taxation law services

Undisclosed Bank Accounts in Switzerland: Category 2 Swiss Banks

As the voluntary disclosure program for Swiss Banks proceeds at a rapid pace, the question number one among U.S. international tax attorneys is what will happen to the undisclosed bank accounts in Switzerland. In order to understand the impact of the US Department of Justice (“DOJ”) the Program for Non-Prosecution Agreements or Non-Target Letters for Swiss Banks (the “Program”) on the undisclosed bank accounts in Switzerland, one needs to understand the basic operation of this Program. In an earlier article, I outlined the eligibility requirements for the Swiss Banks. In this article, I want to define the Category 2 banks and what implications this classification will have on the Swiss banks in this category and, ultimately, what type of disclosure US taxpayers with undisclosed bank accounts in Switzerland should expect.

Category 2 Banks Defined

Category 2 banks are those that “have a reason to believe” that they have committed tax offenses under Titles 18 or 26 of the US Code or monetary transactions offenses under Sections 5314 or 5322 of Title 31 of the US Code, in connection with undeclared U.S. Related Accounts held by the Swiss Bank during the Applicable Period (obviously undisclosed bank accounts in Switzerland is among these offenses).

This definition is based on several other definitions that need to be laid out here in order to understand the scope of the Category 2. An important point here is that this definition of Category 2 Swiss banks is very closely intertwined with the FATCA Treaty signed by Switzerland.

First, Titles 18, 26 and 31 are related to criminal prosecution. Obviously, they are broader than solely criminal prosecution, but the important point here is that a Swiss bank should have a reason to believe that it has committed a potentially criminal offense in order to fit in the category 2 (obviously, most U.S. international tax forms may potentially have criminal penalties; so the scope here is fairly broad).

Second, “U.S. Related Accounts” is defined separately by the DOJ. From the outset, one should notice that there is a crucial monetary value limitation; U.S. Related Accounts applies only to accounts that exceed $50,000 at any time during the Applicable Period (see below for the definition) based on the account balance on the last day of each month.

U.S. Related Accounts apply to all accounts “as to which indicia exist” that a U.S. Person or Entity (both terms are defined in the FATCA treaty) has financial or beneficial interest in, ownership of, or signatory and other authority. Other authority includes such powers as: authority to withdraw funds, make investment decisions, receive account statements, receive trade confirmations, receive other account information; or receive advise or solicitations.

How should the Swiss banks find out if such “indicia” exists? The procedures are set forth in the FATCA Agreement, Annext I, Part II due diligence procedures. Some procedures would apply to “Lower Value Accounts” with $250,000 or less in value at all times during the Applicable Period (again see below). Other procedures would be applicable to “High-Value Accounts” with more than $250,00 in value at any time during the Applicable Period (see below).

Finally, what is this “Applicable Period”? DOJ defines the term in a very precise manner: at any time between August 1, 2008 and either (a) the later of December 31, 2014 or the effective date of an FFI Agreement; OR (b) the date of the Non-Prosecution Agreement or (in case of a Category 3 and 4 bank) Non-Target Letter, if that date is earlier than December 31, 2014.

Category 2 Banks: What Do Participating Banks Get for Their Participation in the Program?

Category 2 banks are eligible for a non-prosecution agreement (“NPA”). Basically, if the DOJ concludes that the Category 2 Swiss Bank has met all of its obligations under the NPA, the DOJ will not prosecute this Bank criminally for any of the offenses under Titles 18, 26 and 31 of the United States Code.

However, there is an important exception that may put certain participating banks at a disadvantage. If after the review of the information submitted by a Swiss bank under the NPA request, the DOJ determines that the Swiss bank’s conduct demonstrates extraordinary culpability, the DOJ may require the Swiss bank to enter a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (“DPA”) instead of an NPA.

Category 2 Swiss Banks: What Is the Price for the Participation in the Program?

The price for the Category 2 Swiss Banks who agree to request the NPA can be surprisingly high. There three types of cost: intangible reputation costs, significant penalties under the Program and waiver of the Statute of Limitations Defenses in case the DOJ decides, in its sole discretion, that NPA was violated by the Swiss Bank.

The intangible costs are high to assess and may depend on the particular fact pattern. Generally, the Swiss banks with higher exposure to US clients will suffer more than the Swiss banks who have limited exposure to U.S. capital. Nevertheless, the bank secrecy reputation of the Swiss banks has likely suffered a death blow among U.S. taxpayers, both tax-compliant and those with undisclosed bank accounts in Switzerland. It is without a doubt that the Swiss banks will suffer tremendous intangible losses as a result of the Program participation.

A much more immediate problem is astonishingly high civil penalties imposed on the Swiss banks for having US clients with undisclosed bank accounts in Switzerland, especially given the fact that it is possible that the Swiss banks may not have been aware that these accounts were not properly disclosed to the IRS on the FBARs and Forms 8938.

These civil penalties are imposed by the DOJ on the Swiss Banks upon the execution of the NPA. The exact penalties depend on the opening dates of the accounts.

1. For U.S. Related undisclosed bank accounts in Switzerland that existed on August 1, 2008, the Program would require the Swiss banks to pay a 20% penalty to the United States of the maximum aggregate dollar value of all such accounts during the Applicable Period (see above for definition).

2. For U.S. Related undisclosed bank accounts in Switzerland that were opened between August 1, 2008 and February 28, 2009, the DOJ requires the Swiss Banks to pay a 30% penalty to the United States of the maximum aggregate dollar value of all such accounts;

3. For U.S. Related undisclosed bank accounts in Switzerland that were opened after February 28, 2009, the DOJ requires the Swiss Banks to pay a 50% penalty to the United States of the maximum aggregate dollar value of all such accounts;

The maximum dollar value of the aggregate US Related bank accounts in Switzerland may be reduced by the dollar value of each account as to which the Swiss banks are able to demonstrate, to the DOJ’s satisfaction, was not an undeclared account, was disclosed by the Swiss Banks to the IRS or was disclosed to the IRS through the OVDP (Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program) or OVDI (Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative) following the notification by the Swiss Bank of the US accountholders (this is why many of US taxpayers with undisclosed bank accounts in Switzerland are now getting these notices) of this program prior to the execution of the NPA.

Of course, in addition to civil penalties, the actual expenses related to going through the program and implementing the proceduring in compliance with an NPA can be very substantial.

Finally, in cases where the DOJ determines in its discretion that the NPA is violated, by executing the NPA, the Swiss banks agree to waive all defenses based on the expiration of the statute of limitations as well as any constitutional, statutory or other claim concerning pre-indictment delay with respect to any prosecutions under Titles 18, 26 and 31 of the United States Code are not time-barred by the applicable state of limitations on the date of the announcement of the Program. Moreover, the Swiss Banks further agree that such waiver is knowing, voluntary, and in express reliance upon the advice of the Swill Bank’s counsel.

Required Reporting with Respect to Undisclosed Bank Accounts in Switzerland

Any Category 2 bank that wishes to obtain an NPA must submit a letter of intent to the DOJ Tax Division containing certain disclosures by December 31, 2013. The letter must include a plan for complying with the program requirements within reasonable time (not to exceed 120 days from the date of the letter of intent); provide the identity and qualifications of an independent examiner (a qualified attorney or accountant who will certify the information); state that the Swiss bank will maintain all records required for compliance with the terms of an NPA, including all records that may be sought by treaty; and acknowledge that the bank will waive any potential defense based on the statute of limitations for the period August 29, 2013 to the issuance of the NPA.

If the Swiss Bank cannot comply with all of the Program requirements within 120 days from the date of the letter of intent, the DOJ will grant a one-time extension of 60 days upon a showing of good cause.

The critical issue for U.S. taxpayers with undisclosed bank accounts in Switzerland is with respect to what type of disclosures constitute the aforementioned “program requirements” .

Program Requirements Prior to the Execution of an NPA

Prior to the execution of an NPA, a Category 2 Swiss bank must disclose to the DOJ the following evidence and information:

a. Explanation of how the cross-border business for US Related Accounts was structured, operated, and supervised (including internal reporting and other communications with and among management);

b. The name and function of the individuals who structured, operated or supervised the cross-border business for US Related Accounts;

c. Explanation of how the bank attracted and serviced account holders;

d. An in-person presentation and documentation, properly translated, supporting the disclosure of the above information, as well as cooperation and assistance with further explanation of information and materials so presented, upon request, or production fo additional explanatory materials as needed; AND

e. Disclosure of the total number of US Related Accounts and maximum dollar value of accounts greater than $50,000 during three separate periods (corresponding to the penalty-calculation periods listed above).

Program Requirements Upon the Execution of an NPA

Upon execution of an NPA, the Category 2 Swiss banks must provide further details about US-related accounts that were closed after August 1, 2008, including the total number of accounts, and as to each account:

a) the maximum value (in USD) of each account;
b) whether the account was held in the name of an individual or an entity;
c) the number of US persons or entities affiliated or potentially affiliated with each account;
d) the nature of the relationship to each account (e.g. a financial interest, beneficial interest, ownership, signatory authority, other authority);
e) whether the account held U.S. securities at any time during the Applicable Period;
f) the name and role of any relationship manager, client advisor, asset manager, financial advisor, trustee, fiduciary, nominee, attorney, accountant, or other individual or entity functioning in a similar capacity known to the participating Swiss Bank to be affiliated with said account at any time during the Applicable Period; AND
g) various information concerning the transfer of duns into and out of the account during the Applicable Period on a monthly basis.

Furthermore, the Swiss Bank must, at its own expense, retain an Independent Examiner who will verify all of the information submitted to the DOJ. The verification must include a statement from the Independent Examiner that FATCA due diligence standards were applied in collecting this information.

Post-Execution NPA Requirements: Assistance and Record Retention

NPA imposes continuous obligations upon the participating Swiss Banks after the NPA is executed. In the future, the Swiss bank must provide all necessary information for the United States to draft treaty requests to seek account information, and the bank must collect and maintain all records that are potentially responsive to any treaty requests to facilitate prompt responses. Extraordinarily, the NPA further requires that the Swiss bank, upon request, provides testimony of competent witness or information as needed to enable the United States to use the information and evidence obtained pursuant to the Program or separate treaty request in any criminal or other proceeding. The Swiss Bank, at its own expense, is also required to provide assistance in identification and translation of significant documents.

The recordkeeping requirement is very broad. The Swiss bank must agree to retain records of all US Related Accounts closed after August 1, 2013 for a period of 10 years from the termination date of the NPA. Same requirement applies to the records related to the Swiss Bank’s U.S. cross-border business in general.

Moreover, the Category 2 Swiss bank must also agree to close any and all accounts of recalcitrant account holders (as defined in I.R.C. Section 1471(d)(6)) and implement procedures to prevent its employees from assisting recalcitrant account holders to engage in acts of further concealment.

Finally, under the NPA, the Swiss Bank agrees not to open any US Related Accounts (irrespective of their size – i.e. this applies to account below the $50,000 threshold) except on the conditions that ensure that the account will be declared to the United States and will be subject to disclosure by the Swiss bank,

What Happens If the Swiss Banks Fails to Comply With the Reporting Requirements

If the DOJ determines, in its sole discretion, that any information or evidence provided by the Swiss Bank is materially false, incomplete or misleading, then the DOJ may decline to enter into an NPA.

If the DOJ discovers that the provided information was materially false, incomplete or misleading after entering into an NPA or that the Swiss Bank otherwise materially violated the terms of the NPA the DOJ may pursue any and all legal remedies available to it, including criminal investigation and prosecution against the violating Swiss Bank, without regard to any other provision of the NPA or the Program. As stated above, by entering into an NPA, the Swiss Bank waives various defenses to such prosecutions, including the ones based on the expiration of the Statute of Limitations.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office if You Have Undisclosed Bank Accounts in Switzerland

If you have undisclosed bank accounts in Switzerland, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with your voluntary disclosure. It should be clear to U.S. taxpayers that continuing to maintain undisclosed accounts in Switzerland is likely to result in heavy civil and potentially criminal penalties.

Our experienced international tax law firm will thoroughly analyze your case, recommend the appropriate strategy for your voluntary disclosure, prepare all of the required tax forms and legal documents and rigorously represent your interests during your negotiations with the IRS.

FATCA Switzerland: Swiss Senate Approves FATCA

FATCA Switzerland: FATCA Legislation Approved

On September 23, 2013, Swiss Senate voted to approve the implementation of Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). This event came barely a few weeks after the Swiss House of Representative approved the same legislation.

At this point, Swiss Banks have a clear way to cooperate with the IRS and US Department of Justice in turning over the required information regarding U.S. accountholders in Switzerland.

At the same time, on August 29, 2013, the DOJ announced the creation of the Program for Non-Prosecution Agreements or Non-Target Letters for Swiss Banks (the “Program”) – a voluntary disclosure program for Swiss Banks.

FATCA Switzerland: What is Driving Swiss Acceptance?

While there may have been strong reasons to oppose the bill, it appears that the driving force behind the acceptance of FATCA by Switzerland has been the fear that Swiss banks would be effectively excluded from the US capital markets if they did not accept FATCA. Most representatives acknowledged that FATCA is a reality, whether Switzerland likes it or not.

FATCA Switzerland: Model 2 Treaty

Unlike most European countries currently engaged in FATCA negotiations, Switzerland opted for the “model two” FATCA implementation treaty. Swiss banks will have to report accounts belonging to US taxpayers with more than $50,000, but client data will only be exchanged once the US authorities have requested administrative assistance (there are exceptions, especially under the Program).

Most European Union countries have accepted another type of FATCA implementation treaty, in which information is exchanged automatically, the so-called “model one”.

FATCA Switzerland: Impact on U.S. Taxpayers With Undeclared Financial Accounts

The FATCA bill will be implemented in Switzerland in stages starting in July 2014. In the meantime, however, the Program will be the main event with respect to FATCA compliance.

The impact on the U.S. taxpayers with undeclared financial accounts is likely to be a dramatic one, though not unexpected. We can already observe a rise in the OVDP (the IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program now closed) participation and the expectation is that 2014 will reflect a major participation of US non-compliant taxpayers in the program.

From the IRS perspective, starting the second half of 2014 and especially 2015, we also expect to see a large increase in criminal prosecutions and investigations of U.S. persons with undeclared financial accounts. This is because, through OVDP and the Program, the IRS will accumulate a massive amount of information allowing it to target non-compliant taxpayers with terrifying precision.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office For Help With Undeclared Foreign Accounts

If you are a U.S. taxpayer with undeclared foreign accounts, you should contact Sherayzen Law Office as soon as possible. Our firm consists of a team of highly intelligent and experienced tax professionals dedicated to helping U.S. taxpayers to bring themselves into compliance with U.S. tax law in a reasonable ethical manner. Not only will we be able to advise you on your voluntary disclosure options, but we will also be able to prepare all of the required tax forms and legal documents for you under the protection of the Attorney-Client Privilege.

San Francisco International Tax Lawyer: Influence of Location

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.

Philadelphia International Tax Attorney: Retainer by Location

Retaining the right Philadelphia international tax attorney is not easy. One of the important issues that taxpayers face is whether it is better to retain an international tax attorney in Philadelphia or in Minneapolis if you live in Philadelphia? If you were to search “Philadelphia international tax attorney”, 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 Philadelphia. 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 attorney, then you may not have a choice but to find a local attorney. This is because local law and procedure would govern in this case, and an attorney 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 attorney 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 Philadelphia international tax attorney 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 an attorney in his area of practice (i.e. international tax law) will become the overriding factors in retaining an international tax attorney.

What if you have an international tax attorney in Philadelphia, do you still want to consider an attorney in Minneapolis? The answer is “yes” – for two reasons. First, international tax attorneys 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 attorney in Minneapolis even if there is an attorney in Philadelphia.

Second, in addition to differences in personal qualities, the experience of the international tax attorney 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 attorney and should override the attorney’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 Philadelphia international tax attorneys 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 Philadelphia international tax attorney, keep these issues in mind while retaining an attorney 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 the experienced international tax team of Sherayzen Law Office for comprehensive legal and tax help.

Retirement Savings Contributions Credit 2013

You may be eligible for a tax credit if you make eligible contributions (other than rollover contributions) to an employer-sponsored retirement plan or to an individual retirement arrangement.

Eligible Plans

The eligible plans for the retirement savings contribution credit include: traditional and Roth IRAs, 401(k), 403(b), governmental 457, SEP, SIMPLE, 501(c)(18)(D) and contributions to a qualified retirement plan as defined in section 4974(c) (including federal Thrift Savings Plan).

Additional Requirements and Limitations

Other important eligibility requirements and limitations include:

1. Income Limitations

You cannot exceed the following income limits in order to be able to take the Retirement Savings Contributions Credit (these are 2013 numbers):

• Single, married filing separately, or qualifying widow(er), with income up to $29,500

• Head of Household with income up to $44,250

• Married Filing Jointly, with income up to $59,000

2. Age Limitation

To be eligible for the Retirement Savings Contributions Credit you must have been born before January 2, 1996.

3. Full-Time Students Not Eligible

You cannot have been a full-time student during the calendar year if you wish to claim the Retirement Savings Contributions Credit (there are some specific definitions regarding the “student” status).

4. Cannot Be a Dependent on Another Person’s Tax Return

If you were claimed as a dependent on someone else’s 2013 tax return, you cannot take the Retirement Savings Contributions Credit.

5. Distributions are Deducted From Contributions

When figuring the Retirement Savings Contributions Credit, you generally must subtract the amount of distributions you have received from your retirement plans from the contributions you have made. This rule applies to distributions received in the two years before the year the credit is claimed, the year the credit is claimed, and the period after the end of the credit year but before the due date – including extensions – for filing the return for the credit year.

Credit amount

If you make eligible contributions to a qualified IRA, 401(k) and certain other retirement plans, you may be able to take a credit of up to $1,000 or up to $2,000 if filing jointly. The credit is a percentage of the qualifying contribution amount, with the highest rate for taxpayers with the least income.

Also note that the Retirement Savings Contributions Credit is a benefit in addition to other tax benefits which may result from the retirement contributions. For example, most workers at these income levels may deduct all or part of their contributions to a traditional IRA.