Posts

Swiss Voluntary Disclosures Rise as Swiss AEOI Compliance Nears

/0 Comments/in , /by

The voluntary disclosures by Swiss taxpayers jumped dramatically in 2017. The most likely reason for the increase is the fact that the Swiss government started to collect information under its numerous Automatic Exchange of Information (“AEOI”) agreements. Let’s analyze in more detail this connection between the Swiss voluntary disclosures and the Swiss AEOI Compliance.

Swiss AEOI Compliance: Increase in Swiss Voluntary Disclosures

The increase in Swiss voluntary disclosures between 2015 and 2017 is undeniable. The Swiss said approximately 350,000 voluntary declarations were made in 2016, compared to 328,000 in 2015. While the numbers for 2017 for the entire country are not available, we can extrapolate the 2017 numbers based on the canton of Zurich.

On January 4, 2018, the canton of Zurich reported that there were almost three times as many of voluntary disclosures of unreported assets by Swiss taxpayers in 2017 than in 2016. A total of 6,150 voluntary disclosures were submitted in 2017 whereas only 2,100 voluntary disclosures were made in 2016. The disclosures brought in about 104 million Swiss francs of additional tax income in 2017; the 2016 number was only 85 million Swiss francs.

The Swiss government also stated that the 2017 voluntary disclosures concerning ownership of real estate in Italy, Portugal and Spain were especially high.

Swiss AEOI Compliance Has a Direct Impact on Swiss Voluntary Disclosures

The connection between Swiss AEOI compliance and the increase in the voluntary disclosures is obvious. In fact, the cantonal government of Zurich directly stated that it attributed the jump in voluntary disclosures to the Swiss AEOI agreements, especially those related to the EU countries.

Already in 2017, the Swiss government started collecting financial information about Swiss taxpayers in order to turn it over to its partner jurisdictions under the Swiss AEOI agreements. The exchange of information under the Swiss AEOI compliance obligations is scheduled to begin in the fall of 2018 for the calendar year 2017 and 2019 for the calendar year 2018.

The Swiss AEOI compliance obligations are very broad due to the fact that Switzerland signed AEOI agreements with 53 jurisdictions already, including the European Union. The European Union is considered to be a single jurisdiction even though it consists of twenty-eight countries. The EU-Switzerland AEOI agreement was approved by the Swiss Parliament in 2016.

The Connection Between Swiss AEOI Compliance and FATCA

As Sherayzen Law Office has repeatedly pointed out in the past, the passage of FATCA in the United States has completely changed the international tax landscape concerning international information exchange with respect to foreign accounts and other foreign assets. In fact, FATCA and the DOJ Program for Swiss Banks have completely destroyed the vaulted Swiss bank privacy laws (though, the 2008 UBS case made the first hole in this bastion of offshore privacy).

After seeing the success of FATCA with respect to US tax compliance, the rest of the world joined the party. The new Common Reporting Standard or CRS was the OECD’s response to FATCA with an ambition to force even more transparency than required by FATCA and making this transparency apply to the United States. The US government refused to join CRS, but it did not prevent the CRS into growing in as important of an international tax compliance standard as FATCA.

Additionally, the enforcement of FATCA had another side-effect: a rapid proliferation of the AEOI agreements, both bilateral and multilateral. The new web of AEOI agreements is growing larger with the passage of time forcing an ever greater international tax transparency. The recent Swiss AEOI compliance is just the latest example of this trend.

Will we ever see a reversal of this trend? It is a real possibility, but it is unlikely that it will be able to destroy the legal groundwork for greater tax transparency that has been laid out by FATCA, CRS and the AEOI agreements.

Specified Domestic Entity: Formed or Availed Of | FATCA Lawyer & Attorney

/0 Comments/in , /by

We are continuing our series of articles on the Specified Domestic Entity definition. In previous articles, I already explained what entities are considered to be domestic and what kind of foreign assets are included in the Specified Foreign Financial Assets. In this article, I would like to introduce the key part of the definition of a Specified Domestic Entity: formed or availed of.

Due to the fact that there is a significant difference in treatment of trusts versus business entities (partnerships and corporations), I will analyze these two types of entities separately. In this article, I will focus solely on introducing the concept of Formed or Availed Of as it applies to partnerships and corporations.

Formed or Availed Of: Context

It is first useful the remember the context in which the clause “Formed or Availed Of” arises.  Treas. Reg. §1.6038D-6(a) defines a Specified Domestic Entity as “a domestic corporation, a domestic partnership, or a trust described in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30)(E), if such corporation, partnership, or trust is formed or availed of for purposes of holding, directly or indirectly, specified foreign financial assets” (italics added).

Thus, the concept of “formed or availed of” is the key part to the definition of a Specified Domestic Entity.

Formed or Availed Of: Main Legal Test

It may seem to a person unfamiliar with Form 8938 that Formed or Availed Of concept implies some sort of a factual finding of intent. This first impression is not correct.

On the contrary, Formed or Availed Of concept has nothing in common with the actual intent of the parties who formed the business entity. Rather, the IRS established a very specific legal test to determine if a business entity is formed or availed of for purposes holding specified foreign financial assets.

The Formed or Availed Of Test is in reality a combination of two legal tests found in Treas. Reg. §1.6038D-6(b). An entity is considered to be formed or availed of for purposes of holding specified foreign financial assets if: (1) the corporation or the partnership is closely held (the “Closely-Held Test”), AND (2) the corporation or the partnership meets the Passive Income or Passive Assets threshold requirement (the “Passive Test”). See Treas. Reg. §1.6038D-6(b). Please, note that both tests need to be satisfied in order for a business entity to be considered as formed or availed of for purposes of holding specified foreign financial assets.

In future articles, I will explore the Closely-Held Test and the Passive Test in more detail.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help Concerning US International Tax Compliance Requirements for Owners of US and Foreign Businesses

If you are an owner of a foreign business or a US domestic business which owns assets overseas, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help concerning relevant US tax compliance requirements. We have helped US business owners around the world, and We can Help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Poland AEOI Rules Still Not Implemented | FATCA Lawyers

/0 Comments/in , /by

On September 29, 2016, the European Commission announced that it had asked Poland to fully implement into its domestic law Council Directive 2014/107/EU on mutual assistance in income and capital taxation matters (which amends the earlier Directive 2011/16/EU on mandatory automatic exchange of information between member states). The request came in after the realization that Poland AEOI Rules were still not implemented despite the deadline.

Poland AEOI Rules Implementation, CRS and Council Directive 2014/107/EU

After the United States adopted Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) into law, the OECD (including the European Union) created the Common Reporting Standard (CRS) which established the standard for what type of information needs to be automatically exchanged between signatory countries. AEOI is essentially the practical application of the CRS.

In December 2014, the EU Council adopted Directive 2014/107/EU, which extended cooperation between tax authorities to automatic exchange of financial account information (i.e. AEOI) and expanded the scope of information to be exchanged on an automatic basis to include interest, dividends, and other types of income. Virtually all countries, except Poland and Portugal, have implemented the directive on AEOI

The Delays in Poland AEOI Rules Implementation

In reality, Poland, like other member states, were requires to implement the directive into their national laws by January 1. According to Tax Analysts, the European Commission already sent a formal notice to Poland on January 27, 2016. Then, it send another formal notice in March of 2016. At that time, Poland replied that the government was working on transposing Directive 2014/107/EU into national law.

However, Poland AEOI Rules still have not been implemented. What is worse, it appears that the Polish government has taken no concrete steps into that direction. Poland also has yet to fully inform the Commission of its plans to meet that requirement.

What Happens if Poland AEOI Rules Implementation Stalls

While the latest Commission action comes at a difficult time in Poland (on September 28, 2016, Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydlo sacked Finance Minister Pawel Szalamacha), it may not save Poland from later EU actions. If Poland does not respond in a satisfactory manner within the next two months, the Commission may refer Poland to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Denver FATCA Lawyers

/0 Comments/in , /by

There are two types of international tax lawyers who can qualify as Denver FATCA lawyers. First, Denver FATCA lawyers are lawyers who live and work in Denver and who specialize in helping U.S. taxpayers and/or foreign financial institutions with FATCA compliance.

The second type of international tax lawyers who can qualify as Denver FATCA lawyers arose as a result of the development of modern communication technologies. These are the lawyers who reside outside of Denver (i.e. in Minneapolis or any other city) and help clients who live and work in Denver, Colorado. A classic example of such Denver FATCA lawyers is the international tax law firm of Sherayzen Law Office; Mr. Sherayzen resides in Minneapolis but provides services to his clients in Denver, Colorado.

It is important to understand that the actual residence of an international tax lawyer who helps his clients in Denver with FATCA issues does not matter. Modern technologies (such as Internet, email, video Skype conference, et cetera) allow a lawyer in Minneapolis to provide at least the same quality of service in Denver as other Denver FATCA lawyers. The mail qualification of a lawyer that should matter for clients who are looking for Denver FATCA lawyers is that their lawyers are knowledgeable about FATCA, foreign accounts disclosure and the U.S. international tax law in general.

The knowledge of U.S. international tax requirements is especially important for Denver FATCA lawyers. A lot of people do not immediately comprehend that FATCA is merely a part (and, indeed, a very important part) of a much larger set of international tax laws of the United States; these laws interact with each other and this interaction has practical tax consequences for U.S. taxpayers. This is why it is important for Denver FATCA lawyers not only to be knowledgeable about FATCA itself, but also about the U.S. international tax laws in general.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office If You Are Looking for Denver FATCA lawyers

If you are looking for Denver FATCA lawyers, contact Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd., an international tax law firm that specializes in FATCA compliance, offshore voluntary disclosures and U.S. international tax issues in general. Sherayzen Law Office provides its services to clients who reside in Denver, Colorado (as it has already done multiple times in the past).

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Julius Baer Deferred Prosecution Agreement

/0 Comments/in , /by

On February 4, 2016, the US DOJ announced that it filed criminal charges against Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd. (“Julius Baer” or “the company”). At the same time, the DOJ announced a Julius Baer Deferred Prosecution Agreement. Let’s explore this event in more detail.

Julius Baer Deferred Prosecution Agreement Background

Unlike many other Swiss Banks, Julius Baer could not participate in the Swiss Bank Program due to its classification as a Category 1 bank. Hence, the Julius Baer Deferred Prosecution Agreement comes as an independent agreement with the DOJ after the DOJ filed criminal charges against Julius Baer.

According to the IRS and the court documents, from at least the 1990s through 2009, Julius Baer helped many of its U.S. taxpayer-clients evade their U.S. tax obligations, file false federal tax returns with the IRS and otherwise hide accounts held at Julius Baer from the IRS (hereinafter, undeclared accounts). Julius Baer did so by opening and maintaining undeclared accounts for U.S. taxpayers and by allowing third-party asset managers to open undeclared accounts for U.S. taxpayers at Julius Baer. Casadei and Frazzetto, bankers who worked as client advisers at Julius Baer, directly assisted various U.S. taxpayer-clients in maintaining undeclared accounts at Julius Baer in order to evade their obligations under U.S. law. At various times, Casadei, Frazzetto and others advised those U.S. taxpayer-clients that their accounts at Julius Baer would not be disclosed to the IRS because Julius Baer had a long tradition of bank secrecy and no longer had offices in the United States, making Julius Baer less vulnerable to pressure from U.S. law enforcement authorities than other Swiss banks with a presence in the United States.

Julius Baer was aware that many U.S. taxpayer-clients were maintaining undeclared accounts at Julius Baer in order to evade their U.S. tax obligations, in violation of U.S. law. In internal Julius Baer correspondence, undeclared accounts held by U.S. taxpayers were at times referred to as “black money,” “non W-9,” “tax neutral,” “unofficial,” or “sensitive” accounts.

At its high-water mark in 2007, Julius Baer had approximately $4.7 billion in assets under management relating to approximately 2,589 undeclared accounts held by U.S. taxpayer-clients. From 2001 through 2011, Julius Baer earned approximately $87 million in profit on approximately $219 million gross revenues from its undeclared U.S. taxpayer accounts, including accounts held through structures.

However, the IRS noted that the behavior of Julius Baer started to change. By at least 2008, Julius Baer began to implement institutional policy changes to cease providing assistance to U.S. taxpayers in violating their U.S. legal obligations. For example, by November 2008, the company began an “exit” plan for U.S. client accounts that lacked evidence of U.S. tax compliance. In that same month, Julius Baer imposed a prohibition on opening accounts for any U.S. clients without a Form W-9.

Additionally, in November 2009, before Julius Baer became aware of any U.S. investigation into its conduct, Julius Baer decided proactively to approach U.S. law enforcement authorities regarding its conduct relating to U.S. taxpayers. Prior to self-reporting to the Department of Justice, Julius Baer notified its regulator in Switzerland of its intention to contact U.S. law enforcement authorities. This Swiss regulator requested that Julius Baer not contact U.S. authorities in order not to prejudice the Swiss government in any bilateral negotiations with the United States on tax-related matters. Accordingly, Julius Baer did not, at that time, self-report to U.S. law enforcement authorities.

After ultimately engaging with U.S. authorities, Julius Baer has taken extensive actions to demonstrate acceptance and acknowledgment of responsibility for its conduct. Julius Baer conducted a swift and robust internal investigation, and furnished the U.S. government with a continuous flow of unvarnished facts gathered during the course of that internal investigation. As part of its cooperation, Julius Baer also, among other things, (1) successfully advocated in favor of a decision provided by the Swiss Federal Council in April 2012 to allow banks under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice to legally produce employee and third-party information to the department, and subsequently produced such information immediately upon issuance of that decision; and (2) encouraged certain employees, including specifically Frazzetto and Casadei, to accept responsibility for their participation in the conduct at issue and cooperate with the ongoing investigation.

Julius Baer Deferred Prosecution Agreement Details

Under the Julius Baer Deferred Prosecution Agreement, the bank admitted to helping U.S. taxpayers hide assets and knowingly assisted many of its U.S. taxpayer-clients in evading their tax obligations under U.S. law. The admissions are contained in a detailed Statement of Facts attached to the agreement. The agreement requires Julius Baer to pay a total of $547 million by no later than February 9, 2016, including through a parallel civil forfeiture action also filed today in the Southern District of New York.

Julius Baer Deferred Prosecution Agreement Impact on U.S. Taxpayers

The Julius Baer Deferred Prosecution Agreement signifies yet another IRS victory over the now-defeated Swiss bank secrecy system. The IRS is simply “mopping-up” the left-over issues in Switzerland as it shifts its focus to other major offshore tax havens. Yet, the Julius Baer Deferred Prosecution Agreement is still a major event that has repercussions for U.S. taxpayers with undeclared foreign accounts.

First, the Julius Baer Deferred Prosecution Agreement is likely to continue to impact former Julius Baer U.S. taxpayers who transferred their funds out of this Swiss bank to another country or another bank in the hopes of avoiding IRS detection of their prior non-compliance. Under the agreement, Julius Baer will continue to cooperate with the IRS in the identification of such noncompliant U.S. taxpayers.

Second, Julius Baer is an important Swiss bank and the fact that the Julius Baer Deferred Prosecution Agreement was reached encourages other noncompliant banks (not only in Switzerland, but other countries) to follow its example. Therefore, U.S. taxpayers who believe they are safe outside of Switzerland are now in the ever increasing danger of IRS detection.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help with Your Undeclared Foreign Accounts

The Julius Baer Deferred Prosecution Agreement is another reminder on how dangerous is the current tax environment for noncompliant U.S. taxpayers. Therefore, if you have not disclosed your foreign accounts, foreign assets or foreign income, please contact Sherayzen Law Office as soon as possible. Our team of tax professionals is highly experienced in handling these matters and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!