Posts

2019 IRS Hiring Spree Targets US International Tax Compliance

/in , /by

On May 11, 2019, the IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig stated that the IRS is rapidly increasing the number of agents in certain divisions. US international tax compliance is the primary target of this 2019 IRS hiring spree.

2019 IRS Hiring Spree: Affected IRS Divisions

The Commissioner announced this news while speaking at the American Bar Association’s Section of Taxation conference in Washington, D.C. He stated that the Large Business and International (“LB&I), Small Business/Self-Employed (“SB/SE”) and Criminal Investigation (“CI”) divisions are the ones that form the core of the 2019 IRS hiring spree. Additionally, the Office of Chief Counsel and the Modernization and Information Technology Division are also beefing up their staff.

2019 IRS Hiring Spree: Why the IRS is Hiring New Agents

The Commissioner expressly mentioned two reasons for the 2019 IRS hiring spree – reducing the tax gap and assuring international compliance. Interestingly, he also mentioned that he will not allow the illegal tax shelter scandals, like the ones that happened in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, to happen on his watch.

The Commissioner went on to identify certain problematic areas where he wants the new hires to focus. He specifically listed: digital economy, transfer pricing, syndicated conservation easements, employment tax and cash-intensive businesses.

Finally, the Commissioner stated that he wants to expand the IRS message to the taxpayers who speak English as a second language. He said: “I’m from Los Angeles. In the grocery store in line there are more than six languages being spoken. This is 2019. We need to have our information available to every American trying to get it right.” He also shared that he was surprised when he found out that the IRS printed tax returns in only six languages.

The Commissioner emphasized that the IRS should not just print the returns in more languages, but also to provide IRS guidance in more languages. Also, he stated that the quality of translation services can be further improved. Undoubtedly, this will be the job of some of the new hires.

2019 IRS Hiring Spree: Consequences for Noncompliant Taxpayers with Foreign Assets and Foreign Income

The new IRS hiring spree means that there will be more audits and investigations of noncompliant taxpayers, including those who own foreign assets and receive foreign income. The fact that the Commissioner specifically mentioned illegal tax shelters and international tax compliance is a direct confirmation that taxpayers with offshore assets will soon be at an even higher risk of the IRS discovery of their tax noncompliance.

Furthermore, with more agents available, the IRS can expand the scope of its international tax audits. We can anticipate that there will be more audits with respect to Forms 3520/3520A (owners and beneficiaries of foreign trusts), 5471 (owners of a foreign corporation), 8621 (PFICs) and 8865 (owners of an ownership interest in a foreign partnership).

The IRS will also able to better utilize the piles of data it receives from foreign financial institutions under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”) and bilateral automatic information exchange treaties. In other words, the IRS will be able to identify more noncompliant taxpayers.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With Your Undisclosed Foreign Assets and Foreign Income

If you have undisclosed foreign assets and foreign income, you need to contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help as soon as possible. Within just a few months, the IRS ability to locate you will expand much further than ever. If the IRS audits you or even just commences an investigation of your foreign assets, you may not be able to utilize the offshore voluntary disclosure options to reduce your FBAR and other IRS penalties.

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

FinCEN Form 114 and FBAR Are the Same Form | FBAR Tax Lawyers

/in , /by

In my practice, I often receive phone calls from prospective clients who treat FinCEN Form 114 and FBAR as two different forms. Of course, these are the same forms, but I have asked myself: why do so many taxpayers believe that FinCEN Form 114 and FBAR are two different forms?

The simplest answer, of course, would be that taxpayers are simply so unfamiliar with US international tax law that they do not know the form with which both titles, FinCEN Form 114 and FBAR, should be associated. There is definitely a lot of truth to this conclusion, but it does not tell the whole story.

Upon more profound exploration, I found that a significant amount of potential clients believed that either FBAR or FinCEN Form 114 was a tax form while the other form was something else. In other words, some of the taxpayers think that FinCEN Form 114 is a tax form while FBAR is not a tax form while other taxpayers believe that FBAR is a tax form while FinCEN Form 114 is something else.

After making this discovery, I realized that the very nature of FBAR is at the heart of the problem, because FBAR is not a tax form and has nothing to do with Title 26 (i.e. the Internal Revenue Code) of the United States Code. Rather, the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, FinCEN Form 114, commonly known as FBAR, was created by the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. The Bank Secrecy Act forms part of Title 31 of the United States Code. In fact, prior to September 11, 2001, the IRS had almost nothing to do with FBAR.

It was only after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States when the Congress decided to turn over the enforcement of FBAR to the IRS. Initially, the official purpose was to facilitate the Treasury Department’s fight against terrorism. Within a year, though, it became clear that the IRS would use FBAR in its fight against offshore tax evasion and other noncompliance with US international tax laws.

Using the draconian FBAR penalty structure (at that time, the form was still called TD F 90-22.1) against noncompliant US taxpayers turned out to be a highly effective intimidation tool for the IRS – a tool which works very well even today. Once the Treasury Department mandated the e-filing of FBARs, the name of FBAR was changed from TD F 90-22.1 to FinCEN Form 114.

Thus, the confusion over the relationship between FinCEN Form 114 and FBAR stems from FBAR’s peculiar legal history. Most of US taxpayers do not know any of it; they are simply confused by the fact that the IRS is enforcing a form that has two names and which has nothing to do with the Internal Revenue Code.

FBAR Disclosure: Fighting the Small Accounts Myth

/in , /by

A Minneapolis attorney recently said to me that he has a client who has not filed the FBARs but that client has a number of small accounts and no large accounts; the attorney wanted my opinion on whether it is worth it for smaller clients to go through the trouble of disclosing the accounts to the IRS. My answer was an emphatic YES!

This is exactly the type of myths that I have to battle when I get calls from all around the world from potential clients with smaller accounts. The general impression among these clients is that the IRS will only enforce the FBAR requirement against the “big fish” and there is no need to trouble themselves with voluntary disclosure of the FBARs.

Unfortunately, this impression cannot be further from the truth. Tax experts around the country agree that the IRS enforcement of the FBAR requirements has risen to an unprecedented level. The risk of detection, especially once FATCA is fully implemented by the end of the year 2013, has been steadily growing since the 2008 UBS case, fed further by the information disclosed by the participants in the IRS voluntary disclosure programs. As a result, the number of the FBAR prosecutions by the IRS has also risen dramatically.

Given the draconian penalties associated with willful failure to file the FBAR and the high risk of detection, it is imperative for the small accountholders to go through the voluntary disclosure process (either through the 2012 OVDP or its alternatives) before the IRS finds them.

Moreover, for the smaller taxpayers who just found out about the FBAR and who may have a reasonable cause argument, there is an incentive to disclose the FBARs as soon as possible because, with an able attorney experienced in FBAR disclosures, they may be able to dramatically reduce and even eliminate the FBAR penalties.

However, the original non-willfulness can easily grow into willfulness where the taxpayers learn about the existence of the FBAR requirement, consciously disregard it and fail to file the FBARs. At that point, the original innocence of non-willful ignorance is gone, and the taxpayer is likely to face the imposition of much heavier penalties by the IRS.

It is worth noting, moreover, that in these willful cases, the imperative to do voluntary disclosure should be even higher precisely because the IRS is likely to impose unbearably high penalties otherwise. This is why the IRS created the 2012 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program so that these taxpayers can bring themselves back into tax compliance without fear of criminal prosecution.

It should be clear to all non-compliant US taxpayers – voluntary disclosure of offshore accounts is almost always better than the IRS finding your non-disclosed account. In my practice, the practice of FBAR voluntary disclosure has always been more beneficial to my clients whether they were located in Minneapolis, New York, San Francisco, Tampa, Canada, Australia, Mexico, Germany, Switzerland or any other country.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help with Delinquent FBARs

If you have undisclosed foreign accounts and have not filed your FBARs, contact Sherayzen Law Office for help. Our experienced FBAR tax firm will thoroughly analyze your case, assess your current FBAR liability, examine your voluntary disclosure options and implement a comprehensive voluntary disclosure strategy striving to achieve the best result for you.

Offshore Accounts Disclosure and John Doe Summons

/in , , /by

If a taxpayer is about to conduct a voluntary disclosure of his offshore accounts, a question arises about his eligibility to do so in a situation where the IRS already served a “John Doe” summons or made a treaty request seeking information that may identify a taxpayer as holding an undisclosed foreign account or undisclosed foreign entity. The answer is that it depends on the timing of the disclosure.

Background Information

In an earlier article, I discussed the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) now closed eligibility requirements. Specifically, I discussed the timeliness eligibility requirement of IRM 9.5.11.9 and how a failure to satisfy this requirement will prevent the taxpayer from conducting a voluntary disclosure.

Under IRM 9.5.11.9, a voluntary disclosure is timely if it is received by the IRS before either of the following events occurs:

(a) the IRS has initiated a civil examination or criminal investigation of the taxpayer, or has notified the taxpayer that it intends to commence such an examination or investigation. Notice, it is not relevant whether the IRS has initiated a civil examination which is not related to undisclosed foreign accounts or undisclosed foreign entities – either of the two, civil examination and criminal investigation, will prevent OVDP participation;

(b) the IRS has received information from a third party (e.g., informant, other governmental agency, or the media) alerting the IRS to the specific taxpayer’s noncompliance;

(c) the IRS has initiated a civil examination or criminal investigation which is directly related to the specific liability of the taxpayer; or

(d) the IRS has acquired information directly related to the specific liability of the taxpayer from a criminal enforcement action (e.g., search warrant, grand jury subpoena).

General Analysis

For the purposes of this essay, John Doe summons and treaty requests most likely fit the situation described in paragraph (b). Hence, the main criteria regarding the taxpayer’s eligibility to conduct voluntary disclosure of his offshore accounts in such situations would be whether the IRS already received information under the John Doe summons, treaty request or other similar action and whether the information is sufficiently specific.

For example, the mere fact that the IRS served a John Doe summons, made a treaty request or has taken similar action does not make every member of the John Doe class or group identified in the treaty request or other action ineligible to participate.

On the other hand, if the IRS or the U.S. Department of Justice already obtained information under a John Doe summons, treaty request or other similar action that provides evidence of a specific taxpayer’s noncompliance with the tax laws or FBAR reporting requirements, that particular taxpayer will become ineligible for OVDP and Criminal Investigation’s Voluntary Disclosure Practice.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Offshore Voluntary Disclosure

Based on the analysis above, it is evident that a taxpayer concerned that a party subject to a John Doe summons, treaty request or similar action will provide information about him to the IRS should apply to make a voluntary disclosure as soon as possible.

This is why you should contact Sherayzen Law Office. Our experienced international tax law firm can help you with the entire voluntary disclosure process, including initial assessment of your FBAR liability, determination of available voluntary disclosure options, preparation of all of the required legal and tax documents, and rigorous representation of your interests during your negotiations with the IRS.