Posts

Foreign Inheritance FBAR Reporting | FBAR Lawyer

/0 Comments/in , /by

Foreign Inheritance FBAR Reporting is one of the most common issues among U.S. taxpayers with foreign parents, uncles, aunts, siblings and other relatives. The issue discussed in this article is not reporting foreign inheritance itself (although this is an important concern which I already addressed in other articles), but whether FBAR needs to be filed upon the receipt of a foreign inheritance. Let’s explore this subject in more detail.

Foreign Inheritance FBAR Reporting: What is FBAR?

The Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, officially now called FinCEN Form 114 and also known as “FBAR”, is one of the main U.S. international tax requirements for reporting bank and financial accounts overseas. FBAR should be filed by every U.S. tax resident who has foreign financial accounts the aggregate value of which exceeds $10,000 at any time during the calendar year. The aggregate value should be calculated on all foreign bank and financial accounts in which this U.S. tax resident has financial interest or over which he has signatory or other authority.

The 2015 FBAR must be received by the IRS by June 30, 2016 without any extension possible; however, starting the reporting for the calendar year 2016 (i.e. 2016 FBAR) the FBARs are due on April 15 (an extension is possible).

Foreign Inheritance FBAR Reporting: Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts

A foreign inheritance may be received by a U.S. heir in a great variety of forms: cash, bank accounts, investments, business ownership, real estate, a foreign trust beneficiary interest, jewelry, art, intellectual property, et cetera. For the FBAR reporting purposes, it is important to understand exactly what the U.S. heir in inheriting.

Foreign Inheritance FBAR reporting becomes relevant when a U.S. heir receives either financial interest in or signatory (or other) authority over any foreign bank and financial accounts. It is important to emphasize that, no matter how brief is this financial interest or signatory authority, the foreign inheritance FBAR reporting will come into play as long as the aggregate value of all accounts exceeds $10,000.

I often see that U.S. heirs would set up foreign accounts in which foreign inheritance is deposited and they would believe that such accounts would not be reportable because they are simply depositing foreign inheritance. This is incorrect – as soon as foreign accounts are involved, foreign inheritance FBAR reporting considerations immediately become relevant whether these are inherited foreign accounts or accounts which are set up to receive the inheritance.

Contact Foreign Inheritance FBAR Lawyer for Professional Help

If you received a foreign inheritance, you need to contact Sherayzen Law Office as soon as possible for professional help. Mr. Sherayzen has successfully advised hundreds of U.S. taxpayers with respect to U.S. tax compliance foreign inheritance issues. He can help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Foreign Life Insurance Policies – FBAR Reporting

/0 Comments/in , /by

Foreign Life Insurance Policies are very popular around the world, especially in India, Germany and France (Assurance Vie accounts). Yet, very few U.S. taxpayers (especially H-1B holders and U.S. permanent residents) are aware of the fact that these policies may be subject to numerous and complex IRS tax reporting requirements in the United States. In this article, I would like to generally discuss the FBAR requirements applicable to foreign life insurance policies.

I will not be discussing here the requirements for a qualified foreign life insurance policy, because it is mostly irrelevant since the great majority of foreign life insurance policies would not be qualified policies.

Types of Foreign Life Insurance Policies

Before we start exploring which foreign life insurance policies (also known as Life Assurance Policies) are subject to the FBAR requirement, it is important to distinguish three general categories of foreign life insurance policies.

In the order of rising complexity, the first category of foreign life insurance policies consists of simple, straightforward life insurance policies with no cash surrender value, no income payments and no income accumulations. The taxpayer simply makes the required premium payments and he expects a fixed-amount payout at death.

The second category of foreign life insurance policies has a cash-surrender value, but no income. The taxpayer pays a premium and expects a certain payout when the policy is surrendered or matures. The cash surrender value grows over time mostly through premiums and bonuses which would be paid out when the policy is surrendered. There is also a potential death benefit.

Finally, the third category of foreign life insurance policies has a cash-surrender value with investments and/or income. There is a large variety of investment life insurance policies. The most common arrangement, though, is where the taxpayer pays a relatively large initial premium which is invested in foreign mutual funds; the growth in mutual funds will usually determine the cash-surrender value. Oftentimes, the cash-surrender value in these policies is tax-free if certain requirements are met (for example, Assurance Vie policies in France or certain life insurance policies in India).

In some cases (for example, in Malaysia), an investment foreign health insurance policy may be tied into a life insurance policy.

FBAR – FinCEN Form 114

FinCEN Form 114 – Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (commonly known as FBAR) is the most important US tax information return. FBAR must be filed by a US tax resident if the aggregate value of foreign financial accounts (in which this US person has financial interest and/or over which this US person has signatory authority) exceeds $10,000 at any time during the calendar year. The 2015 FBAR must be received by the IRS by June 30, 2016 without any extension possible; however, starting the reporting for the calendar year 2016 (i.e. 2016 FBAR) the FBARs are due on April 15 with an extension possible.

The importance of FBAR stems from the draconian FBAR penalties. Unlike many other information returns, FBAR imposes penalty not only on the willful non-filing, but also on the non-willful failure to file the FBAR. The willful FBAR penalties range from criminal penalties with up to 5 years in prison to up to $100,000 penalty per account per year. The FBAR statute of limitations is six years, which means that up to six years maybe subject to a penalty (though, usually it would be 2-4 years).

Foreign Life Insurance Policies and FBAR Reporting

Foreign life insurance policies must be reported on the FBAR if they have a cash-surrender value. Therefore, foreign life insurance policies that fall into categories two and three described above are always reportable. Investment foreign life insurance policies promoted by national governments (such as Assurance Vie accounts in France) are reportable even if they are considered to be held by a foreign trust (such as Superannuation Accounts in Australia).

The first category of foreign life insurance policies I listed above (i.e. life insurance policies without any cash-surrender value) are not likely to be reportable, but there are exceptions.

The determination of whether your foreign life insurance policies are reportable on the FBAR should be made by an international tax attorney; I strongly discourage any attempt by US taxpayers to make this determination without legal assistance.

Foreign Life Insurance Policies and Other Reporting Requirements

It is important to note that other US reporting requirements may apply to foreign life insurance policies. Examples include FATCA Form 8938, PFIC compliance, foreign trust reporting, et cetera.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Foreign Life Insurance Policies

If you have foreign life insurance policies, contact Sherayzen Law Office for assistance as soon as possible. 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. 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!

No FBAR Penalty Option

/0 Comments/in , /by

No FBAR Penalty is the result that every taxpayer wishes to achieve. Indeed, having no FBAR penalty is a realistic objective, but only in certain situations. One of such situations is currently offered by the IRS through Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures.

History of the IRS Procedures Regarding No FBAR Penalty Option

There is a relatively long history behind the option that taxpayers with delinquent FBARs would be charged no FBAR penalty. It comes from the traditional link between income tax noncompliance and the imposition of an FBAR penalty. Prior to 2009 OVDP, the No FBAR Penalty option was unofficial, but very much part of the IRS tradition in situations where a taxpayer would not have any additional U.S. tax liability as a result of his voluntary disclosure of foreign accounts.

The rules for the 2009 IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Programs (“2009 OVDP”) finally officially recognized the No FBAR Penalty option in the answer to Question #9. The FAQ #9 also for the first time properly stated the legal philosophy behind the No FBAR Penalty option: “The purpose for the voluntary disclosure practice is to provide a way for taxpayers who did not report taxable income in the past to voluntarily come forward and resolve their tax matters.” Hence, if a taxpayer “reported and paid tax on all taxable income but did not file FBARs, do not use the voluntary disclosure process.” Rather, the taxpayer was urged to file the FBARs directly with the explanation of why the FBARs were filed late.

Both, the 2011 IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative (“2011 OVDI) and 2012 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (“2012 OVDI) again reinforced the No FBAR Penalty with FAQ #17: “The IRS will not impose a penalty for the failure to file the delinquent FBARs if there are no underreported tax liabilities and you have not previously been contacted regarding an income tax examination or a request for delinquent returns.”

On June 18, 2014, with the creation of 2014 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (“2014 OVDP”), the IRS removed the 2014 OVDP FAQ #17 and replaced it the modern official No FBAR Penalty option called Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures.

No FBAR Penalty Option under the Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures

Under the Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures, the IRS promises not to impose FBAR penalties for the failure to file the delinquent FBARs if three requirements are met: (1) the taxpayer properly reported on his U.S. tax returns (and paid all tax on) the income from the foreign financial accounts reported on the delinquent FBARs; (2) the IRS has not contacted the taxpayer previously regarding an income tax examination (civil or criminal) for the years for which the delinquent FBARs are submitted; and (3) the IRS has not previously requested from the taxpayer the FBARs for the years for the years for which the delinquent FBARs are submitted.

If all three requirements are met, the taxpayers can pursue Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures by filings the delinquent FBARs with FinCEN directly. A statement explaining why the FBARs are filed late must be provided to the IRS.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office to Explore Your No FBAR Penalty Options

Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures is probably one of the most popular No FBAR penalty options, but it is a limited one because it is not always possible to comply with all three of the formal requirements of the Procedures. Thankfully, these Procedures are not the only No FBAR Penalty Option offered by the IRS.

This is why, if you have undisclosed foreign accounts, you should contact the experienced international tax law firm of Sherayzen Law Office. We will thoroughly explore your case, analyze your No FBAR penalty and voluntary disclosure options, choose the disclosure route that best balances your risks and rewards, prepare all of the required legal documents and tax forms, and defend your case against the IRS. We have helped hundreds of U.S. taxpayers around the world and we can help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Cambata Case: IRS Wins Against Former U.S. Citizen on Offshore Income

/0 Comments/in , /by

In the Cambata case, the IRS successfully demonstrated once again that renunciation of U.S. citizenship will not protect a taxpayer from being pursued for unreported income from foreign accounts. On February 3, 2016, Mr. Albert Cambata pleaded guilty to filing a false income tax return with respect to his unreported Swiss account income.

Facts Related to Mr. Cambata’s Unreported Swiss account income

According to court documents, in 2006, Mr. Albert Cambata established Dragonflyer Ltd., a Hong Kong corporate entity, with the assistance of a Swiss banker and a Swiss attorney. Days later, he opened a financial account at Swiss Bank 1 in the name of Dragonflyer. Although he was not listed on the opening documents as a director or an authorized signatory, Mr. Cambata was identified on another bank document (which the IRS obtained most likely through the Swiss Bank program) as the beneficial owner of the Dragonflyer account. That same year, Mr. Cambata received $12 million from Hummingbird Holdings Ltd., a Belizean company. The $12 million originated from a Panamanian aviation management company called Cambata Aviation S.A. and was deposited to the Dragonflyer bank account at Swiss Bank 1 in November 2006.

On his 2007 and 2008 federal income tax returns, Mr. Cambata failed to report interest income earned on his Swiss financial account in the amounts of $77,298 and $206,408, respectively. In April 2008, Mr. Cambata caused the Swiss attorney to request that Swiss Bank 1 send five million Euros from the Swiss financial account to an account Mr. Cambata controlled at the Monaco branch of Swiss Bank 3. In June 2008, Cambata closed his financial account with Swiss Bank 1 in the name of Dragonflyer and moved the funds to an account he controlled at the Singapore branch of Swiss Bank 2.

In 2012, Mr. Cambata, who has lived in Switzerland since 2007, went to the U.S. Embassy in Bratislava, Slovakia, to renounce his U.S. citizenship and informed the U.S. Department of State that he had acquired the nationality of St. Kitts and Nevis by virtue of naturalization.

Link between the Cambata Case and Swiss Bank Program

It appears that the IRS was able to focus on Mr. Cambata due to information provided by one of the Swiss Bank that participated in the Swiss Bank Program. This led to the IRS investigation that unraveled the whole scheme constructed by Mr. Cambata. Additional information might have been provided to the IRS by one of the Category 1 banks as part of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement.

This affirms what the IRS has stated in the past about its determination to continue to pursue older fraud cases based on the information it already obtained from the Swiss banks. “IRS Criminal Investigation will continue to pursue those who do not pay the taxes they owe to the United States,” said Special Agent in Charge Thomas Jankowski of the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation, Washington, D.C. Field Office. “Today’s plea is a reminder that we are committed to following the money trail across the globe and will not be deterred by the use of sophisticated international financial transactions that hide the real ownership of income taxable by the United States.”

The Global Reach of the IRS Investigations Grows

Mr. Cambata’s accounts were spread out among the local branches of Swiss banks in Monaco, Singapore and Switzerland. The funds originated from companies based in Belize and Panama (the information regarding these companies was probably obtained through John Doe summons issued in 2015).

It becomes obvious from this case that our earlier warnings about the spread of the IRS investigations beyond Switzerland were correct. The IRS now reaches far beyond Switzerland and focuses more and more on jurisdictions like Belize, Cayman Islands, Cook Islands, Monaco, Panama, Singapore and other favorite offshore jurisdictions. The Cambata case is a grave warning to U.S. taxpayers who still operate in offshore jurisdictions to hide assets from the U.S. government.

The Cambata Case is a Warning to Taxpayers Who Pursued Quiet Disclosure to Cover-Up Past Tax Noncompliance

One of the most curious aspects about the Cambata case is that the IRS never imposed any FBAR penalties or tax return penalties with respect to the later years. While it is not clear from the documents, it appears that Mr. Cambata probably did a quiet disclosure in the year 2009 and has properly filed his FBARs and tax returns ever since.

The FBAR statute of limitations probably did not allow the IRS to impose the FBAR penalties, but the IRS still ignored the quiet disclosure and pursued criminal penalties for the 2006 and 2007 fraudulent tax returns (in addition to restitution of $84,849 – presumable the tax Mr. Cambata would have owed had he filed his 2006 and 2007 returns correctly).

Therefore, U.S. taxpayers who filed quiet disclosure should heed one of the main lessons of the Cambata case – quiet disclosure will not protect you from the IRS criminal prosecution.

The Cambata Case is also a Warning to Taxpayers Who Renounced U.S. Citizenship to Hide Past Tax Noncompliance

The Cambata case also dispels another myth common to U.S. taxpayers: renouncing citizenship somehow prevents the IRS criminal prosecution for past noncompliance. On the contrary, U.S. taxpayers who renounce citizenship may draw the IRS attention because they have to certify that they are fully compliant with the tax laws of the United States.

If the IRS is able to prove that these taxpayers are not fully tax-compliant, then, as the Cambata case clearly demonstrates, the IRS can pursue criminal penalties against former U.S. citizens. It is possible that one of the chief purposes of the IRS in this case was to scare other U.S. citizens who renounced their citizenship to hide their past tax noncompliance.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Legal Help with Your Foreign Accounts

If you have undisclosed foreign accounts, contact Sherayzen Law Office as soon as possible. Whether your case involves complex beneficial ownership structures or you own your foreign accounts personally, our highly experienced team of tax professionals can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!