Posts

Foreign Inheritance Form 8938 Reporting | Form 8938 Lawyers

/0 Comments/in , /by

Foreign Inheritance Form 8938 reporting has quickly turned into one of the most important tax reporting requirements despite being one of the newest tax forms that debuted barely four years ago in 2012 (for the tax year 2011). In this article, I will discuss when Form 8938 needs to be filed with respect to inherited assets. For the purposes of this article, I will only discuss Form 8938 with respect to the assets actually received, not the assets which are still in the estate. I will also avoid the discussion of Form 3520; it is important to note, though, that Form 3520 is likely to be one of the most relevant reporting requirements with respect to foreign inheritance.

Foreign Inheritance Form 8938 Reporting: Form 8938 Basics

IRS Form 8938 was created by the infamous Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and, generally, it requires individual U.S. taxpayers to report what are known as “specified foreign financial assets” if the value of those assets exceeds the applicable reporting threshold.

It is beyond the scope of this article to explore Form 8938 filing requirements in detail, but, in essence, IRS Form 8938 requires the reporting of three types of assets. The first category consists of financial accounts maintained at foreign financial institutions. This category closely follows the FBAR reporting requirements (with important exceptions, such as signatory authority accounts) but requires U.S. taxpayers to disclose more information with respect to these accounts.

The second category is the requirement to disclose the ownership of a whole new set of classes of assets grouped together under the vague definition of “other foreign financial assets”. Basically, other foreign financial assets include classes of assets which are held for investment but not held in an account maintained by a financial institution. Such assets include stocks or securities issued by anyone who is not a U.S. person, any interest in a foreign entity, and any financial instrument or contract that has an issuer or counterparty that is other than a U.S. person.

Finally, Form 8938 requires the taxpayer to report whether he disclosed any assets on Forms 5471, 8865, 8621, 3520 and 3520-A.

It should be remembered that Form 8938 has its own set of independent penalties associated with Form 8938 noncompliance. These penalties are imposed in addition to penalties associated with FBARs, Form 3520 and other U.S. information returns.

Foreign Inheritance Form 8938 Reporting: Foreign Financial Accounts

If you received foreign bank and financial accounts as part of your foreign inheritance, you will need to disclose these accounts on Forms 8938 if the relevant filing threshold requirement is satisfied. In a foreign inheritance context, an issue often arises if you are an executor of a foreign estate and have signatory authority over the estate’s financial accounts. Whether Form 8938 would need to be filed for the accounts in this situation is a fact-dependent question and needs to be explored by an international tax attorney (though, in the great majority of cases, an FBAR would need to be filed in this context as long as the relevant reporting threshold is satisfied).

Foreign Inheritance Form 8938 Reporting: Other Investment Instruments

If you received other investment instructions as part of your foreign inheritance, your international tax attorney should explore whether these instruments satisfy the second category of reportable Form 8938 assets. Examples of other foreign financial assets include: a note, bond, debenture, or other form of indebtedness issued by a foreign person; an interest rate swap, currency swap; basis swap; interest rate cap, interest rate floor, commodity swap; equity swap, equity index swap, credit default swap, or similar agreement with a foreign counterparty; an option or other derivative instrument with respect to any currency or commodity that is entered into with a foreign counterparty or issuer; and other assets held for investment.

Foreign Inheritance Form 8938 Reporting: Foreign Business Ownership

The detailed exploration of the reporting of an ownership interest in a foreign business is beyond the scope of this article. Therefore, I want to briefly mention that, if you inherited an ownership interest in a foreign corporation, partnership or a disregarded entity, this interest may need to be reported on Form 8938. However, it is possible that this interest may also have to be reported on Forms 5471, 8865, 8858 and other U.S. information reports related to business entities. In this case, it is possible that you will only need to report on Form 8938 that the information regarding an ownership interest in a foreign entity was reported on Form 5471, 8865 and/or 8621.

The final decision on how a foreign business ownership needs to be reported to the IRS should rest with your international tax lawyer.

Foreign Inheritance Form 8938 Reporting: Foreign Trust Beneficiary Interest

The detailed exploration of the reporting of a beneficiary interest in a foreign trust is beyond the scope of this article. For the purposes of this article, let me just provide this brief and over-simplified summary – if you inherited a beneficiary interest in a foreign trust, you should report it on Form 8938 unless it is already reported on Forms 3520 and/or 3520-A (if the latter is the case, you just need to check the box on Form 8938 for the appropriate form on which the beneficiary interest was reported). Again, the decision on how to report your foreign trust beneficiary interest should rest with your international tax lawyer.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help with Your Foreign Inheritance Form 8938 Reporting

The U.S. tax requirements related to reporting of your foreign inheritance may be highly complex and it is very easy to run into trouble. Contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. Our legal team is highly experienced in foreign inheritance reporting, including Forms 8938, 3520 (all parts of Form 3520: foreign trusts, foreign gifts and foreign inheritance), 3520-A, 5471, 8621, 8865 and other relevant forms. We have also helped U.S. taxpayers around the globe with their offshore voluntary disclosures with respect to late reporting of their foreign inheritance.

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

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!

FATCA Form 8938 Foreign Life Insurance Reporting | FATCA Lawyers

/0 Comments/in , /by

FATCA Form 8938 Foreign Life Insurance Policy reporting is one of the most obscure US tax requirements with which many US taxpayers fail to comply. In this article, I would like to explore FATCA Form 8938 foreign life insurance policy reporting.

FATCA Form 8938 Foreign Life Insurance Reporting: Types of Foreign Life Insurance Policies

In a previous article, I already described the three main types of foreign life insurance policies: traditional policies, cash-surrender non-investment policies and investment policies. The traditional policies refer to straightforward life insurance policies with no cash-surrender value; in essence, this is the traditional understanding of what a life insurance policy should be – a sum of money paid out at death to a policy beneficiary.

The cash-surrender non-investment policies are foreign life insurance policies that have cash-surrender value which, usually, can be obtained at any point prior to the maturity of the policy. There is usually no income associated with a policy, but this is not always the case. The cash-surrender value grows over time mostly through premiums, automatic increases in value and a system of bonuses.

Finally, the investment policies are foreign life insurance policies with a cash-surrender value which largely depends on the growth in investments which underlie the policy. While there might be a death benefit to the policy, the investment life insurance policies are usually simply investment accounts wrapped into a life insurance format. Assurance Vie policies in France is a typical example of such a foreign life insurance policy.

FATCA Form 8938 Foreign Life Insurance Reporting: What is Form 8938

FATCA Form 8938 is a relatively recent addition to the already large list of the U.S. international tax forms; yet, it is already the most comprehensive form in the IRS arsenal. FATCA Form 8938 was born out of the feared Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and it was first due with the 2011 tax return.

FATCA Form 8938 basically requires the reporting of three types of assets. First, it almost duplicates FBAR with respect to reporting foreign bank and financial accounts (with important exceptions, such as signatory authority accounts); more information with respect to these accounts, however, must be supplied by the reporting taxpayer. Second, FATCA Form 8938 introduces the requirement to disclose the ownership of a whole new class of assets which normally would not be reported on any tax form (e.g. paper stock certificates). These are so-called “Other Specified Foreign Assets”. Finally, FATCA Form 8938 requires the taxpayer to report whether he disclosed any assets on Forms 5471, 8865, 8621, 3520 and 3520-A.

FATCA Form 8938 has its own set of independent penalties associated with Form 8938 noncompliance.

FATCA Form 8938 Foreign Life Insurance Policy Reporting Requirements

FATCA Form 8938 Foreign Life Insurance Policy reporting is very similar to the FBAR Foreign Life Insurance Policy reporting. In general, the traditional life insurance policies with no cash-surrender values are ordinarily not reportable (although, there are exceptions). On the other hand, cash-surrender non-investment policies and investment policies should be reported on FATCA Form 8938.

This is just the general guidance. The determination of whether your specific foreign life insurance policies should be reported on FATCA From 8938 must be left to an international tax attorney; I strongly discourage any attempt by US taxpayers to make this determination without professional legal assistance.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With FATCA Form 8938 Foreign Life Insurance Policy Reporting

Contact the experienced international tax law firm of Sherayzen Law Office for any legal help with your FATCA Form 8938 Foreign Life Insurance Policy reporting. Foreign life insurance policies can be extremely complex and the US reporting requirements associated with them vary from country to country. Sherayzen Law Office has accumulated tremendous experience in dealing with foreign life insurance policies from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Europe and Asia.

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

First Conviction of Non-Swiss Financial Institutions For Tax Evasion Conspiracy

/0 Comments/in , /by

On March 9, 2016, the IRS announced the first conviction of Non-Swiss Financial Institutions for tax evasion conspiracy. At Sherayzen Law Office, we have been predicting now for years that the IRS would expand its prosecution of financial institutions far beyond the Swiss borders, specifically pointing to tax shelters such as Cayman Islands. Now that our strategic analysis has been confirmed, it is important to analyze this first conviction of Non-Swiss Financial Institutions and its impact on U.S. taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts.

Factual Background of the First Conviction of Non-Swiss Financial Institutions

The first conviction of Non-Swiss Financial Institutions concerned two Cayman Island Financial Institutions, Cayman National Securities Ltd. (CNS) and Cayman National Trust Co. Ltd. (CNT). CNS and CNT were Cayman Island affiliates of Cayman National Corporation, which provided investment brokerage and trust management services to individuals and entities within and outside the Cayman Islands, including citizens and residents of the United States (U.S. taxpayers).

According to the IRS and documents filed in Manhattan federal court, from at least 2001 through 2011, CNS and CNT assisted certain U.S. taxpayers in evading their U.S. tax obligations to the IRS and otherwise hiding accounts held at CNS and CNT from the IRS (hereinafter, undeclared accounts). CNS and CNT did so by knowingly opening and maintaining undeclared accounts for U.S. taxpayers at CNS and CNT. Specifically, and among other things, CNS and CNT opened and encouraged many U.S. taxpayer-clients to open accounts held in the name of sham Caymanian companies and trusts (collectively, structures), thereby helping U.S. taxpayers conceal their beneficial ownership of the accounts. Furthermore, CNS and CNT treated these sham Caymanian structures as the account holders and allowed the U.S. beneficial owners of the accounts to trade in U.S. securities without ever requiring these U.S. persons to submit Form W-9. CNS failed to disclose to the IRS the identities of the U.S. beneficial owners who were trading in U.S. securities, in contravention of CNS’s obligations under its Qualified Intermediary Agreement (QIA) with the IRS.

At their high-water mark in 2009, these two Non-Swiss Financial Institutions (CNS and CNT) had approximately $137 million in assets under management relating to undeclared accounts held by U.S. taxpayer-clients. From 2001 through 2011, CNS and CNT earned more than $3.4 million in gross revenues from the undeclared U.S. taxpayer accounts that they maintained.

In 2008, after learning about the investigation of Swiss bank UBS AG (UBS) for assisting U.S. taxpayers to evade their U.S. tax obligations, these two Non-Swiss Financial Institutions (i.e. CNS and CNT) continued to knowingly maintain undeclared accounts for U.S. taxpayer-clients and did not begin to engage in any significant remedial efforts with respect to those accounts until 2011 and 2012.

In or about June 2011, CNT hired a new president, who spearheaded a review of CNT’s files. In the course of that review, not a single file was found to be complete and without tax or other issues. Moreover, with respect to the structures that had U.S. beneficial owners, CNT’s files contained little, if any, evidence of tax compliance.

Guilty Pleas of these Two Non-Swiss Financial Institutions

On March 9, 2016, both Non-Swiss Financial Institutions, CNS and CNT pleaded guilty to a criminal Information charging them with conspiring with many of their U.S. taxpayer-clients to hide more than $130 million in offshore accounts from the IRS and to evade U.S. taxes on the income earned in those accounts. CNS and CNT entered their guilty pleas pursuant to plea agreements.

As part of their plea agreements, CNS and CNT have agreed to cooperate fully with the IRS investigation of the companies’ criminal conduct. The IRS states that, to date, CNS and CNT have already made substantial efforts to cooperate with that investigation, including by: (1) facilitating interviews of CNS and CNT employees, including top level executives; (2) voluntarily producing documents in response to the IRS requests; (3) providing, in response to a treaty request, unredacted client files for approximately 20 percent of the U.S. taxpayer-clients who maintained accounts at CNS and CNT; and (4) committing to assist in responding to a treaty request that is expected to result in the production of unredacted client files for approximately 90 to 95 percent of the U.S. taxpayer-clients who maintained accounts at CNS and CNT.

In connection with their guilty pleas, CNS and CNT have also agreed to pay the United States a total of $6 million, which consists of the forfeiture of gross proceeds of their illegal conduct, restitution of the outstanding unpaid taxes from U.S. taxpayers who held undeclared accounts at CNS and CNT, and a fine.

Impact of the Guilty Pleas of Non-Swiss Financial Institutions on U.S. Taxpayers with Undeclared Foreign Accounts

The impact of the guilty pleas of these two Cayman Island Non-Swiss Financial Institutions is difficult to overstate. First, it becomes clear that the IRS feels confident that it can replicate its success in Switzerland in every offshore jurisdiction and there is no limit to their ability to uncover undeclared foreign accounts of U.S. taxpayers.

“Today’s convictions make clear that our focus is not on any one bank, insurance company or asset management firm, or even any one country,” said Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Goldberg of the Justice Department’s Tax Division. “The Department and IRS are following the money across the globe – there are no safe havens for U.S. citizens engaged in tax evasion or those actively assisting them.”

Second, it is evident that the IRS strategy is to first force Non-Swiss Financial Institutions to reveal information about their U.S. clients and, then, using the information provided by these institutions, pursue noncompliant U.S. taxpayers. As part of their guilty pleas, CNS and CNT are required to turn over extensive materials about their U.S. clients and these noncompliant U.S. taxpayers should be preparing to face the full wrath of the IRS.

“The guilty pleas of these two Cayman Island companies today represent the first convictions of financial institutions outside Switzerland for conspiring with U.S. taxpayers to evade their lawful and legitimate taxes,” said U.S. Attorney Bharara. “The plea agreements require these Cayman entities to provide this office with the client files, because we are committed to finding and prosecuting not only banks that help U.S. taxpayers evade taxes, but also individual taxpayers who find criminal ways not to pay their fair share. We will follow them no matter how far they go to hide their accounts, whether it is Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, or some other tax haven.”

In essence, between FATCA and the constant IRS pressure on Non-Swiss Financial Institutions, the noncompliant U.S. taxpayers are in the constant danger of discovery, which now becomes more of a question of “when”, rather than “if”.

What Should U.S. Taxpayers With Undeclared Foreign Accounts Do?

In light of this development, U.S. taxpayers with undeclared foreign accounts in Non-Swiss Financial Institutions should explore their voluntary disclosure options as soon as possible. For this purpose, they should contact an experienced international tax law firm that specializes in this field.

Contact the Experienced International Tax Law Firm of Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. for Professional Help With Your Undeclared Accounts

If you have undeclared foreign accounts, foreign income or foreign business entities, you are encouraged to contact the international tax law firm of Sherayzen Law Office as soon as possible. Our team of experienced tax professionals specializes in this area of law, including the preparation of all necessary legal documents and tax forms. We have helped hundreds of U.S. taxpayers around the world and we can help You!

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!