Posts

Chicago FBAR Attorney | International Tax Lawyer Illinois

/in , , /by

If you reside in Chicago, Illinois and have unreported foreign bank and financial accounts, you may be looking for a Chicago FBAR Attorney.  In this case, you should contact Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd., a leader in FBAR compliance, including offshore voluntary disclosures concerning delinquent. Let’s consider the main reasons for it.

Chicago FBAR Attorney: International Tax Lawyer

From the outset, it is very important to understand that, by looking for Chicago FBAR attorney, in reality, you are searching for an international tax lawyer who specializes in FBAR compliance.

The reason for this conclusion is the fact that FBAR enforcement belongs to a very special field of US tax law – US international tax law. FBAR is an information return concerning foreign assets, which necessarily involves US international tax compliance concerning foreign assets/foreign income. Moreover, ever since the FBAR enforcement was turned over to the IRS in 2001, the term FBAR attorney applies almost exclusively to tax attorneys.

Hence, when you look for an FBAR attorney, you are looking for an international tax attorney with a specialty in FBAR compliance.

Chicago FBAR Attorney: Deep Knowledge of US International Tax Law and Offshore Voluntary Disclosures

When retaining Chicago FBAR attorney, consider the fact that such an attorney’s work is not limited only to the preparation and filing of FBARs. Rather, the attorney should be able to deliver a variety of tax services and freely operate with experience and knowledge in all relevant areas of US international tax law, including the various offshore voluntary disclosure options concerning delinquent FBARs.

Moreover, as part of an offshore voluntary disclosure, an FBAR Attorney often needs to amend US tax returns, properly prepare foreign financial statements according to US GAAP, correctly calculate PFICs, and complete an innumerable number of other tasks.

Mr. Sherayzen and his team of motivated experienced tax professionals of Sherayzen Law Office have helped hundreds of US taxpayers worldwide to bring their tax affairs into full compliance with US tax laws. This work included the preparation and filing of offshore voluntary disclosures concerning delinquent FBARs. Sherayzen Law Office offers help with all kinds of offshore voluntary disclosure options, including: SDOP (Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures), SFOP (Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures), DFSP (Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures), DIIRSP (Delinquent International Information Return Submission Procedures), IRS VDP (IRS Voluntary Disclosure Practice) and Reasonable Cause disclosures.

Chicago FBAR Attorney: Out-Of-State International Tax Lawyer

Whenever you are looking for an attorney who specializes in US international tax law (which is a federal area of law, not a state one), you do not need to limit yourself to lawyers who reside in Chicago, Illinois. On the contrary, consider international tax attorneys who reside in other states and help Chicago residents with their FBAR compliance.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional FBAR Help

Sherayzen Law Office is an international tax law firm that specializes in US international tax compliance, including FBARs. While our office is in Minneapolis, Minnesota, we help taxpayers who reside throughout the United States, including Chicago, Illinois.

Thus, if you are looking for a Chicago FBAR Attorney, contact Mr. Sherayzen as soon as possible to schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Finter Bank Zurich AG Reaches Resolution with US DOJ

/0 Comments/in , /by

On May 15, 2015, Finter Bank Zurich AG (Finter Bank) became the third Swiss bank to sign a Non-Prosecution Agreement with US DOJ according to the terms of the DOJ Program for Swiss Banks.

DOJ Program for Swiss Banks

On August 29, 2013, the DOJ announced the creation of the “The Program for Non-Prosecution Agreements or Non-Target Letters for Swiss Banks (Program)” with the goal or creating a voluntary disclosure program for Swiss banks. Under the Program, the Swiss banks would prove DOJ with detailed description of specified activities with respect to US-owned accounts as well as the identification of all accounts held by US persons at any point since August of 2008. In exchange, the Program promised Swiss banks an opportunity to forever resolve their past US non-compliance issues (including criminal illegal activities) with respect to US-held accounts. For Category 2 banks, the Program also imposed various penalty requirements. The banks already under criminal investigation related to their Swiss-banking activities and all individuals were expressly excluded from the program.

Finter Bank timely entered the Program and payed the required penalties. This is why it became the third Swiss bank to resolve its issues under the Program.

Finter Bank Background

Finter Bank was founded in 1958 in Chiasso, Switzerland, and has a branch office in Lugano, Switzerland. Since August 1, 2008, Finter Bank has maintained 283 U.S.-related accounts with an aggregate maximum balance of approximately $235 million.

Since its establishment and continuing through at least October 2011, Finter Bank, through its managers, employees and others, aided and assisted U.S. clients in opening and maintaining undeclared accounts in Switzerland and concealing the assets and income they held in these accounts from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). After August 2008, when Swiss bank UBS AG publicly announced that it was the target of a criminal investigation by U.S. tax authorities, Finter Bank accepted accounts from U.S. persons exiting other Swiss banks.

Finter Bank provided services that allowed U.S. clients to eliminate the paper trail associated with the undeclared assets and income, including “hold mail” services and numbered and coded accounts. In addition, Finter Bank assisted clients in using sham entities as nominee beneficial owners of undeclared accounts, solicited Forms W-8BEN that falsely stated under penalties of perjury that the sham entities beneficially owned the assets in the undeclared accounts, and provided cash cards and credits cards linked to the undeclared accounts.

Finter Bank Non-Prosecution Agreement

According to the terms of the non-prosecution agreement signed on May 15, Finter Bank agreed to cooperate in any related criminal or civil proceedings, demonstrate its implementation of controls to stop misconduct involving undeclared U.S. accounts and pay a $5.414 million penalty in return for the department’s agreement not to prosecute Finter Bank for tax-related criminal offenses.

Consequences of Finter Bank Non-Prosecution Agreement for US Taxpayers

In resolving its criminal liabilities under the program, Finter Bank encouraged U.S. accountholders to come into tax compliance and participate in the IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program. However, the taxpayers who did not listen to Finter Bank’s pleas and have not disclosed their secret Swiss accounts now face an importance consequence as a result of Finter Bank Non-Prosecution Agreement – if these taxpayers wish to enter the OVDP now, the penalty percentage has increased from 27.5 percent to 50% of the highest balance of their accounts for the past eight years.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Disclosure of Your Foreign Bank Accounts

If you have undisclosed foreign bank accounts and any other assets, you should contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help as soon as possible. Our legal team consists of tax professionals who specialize in offshore voluntary disclosures and have helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world.

We can help You! Contact Us to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation Now!

FBAR Criminal Prosecution and Smaller Banks: The Case of Wegelin

/1 Comment/in , /by

On January 3, 2013, Wegelin & Co., the oldest Swiss private bank announced that it will close down following its guilty plea to criminal charges of conspiracy to help wealthy U.S. taxpayers evade taxes through secret financial accounts. The guilty plea and the closure of one of the most prestigious European banks that served its clients since the year 1741 constitute big victories for the U.S. authorities. It surely will inspire additional movement of non-compliant U.S. taxpayers into the 2012 OVDP (Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program) as well as ensure more widespread compliance with the FBAR, Form 8938 and other numerous international tax forms required by the IRS.

However, in addition to its significance to U.S. tax compliance, the Wegelin case also has other interesting features that may point to future trends in the IRS international tax enforcement. In this article, I will outline these trends and explore their potential implications for U.S. tax enforcement.

Jurisdiction to Prosecute Foreign Banks: Minimal Contact Will Suffice

In order to criminally charge a foreign bank, U.S. tax authorities need to establish some connection between the United States and the foreign bank. It appears that after the Wegelin case, proving U.S. exposure will not a be a significant problem for the IRS.

The main reason for Wegelin’s bold defiant behavior (Wegelin specifically advertised itself as a safe, tax-free alternative to U.S. taxpayers who were fleeing UBS after criminal prosecution charges were filed against UBS in 2008) was its deep belief that it cannot be criminally prosecuted in the United States because U.S. tax authorities have no jurisdiction over it. Unlike UBS, Wegelin had virtually no physical presence in the United States, no operating divisions and no branch offices in the United States.

However, Wegelin miscalculated. The IRS discovered that Wegelin did have presence in the United States because it “directly accessed” the U.S. banking system through a correspondent account that it held at UBS AG (“UBS”) in Stamford, Connecticut. The Justice Department successfully argued that this one correspondent account was sufficient to give the United States government the jurisdiction to criminally charge Wegelin.

Hence, one of the biggest consequences of the Wegelin case is that it will not be difficult for the U.S. tax authorities to establish jurisdiction to criminally charge foreign banks even with very insignificant presence in the United States.

Size Matters: Increased Risk for Smaller Banks

The other important lesson of the Wegelin case is that it appears that the IRS is more likely to aggressively pursue smaller banks than the bigger banks the demise of which can cause systemic instability in the world economy.

The collapse of Wegelin stands in stark contrast to the survival of its bigger Swiss rival, UBS. UBS offered pretty much the same services to U.S. taxpayers as Wegelin involving vastly larger number of U.S. persons and amounts of money (at the very least, 20 billion dollars versus Wegelin’s 1.2 billion dollars). The IRS did file criminal charges against UBS, but UBS entered into a deferred prosecution agreement and charges were dropped eighteen months later.

It could be that some of the aggressiveness of the U.S. government came precisely from Wegelin’s defiant stance. In order to reinforce its recent victory in the UBS case, the IRS had to adopt a more assertive stand. However, it did not necessarily have to end in Wegelin’s demise.

Some commentators argued that Wegelin was already a shadow of its former self at the time of its closure, because it aggressively sold-off all of its non-US related assets. Therefore, it may be argued that it is premature to draw general conclusions from the Wegelin’s case about the risks facing small foreign banks who find themselves indicted by the U.S. government. On the other hand, the very fact that Wegelin decided that it would be better for the bank to sell off its assets rather than fight the IRS and the fact that the U.S. government was not concerned about this decision do point to a conclusion that the Wegelin case may be demonstrative of the general vulnerability of smaller banks in such situations.

Unresolved Issues: Client Information and Sold-Off Practice

One of the most important issues, however, is still unresolved in the Wegelin case and makes it worthwhile to observe to its end. The issue is: will the bank disclose the names of its U.S. clients to the IRS?

Typically, disclosure of the names of U.S. taxpayers constitutes a key request by the IRS in such major investigations. Therefore, it does not seem likely that the IRS will simply leave this issue without at least attempting to obtain the names of non-compliant U.S. taxpayers as part of the final deal.

The other unresolved issue is whether a strategy similar to Wegelin’s sale of its non-US accounts to the Austrian Bank Raiffeisen just before the indictment is going to challenged by the IRS if the sale does involve U.S. clients and maybe even if it does not (especially where the bank is left without any assets). It is not known if we are going to get an answer at this time, but it is likely that this issue will show up again in a future case.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Voluntary Disclosure of Foreign Financial Accounts

If you have undisclosed offshore accounts (whether in the hard-hit Switzerland or any other country) ,contact Sherayzen Law Office to explore the voluntary disclosure options available in your case. Our experienced voluntary disclosure firm will thoroughly review your case, explore available options, propose a definite plan for moving forward, prepare all of the necessary legal documents and tax forms, and guide you though the entire case while rigorously representing your interests in your negotiations with the IRS.

FBAR Extension for Certain Individuals: FinCEN Notices 2011-1 and 2011-2

/1 Comment/in , , /by

On May 31, 2011, and June 17, 2011, in FinCEN Notices 2011-1 and 2011-2, the Internal Revenue Service and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) announced that a small subset of individuals, who are required to file the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR), will receive a one-year extension beyond the recent filing date of June 30, 2011.

FinCEN Notices 2011-1 and 2011-2 concern only individuals with signature authority and apply to the following narrow categories of filers:

1). An employee or officer of a covered entity (see 31 C.F.R. § 1010.350(f)(2)(i)-(v)) who has signature or other authority over and no financial interest in a foreign financial account of another entity more than 50 percent owned, directly or indirectly, by the entity (a “controlled person”).
2). An employee or officer of a controlled person of a covered entity (see 31 C.F.R. § 1010.350(f)(2)(i)-(v)) who has signature or other authority over and no financial interest in a foreign financial account of the entity or another controlled person of the entity.
3). An employee or officer of an investment advisor registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission who has signature or other authority over and no financial interest in a foreign financial account of persons that are not investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

Notice that categories 1 and 2 do not apply to companies that are not publicly traded or not SEC-registrants.

The new extended filing deadline for the categories of individuals above is June 30, 2012. The deadline applies to FBARs for 2010, 2009 and earlier years.

Unless another relief notice applies, all other U.S. persons required to file an FBAR this year are required to meet the June 30, 2011 filing date. Unlike with federal income tax returns, extensions of time to file are not available.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for FBAR Guidance

If you have any questions with respect to FinCEN Notices 2011-1 and 2011-2 or if you are looking for FBAR guidance, contact Sherayzen Law Office NOW! Eugene Sherayzen an experienced tax attorney will explain to you the current FBAR requirements and devise the appropriate FBAR compliance strategy for you.

Gold Bullion Foreign Accounts and FBAR

/in , , /by

A frequent question in my practice is whether a foreign account holding gold bullion is required to be reported on FinCEN Form 114 formerly Form TD F 90-22.1, usually referred to as “FBAR” (Report on Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts).

FBAR is required to be filed by any U.S. person who has a financial interest in or signature authority or other authority over any financial account in a foreign country, if the aggregate value of these accounts exceeds $10,000 at any time during the calendar year. FBAR is due April 15th or October 15th (for the previous calendar year). There is an automatic extension if the FBAR is not filed by the April 15th deadline, unlike Federal and some State returns that must be filed by extension. For federal returns the extension is Form 4868. The FBAR rules are enforced by the Internal Revenue Service.  You can read more about the general FBAR requirements here.

Whether gold buillion is required to be reported on the FBAR involves a general issue of whether FBAR definition of “financial account” covers foreign accounts that hold only non-monetary assets.  The answer is yes – an account with a financial institution that is located in a foreign country is a financial account for FBAR purposes whether the account holds cash or non-monetary assets.

Therefore, most taxpayers must reports foreign accounts that hold gold bullion on the FBAR.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office For FBAR Help

If you have any questions with respect to FBARs or you just found out that you should have filed the FBARs for the past years and you wish to go through a voluntary disclosure, contact Sherayzen Law Office as soon as possible.  Our experienced international tax firm can help you deal with any FBAR-related issues.

Remember, it does not matter whether you are located in another state or outside of the United States – we can help!