Posts

Form 872 Refund Claims | Foreign Accounts International Tax Lawyer

/0 Comments/in , /by

The subject of this article is the discussion of the Form 872 Refund Claims, particularly whether filing Form 872 can extend the time for the taxpayer to claim a refund for the relevant years. Stated broadly, the key question that this article seeks to explore is whether an extension of time for assessment of tax can effect the taxpayer’s ability to file a refund claim for the extended years.

Form 872 Refund Claims – Form 872 and Offshore Voluntary Disclosures

Form 872 is a form used by the IRS to obtain the consent from the taxpayer to extend the time to assess tax. This consent can be obtained for income tax, self-employment tax of FICA tax on tips.

The form is used in a great variety of cases, but, in the US international tax context, it is mostly known for its use in the IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) now closed. Form 872 is in fact obligatory in the OVDP due to the fact that the OVDP voluntary disclosure period is eight years whereas the standard statute of limitations is only three years (even with 25% gross income, there are still at least two years that cannot be opened by the IRS without claiming fraud). Moreover, Form 872 is also used to prevent the statute of limitations from expiring for the rest of the years while the OVDP case is pending.

Form 872 Refund Claims: Form 872 Extends the Statute of Limitations for Refund Claims

According to IRC §6511(c), if the taxpayer and the IRS agree to extend the time within which the IRS can assess a tax, the taxpayer receives a corresponding extension of the time within which he may file a credit or refund claim. Form 872 itself states in paragraph 4 that:

Without otherwise limiting the applicability of this agreement, this agreement also extends the period of limitations for assessing any tax (including penalties, additions to tax and interest) attributable to any partnership items (see section 6231 (a)(3)), affected items (see section 6231(a)(5)), computational adjustments (see section 6231(a)(6)), and partnership items converted to nonpartnership items (see section 6231(b)). Additionally, this agreement extends the period of limitations for assessing any tax (including penalties, additions to tax, and interest) relating to any amounts carried over from the taxable year specified in paragraph (1) to any other taxable year(s). This agreement extends the period for filing a petition for adjustment under section 6228(b) but only if a timely request for administrative adjustment is filed under section 6227. For partnership items which have converted to nonpartnership items, this agreement extends the period for filing a suit for refund or credit under section 6532, but only if a timely claim for refund is filed for such items.

Limitations on Form 872 Refund Claims

There is an important limitation on Form 872 Refund Claims. Form 872 Refund Claims will only be accepted if the extension agreement is entered into before the expiration of the claim period. See IRC §6511(c)(1). This means that, if Form 872 is entered into by the parties by the time that the statute of limitations had already expired, the taxpayer is unlikely to succeed in his Form 872 Refund Claims.

The Form 872 agreement becomes effective when signed by the taxpayer and the District Director or an Assistant Regional Commissioner (See Treas. Reg. § 301.6511(c)-1).

Let’s look at a basic example to understand this limitation on Form 872 Refund Claims better.  Let’s suppose that a taxpayer X filed his 2003 US tax return on April 15, 2004. In March of 2007, the IRS decided to audit X’s 2003 US tax return and Form 872 was entered into by both parties at that time. In this case, without an agreement (and absent other special circumstances such as foreign tax credit issues, 25% under-reporting of income, et cetera), the presumed expiration of the assessment period would be on April 15, 2007; similarly, X’s refund claim period would have expired on April 15, 2007. Since Form 872 was entered into by both parties in March of 2007 (i.e. prior to the expiration of the normal refund claim period), however, X can file his Form 872 refund claims during the period that covers the duration of the extension plus six months thereafter.

Time to File Form 872 Refund Claims

As it was hinted in the example above, the period within which a taxpayer may file a credit or refund claim arising from the tax liability covered by Form 872 is extended for the period of the extension plus an additional six months. See IRC §6511(c)(1).

What Can Be Claimed on Form 872 Refund Claims

With respect to timely Form 872 Refund Claims, the taxpayer can claim an amount limited to the amount that would have been allowable under the normal limitation rules if the claim had been filed on the date the agreement was executed AND any tax paid after the execution of the agreement but before the filing of the claim. IRC §6511(c)(2).

What is the amount allowable under the normal limitation rules? It varies widely based on for what the refund is claimed (i.e. the type of the claim) and what is the filing period. For example, if Form 872 Refund Claims are filed within the three-year filing period, the amount of the refund or credit is limited to the tax paid on the liability at issue within the three years immediately preceding the filing of the claim plus the period of any extension of time for filing the return. IRC §6511(b)(2)(A). On the other hand, Form 872 Refund Claims based on a foreign tax credit adjustment can be granted many years back because the statute of limitations is ten years.

Form 872 Cannot Reduce the Claim Period for Form 872 Refund Claims

One final point that should be mentioned is that Form 872 and any other agreement to extend the assessment period cannot reduce the refund and credit claim period. The law clearly states that, when an extension agreement is executed, the taxpayer’s claim period shall not expire before the expiration of the additional assessment period plus six months.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Your Form 872 Refund Claims

If you entered into a Form 872 agreement to extend the time to assess tax (whether as a result of OVDP, opt-out OVDP audit, FBAR Audit or regular audit) or any other type of agreement to extend the assessment period, contact Sherayzen Law Office for help with filing your Form 872 refund claims.

IRS Notice 2014-52 Regarding Inversions and “Hopscotch Loans”

/0 Comments/in , /by

On September 22, 2014, the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued Notice 2014-52, “Rules Regarding Inversions and Related Transactions” (“Notice”) in the wake of recent inversions conducted by many US companies such as by Medtronic, Chiquita Brands, Pfizer and others.  Treasury and the IRS highlighted in the Notice that they were “concerned that certain recent inversion transactions are inconsistent with the purposes of sections 7874 and 367 of the Internal Revenue Code… certain inversion transactions are motivated in substantial part by the ability to engage in certain tax avoidance transactions after the inversion that would not be possible in the absence of the inversion.”

To address these concerns regarding inversions, Treasury and the IRS announced in the Notice that they intend to issue new regulations under Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) Sections 304(b)(5)(B), 367, 956(e), 7701(l), and 7874. In this article we will briefly explain the new regulations intended to be issued under IRC Section 956 that seek to prevent the avoidance of tax in this section “[T]hrough post-inversion acquisitions by controlled foreign corporations (“CFC’s”) of obligations of (or equity investments in) the new foreign parent corporation or certain foreign affiliates”. Such obligations are also commonly referred to as “Hopscotch loans”. Notice Section 3.01, “Regulations to Address Acquisitions of Obligations and Stock that Avoid Section 956” specifically addresses such issues.

This article is intended to provide explanatory material regarding the new inversion regulations as they relate to IRC Section 956 aspects; the article does not convey legal or tax advice. Please contact experienced international tax attorney Eugene Sherayzen for questions about your tax and legal needs.

Inversions and the Use of “Hopscotch Loans” to Avoid U.S. Taxation under Pre-Notice Rules

In general, under IRC Section 956, if a CFC subsidiary of a U.S. parent makes a loan to (or equity investment in) the U.S. parent, it will be treated as a deemed repatriation of the CFC’s earnings and profits, even though no actual dividend may be distributed. IRC Section 956(c)(1) specifically provides that U.S. property is “[A] any property acquired after December 31, 1962, which is… (B) stock of a domestic corporation; (C) an obligation of a United States person…” (See Section 956 for additional definitions of “U.S. property” for the purposes of this provision).

This deemed repatriation will be taxable to the CFC’s U.S. shareholders. As stated in the Notice, the taxable amount for any taxable year is the lesser of, “(1) the excess (if any) of—(A) such shareholder’s pro rata share of the average of the amounts of United States property held (directly or indirectly) by the controlled foreign corporation as of the close of each quarter of such taxable year, over (B) the amount of earnings and profits described in section 959(c)(1)(A) with respect to such shareholder, or (2) such shareholder’s pro rata share of the applicable earnings of such controlled foreign corporation.”

This is why many U.S. parents and CFC subsidiaries sought to avoid taxation by doing inversions in which new foreign parent companies would be formed that were not CFCs; the existing CFC would then make a loan to the new foreign parent (the “Hopscotch loan”), and the amount could at some future point then be lent to the former U.S. parent. As Treasury and the IRS stated in the Notice, “The ability of the new foreign parent to access deferred CFC earnings and profits would in many cases eliminate the need for the CFCs to pay dividends to the U.S. shareholders, thereby circumventing the purposes of section 956.”

Changes to Inversions under Notice 2014-52, Section 3.10(b)

Under IRC Section 956(e) the Treasury Secretary is directed to prescribe regulations to prevent tax avoidance of the provisions of section 956 through reorganizations or otherwise, and the Notice specified that inversions constitute such transactions. To address the inversions strategy, Treasury and the IRS noted that they intend to issue regulations, “[P]roviding that, solely for purposes of section 956, any obligation or stock of a foreign related person (within the meaning of section 7874(d)(3) other than an “expatriated foreign subsidiary”) (such person, a “non-CFC foreign related person”) will be treated as United States property within the meaning of section 956(c)(1) to the extent such obligation or stock is acquired by an expatriated foreign subsidiary during the applicable period (within the meaning of section 7874(d)(1)).”

An “expatriated foreign subsidiary” is defined in the Notice (except as provided in the succeeding paragraph) as a “CFC with respect to which an expatriated entity… is a U.S. shareholder”, but it does not include a “CFC that is a member of the EAG immediately after the acquisition and all transactions related to the acquisition are completed (completion date) if the domestic entity is not a U.S. shareholder with respect to the CFC on or before the completion date” (“EAG” is defined in the Notice to mean an “expanded affiliated group”). Additionally, under the Notice, “[A]n expatriated foreign subsidiary that is a pledgor or guarantor of an obligation of a non-CFC foreign related person under the principles of section 956(d) and §1.956-2(c) will be considered as holding such obligation.”

Effective Dates of the New Regulation Concerning Inversions

Subject to certain exceptions, the regulations under Notice section 3.01(b), “[W]ill apply to acquisitions of obligations or stock of a non-CFC foreign related person by an expatriated foreign subsidiary completed on or after September 22, 2014, but only if the inversion transaction is completed on or after September 22, 2014.”

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With International Tax Matters

International tax matters often involve very complex issues, and it is advisable to seek the assistance of a tax attorney in this area. If you have questions regarding taxation of CFC’s, are in need of international tax planning, or have any other tax and legal questions, please contact Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd.

Attorney Jailed for Helping Hide Money for Clients at Their Swiss Bank Accounts

/in , /by

On March 18, 2014, the IRS and U.S. Department of Justice announced the California attorney Christopher M. Rusch was sentenced to serve 10 months in prison for helping his clients Mr. Stephen M. Kerr and Mr. Michael Quiel, both businessmen from Phoenix, hide millions of dollars in secret Swiss bank accounts at UBS AG and Pictet & Cie. Additionally, U.S. District Judge James A. Teilborg also ordered Rusch to serve three years of supervised release following his prison sentence.

The sentencing following the February 6, 2013, Mr. Rusch guilty plea to conspiracy to defraud US government and failing to file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR). Mr. Kerr and Mr. Quiel were sentenced in September of 2013 to each serve 10 months in prison after both were tried and convicted of filing false income tax returns for 2007 and 2008. The jury also convicted Mr. Kerr of failing to file FBARs for 2007 and 2008 (with respect to the Swiss bank accounts).

Facts of the Case

According to the DOJ, Mr. Kerr and Mr. Quiel, with the assistance of Mr. Rusch and others (including Swiss nationals) established nominee foreign entities and corresponding bank accounts in Switzerland to conceal Mr. Kerr and Mr. Quiel’s ownership and control of stock and income they deposited in these accounts. Mr. Rusch testified at trial, admitting that he and others caused the sale of the shares of stock through the undeclared accounts.

Rusch further testified that, at Mr. Kerr and Mr. Quiel’s direction, he transferred some of the money in the secret accounts back to the United States through Mr. Rusch’s Interest on Lawyer’s Trust Account before dispersing the money for Mr. Kerr and Mr. Quiel’s benefit, including the purchase of a multi-million dollar golf course in Erie, Colorado. According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, with Mr. Rusch’s assistance, Mr. Kerr and Mr. Quiel each failed to report more than $ 4,600,000 and $2,000,000 of income, respectively, during 2007 and 2008 which they hid in the undeclared accounts with Mr. Rusch’s assistance.

IRS and DOJ Continue Pursuit of US Tax Advisors for US Taxpayers with Undisclosed Swiss Bank Accounts

Since the 2008 UBS case victory, the IRS and the DOJ have been continuously increasing the pressure on the US and foreign tax advisors who help their US clients hide money in offshore accounts, particularly Swiss bank accounts.

“This prosecution serves notice that the Department of Justice will not tolerate fraudulent activity designed to undermine the integrity of our income tax system,” said U.S. Attorney John S. Leonardo for the District of Arizona.

“Today, Mr. Rusch has been held accountable for his actions in assisting wealthy individuals hide millions of dollars in secret offshore bank accounts and dodge the tax system,” said Chief of IRS-Criminal Investigation Richard Weber. “In addition, Mr. Rusch used his attorney trust account to funnel money from the secret offshore accounts back to Mr. Kerr and Mr. Quiel for their personal benefit, including the purchase of a multi-million dollar golf course. As the investigation into offshore tax evasion continues, Criminal Investigation will leave no financial stone unturned as we continue to vigorously pursue new leads.”

Top Three Lessons from Rusch Case

Mr. Rusch has committed three “cardinal sins” of tax advising. First, he helped his clients in their pursuit of tax evasions. Second, he used the nominee corporate structures to help his clients evade taxes, thereby tinting the first sin with additional degree of consciousness, willfulness and complexity, providing the IRS with an additional incentive to pursue criminal charges. Finally, Mr. Rusch abused his position as an attorney with a client trust account (which is an ethical violation in addition to legal violation).

The combination of these factors really hurt the Mr. Rusch’s case and provide the IRS and the DOJ with ample ammunition to pursue criminal charges. Of course, the fact that Swiss bank accounts were involved only aggravated Mr. Rusch’s already difficult legal position.

IRS Pursuit of Mizrahi Bank Clients Gains Steam

/in , /by

It is well-known that the IRS is in hot pursuit of U.S. taxpayers with undisclosed bank accounts in Mizrahi Bank. There have been a number of victories that the IRS has scored against Mizrahi Bank clients. The latest example of this is the case of Monajem Hakimijoo who plead guilty on February 13, 2014.

According to court documents, Mr. Hakimijoo, a U.S. citizen, and his brother maintained an undeclared bank account in Israel at Mizrahi Bank in the name of Kalamar Enterprises, a Turks and Caicos Islands entity they used to conceal their ownership of the account. Mr. Hakimijoo and his brother used the funds in the Kalamar account as collateral for back-to-back loans obtained from the Los Angeles branch of Mizrahi Bank. Although Mr. Hakimijoo and his brother claimed the interest paid on the back-to-back loans as a business deduction for federal tax purposes, they failed to report the interest income earned in their undeclared, Israel-based account as income on their tax returns. In total, Mr. Hakimijoo failed to report approximately $282,000 in interest income. The highest balance in the Kalamar Enterprises account was approximately $4,030,000.

As further described in the release by the U.S. DOJ, in March 2013, Mr. Hakimijoo was scheduled to be interviewed by Justice Department attorneys and IRS special agents. Prior to the interview, Mr. Mr. Hakimijoo, through counsel, provided the attorneys and special agents with copies of his amended tax returns for 2004 and 2005. When asked if the amended tax returns had been filed with the IRS, Mr. Hakimijoo indicated that the returns had been filed. Shortly thereafter, the IRS determined there was no record of the amended returns being filed with the IRS. When Mr. Hakimijoo was asked to provide copies of cancelled checks to prove that the taxes reflected on the amended returns had been paid, none were provided.

Points of Interest of the Mr. Hakimijoo Case

Several features are prominent in this case. First, the Mizrahi Bank account in question was not in Switzerland, but Israel itself. This is one more example of the IRS interest in countries other than Switzerland. Israel is an obvious target, but it appears that it will not take long for the IRS to expand into the neighboring country of Lebanon.

Second, it seems incredible that Mr. Hakimijoo would engage in such reckless conduct as to gamble on the IRS not finding out that he has not filed the amended tax returns. Equally puzzling is the fact that the guilty plea did not involve any type of a false statement charge.

Finally, unfortunately for Mr. Hakimijoo, the facts of his case were greatly influenced by the use of an entity to conceal the ownership of the Mizrahi Bank account.

U.S. Taxpayers with Undisclosed Accounts in Israel Should Do Some Type of Voluntary Disclosure

Mr. Hakimijoo is the latest in a series of defendants charged in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California with concealing undeclared bank accounts in Israel that were used to obtain back-to-back loans in the United States. It is unlikely that the IRS will relent its pursuit at this point given the wealth of information that has been collected through the IRS voluntary disclosure programs as well as the Swiss voluntary disclosure program for banks.

The biggest lesson for U.S. taxpayers with undisclosed accounts in Israel and Mizrahi Bank specifically is that the IRS will not limit itself to Switzerland. Hence, there is a great urgency for these taxpayers to commence the analysis of their voluntary disclosure options as soon as possible. Some options may still be open if these taxpayers come forward now; these options may be closed once the taxpayer is subject to an IRS investigation.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Experienced Professional Help with Your Voluntary Disclosure

If you are a U.S. person who has (or had at any point since 2007) undisclosed bank or financial accounts in Israel and any other foreign country, you should contact Sherayzen Law Office as soon as possible for professional help. Our experienced international tax law firm has helped taxpayers throughout the world with their voluntary disclosures and we can help you.

Call Us to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation NOW!