international tax lawyers

US Tax Return Statute of Limitations and IRC Section 6501(c)(8)

/0 Comments/in , /by

Most tax practitioners are familiar with the general rules of assessment statute of limitation for US tax returns. However, very few of them are aware of the danger of potentially indefinite extension of the statute of limitations contained in IRC Section 6501(c)(8). In this article, I would like to do offer a succinct observation of the impact of IRC Section 6501(c)(8) on the US tax return Statute of Limitations as well as your offshore voluntary disclosure strategy.

Background Information

While IRC Section 6501(c)(8) has existed for a while, its present language came into existence as a result of the infamous HIRE act (the same that gave birth to FATCA) in 2010. The major amendments came from PL 111-147 and PL 111-226.

When IRC Section 6501(c)(8) Applies

IRC Section 6501(c)(8) applies when there has been a failure to by the taxpayer to supply one or more accurate foreign information return(s) with respect to reporting of certain foreign assets and foreign-related transactions under IRC Sections 1295(b), 1298(f), 6038, 6038A, 6038B, 6038D, 6046, 6046A and 6048. In essence, it means IRC Section 6501(c)(8) applies whenever the taxpayer fails to file Forms 8621, 5471, 5472, 926, 3520, 3520-A, 8865, 8858 and 8938 (and potentially other forms). In essence, this Section comes into play with respect to virtually all major international tax reporting requirements, with the exception of FBAR (which is governed by its own Title 31 Statute of Limitations provisions).

It is important to emphasize that it is not just the failure to file these international tax returns that triggers IRC Section 6501(c)(8). Rather, most international tax attorneys agree that, if the filed international tax returns are inaccurate or incomplete, IRC Section 6501(c)(8) still applies.

IRC Section 6501(c)(8) only applies to the returns filed after the date of the enactment of the provisions that amended the section – March 18, 2010. The Section also applies to returns filed on or before March 18, 2010 if the statute of limitations under Section 6501 (without regard to the amendments) has not expired as of March 18, 2010.

The Impact of IRC Section 6501(c)(8) On the Statute of Limitations

As amended by PL 111-147 and PL 111-226, IRC Section 6501(c)(8) may have a truly monstrous effect on the statute of limitations for the entire affected tax return – a failure to file any of the aforementioned international tax forms (including a failure to provide accurate and complete information) will keep the statute of limitations open indefinitely with respect to “any tax return, even, or period to which such information relates”.

Thus, a failure to file a foreign information return may keep the statute of limitations open forever for the entire tax return, not just that particular foreign information return. This means that the IRS can potentially audit a taxpayer’s return and assess additional taxes outside of the usual statute of limitations period; the IRS changes can affect any item on the US tax return, not just the items on the foreign information return.

Reasonable Cause Exception to the “Entire Case” Rule

IRC Section 6501(c)(8)(B) provides a limited exception to the “entire case” rule. Where a taxpayer establishes that the failure to file an accurate international information return was due to a reasonable cause and not willful neglect, only the international tax forms will be subject to indefinite statute of limitations and not the entire return.

Impact of IRC Section 6501(c)(8) on Your Voluntary Disclosure Strategy

IRC Section 6501(c)(8) may have a significant impact on the voluntary disclosure strategy where multiple international tax forms need to be filed. In these cases, the taxpayers are more likely to go into Streamlined disclosures or 2014 OVDP (now closed) rather than attempt doing a reasonable cause disclosure.

This is the case because this indefinite statute of limitations may undermine a reasonable cause strategy if the disclosure period does not coincide with the years in which the international tax returns were due. For example, let’s suppose that US citizen X owned PFICs during the years 2008-2014, but he never filed Forms 8621 even though they were required. If X decides to do a reasonable cause disclosure and files amended 2012-2014 tax returns only, then, the years 2008-2011 will still be open to an IRS audit (though, if X successfully establishes reasonable cause for the earlier non-filing, only Forms 8621 will be subject to an IRS audit). In this case, X may have to make a choice between an unpleasant filing of amended 2008-2011 tax return or doing a Streamlined disclosure.

Obviously, IRC Section 6501(c)(8) is just one factor in what could be a very complex maze of pros and cons of a distinct voluntary disclosure strategy. Other factors need to be taken into effect in determining, including whether the financials were disclosed on the FBAR and Form 8938 and the amounts of underreported income (which may actually keep the statute of limitations open for the years 2009-2011 as well).

These types of decisions need to be made carefully by a tax professional on a case-by-case basis with detailed analysis of the facts and potential legal strategies; I strongly recommend retaining an experienced tax attorney for the creation and implementation of your voluntary disclosure strategy.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Your Delinquent International Tax Forms

If you have not filed international tax forms and you were required to do so, contact the professional international tax team of Sherayzen Law Office. Our team is lead by an experienced international tax attorney, Mr. Eugene Sherayzen, and has helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world to bring their US tax affairs into fully US tax compliance.

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

US Tax Consequences of the New Indian Gold Monetisation Scheme

/0 Comments/in , /by

A recent article from Reuters discusses the appearance of the new Indian Gold Monetisation Scheme. The idea is to allow Indians to deposit gold into the banks in return for interest payments; in return, the Indian government is hoping to utilize the gold hoarded by its citizens to reduce gold imports.

While the idea is that the Indian Gold Monetisation Plan will be open to resident Indians only, it is likely that at least some US tax residents will be able to participate in the scheme either as US citizens and US permanent residents (who are US tax residents irrespective of where they live) or as Indian non-residents who never declared their non-residency status in India.

This article intends to explore some of the potential US tax problems that may arise as are result of participation in the Indian Gold Monetisation Scheme. The conclusions drawn in this article are preliminary and they may or may not reflect the actual IRS position in the future; the conclusions are and also should be treated simply as general discussion of the subject, not as a legal advice.

2015 Indian Gold Monetisation Scheme

In October 25, 2015, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that a new Indian Gold Monetisation Scheme will be in place by the time of an ancient Hindu festival – Diwali (November 11, 2015). Under the scheme, Indian residents (as well as mutual funds and ETFs) will be able to use gold to open an essentially a fixed-deposit bank account (based on a gold certificate) with an Indian bank; in return, they will receive a gold certificate valued at the “prevailing gold price” at the time the account is opened and they will further receive interest on these gold deposits.

The gold will be collected by the Collection and Purity Testing Centers (CPTCs) certified by the Bureau of Indian Standards. The banks will issue the gold certificates against these gold deposits.

The new bank accounts will start earning interest after the deposited gold is refined into tradable gold bars or 30 days after the receipt of gold at the CPTCs or the bank’s designated branch – whichever is earlier.

There will be three types of fixed-deposit accounts under the Indian Gold Monetisation Scheme: short-term (1-3 years), medium term (5-7 years) and long-term (12-15 years). The banks will determine any premature withdrawal penalties.

Upon the maturity of the fixed-deposit account, the depositor will receive either the gold or the equivalent amount in rupees. The choice of receiving the gold or the rupees needs to be made at the time the account is opened.

Indian Tax Treatment of Interest and Capital Gains Earned As a Result of the Indian Gold Monetisation Scheme

In this Indian Gold Monetisation Scheme, there are three potential points of tax recognition by the participating depositors: capital gain on the original gold deposit, interest earned on the gold deposit at maturity and capital gain at the point of gold redemption (or principal redemption) at the then-current market prices.

The Indian government does not tax any of these three tax recognition events – i.e. neither capital gains nor the interest earned.

Potential US Tax Treatment of Interest Earned As Part of Indian Gold Monetisation Scheme

Despite the fact that Indian government does not tax the interest return on the gold certificates and absent any tax treaty changes, I believe that the most likely outcome is that this interest will be taxed as ordinary income in the United States. There is some marginal potential for the interest to be treated as collectible gain, but I just do not see this as a likely scenario when the IRS has a chance to make a ruling on it.

Potential Problems in US Tax Treatment of the Initial Deposit of Gold to Obtain Gold Certificates under the Indian Gold Monetisation Scheme

Generally, in the United States, any gain on the sale of gold bars and gold jewelry is treated as a capital gain from the sale of a collectible subject to 28% tax gain. There is a potential additional 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax as a result of Obamacare.

The question really becomes whether the opening of the gold account under the Gold Monetisation Scheme, where the gold is being melted into bars and the depositor receives a gold certificate with a rupee account at fair market value, should be considered as a sale or exchange of gold or is this just a 1031 exchange of the like properties?

The answer cannot be given with any certainty at this point, because the IRS has made no rulings on this very subject. However, it is possible that such an even will be treated by the IRS as a taxable exchange, because the gold is transformed into a rupees-based deposit account based on its market value – i.e. the number of rupees given to the depositor is equivalent to the fair market value, not the cost-basis that the depositor has at the point the gold is given to CPTCs.

On the other hand, the IRS could agree with an argument that, under the Indian Gold Monetisation Scheme, the gold is nothing but a guarantee for the rupee deposit account. Since the depositor receives a Gold Certificate and can get the same gold back upon the maturity of the account, it does not seem fair to tax the gain on the gold at this point (this argument, may not work if the deposit chooses to receive the original deposit back in rupees). If the 1031 rules are used to analyze this situation, the majority of secondary sources (such as EFT law firm opinions) seem to indicate that there may not be a taxable exchange for US tax purposes in this case. I tend to agree with this position in most situations, but it is too early to make the final determination at this point.

There is actually merit to both arguments and, until the gold certificates are actually issued and all facts can be analyzed, it is difficult to state what the IRS position will be.

Potential US Tax Treatment of the Gold/Rupee Redemption Based on Gold Certificates Issued under the Indian Gold Monetisation Scheme

There are two issues here: (1) is the gold redemption considered to be a taxable event; (2) is the rupee redemption under the gold certificates considered to be a taxable and how should it be taxed.

1. Gold Redemption

Let’s analyze the physical gold redemption first. It appears that the deposit will be able to obtain the same amount of gold irrespective of the changes in value since the original gold was melted into bars at CPTCs. This means that, if the 1 gram of gold is originally melted at 2,500 rupees, and rises in price to 3,000 rupees within three years, the deposit will still get one gram of gold. There seems to be a gain here of 500 rupees, but there is no actual monetization of gain. This is a hypothetical gain on the conversion of the gold certificate into physical gold.

The taxation of gain in a situation where one form of gold is transformed into another form of gold is one of the most complex topics in the US taxation of collectibles. Often times, even the same certificates may be taxed in a different manner.

Due to the fact that this topic is heavily fact-dependent with little IRS official guidance, it is best to delay the answer of this question until the time when these certificates are issued and can be analyzed in the actual factual context. At that time, if you have any questions regarding taxation of your gold certificate, contact Sherayzen Law Office directly.

2. Rupee Redemption

Unlike the gold redemption (which, depending on the circumstances, may not be taxable at all), the issue of taxability of the rupee redemption of the gold is fairly straightforward – this is a taxable event where gold is exchanged for rupees. Most likely, this exchange will be taxed in the United States as a collectible capital gain rate of 28% percent.

However, there are a couple of complications with respect to calculating the collectible gain. First, it should be remembered that the collectible gain should be calculated in US dollars (contact Sherayzen Law Office directly for more information). Second, the cost-basis of the gold will depend on whether the conversion of gold into a Gold Certificate is considered to be a taxable gain. If it is, then, the cost basis would be the fair market value at the time the gold is submitted by the depositor to be melted into bars at CPTCs. If it is not, then the original cost-basis (i.e. what the gold was actually acquired for) will be used in the determination of the collectible gain.

Other Issues Regarding 2015 Indian Gold Monetisation Scheme

In addition to US collectible and interest tax issues discussed above, investing through Indian Gold Monetisation Scheme may bring forth other US tax requirements. In particular, I wish to emphasize here that accounts opened through Indian Gold Monetisation Scheme are most likely reportable accounts for FBAR and Form 8938 purposes.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With US Tax Compliance

If you are a US person who has foreign accounts, foreign assets and/or foreign income, you should contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with your US tax compliance. Our experienced legal team, headed by the firm’s founder, attorney Eugene Sherayzen, will thoroughly analyze your case, identify your current and past US international tax compliance issues, develop a compliance plan for you (whether for current-year compliance or as part of your voluntary disclosure), and implement this plan, including preparation of all legal documents and tax forms.

US international tax laws are complex and should be handled by professionals with deep knowledge of the subject matter. This why You should contact Sherayzen Law Office Now!

Higher OVDP Penalties May Affect More US Taxpayers

/0 Comments/in , /by

As of August 25, 2015, and as a result of increasing number of DOJ Swiss Bank Program Non-Prosecution agreements, 2015, higher OVDP penalties (50 %) apply to US account holders of 43 banks. Between August 1 and August 20, 2015, six more banks were added to the 50% penalty list. In this article, I would like to discuss this trend of higher OVDP penalties and analyze how it affects US taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts.

2014 OVDP Background

The 2014 IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (“OVDP”) is a sequel to at least six prior voluntary disclosure initiatives since 2003. In reality, 2014 OVDP most closely resembles 2012 OVDP, but there are some crucial differences between 2014 OVDP and 2012 OVDP both now closed.

2012 OVDP was a voluntary disclosure program created by the IRS to allow U.S. taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts to come forward and settle their US tax problems related to foreign accounts under specific terms. The biggest advantage to participating in the 2012 OVDP (and it remains the same for 2014 OVDP) was the reduction of civil penalties (especially in a willful situation) and avoidance of criminal liability.

Over the years, the offshore voluntary disclosure programs have gotten more and more demanding in terms of information that needed to be submitted by the participating taxpayers and penalties that needed to be paid. Since 2012 OVDP never considered the difference between willful and non-willful taxpayers, many international tax lawyers considered it unfair for non-willful taxpayers to participate in the OVDP.

Learning from these experiences, the IRS realized that it could get better and more widespread compliance if it is able to effectively process non-willful taxpayers while, at the same time, imposing harsher penalties on willful taxpayers. Hence, the IRS implemented dramatic changes to the 2012 OVDP; from these changes, the Streamlined Options and 2014 OVDP with higher OVDP penalties were born.

Higher OVDP Penalties under 2014 OVDP

Since most of the non-willful taxpayers were likely to follow the Streamlined options, the IRS felt that it could impose higher OVDP penalties on the more stubborn willful taxpayers, particularly taxpayers with undisclosed Swiss accounts who did not heed the IRS warnings and did not enter the 2014 OVDP timely.

From this desire, the dual-tier OVDP penalty system was born. The first tier imposes a regular 27.5% (of the” OVDP penalty base”) penalty if the foreign accounts of US taxpayers who entered the OVDP program were not held in the banks on the IRS list. Also, there was a limited opportunity to enter the OVDP at 27.5% penalty rate even the “listed” foreign bank accounts if the taxpayer filed the preclearance request prior to August 4, 2014.

The second tier imposes higher OVDP penalties of 50% if the taxpayer filed the preclearance request after August 4, 2014, and the foreign accounts were held at a bank which is on the IRS list of foreign banks/facilitators.

DOJ Swiss Bank Program and the Expansion of the IRS List of Foreign Banks/ Facilitators

Initially, the IRS List of Foreign Banks consisted of a dozen banks already under investigation as of June 18, 2014, which included such big names as UBS, Credit Swiss, Zurcher Kantonalbank, et cetera. This means that higher OVDP penalties were imposed on US taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts at these banks if these taxpayers did not file the preclearance request timely.

On August 29, 2013, the US Department of Justice announced an unprecedented initiative – The Program for Non-Prosecution Agreements or Non-Target Letters for Swiss Banks (“Swiss Bank Program”) – which was intended to allow Swiss banks avoid DOJ prosecution in exchange for disclosure of their non-compliant US account holders and payment of monetary penalties. In essence, this was a voluntary disclosure program for Swiss banks similar to OVDP for US individuals (and, similarly to higher OVDP penalties, the Swiss Bank Program also had its own graduated scale of penalties).

More than one hundred Swiss banks decided to participate in the DOJ Swiss Bank Program and complied with December 31, 2013 filing deadline. Starting March of 2015, the Swiss Bank Program entered its final stage in which the DOJ and the Swiss banks entered into individualized Non-Prosecution Agreement.

As these banks enter into the Non-Prosecution Agreements, the IRS adds each bank to the IRS List of Foreign Banks. This directly results in higher OVDP penalties for US taxpayers who owned foreign accounts at the “listed” banks and did not file the OVDP preclearance requests prior to the relevant Non-Prosecution Agreement.

As of August 26, 2015, this list consists virtually exclusively of Swiss banks and includes 43 foreign banks:

UBS AG
Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Fides, and Clariden Leu Ltd.
Wegelin & Co.
Liechtensteinische Landesbank AG
Zurcher Kantonalbank
swisspartners Investment Network AG, swisspartners Wealth Management AG, swisspartners Insurance Company SPC Ltd., and swisspartners Versicherung AG
CIBC FirstCaribbean International Bank Limited, its predecessors, subsidiaries, and affiliates
Stanford International Bank, Ltd., Stanford Group Company, and Stanford Trust Company, Ltd.
The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited in India (HSBC India)
The Bank of N.T. Butterfield & Son Limited (also known as Butterfield Bank and Bank of Butterfield), its predecessors, subsidiaries, and affiliates
Sovereign Management & Legal, Ltd., its predecessors, subsidiaries, and affiliates (effective 12/19/14)
Bank Leumi le-Israel B.M., The Bank Leumi le-Israel Trust Company Ltd, Bank Leumi (Luxembourg) S.A., Leumi Private Bank S.A., and Bank Leumi USA (effective 12/22/14)
BSI SA (effective 3/30/15)
Vadian Bank AG (effective 5/8/15)
Finter Bank Zurich AG (effective 5/15/15)
Societe Generale Private Banking (Lugano-Svizzera) SA (effective 5/28/15)
MediBank AG (effective 5/28/15)
LBBW (Schweiz) AG (effective 5/28/15)
Scobag Privatbank AG (effective 5/28/15)
Rothschild Bank AG (effective 6/3/15)
Banca Credinvest SA (effective 6/3/15)
Societe Generale Private Banking (Suisse) SA (effective 6/9/15)
Berner Kantonalbank AG (effective 6/9/15)
Bank Linth LLB AG (effective 6/19/15)
Bank Sparhafen Zurich AG (effective 6/19/15)
Ersparniskasse Schaffhausen AG (effective 6/26/15)
Privatbank Von Graffenried AG (effective 7/2/15)
Banque Pasche SA (effective 7/9/15)
ARVEST Privatbank AG (effective 7/9/15)
Mercantil Bank (Schweiz) AG (effective 7/16/15)
Banque Cantonale Neuchateloise (effective 7/16/15)
Nidwaldner Kantonalbank (effective 7/16/15)
SB Saanen Bank AG (effective 7/23/15)
Privatbank Bellerive AG (effective 7/23/15)
PKB Privatbank AG (effective 7/30/15)
Falcon Private Bank AG (effective 7/30/15)
Credito Privato Commerciale in liquidazione SA (effective 7/30/15)
Bank EKI Genossenschaft (effective 8/3/15)
Privatbank Reichmuth & Co. (effective 8/6/15)
Banque Cantonale du Jura SA (effective 8/6/15)
Banca Intermobiliare di Investimenti e Gestioni (Suisse) SA (effective 8/6/15)
bank zweiplus ag (effective 8/20/15)
Banca dello Stato del Cantone Ticino (effective 8/20/15)

Possible Future Scenario: Higher OVDP Penalties for Non-Swiss Bank Accounts?

Given the success of the Swiss Bank Program, I expect that this experience maybe applied by the IRS in another country and even worldwide. If this happens, higher OVDP penalties may affect a larger percentage of US taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts outside of Switzerland. Israel, Singapore, the Caribbean islands (e.g. the Cayman Islands) and other tax shelter and low-tax jurisdictions are all good candidates for the expansion of the Swiss Bank Program.

Impact on US Taxpayers

Given the continuous expansion of the IRS List of Foreign Banks (as a result of Swiss Bank Program Resolutions), more and more US taxpayers are likely to be affected by the higher OVDP penalties. Moreover, in light of the potential expansion of the Swiss Bank Program to other countries, it is very likely that higher OVDP penalties will commence to impact more US taxpayers with non-Swiss foreign accounts. Finally, there is a possibility that the almost worldwide implementation of FATCA may lead to higher OVDP penalties in the future.

Thus, in light of these developments, US taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts should contact an experienced international tax attorney to review their offshore voluntary disclosure options. Failure to do so may lead not only to higher OVDP penalties down the road, but also to the total loss of the possibility of doing a voluntary disclosure (for example, if the IRS commences an investigation) and imposition of willful FBAR penalties.

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

This is why you should contact the experienced legal team of Sherayzen Law Office lead by the founder of the firm – Eugene Sherayzen, Esq. Mr. Sherayzen is a highly experienced international tax attorney who has helped hundreds of US taxpayers worldwide to bring their US tax affairs in full compliance with US tax laws. He can help you!

Swiss Bank Program Update: Bank Zweiplus and Banca Stato del Cantone Ticino

/0 Comments/in , /by

On August 20, 2015, the US Department of Justice announced another Swiss Bank Program update – Bank Zweiplus AG (Bank Zweiplus) and Banca dello Stato del Cantone Ticino (Banca Stato) have reached resolutions under the department’s Swiss Bank Program.

The Swiss Bank Program, which was announced on August 29, 2013, provides a path for Swiss banks to resolve potential criminal liabilities in the United States. Swiss banks eligible to enter the program were required to advise the department by December 31, 2013, that they had reason to believe that they had committed tax-related criminal offenses in connection with undeclared U.S.-related accounts. Banks already under criminal investigation related to their Swiss-banking activities and all individuals were expressly excluded from the program.

Swiss Bank Program Update: Bank Zweiplus Background and Non-Prosecution Agreement

As part of its Swiss Bank Program Update, the DOJ provided various background information regarding Bank Zweiplus. The Bank was founded in July 2008 as a retail bank based in Zurich. Offices located in Geneva and Basel, Switzerland, were closed in 2008 and 2012, respectively. Since Aug. 1, 2008, Bank Zweiplus maintained and serviced 44 U.S.-related accounts with an aggregate value of approximately $12.1 million.

Bank Zweiplus was aware that U.S. taxpayers have a legal duty to report to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) their ownership of bank accounts outside the United States and to pay taxes on income earned in such accounts. Nevertheless, in disregard of U.S. laws, the bank provided a variety of traditional Swiss banking services that assisted some U.S. taxpayers in concealing their undeclared accounts. For example, Bank Zweiplus maintained numbered accounts and accounts held in the name of structures which were effectively owned or controlled by U.S. persons, including structures in the British Virgin Islands and the Bahamas.

Bank Zweiplus cooperated with the department during its participation in the Swiss Bank Program and encouraged its U.S. clients to enter the IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (nowclosed). Bank Zweiplus will pay a penalty of $1.089 million.

Swiss Bank Program Update: Banca Stato Background and Non-Prosecution Agreement

As part of its Swiss Bank Program Update, the DOJ provided various background information regarding Banca Stato. Banca Stato was established in 1915 and is headquartered in Bellinzona, Switzerland. Banca Stato was aware that U.S. taxpayers had a legal duty to report to the IRS and pay taxes on the basis of all of their income, including income earned in accounts that the U.S. taxpayers maintained at the bank. Despite this, the bank opened and serviced accounts for U.S. clients who the bank knew or had reason to know were not complying with their U.S. income tax obligations.

During the applicable period, Banca Stato maintained and serviced 187 U.S.-related accounts with an aggregate maximum balance of approximately $137 million. Banca Stato will pay a penalty of $3.393 million.

Impact of this Swiss Bank Program Update on US Taxpayers

Starting August 20, 2015, noncompliant U.S. accountholders at Bank Zweiplus and Banca Stato must now pay that 50 percent penalty to the IRS if they wish to enter the IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program.

Follow this link to the DOJ website for more information on this Swiss Bank Program Update.

Société Générale Private Banking Non-Prosecution Agreement

/0 Comments/in , /by

On June 9, 2015, the Department of Justice announced that Société Générale Private Banking (Suisse) SA has reached a resolution under the DOJ’s Swiss Bank Program.

According to the terms of the non-prosecution agreement, Société Générale Private Banking agreed to cooperate in any related criminal or civil proceedings, demonstrate its implementation of controls to stop misconduct involving undeclared U.S. accounts and pay penalties in return for the department’s agreement not to prosecute these banks for tax-related criminal offenses.

Société Générale Private Banking has had a presence in Switzerland since 1926, and had a U.S.-licensed representative office in Miami from the early 1990s until it closed on August 26, 2013. Société Générale Private Banking opened and maintained accounts for accountholders who had U.S. tax reporting obligations, and was aware that U.S. taxpayers had a legal duty to report to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and pay taxes on all of their income, including income earned in Société Générale Private Banking accounts. Société Générale Private Banking knew that it was likely that certain U.S. taxpayers who maintained accounts at the bank were not complying with their U.S. income tax obligations.

Société Générale Private Banking’s U.S. cross-border banking business aided and assisted some U.S. clients in opening and maintaining undeclared accounts in Switzerland and concealing the assets and income the clients held in their accounts from the IRS. SGBP-Suisse used a variety of means to assist U.S. clients in hiding their assets and income, including opening and maintaining accounts for U.S. taxpayers in the name of non-U.S. entities, including sham entities, thereby assisting such U.S. taxpayers in concealing their beneficial ownership of the accounts. Such entities included Panama and British Virgin Island corporations, as well as Liechtenstein foundations. In two instances, an Société Générale Private Banking employee acted as a director of entities that had U.S. taxpayers as beneficial owners. In another instance, upon the death of the beneficial owner of an entity, the heirs opened accounts held by sham entities at Société Générale Private Banking to receive their shares of the assets from the entity account.

Société Générale Private Banking further provided numbered accounts, allowing the accountholder to replace his or her identity with a code name or number on documents sent to the client, and held statements and other mail at its offices in Switzerland, rather than sending them to the U.S. taxpayers in the United States. In addition to these services, Société Générale Private Banking:

Processed requests from U.S. taxpayers for cash or gold withdrawals so as not to trigger any transaction reporting requirements;

Processed requests from U.S. taxpayers to transfer funds from U.S.-related accounts at Société Générale Private Banking to accounts at subsidiaries in Lugano, Switzerland, and the Bahamas;

Opened accounts for U.S. taxpayers who had left UBS when the department was investigating that bank;

Processed requests from U.S. taxpayers to transfer assets from accounts being closed to other Société Générale Private Banking accounts held by non-U.S. relatives and/or friends; and

Followed instructions from U.S. beneficial owners to transfer assets to corprate and individual accounts at other banks in Switzerland, Hong Kong, Israel, Lebanon, Liechtenstein and Cyprus.

Throughout its participation in the Swiss Bank Program, Société Générale Private Banking committed to full cooperation with the U.S. government. For example, Société Générale Private Banking described in detail the structure of its U.S. cross-border business, including providing a list of the names and functions of individuals who structured, operated or supervised the cross-border business at Société Générale Private Banking; a summary of U.S.-related accounts by assets under management; written narrative summaries of 98 U.S.-related accounts; and the circumstances surrounding the closure of relevant accounts holding cash or gold. Société Générale Private Banking also provided information to make treaty requests to the Swiss competent authority for U.S. client account records.

Since August 1, 2008, Société Générale Private Banking held and managed approximately 375 U.S.-related accounts, which included both declared and undeclared accounts, with a peak of assets under management of approximately $660 million. Société Générale Private Banking will pay a penalty of $17.807 million.

US taxpayers who have not yet disclosed their Société Générale Private Banking accounts, but who wish to participate in the 2014 OVDP, are likely to face now a 50% OVDP penalty rate.