International Tax Attorney Minnesota Minneapolis

Introduction to US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regimes

/0 Comments/in , /by

Despite their enormous importance to tax compliance, there is a shocking level of ignorance of the US international tax anti-deferral regimes that is being displayed by US taxpayers, foreign bankers, foreign accountants, foreign attorneys, US accountants and even many US tax attorneys. In this article, for educational purposes only, I would like to provide a brief overview of the history and features of the main US international tax anti-deferral regimes.

What is a US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regime?

A US international tax anti-deferral regime is a set of US tax laws designed to prevent US taxpayers from utilizing various offshore strategies to defer US taxation of their income for a period of time or indefinitely.

Three Main US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regimes

Since 1937, there have been three main US international tax anti-deferral regimes: Foreign Personal Holding Company (“FPHC”) rules, subpart F rules, and PFIC rules. Let’s review the brief history and main features of each of these US international tax anti-deferral regimes.

First US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regime: FPHC

In 1937, the Congress for the first time addressed the offshore investment strategy problems by enacting the FPHC regime, which were designed to contemporaneously (i.e. in the year the income was earned) tax certain types of foreign corporations. In particular, FPHC rules targeted foreign corporations that had substantial investment income (i.e. passive income) compared to active business income – i.e. the FPHC rules effectively treat certain corporations as pass-through companies for the purposes of certain categories of passive income..

The FPHC rules were triggered only if both conditions of the then-Code §552(a) were satisfied. First, at least 60% of a foreign corporation’s gross income from the taxable year had to consist of “foreign personal holding company income”. The FPHC income included interest income, dividends, royalties, gains from the sale of securities or commodities, certain rents and certain income from personal services provided by shareholders of the FPHC. This was called the “income test”.

The second condition of the §552(a) was known as the “ownership test”. The ownership test was satisfied if at least 50% of either the total voting power or total value of the stock of the foreign corporation was owned by 5 or fewer individuals who were citizens or residents of the United States.

Despite the appearances, the FPHC regime was not very effective. It was actually not very hard to work around the FPHC rules with careful and creative tax planning. This is why, after the enactment of the Subpart F rules and the PFIC rules (which addressed some of the main inefficacies of the FPCH rules and made them redundant as a US international tax anti-deferral regime), the FPHC regime was finally repealed in the year 2004.

Second US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regime: Subpart F Rules

The second US international tax anti-deferral regime, the Subpart F rules, was enacted in 1962 and, despite numerous amendments, forms the core of the anti-deferral rules with respect to Controlled Foreign Corporations (“CFCs”). It is definitely one of the most important and complex pieces of US tax legislation.

The most important feature of the Subpart F regime is that it greatly expands the scope of the former FPHC regime by expanding the contemporaneous (i.e. pass-through) taxation to a much broader range of income and activities, including many kinds of active business activities as well as passive investment activities of a foreign corporation. Obviously, the focus of this US international tax anti-deferral regime is still on passive income or attempts to disguise passive income as active income.

Third US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regime: PFIC Rules

The third US international tax anti-deferral regime consists of the passive foreign investment company (“PFIC”) rules that were adopted by US Congress in 1986. Perhaps because it is the youngest of all US international tax anti-deferral regimes, the PFIC regime is more aggressive and less forgiving than Subpart F rules or FPHC regime. A lot of innocent taxpayers have fallen victims to this severe law.

The PFIC rules impose a unique additional US income tax in two circumstances: where (1) there is a gain on the disposition of the PFIC stock by the US person; or (2) there are PFIC distributions that are considered “excess distributions”. The PFIC rules also impose an additional PFIC interest (calculated similarly to underpayment interest) on the PFIC tax.

The definition of a PFIC is in some ways reminiscent of FPHC rules, but the PFIC regime is a lot more aggressive. Generally, a PFIC is any foreign corporation if it meets either the income tax or the assets test. The income tax is met if 75% of a foreign corporation’s gross income is passive; the assets test is satisfied if at least an average of 50% of a foreign corporation’s assets produce passive income.

Notice that the PFIC rules apply irrespective of the US ownership percentage of the company. This elimination of the FPHC and Subpart F ownership rules makes PFIC rules a much more comprehensive US international anti-deferral tax regime, because it is very easy to trigger PFIC rules – a lot of US naturalized citizens and permanent residents fall into the PFIC trap by simply owning foreign mutual funds as part of their former home countries’ investment portfolio.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With Dealing with US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regimes

If you have an ownership interest in a foreign business or have foreign investments, you may be facing the extremely complex rules of US international tax anti-deferral regimes.

Please contact Mr. Eugene Sherayzen, an experienced international tax attorney at Sherayzen Law Office. Our international tax firm has helped hundreds of clients around the globe and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

2015 UBS Probe Poses Threat to US Owners of Undisclosed UBS Accounts

/0 Comments/in , /by

This week, UBS Group AG confirmed that it was under a new investigation over whether the Switzerland bank sold unregistered securities to US taxpayers in violation of US law. This article will discuss the new UBS probe and the threat it poses to US owners of undisclosed UBS accounts who never went through an offshore voluntary disclosure. This article is not intended to convey tax or legal advice.

Prior Investigations and 2009 Deferred-Prosecution Agreement

The 2015 bearer bond investigation of UBS is the latest in the series of DOJ investigations of UBS. Previously, in 2009, as a result a landmark DOJ victory that started the today’s rout of bank secrecy laws throughout the world, UBS paid a $780 million dollar fine and disclosed 250 previously undisclosed UBS accounts of US taxpayers to the DOJ (some of the owners of these undisclosed UBS accounts were later criminally prosecuted by the IRS). The bank promised that it would be compliant with US law under its deferred-prosecution agreement with the DOJ. The agreement expired in October, 2010. This was a critical agreement for the US owners of undisclosed UBS accounts, and we will come back to this subject below.

In addition to the deferred-prosecution agreement in 2009, UBS also settled an antitrust case in 2011 concerning the municipal-bond investments market, and resolved a 2012 DOJ investigation involving alleged rigging of the London interbank offered rate (Libor). UBS was granted an agreement to extend the term of its non-prosecution deal in the latter investigation until later this year. Additionally, in a probe not involving the DOJ, UBS paid US, UK and Swiss authorities nearly $800 million in November to settle allegations that they did not have satisfactory controls to prevent traders from attempting to rig Forex dealing.

The DOJ also has reportedly also opened a new investigation concerning certain currency-linked structured products sold by UBS. International tax attorneys who worked with undisclosed UBS accounts for their US clients in the past know how common it was for UBS to sell these products to their US clients.

The 2015 UBS Investigation

As noted above, the new investigation is being conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York and from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. UBS stated in its fourth-quarter report, “In January 2015, we received inquiries from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York and from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which are investigating potential sales to U.S. persons of bearer bonds and other unregistered securities.” UBS added that it was cooperating with the authorities in the probes. According to various new sources, the bank is also being probed as to whether the alleged sales occurred while the bank was under DOJ supervision from its earlier 2009 tax evasion case.

Bearer bonds can be redeemed by anybody physically holding them. Because of the ease with which these instruments can be transferred, they are a potentially useful tool for enabling individuals to hide assets and evade taxes. While bearer bonds were not deposited on undisclosed UBS accounts, some US owners of undisclosed UBS accounts were owners of these unregulated instruments.

Undisclosed UBS Accounts and the 2015 UBS Investigation

According to various sources, if UBS is found to have breached the agreement by selling the unregistered bearer bonds to US persons in violation of US law during the time period in which the agreement was still in effect, it is possible that the DOJ will prosecute the bank under the original conspiracy charge, in addition to filing new charges and penalties.

The significance of this scenario lies in the fact that there may still be US taxpayers with undisclosed UBS accounts (whether owned directly, indirectly or constructively). Many of these taxpayers were trying to hide in the relative safety of the UBS 2009 Deferred-Prosecution Agreement, hoping that the worst was over for UBS.

Moreover, because UBS was classified as a Category 1 bank, it could not participate in the DOJ Program for Swiss Banks. This gave a wrong type of encouragement to some US owners of undisclosed UBS accounts not to come forward and go through a voluntary disclosure program.

In reality, however, due to the fact that UBS was the first bank that succumbed to the pressure from the US DOJ and disclosed previously undisclosed UBS accounts owned by US persons, the DOJ’s deal with UBS was relatively mild compared to the later penalties on other large Swiss Banks (such as Credit Suisse). Hence, there is a great incentive for the DOJ to re-open the investigation into UBS to force the bank to pay an amount equivalent to its other Swiss peers.

This means that, if the 2015 investigation is successful and the DOJ can get around the 2009 Deferred-Prosecution Agreement, the UBS may, in a new deal with DOJ, conduct a wholesale disclosure of the US owners of undisclosed UBS accounts – not only the current owners, but also the US owners who had undisclosed UBS accounts in the years 2008-2010.

What Should the US Owners of Undisclosed UBS Accounts Do?

Thus, the 2015 DOJ investigation of UBS could have disastrous consequences for US persons who owned undisclosed UBS accounts between the years 2008 and the present time. The premature disclosure of undisclosed UBS accounts may foreclose very important voluntary disclosure options for the US owners of these undisclosed UBS accounts. The subsequent investigations by the IRS may result in draconian civil penalties and even criminal prosecutions.

This is why US persons who owned undisclosed UBS accounts should contact an experienced international tax attorney to discuss their voluntary disclosure options as soon as possible.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help with Your Undisclosed Foreign Accounts

If you are have not disclosed your foreign accounts (including undisclosed UBS accounts) to the IRS, you are advised to immediately contact the experienced international tax law firm of Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. For many years now, we have been helping US taxpayers like you to bring their US tax affairs into full compliance, and we can help you.

Contact Us to Schedule Your Initial Consultation! Remember, contacting Sherayzen Law Office is Confidential!

New Convictions for Helping Hide Millions in Israeli Offshore Accounts

/0 Comments/in , /by

On December 19, 2014, a federal jury sitting in Los Angeles convicted two California tax return preparers of one count of conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and two counts of willfully failing to file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) with respect to secret Israeli Offshore Accounts.

Israeli Offshore Accounts: Facts of the Case

According to the second superseding indictment and evidence introduced at trial, David Kalai and Nadav Kalai were principals of United Revenue Service Inc. (URS), a tax preparation business with 12 offices located throughout the United States. David Kalai worked primarily at URS’s former headquarters in Newport Beach, California, and later at URS’s location in Costa Mesa, California. Nadav Kalai, who is David Kalai’s son, worked out of URS’s headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland, as well as the URS locations in Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. David Almog was the branch manager of the New York office of URS and supervised tax return preparers for URS’s East Coast locations.

The second superseding indictment and the evidence introduced at trial established that the co-conspirators prepared false individual income tax returns that did not disclose the clients’ secret Israeli Offshore Accounts nor reported any income earned from these Israeli Offshore Accounts. In order to conceal the clients’ ownership and control of Israeli Offshore Accounts and to conceal the clients’ income from the IRS, the co-conspirators incorporated offshore companies in Belize and elsewhere and helped clients open secret Israeli Offshore Accounts at the Luxembourg locations of two Israeli banks, Bank A and Bank B. Bank A is a large financial institution headquartered in Tel -Aviv, Israel, with branches worldwide. Bank B is a mid-size financial institution, also headquartered in Tel Aviv, with a presence on four continents.

As further proven at trial, the co-conspirators incorporated offshore companies in Belize and elsewhere to act as named account holders on the secret Israeli Offshore Accounts. The co-conspirators then facilitated the transfer of client funds to the secret Israeli Offshore Accounts and prepared and filed tax returns that falsely reported the money sent offshore as a false investment loss or a false business expense. The co-conspirators also failed to disclose the existence of, and the clients’ financial interest in and authority over, the secret Israeli Offshore Accounts and caused the clients to fail to file FBARs with the U.S. Treasury.

The evidence at trial established that David Kalai and Nadav Kalai each failed to file FBARs for calendar years 2008 and 2009 concerning secret Israeli Offshore Accounts. The bank account for Bank A in Luxembourg was held in the name of a nominee corporation in Belize and held over $300,000.

“The Kalais created sham foreign corporate entities and used banks in Luxembourg and Israel as havens for hiding their U.S. clients’ money from the U.S. government,” said Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Wszalek. “Today’s guilty verdict sends a clear message that those professionals who facilitate tax evasion through the use of offshore bank accounts will be held accountable for their criminal conduct. The Tax Division will continue its vigorous tax enforcement efforts in prosecuting return preparers, bankers, and other facilitators who assist clients in concealing assets offshore.”

“As the defendants in this case have learned, hiding income and assets offshore is not tax planning; it’s tax fraud,” said Chief Richard Weber IRS-Criminal Investigation. “There is no secret formula that can eliminate an individual’s tax obligations. Today’s verdict reinforces our commitment to every American taxpayer that we will identify and prosecute those who implement off-shore tax schemes designed to evade the payment of taxes.”

Sentencing of the defendants is scheduled for March 16, 2015.

Israeli Offshore Accounts: Obligation to Report Foreign Accounts and Income Including Israeli Offshore Accounts

U.S. citizens, resident aliens and legal permanent residents have an obligation to report to the IRS on Schedule B of the U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, Form 1040, whether they had a financial interest in, or signature authority over, a financial account in a foreign country in a particular year by checking “yes” or “no” in the appropriate box and identifying the country where the account is maintained. They further have an obligation to report all income earned from the foreign financial account on the tax returns. Separately, U.S. citizens, resident aliens and legal permanent residents with a foreign financial interest in, or signatory authority over, a foreign financial account worth more than $10,000 in a particular year must also file an FBAR with the U.S. Treasury disclosing such an account by June 30th of the following year.

Israeli Offshore Accounts: Lessons from the Kalai Case

The Kalai case is pretty much in line with other similar cases where the IRS was able to obtain criminal conviction for failing to file FBARs to disclose foreign accounts, including secret Israeli Offshore Accounts.

The highly negative factors include: evidence of sophisticated planning to conceal the identify of the secret Israeli Offshore Accounts owners; evidence of international concealment of funds (by reporting them as a business loss) that formed the balances of the secret Israeli Offshore Accounts; evidence of intentional failure to report income from the secret Israeli Offshore Accounts; and the education level of Kalai as tax preparers.

What is critically important for US taxpayers with undisclosed secret Israeli Offshore Accounts to remember is that, if they engaged tax preparers to avoid disclosing their Israeli Offshore Accounts or foreign financial accounts in any other country, they are at an even higher risk of exposure. The reason is because these tax preparers are likely to have engaged in similar pattern of criminal behavior with respect to their other clients; when these other clients do their voluntary disclosure, they are very likely to exposure their tax preparers as well.

This is why it is critically important for US taxpayers with undisclosed secret Israeli Offshore Accounts or foreign financial accounts in any other country to explore their voluntary disclosure options as soon possible and before they are precluded by an IRS investigation.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help with Your Undisclosed Foreign Accounts

If you have undisclosed foreign financial accounts and any other foreign assets, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional legal and tax help. We will thoroughly analyze your current penalty exposure, identify the offshore voluntary disclosure options available to you, prepare all legal documents and tax forms (including amended tax returns) needed in your case, rigorously defend your interests in front of the IRS, and guide you through the entire voluntary disclosure process.

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

IRS Criminal Investigation Co-Hosts First International Criminal Tax Symposium

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division (IRS-CI) and Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC) co-hosted a three-day International Criminal Tax Symposium in Washington, D.C. on January 27 – 29, 2015. The symposium focused on combating offshore tax evasion and international financial crimes. It is worth mentioning that delegates from criminal tax and enforcement programs from Australia, Canada, The Netherlands, Norway and New Zealand also attended the symposium.

IRS states that, recognizing the increasing trends in sophisticated tax evasion and other financial crimes crossing international borders, the symposium participants discussed best practices and methods of effective investigations as well as other strategies to combat emerging issues.

“The IRS continues to enhance its international efforts through a number of strategies working with international law enforcement and actively participating in a number of international financial task force groups. We will continue our recent successes in international cases, following the money across the world to bring criminals to justice,” said Richard Weber, Chief, IRS-Criminal Investigation. “Those who believe they can cross international borders to commit financial crimes will find that they have far fewer places to hide.”

“HMRC is committed to tackling tax crimes through international collaboration and ensuring there is no safe haven for the proceeds of crime,” said Richard Summersgill, Director, HMRC Criminal Investigation. “The world is becoming a much smaller place for those who want to hide themselves and their assets behind anonymous corporate structures.”

Focus of the Symposium

The delegates focused on four key areas: combating beneficial ownerships and the use of shell companies, transnational organized crime, combating offshore tax evasion and refund crimes and repayment fraud.

Combating international financial crimes is a top priority for all of the participating countries and each actively pursues offshore tax evaders, promoters and financial institutions involved in hiding income and assets offshore. Currently, many countries coordinate through international and interagency task forces, exchange of information methods, joint investigations and other formal and informal methods of international cooperation. The IRS affirms that the symposium delegates discussed further enhancements to this international collaboration moving forward.

FATCA and Beneficial Ownership Issue

The beneficial ownership problem is one that is probably most difficult to trace for the IRS at this point, because it may not be as easily detectable through FATCA as, for example, individual or partnership ownership of foreign accounts. Therefore, it is not surprising that the symposium emphasized this aspect of international tax enforcement.

Symposium and Non-Compliant Foreign Accounts

This symposium is one more evidence of an ever closer cooperation between countries in terms tackling international tax enforcement. With FATCA being adopted as the global standard for tax enforcement, US owners of non-compliant foreign accounts are in ever-more present danger of discovery.

If the evidence is found that these owners used foreign entities to conceal their beneficial ownership of the foreign accounts, there is a very high likelihood of the IRS pursuing criminal penalties against non-compliant US taxpayers.

This is why it is so important for non-compliant US taxpayers to consider their voluntary disclosure options before it is too late (if the IRS commences an investigation of these accounts, the voluntary disclosure options may be entirely precluded).

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Experienced Help with Undisclosed Foreign Accounts and Other Assets

If you are a US person with undisclosed foreign accounts, please contact Sherayzen Law Office to secure professional, experienced and creative legal help. Our experienced law firm will thoroughly analyze your case, discuss with you the available voluntary disclosure options, prepare and file your entire voluntary disclosure case (including all legal documents and tax forms), and negotiate the final settlement with the IRS.

Streamlined Domestic Offshore Compliance Process

/0 Comments/in , /by

In a previous article, I discussed the eligibility requirement with respect to the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures. In this article, I would like to explore the specific filing requirements under the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures.

As a side note, it is important to emphasize that this is just an educational article on the general overview of technical filing requirements. However, this article does not constitute legal advice and omits some very important complexities that may arise in individual cases. This is why I strongly discourage pro se (i.e. self-representation) disclosures under the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures. On the contrary, the decision to engage in the Streamlined Domestic Offshore option should only be handled by an experienced international tax lawyer.

The Streamlined Domestic offshore filings can be organized in the following seven parts. Note that not all of the discussed requirements may apply in some cases and additional documents may be required in other cases.

1. Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures: U.S. Tax Returns

Very precise instructions were issued by the IRS with respect to filing U.S. tax returns under the Streamlined Domestic Offshore procedures. For each of the most recent 3 years for which the U.S. tax return due date (or properly applied for extended due date) has passed, the taxpayer must submit Form 1040X together with any of the required information returns (e.g., Forms 3520, 3520-A, 5471, 5472, 8938, 926, and 8621).

The taxpayer should include at the top of the first page of each delinquent or amended tax return and at the top of each information return “Streamlined Domestic Offshore” written in red to indicate that the returns are being submitted under these procedures. The IRS warns that this is critical to ensure that the taxpayer’s returns are processed through Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures. My practice is to apply the same stamp to each of the required information returns submitted under the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures, even if these returns are attached to the amended tax returns.

Two important issues must be kept in mind when submitting tax returns under the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures. First, the information returns mentioned above (e.g. Forms 3520, 3520-A, 5471, 5472, 8938, 926, and 8621) should be submitted with the amended U.S. income tax returns even if these information returns would normally not be submitted with the Form 1040 had the taxpayer filed a complete and accurate original return.

Second, the taxpayer may not file delinquent income tax returns (including Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return) using Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures. This is one of the most critical differences between the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures and Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures.

2. Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures: Payment of Tax Due

Together with the U.S. tax returns, the taxpayer should submit the payment of all tax due as reflected on the tax returns and all applicable statutory interest with respect to each of the late payment amounts. The taxpayer’s taxpayer identification number must be included on each check. Under the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures, the taxpayer is not required to pay any failure-to-pay penalties and accuracy-related penalties,

3. Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures: FBARs

The Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures follow the FBAR statute of limitations and require the taxpayer to file delinquent FBARs for each of the most recent 6 years for which the FBAR due date has passed. The FBARs should be filed according to the FBAR instructions and they should include a statement explaining that the FBARs are being filed as part of the Streamlined Filing Compliance Procedures.

All FBARs must be e-filed at FinCen. On the cover page of the electronic form, select “Other” as the reason for filing late. An explanation box will appear. In the explanation box, enter “Streamlined Filing Compliance Procedures.” While not required, it may be beneficial to include a more expanded statement to briefly state the circumstances – it is the job of an international tax attorney to critically look at his client’s case and see if this is the right strategy.

4. Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures: Payment of the Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty

In a stark contrast to Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures, the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures option requires the participating taxpayers to pay the Title 26 Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty of 5%. The definition of the Title 26 Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty is beyond the scope of this article; however, you can read this article I posted earlier for a more elaborate discussion of this penalty and how it is calculated.

The check for the payment of the Miscellaneous Offshore penalty should be made payable to the “United States Treasury” and the taxpayer’s taxpayer identification number must be included on the check.

5. Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures: Certification of Non-Willfulness (IRS Form 14654)

This is the most critical part of the voluntary disclosure package under the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures. The taxpayer must complete and sign Form 14654, “Certification by U.S. Person Residing in the United States for Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures”. The taxpayer must submit the original signed Form 14654 to the IRS. Furthermore, he must also attach copies of the statement to each tax return and information return being submitted through Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures.

The IRS warns that failure to submit this statement, or submission of an incomplete or otherwise deficient statement, will result in returns being processed in the normal course without the benefit of the favorable terms of the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures.

At this point, the IRS does not currently require the attachment of copies of Form 14654 to FBARs, but this may change in the future.

6. Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures: Late Deferral Requests

The taxpayer may also use the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures to make retroactive elections requests. If the taxpayer seeks relief for failure to timely elect deferral of income from certain retirement or savings plans where deferral is permitted by an applicable treaty, he should submit the following items as part of his disclosure package under the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures:

a). A statement requesting an extension of time to make an election to defer income tax and identifying the applicable treaty provision;

b). A dated statement signed by you under penalties of perjury describing: (i) the events that led to the failure to make the election; (ii) the events that led to the discovery of the failure, and (iii) if the taxpayer relied on a professional advisor, the nature of the advisor’s engagement and responsibilities; and

c). For relevant Canadian plans, a Form 8891 for each tax year and each plan and a description of the type of plan covered by the submission.

7. Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures: Mailing Address as of January 29, 2015

Once the above-described documents are gathered into one package (together with the payments), this package should be sent in paper format to the following address:

Internal Revenue Service
3651 South I-H 35Stop 6063 AUSC
Attn: Streamlined Domestic Offshore
Austin, TX 78741

This address may only be used for returns filed under Streamlined Offshore Domestic Procedures and may change over time; so an international tax lawyer should verify any changes to the address prior to submission of any documents under the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Legal Help with Your Voluntary Disclosure Under Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures

If you have undisclosed foreign financial accounts and other assets, please contact Mr. Eugene Sherayzen an experienced tax attorney, owner of Sherayzen Law Office for legal and tax help. Our experienced international tax firm specializes in offshore voluntary disclosures and we can help you.

Contact Us to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!