Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program

Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program: Advantages and Disadvantages

/in , , /by

2012 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (2012 OVDP) now closed may offer tremendous benefits to certain types of taxpayers, but it may not be as beneficial in other circumstances. Whether to enter the 2012 OVDP is a decision that should be made by the taxpayer only after he had an opportunity to discuss this matter in depth with an experienced attorney who specializes in offshore voluntary disclosures. In this article, however, I wish to outline some of the broader considerations with respect to entering into the 2012 OVDP in order to provide some background information to the readers so that they can understand better their attorney’s advice.

Background Information

2012 OVDP was announced by the IRS barely four months after the end of the wildly-successful 2011 OVDI (Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative). However, the actual terms of the program were not announced until much later, June 26, 2012.

2012 OVDP brought in tougher terms than 2011 OVDI (for example, the highest penalty category is 27.5% instead of 25% as it was under 2011 OVDI rules), closed some 2011 OVDI loopholes and created a more complex and detailed set of rules. 2012 rules also clarified many heretofore obscure procedures and contained new features that may benefit certain classes of taxpayers, especially those who owned Canadian retirement accounts.

The basic structure of 2012 OVDP, however, remains largely similar to 2011 OVDI. It still has three penalty levels (27.5%, 12.5% and 5%), highly demanding information disclosure requirements and general rigidness with respect to its terms.

General Cost-Benefit Considerations

There are actually three general analytical steps with respect to benefits and drawbacks of entering into the 2012 OVDP. First, the extent of current liability exposure of the taxpayer outside of the 2012 OVDP. Second, the estimate of the OVDP liability of the taxpayer and comparison of OVDP versus non-OVDP exposure (here, an attorney would also explore the non-tax aspects of the OVDP disclosure such as the comfort level of the taxpayer with the invasive nature of the OVDP requirements). Finally, whether 2012 OVDP is the best route to proceed vis-a-vis alternative voluntary disclosure options.

Since the first and the third steps are outside of the scope of this article, I will concentrate on the calculation of advantages and disadvantages of entering of the 2012 OVDP versus non-OVDP exposure. It should be remembered, however, that this calculation will depend heavily on the individual circumstances of each case.

Primary Advantages of the 2012 OVDP

2012 OVDP enjoys five primary advantages over non-OVDP options. First, it is an official IRS program with a virtual certainty (though, according to the IRS, not a 100% guarantee) of elimination of criminal prosecution.

Second, 2012 OVDP provides a taxpayer with an opportunity to calculate, with a reasonable degree of certainty, the total cost of resolving all offshore tax issues at the same time. This is the case because OVDP rules assess one single Offshore Penalty with respect to all information returns – Forms 5471, 8865, 926, 3520, FBARs, et cetera. This can highly advantageous for the taxpayer, because, outside of the OVDP, he will have to deal with the penalties associated with each form.

Moreover, paying one single penalty may represent huge savings over paying penalties outside of the OVDP. The IRS provides a hypothetical example where a taxpayer would pay, outside of the 2012 OVDP, $4,543,000 (plus interest) in tax, accuracy-related penalty, and FBAR penalty on a single $1,000,000 account with the undisclosed income of $50,000 per year. This is not even counting the additional penalties and jail time in case the IRS decides to initial a criminal prosecution. On the other hand, in the same example, a taxpayer would pay only $518,000 plus interest under the 2012 OVDP rules (assuming 27.5% offshore penalty category).

Third, 2012 OVDP rules provide for a certain flexibility where the taxpayer’s attorney can look for strategies to lower the Offshore Penalty further if the circumstances of the case allow for such possibility. Therefore, despite its overall rigidness, the OVDP does take some individual circumstances into the account. However, it is important to point out that much of this flexibility is likely to be achieved only securing the agreement of the IRS agent in charge of your case, his manager and the technical analyst – this is a very hard achievement even for an experienced attorney (though, unfortunately, there are a number of cases where the taxpayers’ representatives failed to even try to achieve this goal) and it puts very strict limits on the OVDP flexibility.

Fourth, 2012 OVDP limits the taxpayer’s liability to eight years and the IRS will not look further absent extraordinary circumstances. Outside of the OVDP, the IRS does have an argument that failure to file certain information returns may keep the statute of limitations open to IRS examination with respect to affected tax returns.

Finally, 2012 OVDP provides a definite closure to the case. At the end of the OVDP process, Form 906 (the Closing Agreement) is signed by the taxpayer and the IRS by which both sides agree to the terms of the Agreement and the case is over (absent extraordinary circumstances, such as fraudulent claims by the taxpayer during the voluntary disclosure process).

Primary Disadvantages of the 2012 OVDP

2012 OVDP also has numerous disadvantages. First, this is a very rigid program with numerous requirements. The side-effect is that the OVDP process can be an expensive one for the taxpayer when it comes to legal and accounting fees.

Second, despite having some flexibility with respect to the calculation of penalties, OVDP rules are not likely to be sensitive to major circumstances of a taxpayer’s case, such as non-willfulness of his conduct. While it is never officially stated, the OVDP unofficially incorporate the assumption that the OVDP applicants acted willfully in its Offshore Penalty structure and there is no reasonable cause that can explain their failure to comply with U.S. tax laws. This often leads to a result where innocent taxpayers with smaller cases or taxpayers who live overseas (and for one reason or another do not satisfy the requirements of the 5% penalty category) can be highly penalized under the OVDP structure.

Third, related to the preceding paragraph, the OVDP penalty structure may actually impose a higher penalty on a taxpayer where IRS is not able to establish the willfulness of the taxpayer’s conduct. This is a highly complex calculation that should be made by an attorney, but, generally, the higher the chances of the taxpayer to establish non-willfulness, the less appealing the OVDP penalty structure is likely to be. This is especially true where OVDP Offshore Penalty includes the assets that would not otherwise either be subject to penalty outside of the OVDP or be subject to a much lower penalty.

Fourth, 2012 OVDP has no real appeal structure in place – in most cases, the IRS agent’s decision is final. If you do not like it, the only real recourse is to opt-out with its murky consequences (it may still be an option depending on the individual circumstances of the case, especially when the taxpayer should not have been in the OVDP program in the first place). The only exception is having a full examination of the tax return and an appeal maybe filed with respect to any tax and penalties imposed by the IRS on examination, but the IRS decisions on the terms of the OVDP closing agreement is almost never subject to an appeal. Such dependance on the good will of an IRS agent in charge of the case naturally produces certain anxiety among the OVDP applicants and constitutes a major drawback of entering into the program.

Finally, 2012 OVDP may take a fairly long time to complete (there are still some 2009 OVDP cases open in 2013). The IRS does try to process the cases as soon as possible, but it has few resources and its agents are overwhelmed with the number of cases pending on their desks. On the average, a taxpayer should expect about a fifteen to eighteen-month process between the acceptance into the OVDP and the final resolution of the case.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help with Your Offshore Voluntary Disclosure

This article merely outlines some of the main consideration with respect to the 2012 OVDP. The actual cost-benefit calculation is much more complex and will vary wildly depending on the individual circumstances of each case.

This calculations and the probabilities with respect to each disclosure option should be done by an international tax attorney experienced in the offshore voluntary disclosures.

This is why you should contact Sherayzen Law Office for help with your voluntary disclosure. Our international tax firm is highly experienced in the voluntary disclosure process. We will thoroughly examine the circumstances of your case, assess your penalties under the various disclosure scenarios, prepare all of the required legal documents and tax forms, and rigorously represent your interests during negotiations with the IRS.

Failure to Conduct Voluntary Disclosure and Potential Penalties: 2013 Update

/in , , /by

Failure to conduct voluntary disclosure may mean heavy penalties for U.S. taxpayers are not in compliance with international tax laws established by U.S. government. In this article, I summarize some of the key penalties that such non-compliant U.S. taxpayers may face once the IRS finds them.

Penalties in General

In general, if the IRS verifies that a taxpayer failed to disclose his offshore financial accounts and foreign entities (and the income from these sources), the taxpayer may be subject to severe civil and criminal penalties. In addition to income-related accuracy related penalties, the IRS may also assess additional fraud-related penalties, FBAR penalties and foreign asset reporting penalties (with interest). Combined, all of these penalties and interest may exceed the actual value of nondisclosed assets and foreign bank accounts. In the worst-case scenario, a criminal prosecution may be initiated against such noncompliant taxpayers.

Finally, the voluntary disclosure process – which would otherwise be a far less painful way to deal with this problem – is automatically unavailable for taxpayers as soon as they are subject to IRS investigation.

Let’s discuss the penalties in more detail.

Accuracy-Related and Failure to File and Pay Penalties

An accuracy-related penalty on underpayments is imposed under IRC § 6662. Depending upon which component of the accuracy-related penalty is applicable, a taxpayer may be liable for a 20 percent or 40 percent penalty.

If a taxpayer fails to file the required income tax return, a failure to file (“FTF”) penalty may be imposed pursuant to IRC § 6651(a)(1). The penalty is generally five percent of the balance due, plus an additional five percent for each month or fraction thereof during which the failure continues may be imposed. The total penalty will not exceed 25 percent of the balance due.

If a taxpayer fails to pay the amount of tax shown on the return, a failure to pay (“FTP”) penalty may be imposed pursuant to IRC § 6651(a)(2). The penalty may be half of a percent of the amount of tax shown on the return, plus an additional half of a percent for each additional month or fraction thereof that the amount remains unpaid, not exceeding the total of 25 percent of the balance due.

Fraud Penalties

Fraud penalties may imposed under IRC §§ 6651(f) or 6663. Where an underpayment of tax, or a failure to file a tax return, is due to fraud, the taxpayer is liable for penalties that may essentially amount to 75 percent of the unpaid tax.

FBAR Penalties

The most severe civil penalties are likely to come from non-compliance with FinCEN Form 114 formerly Form TD F 90-22.1 (Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, commonly known as an “FBAR”) non-compliance. Generally, the civil penalty for willfully failing to file an FBAR can be as high as the greater of $100,000 or 50 percent of the total balance of the foreign account per violation (see 31 U.S.C. § 5321(a)(5)). Non-willful violations that the IRS determines were not due to reasonable cause are subject to a $10,000 penalty per violation. For more detailed discussion of the FBAR civil penalties, I refer you to this article.

Form 8938 Penalties

Form 8938 is a newcomer to the world of tax penalties. The Form was born out of the HIRE and came into existence only starting the tax year 2011. Generally, failure to file Form 8938 carries a penalty of $10,000; however, other additional penalties may be applicable (for more detailed discussion of Form 8938 penalties, please read this article).

Penalties for Failure to File Other Information Returns

In addition to these common penalties, additional penalties may apply depending on the particular circumstances of the non-compliant taxpayer. I will summarize a few key penalties here.

Form 5471

If the taxpayer belongs to one of the four categories of required filers of Form 5471 (Information Return of U.S. Persons with Respect to Certain Foreign Corporations) and he fails to do so, he generally faces a penalty of $10,000 for each return. For a more detailed discussion of Form 5471 penalties, review this article.

Form 8865

Where the taxpayer is required to file Form 8865 (Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Partnerships) and he fails to do so, the non-compliant taxpayer generally faces a $10,000 per each unfiled return with additional penalties possible. If the taxpayer transferred property to a controlled foreign partnership and he fails to file Form 8865, he faces additional penalties of 10 percent of the value of any transferred property; the penalty is limited to $100,000. Please, review this article for a more detailed discussion of Form 8865 penalties.

Other Common Information Returns

Depending on a taxpayer’s situation, he may face additional penalties for failure to file Forms 926, 3520, 3520-A, 5472 and other forms.

Criminal Prosecution

In the worst-case scenario, a criminal prosecution may be conducted by the IRS. Huge penalties and potential jail time are the possible in case of tax evasion.

Possible criminal charges related to tax returns include tax evasion (26 U.S.C. § 7201), filing a false return (26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)) and failure to file an income tax return (26 U.S.C. § 7203). Willfully failing to file an FBAR and willfully filing a false FBAR are both violations that are subject to criminal penalties under 31 U.S.C. § 5322 (see this article for discussion of the FBAR criminal penalties)

A person convicted of tax evasion is subject to a prison term of up to five years and a fine of up to $250,000. Filing a false return subjects a person to a prison term of up to three years and a fine of up to $250,000. A person who fails to file a tax return is subject to a prison term of up to one year and a fine of up to $100,000. Failing to file an FBAR subjects a person to a prison term of up to ten years and criminal penalties of up to $500,000.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Offshore Voluntary Disclosure

If you have undisclosed offshore accounts or foreign entities, contact Sherayzen Law Office for help as soon as possible. We are an international tax law firm that specializes in helping U.S. taxpayers in the United States and throughout the world to avoid the nightmare scenario and properly conduct disclosure of offshore assets, foreign bank accounts, foreign entities and unreported foreign income to the IRS.

If you believe that you may not be in full compliance with U.S. tax laws, the worst course of action is to do nothing and wait for the IRS to discover your noncompliance. Once this happens, your options are likely to be severely limited and the penalties a lot higher. Therefore, contact us so that we can help you with your international tax problems. Remember, all calls and e-mails are confidential.

2012 OVDP: Principal Purpose of the Program

/in , , /by

As 2012 OVDP (Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program) now closed enters its second tax season, it is important to review once again the reasons behind the existence of the program, what it offers to the IRS and how it may benefit currently non-compliant U.S. taxpayers.

Focus on International Tax Compliance

Since 2003, the IRS has conducted a number of voluntary disclosure programs for U.S. taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts or entities and undisclosed income. It is important to emphasize that these programs were not part of the traditional IRS voluntary disclosure program with respect to domestic income. The focus of each offshore voluntary disclosure program is on international tax compliance, particularly Report on Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (the “FBAR”) and other informational returns such as Forms 5471, 8865, 8868 and so on.

It is important to note that with each new program the rules are becoming more and more stringent as well as complex. The idea behind the tougher terms of each succeeding program is to reward early disclosure and induce taxpayers to enter a voluntary disclosure program as soon as possible.

2012 OVDP

The 2012 OVDP came into existence less than half a year after the tremendous success of the 2011 OVDI (which also came two years after a very profitable 2009 OVDP). It is obvious that the IRS considered the existence of such voluntary disclosure programs a vital part of its international tax compliance efforts.

As expected, 2012 OVDP came in with tougher terms (for example, the highest penalty category is 27.5% instead of 25% as it was under 2011 OVDI rules), closed some 2011 OVDI loopholes and created a more complex and detailed set of rules. However, 2012 OVDP also has some unique features.

The most prominent of these features is that there is no official end to the program – this is the very first time in the history of the voluntary disclosure programs. At the time, the IRS warned that it can end the program at any time, creating a great sense of uncertainty and urgency for the taxpayers who wish to enter the program.

Why the IRS Created the 2012 OVDP

The most obvious reason (and the most repeated one in various articles by commentators) for why the IRS wants a voluntary disclosure program like 2012 OVDP in place is money – these programs brought in billions of dollars to the U.S. treasury. While this is an important reason, I believe that the reasoning behind the 2012 OVDP is much more complex.

In addition to bringing more money to the cash-starved U.S. government and allowing people to become tax-compliant with the understanding that their penalties will be definite and limited, there are two other primary reasons behind the 2012 OVDP and all other similar voluntary disclosure programs. First, the voluntary disclosure programs have a tremendous collateral impact on the overall international tax compliance. The collateral effect is reflected not only in assuring that the persons who go through the voluntary disclosure are likely to continue to comply with U.S .tax laws in the future, but also in the tremendous publicity of the program and the U.S. tax laws.

However, the most curious collateral product of the 2012 OVDP is the fear that induces wider tax compliance and more entrees into the voluntary disclosure program. It seems paradoxical that a voluntary disclosure would create this apprehensive feeling, but it is very logical once you understand that this is not a fear of the 2012 OVDP itself, but the terror of seeing widespread compliance which singles out the non-compliant taxpayers more and more with each new OVDP participant.

The second reason behind the voluntary disclosure programs is information gathering. Each 2012 OVDP participant brings a treasure trove of information about where they keep their money, the level of complicity by foreign banks, the particular foreign and domestic advisors involved in promoting international tax non-compliance, and other valuable information. This information allows the IRS to establish the overall patterns of non-compliance (both geographic and with respect to particular individuals and organizations), identify the next investigation targets and amass evidence for future prosecutions.

IRS is currently sitting on a mountain of data and it is inevitable that this information will be used in the future against non-compliant U.S. taxpayers and their foreign advisors. Already in 2012, we observed aggressive IRS moves in Liechtenstein and Israel as well as engagement of over 50 jurisdictions around the world regarding FATCA compliance. My prediction is that this trend of expanded enforcement into other countries will continue in 2013 and will result in larger number of prosecutions.

What is the Benefit of 2012 OVDP for U.S. Taxpayers

The 2012 OVDP does not only benefit the IRS, but also certain U.S. taxpayers. The benefit is at least three-fold. First, for certain U.S. taxpayers 2012 OVDP is the only way to avoid tremendous penalties and criminal prosecution by the IRS. Equally important is the fact that a taxpayer enters the OVDP program with an ability to calculate(with reasonable degree of certainty) the total cost of resolving all offshore tax issues. However, the decision to enter the OVDP must be made after all of the facts are analyzed and the taxpayer is aware of the consequences of entering the 2012 OVDP.

Second, while generally very rigid, the 2012 OVDP program has a certain degree of flexibility built into its penalty structure. The number of penalty categories and the various rules of the program allow international tax attorneys to determine the best mode of the voluntary disclosure and develop the strategies to implement this particular voluntary disclosure scenario.

Finally, 2012 OVDP allows international tax attorneys to determine the alternative voluntary disclosure ways. For example, Q&A #17 officially supports the long-standing unofficial policy of the IRS that no FBAR penalties are likely if there is additional U.S. tax liability as a result of voluntary disclosure. Moreover, the very fact that 2012 OVDP delineates certain analytical categories places additional tools for strategy development in the hands of the attorneys who seek alternative ways of bringing U.S. taxpayers into full compliance with U.S. tax laws under the existing legal structure outside of the 2012 OVDP.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help with Voluntary Disclosure

If you have undisclosed foreign account or foreign entities, contact Sherayzen Law Office for help with your voluntary disclosure. Our experienced international tax firm will thoroughly analyze your case, assess your FBAR liability as well as other applicable penalties, identify the options available in your case, and work with you every step of the way until your voluntary disclosure is finished. We have helped taxpayers around the world to do various types of voluntary disclosures, including the official Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Programs and Initiatives.

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.

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.