international tax lawyer-minnesota-minneapolis

The IRS Onslaught Against Bank Leumi Clients Continues: The Fogel Case

/0 Comments/in , /by

On February 2, 2015, one of Bank Leumi clients, Dr. Baruch Fogel of Laguna Beach, California, pleaded guilty today in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to willfully failing to file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) for tax year 2009. In this article, I would like to explore some of the most pertinent facts of the Fogel Case and analyze this case in the context of the continuous IRS onslaught against Bank Leumi clients.

The Facts and Outcome of the Fogel Case

According to court documents, Fogel, a U.S. citizen, maintained an undeclared bank account held in the name of a foreign corporation at the Luxembourg branch of Bank Leumi. The undeclared foreign bank account and foreign corporation were set up with the assistance of David Kalai, a tax return preparer who owned United Revenue Service (URS). In December 2014, David Kalai and his son, Nadav Kalai, were convicted in the Central District of California of conspiracy to defraud the United States for helping certain URS clients set up foreign corporations and undeclared bank accounts to evade U.S. income taxes and for willfully failing to file FBARs for an undeclared foreign account that they controlled.

According to court documents and evidence introduced at the trial of David and Nadav Kalai, Fogel was a doctor who operated several managed health care businesses. David Kalai suggested to Fogel that he could reduce his taxes by transferring money to a foreign bank account held in the name of a foreign corporation. David Kalai advised Fogel to open up the bank account that was set up in the name of a British Virgin Islands corporation. At a meeting facilitated and attended by David Kalai at the Beverly Hills branch of Bank Leumi, Fogel executed documents to open his Luxembourg bank account at Bank Leumi, becoming one of the many Bank Leumi clients to do so. According to court documents, Fogel diverted at least $8 million to his undeclared bank account at Bank Leumi’s branch in Luxembourg.

Fogel has agreed to pay a civil penalty in the amount of approximately $4.2 million to resolve his civil liability with the IRS for failing to file FBARs. Fogel faces a statutory maximum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss to any person, whichever is greater.

IRS Recent Onslaught Against Bank Leumi Clients Continues

The Fogel Case is another example of the recent IRS series of victories against former Bank Leumi clients. It is also a direct fallout of the Kalai Case (David Kalai worked with a number of Bank Leumi clients). Bank Leumi itself already admitted late last year to helping its US customers evade income taxes and hide assets.

Bank Leumi Clients and Clients from Other Israeli Banks Should Expect Continuous Pressure from the IRS

With the information already disclosed by other Bank Leumi clients to the IRS as part of their voluntary disclosures through 2011 OVDI, 2012 OVDP and 2014 OVDP, it becomes clear that the IRS has gathered sufficient evidence to investigate and successfully prosecute other Bank Leumi clients, current and former. Bank Leumi itself also agreed to help DOJ efforts against its Bank Leumi clients. It appears that this IRS onslaught against Bank Leumi clients is likely to affect disproportionately the Jewish communities in New York, California and Florida.

However it is not only the Bank Leumi clients that should be worried; as part of its deal with the US Department of Justice, Bank Leumi is required to help the DOJ investigations of other Israeli banks. Given the fact that Bank Leumi is the second largest bank in Israel, one can expect that the information provided by Bank Leumi and Bank Leumi clients is likely to affect all major banks in Israel.

Voluntary Disclosure Options Should Be Explored by Bank Leumi Clients and Clients of Other Israeli Banks

The Fogel case is a somber reminder to Bank Leumi clients that time is running out. For Bank Leumi clients with undisclosed foreign accounts, there is now a high chance of an IRS investigation, imposition of civil penalties and even of criminal prosecution.  Hence, it appears that the best course of action of the Bank Leumi clients and customers of other Israeli banks is to explore their voluntary disclosure options as soon as possible.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Your Undisclosed Israeli Accounts

If you have undisclosed foreign financial accounts and other foreign assets in Israel or through an Israeli bank (and especially if you are one of the Bank Leumi clients), contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional legal and tax help as soon as possible.

Once our experienced international tax law firm will review the facts of your case and recommend the voluntary disclosure options available in your case; you will be able to choose the voluntary disclosure option that best appeals to you. We will then prepare all of the necessary legal documents and tax forms, and Mr. Sherayzen will personally negotiate the final settlement of your case with the IRS, bringing you into full US tax compliance.

So, Contact Us Now to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Abusive Tax Shelters on the IRS “Dirty Dozen” List of 2015

/0 Comments/in , /by

On February 3, 2015, the IRS said using abusive tax shelters and structures to avoid paying taxes continues to be a problem and remains on its annual list of tax scams known as the “Dirty Dozen” for the 2015 filing season.

“The IRS is committed to stopping complex tax avoidance schemes and the people who create and sell them,” said IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. “The vast majority of taxpayers pay their fair share, and we are warning everyone to watch out for people peddling tax shelters that sound too good to be true.”

Compiled annually, the “Dirty Dozen” lists a variety of common scams that taxpayers may encounter anytime but many of these schemes peak during filing season as people prepare their returns or hire people to help with their taxes.

Abusive tax shelters are classified as illegal scams and can lead to significant penalties and interest and possible criminal prosecution. IRS Criminal Investigation works closely with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to shutdown scams and prosecute the criminals behind them.

Abusive Tax Shelters

Abusive tax shelters have evolved from simple structuring of abusive domestic and foreign trust arrangements into sophisticated strategies that take advantage of the financial secrecy laws of some foreign jurisdictions and the availability of credit/debit cards issued from offshore financial institutions.

IRS Criminal Investigation (CI) has developed a nationally coordinated program to combat these abusive tax shelters. CI’s primary focus is on the identification and investigation of the promoters of the abusive tax shelters as well as those who play a substantial or integral role in facilitating, aiding, assisting, or furthering the abusive tax shelters, such as accountants or lawyers. Just as important is the investigation of investors who knowingly participate in abusive tax shelters.

What are these abusive tax shelters? The Abusive Tax Schemes program encompasses violations of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and related statutes where multiple flow-through entities are used as an integral part of the taxpayer’s scheme to evade taxes. These abusive tax shelters are characterized by the use of Limited Liability Companies (LLCs), Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs), International Business Companies (IBCs), foreign financial accounts, offshore credit/debit cards and other similar instruments. The abusive tax shelters are usually complex involving multi-layer transactions for the purpose of concealing the true nature and ownership of the taxable income and/or assets.

Whether something is “too good to be true” is important to consider before buying into any arrangements that promise to “eliminate” or “substantially reduce” your tax liability. If an arrangement uses unnecessary steps or a form that does not match its substance, then that arrangement may be classified as abusive tax shelter. Another thing to remember is that the promoters of abusive tax shelters often employ financial instruments in their schemes; however, the instruments are used for improper purposes including the facilitation of tax evasion.

Abusive Tax Shelters: Misuse of Trusts

Trusts also commonly show up in abusive tax shelters. They are highlighted here because unscrupulous promoters continue to urge taxpayers to transfer large amounts of assets into trusts. These assets include not only cash and investments, but also successful on-going businesses. There are legitimate uses of trusts in tax and estate planning, but the IRS commonly sees highly questionable transactions. These transactions promise reduced taxable income, inflated deductions for personal expenses, reduced (even to zero) self-employment taxes, and reduced estate or gift transfer taxes.

These transactions commonly arise when taxpayers are transferring wealth from one generation to another. Questionable trusts rarely deliver the tax benefits promised and are used primarily as a means of avoiding income tax liability and hiding assets from creditors, including the IRS.

IRS personnel continue to see an increase in the improper use of private annuity trusts and foreign trusts to shift income and deduct personal expenses, as well as to avoid estate transfer taxes. As with other arrangements, taxpayers should seek the advice of a trusted professional before entering a trust arrangement.

Abusive Tax Shelters: Captive Insurance

Another abuse involving a legitimate tax structure involves certain small or “micro” captive insurance companies. Tax law allows businesses to create “captive” insurance companies to enable those businesses to protect against certain risks. The insured claims deductions under the tax code for premiums paid for the insurance policies while the premiums end up with the captive insurance company owned by same owners of the insured or family members.

The captive insurance company, in turn, can elect under a separate section of the tax code to be taxed only on the investment income from the pool of premiums, excluding taxable income of up to $1.2 million per year in net written premiums.

In the abusive tax shelters, unscrupulous promoters persuade closely held entities to participate in this scheme by assisting entities to create captive insurance companies onshore or offshore, drafting organizational documents and preparing initial filings to state insurance authorities and the IRS. The promoters assist with creating and “selling” to the entities oftentimes poorly drafted “insurance” binders and policies to cover ordinary business risks or esoteric, implausible risks for exorbitant “premiums,” while maintaining their economical commercial coverage with traditional insurers.

Total amounts of annual premiums often equal the amount of deductions business entities need to reduce income for the year; or, for a wealthy entity, total premiums amount to $1.2 million annually to take full advantage of the Code provision. Underwriting and actuarial substantiation for the insurance premiums paid are either missing or insufficient. The promoters manage the entities’ captive insurance companies year after year for hefty fees, assisting taxpayers unsophisticated in insurance to continue the charade.

IRS 2014 Final and Proposed Regulations Regarding Form 5472

/0 Comments/in , /by

In 2014, the IRS issued both final (T.D. 9667), and proposed (REG-114942-14) regulations amending the rules for filing Form 5472, (“Information Return of a 25% Foreign-Owned U.S. Corporation or a Foreign Corporation Engaged in a U.S. Trade or Business”). Form 5472 is used to provide the information required under Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) Sections 6038A and 6038C when reportable transactions occur during the taxable year of a reporting corporation with a foreign or domestic related party.

This article will briefly explain the final and proposed regulations affecting Form 5472; it is not intended to convey tax or legal advice. If you have questions regarding filing of Form 5472 or any international tax matters, please contact owner Eugene Sherayzen, an experienced tax attorney at Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd.

Form 5472 Final Regulation (T.D. 9667)

On June 10, 2011, under the above-mentioned IRC Sections, the IRS had previously published temporary regulations and a notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to the temporary regulations in the Federal Register (76 FR 33997, TD 9529, 2011–30 IRB 57; REG–101352–11, 76 FR 34019) (2011 regulations), amending final regulations to provide that a duplicate filing of Form 5472 generally (previously required in Regulation Section 1.6038A-2(d)) would no longer be required, regardless of whether the filer files a paper or an electronic income tax return. This was determined because of advances in IRS electronic processing and data collections.

The 2014 final regulation, T.D. 9667, adopts the 2011 regulations without substantive change as final regulations, and removes the previous temporary regulations. The regulation became effective as of June 6, 2014.

Form 5472 Proposed Regulation (REG-114942-14)

On the same date as the final regulation was issued, the IRS concurrently issued proposed regulation (REG-114942-14). At issue was a provision (Treas. Reg. Section 1.6038A-2(e)), allowing for timely filing of Form 5472 separately from an income tax return that is untimely filed.

Because of the significant penalties involved for failing to file a timely and accurate Form 5472 (as noted in the proposed regulation and subject to reasonable cause exception, “an initial penalty of $10,000 (with possible additional penalties for continued failure) shall be assessed for each taxable year and for each related party with respect to which the failure occurs”), this process could be utilized by filers in such circumstances.

However, the IRS stated in the proposed regulation that, “with the benefit of experience”, it determined that the untimely-filed return provision was not conducive to efficient tax administration and that filing Form 5472 should not differ significantly from the methods and penalties applicable to similar information returns, such as Form 5471, (“Information Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Corporations”) and Form 8865 (“Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Partnerships”). As noted in the proposed regulation, “those forms must be filed with the filer’s income tax return for the taxable year by the due date (including extensions) of the return, and there is no provision equivalent to the untimely filed return provision under § 1.6038A-2T(e) of the 2011 temporary regulations that would require or permit separate filing of those forms. See §§ 1.6038-2(i) and 1.6038-3(i)(1). Accordingly, it is proposed that the untimely-filed return provision contained in § 1.6038A-2(e) be removed.”

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Form 5472 Compliance

If you have any questions regarding the filing of your Form 5472 or you just need complex tax planning for cross-border business entities, please contact our experienced international tax team at Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd.

Are the new IRS Inversion Regulations in Notice 2014-52 Working?

/0 Comments/in , /by

On September 22, 2014, the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued Notice 2014-52, “Rules Regarding Inversions and Related Transactions” in the wake of recent inversions.

In previous articles on Hopscotch loans and de-control of CFCs, we covered certain aspects of the new regulations to be issued. This article will examine some of the changes that various corporations have recently made to pending inversions as a consequence of the new IRS Notice 2014-52; the article is not intended to convey tax or legal advice. Please contact Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. for questions about your tax and legal needs.

IRS Notice 2014-52 Intended to Address Tax Avoidance

As stated in Notice 2014-52, Treasury and the IRS “understand that certain inversion transactions are motivated in substantial part by the ability to engage in certain tax avoidance transactions after the inversion that would not be possible in the absence of the inversion.” Such inversions were viewed to be specifically inconsistent with the purposes of Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) Section 7874 and 367, and accordingly, Treasury and the IRS intend to issue new regulations under IRC Sections 304(b)(5)(B), 367, 956(e), 7701(l), and 7874. After Notice 2014-52 was issued, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew was quoted as saying that the new regulations would “significantly diminish the ability of inverted companies to escape U.S. taxation.” Treasury and the IRS are also “considering guidance to address strategies that avoid U.S. tax on U.S. operations by shifting or “stripping” U.S.-source earnings to lower-tax jurisdictions, including through intercompany debt.” Notice 2014-52 is currently in the comment period.

At Least One Inversion Deal Cancelled

On October 3, 2014, the Raleigh, North Carolina-based Salix Pharmaceuticals Ltd, announced that it would be cancelling a deal to merge with an Irish subsidiary of the Italian company, Cosmo Pharmaceuticals SpA, specifically referencing Notice 2014-52 as creating “more uncertainty regarding the potential benefits we expected to achieve.”

Notice 2014-52 appears to have sufficiently created its intended result in this case. The CEO for Cosmo, Alessandro Della Cha, was quoted in an article as saying, “The (U.S.) administration has taken steps to make inversions more difficult and to make it harder to extract the benefits.”

Scuttling the deal was particularly costly for Salix as it also had to pay Cosmo a break-up fee of $25 million; however, according to various reports, the company has also been sought for a potential deal by Allergan Inc. as well as a Actavis Plc.

Medtronic Adjusts Deal in Response to Notice 2014-52

Unlike the response that Salix took to Notice 2014-52, Minnesota-based Medtronic Inc. recently announced that it would still close the proposed deal to acquire Ireland-based Covidien Plc by the end of this year, or early next year.

However, instead of the originally-proposed deal to use cash from its foreign subsidiaries to purchase the company, it will borrow $16 billion to close the approximately $43 billion transaction. As with Salix, a spokesman for Medtronic cited Notice 2014-52 as the reason for the change in the terms of the transaction.

As tax experts study proposed deals under the new IRS rules, it is very likely that more companies planning inversions will adjust their deals in a similar manner.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help with Complex International Tax Planning

Notice 2014-52 is just the latest in the avalanche of recent IRS initiatives in international tax enforcement. The recent explosion in the number of international tax regulations has greatly complicated the ability of US persons conduct business overseas. This is why you are advised contact Mr. Eugene Sherayzen an experienced international tax attorney at Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. for professional legal and tax guidance in this increasingly complex area of law.

New IRS Regulations to Address Transactions to De-Control CFCs

/0 Comments/in , /by

On September 22, 2014, the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued Notice 2014-52, “Rules Regarding Inversions and Related Transactions” (“Notice”) in the wake of the recent wave of inversions. In a previous article, we covered the new regulations to be issued regarding Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) Section 956 so-called “Hopscotch loans” and related transactions. In this article, we will examine the new Treasury and IRS regulations to be issued to address transactions to de-control or significantly dilute controlled foreign corporations (“CFCs’”) under Notice Section 3.02.

This article is intended to provide explanatory material regarding the new inversion regulations as they relate to IRC Section Sections 954, 964, and 367 de-control aspects; the article does not convey legal or tax advice. Please contact the experienced international tax law practice of Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. for questions about your tax and legal needs.

Transactions to De-Control or Significantly Dilute CFCs

In general, foreign subsidiaries of acquired U.S. corporations will continue to hold CFC status following most expatriation transactions; such status makes these CFCs subject to U.S. taxation under the IRC subpart F provisions. Prior to the Notice, however, companies could structure inversions so that the newly-formed foreign parent would purchase sufficient stock in order to remove control (or “de-control”) of an expatriated foreign subsidiary away from the former U.S. parent company so that the foreign subsidiary would no longer be treated as a CFC.

By ceasing to be a CFC, as noted in the Notice, companies could thus “Avoid the imposition of U.S. income tax, so as to avoid U.S. tax on the CFC’s pre-inversion earnings and profits. For example, after an inversion transaction, a foreign acquiring corporation could issue a note or transfer property to an expatriated foreign subsidiary in exchange for stock representing at least 50 percent of the voting power and value of the expatriated foreign subsidiary. The expatriated foreign subsidiary would stop being a CFC, and the U.S. shareholders would no longer be subject to subpart F of the Code with respect to the expatriated foreign subsidiary…” Such an effect could also be achieved if the foreign acquiring corporation acquired enough stock to substantially dilute a U.S. shareholder’s ownership of the CFC; U.S. taxation of the CFC’s pre-inversion earnings and profits could be avoided if the CFC later redeemed on a non-pro rata basis, its stock held by the foreign acquiring corporation. (The Notice also provides other similar examples of pre-Notice tax avoidance strategies).

Regulations to Address Transactions to De-Control or Significantly Dilute CFCs

In response to the concerns addressed in the previous paragraphs, under Notice Section 3.02, Treasury and the IRS will issue regulations under IRC Section 7701(l) to “Recharacterize certain transactions that facilitate the avoidance of U.S. tax on the expatriated foreign subsidiary’s pre-inversion earnings and profits”, and they also intend to issue new regulations to modify the application of IRC Section 367(b) in order to require, “[I]ncome inclusion in certain nonrecognition transactions that dilute a U.S. shareholder’s ownership of a CFC.”

Under IRC Section 7701(l), Treasury and the IRS intend to issue regulations providing that a “specified transaction” will be recharacterized under the procedures of the Notice. A specified transaction is defined to be a, “[T]ransaction in which stock in an expatriated foreign subsidiary… is transferred (including by issuance) to a ‘specified related person.’” A specified person is defined to mean a, “[N]on-CFC foreign related person… a U.S. partnership that has one or more partners that if completed during is a non-CFC foreign related person, or a U.S. trust that has one or more beneficiaries that is a non-CFC foreign related person.”

Under the Notice, “if an expatriated foreign subsidiary issues specified stock to a specified related person, the specified transaction will be recharacterized as follows: (i) the property transferred by the specified related person to acquire the specified stock (transferred property) will be treated as having been transferred by the specified related person to the section 958(a) U.S. shareholder(s) of the expatriated foreign subsidiary in exchange for instruments deemed issued by the section 958(a) U.S. shareholder(s) (deemed instrument(s)); and (ii) the transferred property or proportionate share thereof will be treated as having been contributed by the section 958(a) U.S. shareholder(s) (through intervening entities, if any, in exchange for equity in such entities) to the expatriated foreign subsidiary in exchange for stock in the expatriated foreign subsidiary.” (See Notice for further information).

Further, under IRC Section 367(b), Treasury and the IRS also intend to amend the section’s regulations, in general, to require that “an exchanging shareholder described in §1.367(b)-4(b)(1)(i)(A) will be required to include in income as a deemed dividend the section 1248 amount attributable to the stock of an expatriated foreign subsidiary exchanged in a “specified exchange”. A specified exchange is defined to mean an exchange “in which a shareholder of an expatriated foreign subsidiary exchanges stock in the expatriated foreign subsidiary for stock in another foreign corporation pursuant to a transaction described in §1.367(b)-4(a).” Exceptions may be applicable in certain cases under the Notice. (See Notice for more details).

Effective Date for Notice Section 3.02(e)

The effective dates of Notice Section 3.02(e) will apply to specified transactions and specified exchanges (see definitions above) completed on, or after, September 22, 2014 (but only if the inversion transaction is completed on, or after, September 22, 2014). The Notice is currently in the comment period.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Complex International Tax Planning

With the new Treasury and IRS Notice, the need for successful international tax and legal planning will only increase. If you need legal and tax assistance, please contact Attorney Eugene Sherayzen at Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. for questions about your tax and legal needs.