinquent International Information Return Submission Procedures and Reasonable Cause Disclosures (also known as “noisy disclosures”)).

This is why, if you are looking for a Omaha FBAR Attorney, please contact Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. today to schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Secret Bank Accounts in Israel and Switzerland Result in a Guilty Plea

/0 Comments/in , /by

The earlier IRS and DOJ (U.S. Department of Justice) investigations of secret bank accounts in Israel and Switzerland continue to produce new guilty pleas. On September 28, 2016, Mr. Markus Hager, a New York City resident, pleaded guilty to tax evasion for the tax years 2003-2005 and 2007-2010 with respect to his secret bank accounts in Israel and Switzerland.

Facts of the Case: Secret Bank Accounts in Israel and Switzerland

The facts of the Hager case are somewhat typical, but contain an exhilarating story of Mr. Hager’s attempts to conceal his ownership of the account – the fact that the IRS and the DOJ were able to uncover the entire history of these transfers of his funds under different names is impressive.

According to information presented in court, between 1987 through 2011, Mr. Hager utilized various secret bank accounts in Israel and Switzerland to hide his foreign funds and foreign income from the IRS. In order to do it, he opened a sham BVI (British Virgin Islands) entity which owned three accounts (two of them were numbered accounts) at UBS. It appears that, until 2008, Mr. Hager also owned some of his UBS accounts personally. By the end of 2004, the value of his undeclared UBS accounts exceeded $7.3 million.

With the IRS victory over UBS in 2008, Mr. Hager closed his UBS accounts and transferred all of his assets to a new opened account at Clariden Leu (which was already controlled at that time mostly by Credit Suisse; in 2012, the bank was integrated into the Credit Suisse corporate structure); the account was held in the name of his BVI entity.

Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hager closed the account at Clariden Leu and transferred the assets to a newly opened account held in the name of the BVI entity at a different Swiss bank. Mr. Hager caused that Swiss bank to falsely record Hager’s Belgian cousin as the owner of the assets on the account. Approximately six months later, he closed this account at the Swiss bank and transferred the assets to an account at a bank in Israel that Mr. Hager caused to be opened in the name of yet another Belgian cousin.

Between 2005 to 2011, Hager also controlled an undeclared bank account at Bank Leumi in Israel, which he falsely held under the name of a relative who was not a U.S. person and who resided outside the United States. In February of 2010, after obtaining an Israeli Identity Card, Hager opened an account in his own name at Bank Leumi in Israel but falsely reported that he lived in the United Kingdom and signed a document, under the penalty of perjury, declaring that he was not a U.S. citizen.

According to the information filed, Mr. Hager repatriated some of the funds from his secret bank accounts in Israel and Switzerland by having his attorney draft a sham loan agreement between himself and the BVI entity. The funds were wired from some of his undeclared bank accounts in Israel and Switzerland into the attorney’s escrow account.

During the relevant years, Mr. Hager filed false federal and New York State income tax returns on which he failed to report the income from his bank accounts in Israel and Switzerland and failed to pay tax on that income. It appears that Mr. Hager evaded approximately $652,580 in federal taxes for tax years 2003 through 2005 and 2007 through 2010. Hager also failed to file his FBAR even though an accounting firm had informed Hager of his obligation to do so and advised him of the civil and criminal penalties he could suffer for the failure to do so.

Sentencing for Failure to Disclose Assets and Income from Secret Bank Accounts in Israel and Switzerland

Sentencing has been set for January 4, 2017. Hager faces a statutory maximum sentence of five years in prison, as well as a term of supervised release and monetary penalties. According to the plea agreement, Hager agreed to pay restitution to the IRS. It is not clear if the FBAR penalty has been resolved by the plea.

Secret Bank Accounts in Israel and Switzerland: Lessons from the Hager Case

The Hager Case contains a full range of facts that lead to a criminal prosecution by the DOJ: the use of a sham foreign corporation in a tax shelter, the conscious and intentional effort to conceal the ownership of the funds by closing and opening bank accounts under different names, the failure to report the ownership of secret bank accounts in Israel and Switzerland even after Mr. Hager was advised by his accounting firms about the existence of the FBAR and its penalties, the failure to report the income from accounts, the filing of false tax returns and the repatriation of funds through a sham loan agreement and using his attorney’s escrow account. All of these items are a checklist of things that one should not do in order to avoid a DOJ criminal prosecution.

One interesting aspect of this case is the number of years for which Mr. Hager was charged with tax evasion. Apparently his especially egregious conduct had earned a total of seven years instead of the usual five years of counts of tax evasion. It is also interesting that the year 2006 was skipped in the plea; it is not clear from the plea why this was the case. My supposition is that the omission of the tax year 2006 was related to the statute of limitations concerns.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help with Disclosure of Your Bank accounts in Israel and Switzerland

If you have undisclosed bank account in Israel, Switzerland or any other country, please contact Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. for help as soon as possible. Attorney Eugene Sherayzen and his highly-knowledgeable team of tax professionals have helped hundreds of U.S. taxpayers around the world to bring their tax affairs into compliance. You can also benefit from their knowledge, experience, creativity and devotion to their clients’ cases by scheduling a Confidential Consultation today!