international tax lawyer-minnesota-minneapolis

DOJ Program for Swiss Banks: Important June 2014 Developments

/in , /by

In a series of articles, we covered the U.S. Department of Justice’s new voluntary disclosure program for Swiss banks and the four filing categories involved. In June of 2014, a number of important developments regarding the DOJ Program for Swiss Banks occurred.

In this article, we will explain some of these new developments. This article is intended to provide interested individuals with general information about these developments, and does not convey tax or legal advice. If you have an offshore account, you should seek the advice of a tax attorney as significant penalties are involved. The experienced tax law firm of Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. can assist you in your voluntary offshore disclosure and other tax and legal matters.

DOJ Program for Swiss Banks: DOJ Extends Deadline for Category 2 Swiss Banks

On June 5, 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it would extend the original June 30 deadline for category 2 Swiss banks for one month until July 31st. According to various new sources, the deadline was extended because of the difficulties Swiss banks were having in attempting to verify whether the accounts of U.S. taxpayers were undeclared or disclosed in a timely fashion to the IRS.

More than 100 Swiss banks have already applied under the DOJ program for Swiss Banks. For U.S. taxpayers with undisclosed bank accounts in Switzerland, this is highly welcome news.

Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley Swiss Units Apply to Enter the DOJ Program for Swiss Banks; Citigroup and J.P. Morgan Maybe Next

Recently, the Swiss units of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley announced that they will enter the DOJ Program for Swiss Banks. According to various sources, Goldman’s Swiss private bank managed nearly $12 billion in assets as of year-end 2013. Morgan Stanley’s Swiss private bank managed about $50.7 billion- most of this amount however, was located in its branches in Hong Kong and Singapore.

Citigroup Inc. and J.P. Morgan also have Swiss operations; according to several news sources, Citibank Switzerland AG did not yet enter category 2, but this is definitely a possibility. Same is true of J.P. Morgan’s private Swiss bank.

DOJ Program for Swiss Banks: Credit Suisse Pleads Guilty

Recently, Credit Suisse pleaded guilty to conspiracy and agreed to pay $2.6 billion in a settlement with the DOJ. Please, read this article for more information.

DOJ Likely to Increase Focus on Undisclosed Accounts of US Taxpayers in the Cayman Islands, Singapore and Cook Islands, Among Others

The DOJ and the IRS have provided various indications that they intend to expand the scope of the U.S. pursuit of undisclosed foreign accounts to other major tax havens, such as Cayman Islands, Singapore, Cook Islands, Panama, et cetera.

For example, in an interview concerning the Credit Suisse case, Kathryn Keneally, former head of the Justice Department’s tax division, signaled the DOJ’s intentions to increase their focus on other tax-havens. After noting that the U.S. has traced (often, using the information collected during the DOJ Program for Swiss Banks) the money transfers to accounts held by U.S. persons in banks located in the Cayman Islands and other Caribbean countries, India, Israel, Luxembourg, and Lichtenstein, she highlighted the following: “It’s fair to say we know where the tax-haven countries are. You’ve got Singapore, you’ve got the Cook Islands… .”

The DOJ Program for Swiss Banks has provided an enormous amount of information regarding not only the Swiss bank accounts, but transfers to other countries. As Dena Iverson, a DOJ spokeswoman noted in a recent news article, “Through the program [the DOJ Program for Swiss Banks], as well as through ongoing investigations and other law enforcement tools, we are confident that we will obtain information that will lead us to account holders who have thought for too long that they can keep hiding.”

U.S. persons who hold accounts in Singapore, Cook Islands, Cayman Islands, Israel, India, Lebanon and other “target” countries should immediately seek advice in disclosing their offshore accounts. The worldwide FATCA compliance, combined with the potential of having another equivalent of the DOJ Program for Swiss Banks in any other of these countries, makes it simply reckless to wait for the DOJ and the IRS investigations.

2014 OVDP

On June 18, 2014, the IRS announced a major update to its 2012 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP), which includes new opportunities and penalties. See this article for further information.

The 2014 OVDP is directly relevant to U.S. taxpayers with undisclosed accounts in Swiss Banks which are currently working within the DOJ Program for Swiss Banks, because the banks’ disclosure of the unreported accounts may substantially reduce the available voluntary disclosure options for the U.S. taxpayers who own these accounts. Moreover, the US taxpayers with undisclosed accounts in the entities that are categorized under the DOJ Program for Swiss Banks as Category 1 banks may be subject to heightened penalties under the new 2014 OVDP rules.

This is why it is very important to coordinate your voluntary disclosure with the DOJ Program for Swiss Banks.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help with Your Offshore Voluntary Disclosure

If you have undisclosed foreign accounts in Switzerland, contact Sherayzen Law Office for experienced legal help. Whether or not you received a letter from a Swiss Bank pursuant to the DOJ Program for Swiss Banks, time is likely to be of critical importance for you.

Contact Us today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation – We Can Help!

International Tax Planning Lawyers: Importance of Business Purpose Doctrine

/in , , /by

It is surprising how often international tax planning lawyers ignore the importance of business purpose doctrine to international tax planning. It seems that a lot of U.S. accountants and, to a smaller degree, attorneys have been limited to the parochial view of the application of the doctrine within the borders of the United States, whereas they seem to lose caution in the context of international business transactions. In this article, I urge the readers to consider the very important role of the business purpose doctrine to international tax planning.

International Tax Planning Lawyers: Business Purpose Doctrine; Combination with the Economic Substance Doctrine

This short writing does not pretend to do justice to the complex analysis of the history, development and interpretation of the business purpose doctrine. I will merely attempt to broadly sketch some important points and the general meaning of the doctrine to provide the necessary background to the discussion below.

The Business Purpose Doctrine (“the Doctrine”) is often cited to have originated in the old Supreme Court case Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935) (even though, upon detailed consideration, it appears that this case stands for a much more limited proposition than the current Doctrine). In reality, the modern Doctrine received a much broader development in the seminal case of Goldstein v. Commissioner, 364 F.2d 734 (2d Cir. 1966), which incorporates the economic substance doctrine into the Doctrine.

The combined effect of both legal developments can be summarized as a two-prong test which says that the IRS will respect a business transaction if: (1) the transaction has objective economic substance (i.e. whether transaction affected the taxpayer’s financial position in any way); and/OR (2) the taxpayer has a subjective non-tax business purpose for conducting the transaction (i.e. whether the transaction was motivated solely by tax avoidance considerations to such a degree that the business purpose is no more than a facade). Notice, the capital “OR” – there is a disagreement among the courts on whether the both, subjective (business purpose doctrine) and objective (economic substance doctrine) prongs should be satisfied, or is it enough that one of them is satisfied.

International Tax Planning Lawyers: the Doctrine is Relevant to International Tax Planning

The application of the Doctrine has been extremely important to International Tax Planning, and international tax planning lawyers should take care to make sure that their tax plans are not merely done for tax avoidance purposes, but reflect the real business purpose behind engaging into the transaction. Moreover, the international tax planning lawyers should impress upon their clients this understanding of importance of the Doctrine to the tax consequences of their business transactions.

A recent IRS victory stand as a stark reminder of the importance of the Doctrine and why international tax planning lawyers must not ignore it. In Chemtech Royalty Associates , L.P. v. United States of America (February of 2013), the federal district court in Louisiana rejected two separate tax shelter transactions entered into by The Dow Chemical Company (“Dow Chemical”) that purported to create approximately $1 billion in tax deductions.

The first transaction rejected by Chief Judge Jackson was created by Goldman Sachs and basically allowed Dow Chemical to claim royalty expense deductions on its own patent through a scheme called Special Limited Investment Partnerships (“SLIPs”). The basic idea behind SLIPs is to create a tax shelter known as a “lease-strip” – the U.S. taxable income is stripped away to a non-US partnership. In the process, some small Swiss tax was paid, but only minor U.S. tax consequences were triggered on Dow Chemical’s US tax return.

The second transaction that was rejected by Chief Judge Jackson involved depreciation by Dow Chemical of a chemical plan asset that had already, for the most part, been fully depreciated. The second scheme (created by King & Spalding) arose due to changes in U.S. tax law which made the first transaction unprofitable from the tax standpoint.

While the economic substance was not the only doctrine discussed by court (the Sham Partnership Doctrine played a large role in the decision as well), it certainly occupied the central role in the decision.

The end result for Dow Chemical – disallowance of $1 billion of deductions and an imposition of 20% penalty (i.e. $200 million) plus interest. As the readers can see, it is highly important for international tax planning lawyers to pay attention to the Doctrine.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help with International Tax Planning

While the precedent-setting cases usually involve large corporations, international tax planning concerns any company that does business internationally. Equally important for all companies is to make sure that they comply with all of the numerous complex U.S. tax reporting requirements concerning international business transactions.

If you have a substantial ownership interest in or an officer of a small or mid-size company that does business internationally, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with international tax planning and compliance. Attorney Eugene Sherayzen will thoroughly analyze your case, create an ethical business tax plan to make sure that you do not over-pay taxes under the Internal Revenue Code provisions, and prepare all of the tax and legal documents that are required for your U.S. tax compliance.

Contact Us to Schedule a Confidential Consultation NOW!

Foreign Partnership Tax Attorneys: Filing Form 8865 Schedule O (Part I)

/in , /by

Foreign Partnership Tax Attorneys should point out to their clients that Form 8865 should be used by US taxpayers to report the information required under IRC section 6038 (reporting regarding controlled foreign partnerships), section 6038B (reporting of transfers made to foreign partnerships), and/or section 6046A (reporting of acquisitions, dispositions, and changes in foreign partnership interests).

This article will explain the basics of Part I (“Transfers Reportable Under Section 6038B”) for Schedule O– “Transfer of Property to a Foreign Partnership”, an additional form submitted with Form 8865 that must be completed by certain categories of taxpayers. This article is not intended to convey tax or legal advice. US-International partnership taxation can involve many complex tax and legal issues, so you are advised to seek an experienced attorney in these matters. Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. can assist you in all of your tax and legal needs, and help you avoid making costly mistakes.

Foreign Partnership Tax Attorneys: Who Must File Schedule O?

Schedule O is typically required to be filed by Category 3 filers under the Form 8865 instructions. In general, Category 3 filers are US persons who contributed property during their tax year to a foreign partnership in exchange for a partnership interest in the partnership (a section 721 transfer), if such persons either owned (directly or constructively) at least a 10% interest in the foreign partnership immediately after the contribution, or if value of the property contributed, when added to the value of any other property contributed to the partnership by such persons (including related persons), during the 12-month period ending on the date of the contribution is greater than $100,000.

Note, this is a general summary of Category 3 filers, and does not include all possibilities. It is very important to consult a foreign partnership tax attorney for help. Please see the instructions or contact Sherayzen Law Office for further details.

Foreign Partnership Tax Attorneys: Schedule O, Part I (“Transfers Reportable Under Section 6038B”)

Part I of Schedule O is used to report the contribution of property to a foreign partnership. In column (a), taxpayers must fill out the date of the property transfer (and if the transfer consisted of multiple transactions over a number of dates, the date the transfer was completed, would be entered). In Column (b), taxpayers list the number of items of property contributed, and in column (c), the fair market value of the property transferred, as of the date of the transfer, must be specified. Column (d) needs to be completed to detail the contributed property’s adjusted basis as of the date of transfer.

If appreciated property was contributed by a taxpayer, column (e) must be filled out, and the method (traditional, traditional with curative allocations, or remedial) used by the foreign partnership to make section 704(c) allocations with respect to each item of property must be specified (see Regulations section 1.704-3(b), (c), and (d) for more information). Also note that the instructions require that if appreciated property or intangible property is contributed, taxpayers must, “[P]rovide the information required in columns (a) through (g) separately with respect to each item of property transferred (except to the extent you are allowed to aggregate the property under Regulations sections 1.704-3(e)(2), (3), and (4)).” If gain was recognized by the taxpayer on the contribution of property, then column (f) must be completed. In Column (g), taxpayers need to state their percentage interest in the foreign partnership immediately after the property transfer (see the instructions for further information about specific types of percentage interest).

Finally, taxpayers may need to provide supplemental information, if required. Further, if property was contributed to a foreign partnership as part of a broader transaction, information about the transaction should be described.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Foreign Partnership Compliance

If you have an ownership interest in a foreign partnership, please contact Sherayzen Law Office for help. Our experienced foreign partnership tax law firm will thoroughly review the facts and circumstances of your case, properly prepare all of the required tax compliance documents and offer further planning with respect to U.S. taxes.

2014 Foreign Earned Income Exclusion

/in , /by

On November 18, 2013, the IRS announced that the foreign earned income exclusion amount under §911(b)(2)(D)(i) is going to be $99,200 for tax year 2014. This up from $97,600 in 2013 and $95,100 in 2012.

Generally, if a qualified individual meets certain requirements of I.R.C. §911, he may exclude part or all of his foreign earned income from taxable gross income for the U.S. income tax purposes. This income may still be subject to U.S. Social Security taxes.

Remember, if your overseas earnings are above $99,200 for the tax year 2013, then you may be subject to U.S. income taxation on the excess amount (i.e. amount exceeding the 2014 foreign earned income exclusion).

It is also important to note, despite the income tax exclusion, your tax bracket will still be the same as if you were taxed on the whole amount (i.e. as if you had not claimed the foreign earned income exclusion). For most U.S. expatriates, this means that the tax bracket is likely to start at 25% or higher. If you are self-employed, however, your situation may differ from this description.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that additional amount of earnings may also be excluded under the foreign housing exclusion.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office For Foreign Earned Income Exclusion Legal Help

If you are a U.S. taxpayer living abroad or you are planning to accept a job overseas, contact us to discuss your tax situation. Our experienced tax law office will guide you through the complex maze of U.S. tax reporting requirements, help you make sure that you are in full compliance with U.S. tax laws, and help you take advantage of the relevant provisions of the Internal Revenue Code to make sure that you do not over-pay your taxes in the United States.

San Francisco International Tax Lawyer: Influence of Location

/in , /by

While looking for a San Francisco international tax lawyer, one of the important issues that clients face is whether it is better to retain an international tax attorney in San Francisco or in Minneapolis if you live in San Francisco? If you were to search “San Francisco international tax lawyer”, Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. (which is based in Minneapolis) is likely to come out on the first page together with other international tax attorneys in San Francisco. The question is: should the geographical proximity of an attorney play a role in the retainer decision?

The answer depends on many factors. On the one extreme, if you are looking for a sales tax lawyer, then you may not have a choice but to find a local lawyer. This is because local law and procedure would govern in this case, and an lawyer familiar with local sales tax issues would be the best choice for handling a sales tax case. Of course, even in this case, there are exceptions because, sometimes, the unique qualities of an outside lawyer are so desirable by the client that the court may accede in temporarily admitting this outside lawyer to practice just for one case.

One the other end of the spectrum, if you are searching for a San Francisco international tax lawyer because you have undeclared offshore accounts, then the knowledge of local law and procedure are likely to be of very little value. Instead, the experience and knowledge of a lawyer in his area of practice (i.e. international tax law) will become the overriding factors in retaining a San Francisco international tax lawyer.

What if you have an international tax lawyer in San Francisco, do you still want to consider an attorney in Minneapolis? The answer is “yes” – for two reasons. First, international tax lawyers differ in their natural ability to identify problems and find solutions, creativity, advocacy and many other factors. Therefore, there is no reason to stay away from a better international tax lawyer in Minneapolis even if there is a lawyer in San Francisco.

Second, in addition to differences in personal qualities, the experience of the international tax lawyer in the international tax sub-area that you need and the ability to analyze the specific subject matter in the broader context are very important factors in retaining the lawyer and should override the lawyer’s particular geography.

What is a fairly unique feature about Sherayzen Law Office is that we can handle the entire case internally – both, the legal and the accounting sides of it. Most San Francisco international tax lawyers in this area of law do not do that and rely on the outside accountant to provide such additional services. The outsourcing approach has various disadvantages, including potential leak of information, lack of close coordination between both sides of the case, increased possibility of missed opportunities and absence of the unity of goal among the professionals who are preoccupied with their respective areas only. The approach adopted by Sherayzen Law Office is aimed to reduce and eliminate such problems.

So, the next time you search for a San Francisco international tax lawyer, keep these issues in mind while retaining a lawyer from Minneapolis or any other city.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With International Tax Issues

If you have any international tax issues with respect to undeclared foreign assets, international tax compliance or international tax planning, contact Eugene Sherayzen, an experienced tax attorney of Sherayzen Law Office for comprehensive legal and tax help.