Posts

Specified Individual | FATCA International Tax Lawyers and Attorneys

/0 Comments/in , /by

Specified Individual is a key tax term that must be correctly understood in order to properly identify the persons who are required to file FATCA Form 8938. In this brief article, I will describe the general definition of a Specified Individual for Form 8938 purposes.

Specified Individual: FATCA Form 8938 Background

In 2010, one of the most important events in modern history of US taxation happened – the passage and signing of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act or FATCA. FATCA completely revolutionized the entire landscape of international tax law, elevating the international exchange of tax-related and account-related information to an unprecedented level. FATCA also created a brand-new requirement called Form 8938.

Form 8938 requires US taxpayers to report to the IRS their Specified Foreign Financial Assets (“SFFA”) together with the taxpayers’ US tax returns. Prior to tax year 2016, only a Specified Individual was required to report his SFFA to the IRS. Starting tax year 2016, a Specified Domestic Entity is also required to disclose its SFFA on Form 8938.

Specified Individual Definition

Treas. Reg. §1.6038D-1(a)(2) defines a “specified individual” as anyone who is: (I) US citizen; (ii) resident alien of the United States for any portion of the taxable year; (iii) nonresident alien for whom an election under 26 U.S.C. §6013(g) or (h) is in effect (i.e. nonresident alien who makes an election to be treated as a resident alien in order to file a joint US tax return); or (iv) nonresident alien who is a bona fide resident of Puerto Rico or a section 931 possession (as defined in Treas. Reg. §1.931-1(c)(1) – i.e. Guam, American Samoa and Northern Mariana Islands).

Resident alien includes anyone who is a US permanent resident or meets the substantial presence test.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Form 8938 If You Are a Specified Individual

If you are a specified individual who has undisclosed foreign accounts or any other SFFA, contact Sherayzen Law Office as soon as possible to explore your offshore voluntary disclosure options. Sherayzen Law Office is a highly experienced international tax law firm that specializes in offshore voluntary disclosures, including Streamlined Compliance Procedures (both Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures and Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures), Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures, Delinquent International Information Return Submission Procedures and Reasonable Cause (so-called Noisy) Disclosures.

We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers all around the globe to bring their US tax affairs into full compliance with US tax laws, and We can Help You! Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

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!

Credit Suisse Pleaded Guilty; Disclosure of US-Held Bank Accounts

/in , /by

On May 19, 2014, Credit Suisse AG pleaded guilty to conspiracy to aid and assist U.S. taxpayers in filing false income tax returns and other documents with the IRS. Credit Suisse agreed to pay huge fines and disclose certain information to the IRS and the US DOJ. Let’s look closer at certain parts of this deal and what this means to U.S. taxpayers who still hold undisclosed bank accounts at Credit Suisse or who held such accounts in any years since 2008.

Illegal Activities of Credit Suisse Acknowledged as Part of the Plea

The DOJ stated that, as part of the plea agreement, Credit Suisse acknowledged that, for decades prior to and through 2009, it operated an illegal cross-border banking business that knowingly and willfully aided and assisted thousands of U.S. clients in opening and maintaining undeclared accounts and concealing their offshore assets and income from the IRS.

According to the statement of facts filed with the plea agreement, Credit Suisse employed a variety of means to assist U.S. clients in concealing their undeclared accounts, including by:

assisting clients in using sham entities to hide undeclared accounts;

soliciting IRS forms that falsely stated, under penalties of perjury, that the sham entities were the beneficial owners of the assets in the accounts;

failing to maintain in the United States records related to the accounts;

destroying account records sent to the United States for client review;

using Credit Suisse managers and employees as unregistered investment advisors on undeclared accounts

facilitating withdrawals of funds from the undeclared accounts by either providing hand-delivered cash in the United States or using Credit Suisse’s correspondent bank accounts in the United States;

structuring transfers of funds to evade currency transaction reporting requirements; and

providing offshore credit and debit cards to repatriate funds in the undeclared accounts.

Fines that Credit Suisse Will Pay – A Huge Victory for the US Department of Justice

The giant bank agreed to pay a total of $2.6 billion – $1.8 billion to the Department of Justice for the U.S. Treasury, $100 million to the Federal Reserve, and $715 million to the New York State Department of Financial Services. Earlier this year, Credit Suisse already paid approximately $196 million in disgorgement, interest and penalties to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for violating the federal securities laws by providing cross-border brokerage and investment advisory services to U.S. clients without first registering with the SEC.

Credit Suisse has also agreed to implement programs to ensure its compliance with U.S. laws, including its reporting obligations under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act and relevant tax treaties, in all its current and future dealings with U.S. customers.

“This case shows that no financial institution, no matter its size or global reach, is above the law,” said Attorney General Holder. “Credit Suisse conspired to help U.S. citizens hide assets in offshore accounts in order to evade paying taxes. When a bank engages in misconduct this brazen, it should expect that the Justice Department will pursue criminal prosecution to the fullest extent possible, as has happened here.”

“This prosecution and plea should serve notice that secret accounts and assisting the evasion of income taxes have a high cost,” said U.S. Attorney Boente. “Concealing financial accounts from the U.S. government is not a legitimate part of wealth management or private banking services.”

“Pursuing international tax evasion is a priority area for IRS Criminal Investigation, and we will continue to follow the money here in the United States and around the world” said IRS Commissioner Koskinen. “I want to commend the special agents in IRS-Criminal Investigation for all of their hard work in this area and the close cooperation with the Department of Justice. Today’s guilty plea is another important milestone in ongoing law enforcement efforts to investigate the use of offshore accounts to evade taxes. People should no longer feel comfortable hiding their assets and income from the IRS.”

What Credit Suisse Will Further Disclose as Part of the Plea

This is the part which is most relevant to the U.S. taxpayers who had (or still have) undisclosed bank accounts at Credit Suisse at any point after January 1, 2008.

As part of the plea agreement, Credit Suisse agreed to make a complete disclosure of its cross-border activities, cooperate in treaty requests for account information, provide detailed information as to other banks that transferred funds into secret accounts or that accepted funds when secret accounts were closed, and to close accounts of account holders who fail to come into compliance with U.S. reporting obligations.

What Credit Suisse Guilty Plea Means to US Taxpayers with Undisclosed Credit Suisse Accounts

The guilty plea of Credit Suisse is likely to have a profound impact on U.S. taxpayers with undisclosed accounts. While the UBS case was a landmark victory for the IRS that changed the nature of the international tax enforcement, it was actually much more limited in “exposure” scope with respect to its own US accountholders than the Credit Suisse guilty plea (this is a true testament to how much more powerful the DOJ has become in Switzerland since 2008).

In essence, at this point, any US taxpayers with undisclosed Credit Suisse accounts should now assume that their non-compliant accounts now be closed (unless they do some type of voluntary disclosure) and/or they are likely to be disclosed by Credit Suisse to the IRS if the IRS makes a treaty request. Even worse, for any US taxpayers who had accounts at some point in 2008 and closed them prior to the guilty plea by Credit Suisse, there is no guarantee that these accounts will not be disclosed by Credit Suisse to the IRS. I would even venture to guess that the likelihood of the exposure of these accounts is very high now.

However, the IRS victory over Credit Suisse does not just stop at the Credit Suisse accountholders, but also all banks that dealt with Credit Suisse with respect to these US-owned accounts. This means that US taxpayers who transferred their funds out of Credit Suisse (presumably when they closed their non-compliant accounts) are likely to be at high risk of IRS detection.

Finally, Credit Suisse is likely to disclose to the IRS its main strategies with respect to opening, closing and maintaining non-compliant accounts through a business entity or a trust. This means that the IRS will now be able to initiate investigations based on patterns of activity, without necessarily having specific information about a given account. This means that all US taxpayers who benefitted from Credit Suisse help prior to the guilty plea by the bank, are likely to now be exposed (whether the intention behind this planning was tax evasion or legitimate asset protection).

The upshot of all of these factors is that US taxpayers who have had any undisclosed foreign bank accounts in Credit Suisse since 2008 are likely to be at high risk of IRS criminal investigation with huge FBAR monetary penalty exposure and potential jail sentence.

This means that these US taxpayers with undisclosed Credit Suisse bank accounts should consider their voluntary disclosure options as soon as possible. If the IRS learns about their identity prior to entering into a voluntary disclosure problem, the path to the OVDP (Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program) may be closed with potentially huge disadvantages to such taxpayers.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help with the Voluntary Disclosure of Your Credit Suisse Accounts

If you have undisclosed Credit Suisse accounts, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. Owner Eugene Sherayzen is an experienced international tax lawyer who will thoroughly review the facts of your case, analyze your voluntary disclosure options, create a comprehensive voluntary disclosure strategy and implements (including preparation of all legal documents and tax forms as well as rigorous IRS representation).

Contact Us to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!