Posts

Florida Streamlined Disclosure Attorney | International Tax Lawyer

/in , , /by

Florida has a huge immigrant community with over 21% of the population foreign-born and another more than 12% of the population that has at least one immigrant parent. The top countries of original for immigrants are: Cuba, Haiti, Colombia, Mexico and Jamaica. Many of these new US taxpayers own assets in foreign countries and receive income generated by these assets. Unfortunately some of these taxpayers are not in compliance with their US international tax obligations and want to participate in Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures (SDOP) or Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures (SFOP). These individuals often look for a Florida streamlined Disclosure Attorney for professional help, but they do not understand what this term really means. In this essay, I would like to explain the definition of Florida streamlined Disclosure Attorney and outline who belongs to this category of lawyers.

Florida Streamlined Disclosure Attorney: International Tax Lawyer

From the outset, It is important to understand that all voluntary disclosures, including the Streamlined options, form part of US international tax compliance, because these options deal with US international tax laws concerning foreign assets and foreign income. The knowledge that SDOP and SFOP are part of US international tax law makes you better understand what kind of lawyer you are looking for when you search for a Florida streamlined Disclosure Attorney. In reality, when you are seeking help with the SDOP and SFOP filings, you are searching for an international tax lawyer.

Florida Streamlined Disclosure Attorney: Specialty in Offshore Voluntary Disclosures

As I stated above, SDOP and SFOP form part of a very specific sub-area of offshore voluntary disclosures. This means that not every international tax attorney would be able to conduct the necessary legal analysis required to successfully complete an offshore voluntary disclosure, including Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures and Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures. Only a lawyer who has developed expertise in a very narrow sub-field of offshore voluntary disclosures within US international tax law will be fit for this job.

This means that you are looking for an international tax attorney who specializes in offshore voluntary disclosures and who is familiar with the various offshore voluntary disclosure options. Offshore voluntary disclosure options include: 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. Each of these options has it pros and cons, which may have tremendous legal and tax (and, in certain cases, even immigration) implications for your case.

Florida Streamlined Disclosure Attorney: Geographical Location Does Not Matter

While the expertise and experience in offshore voluntary disclosures is highly important in choosing your international tax lawyer, the geographical location (i.e. the city where the lawyer lives and works) does not matter. I already hinted at why this is the case above: offshore voluntary disclosure options were all created by the IRS and form part of US international (i.e. federal) law. In other words, the local law has no connection whatsoever to the SDOP and SFOP.

This means that you are not limited to Florida when you are looking for a lawyer who can help you with your streamlined disclosure. Any international tax lawyer who specializes in this field may be able to help you, irrespective of whether this lawyer resides in Florida or Minnesota.

Moreover, the development of modern means of communications has pretty much eliminated any communication advantages that a lawyer in Florida might have had in the past over the out-of-state lawyers. This is the reality in today’s post-pandemic world which greatly reduced the number of face-to-face meetings.

Sherayzen Law Office Can Be Your Florida Streamlined Disclosure Attorney

Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. is a highly-experienced international tax Minnesota law firm that specializes in all types of offshore voluntary disclosures, including SDOP, SFOP, DFSP, DIIRSP, IRS VDP and Reasonable Cause disclosures. Our professional tax team, led by attorney Eugene Sherayzen, has successfully helped our US clients around the globe, including in Florida, with the preparation and filing of their Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures disclosure. We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

§318 Sidewise Attribution Limitation | US International Tax Attorney

/in , /by

This article explores the third main limitation on the general IRC (Internal Revenue Code) §318 corporate stock re-attribution rules – §318 Sidewise Attribution Limitation.

§318 Sidewise Attribution Limitation: What is “Sidewise Attribution”?

A sidewise attribution occurs when corporate stock owned by an owner of a business entity (or a beneficiary of a trust or estate) is first attributed to this business entity (or estate or trust) and then re-attributed again to another owner of the same business entity (or another beneficiary of the same trust or estate). In other words, stock deemed to be owned by an entity due to the ownership of that stock by an owner or beneficiary of the entity is re-attributed “sidewise” to another owner or beneficiary of the same entity.

Sidewise attribution may have far-reaching income tax and tax reporting consequences, because it may result in a person with no real ownership of a corporation being treated as an owner of this corporation’s stock simply because a member of another entity (in which the first person also has an ownership interest) happens to own corporate stock of this corporation.

§318 Sidewise Attribution Limitation: §318(a)(5)(C) Prohibition

§318(a)(5)(C) describes the §318 Sidewise Attribution Limitation. Under §318(a)(5)(C), stock constructively owned by a partnership, estate, trust or corporation pursuant to §318(a)(3) is not treated as owned by this partnership, estate, trust or corporation for the purpose of treating a partner, beneficiary, or shareholder as owner of the stock. In other words, the sidewise attribution limitation prevents re-attribution of corporate stock to an owner of an entity where such stock is constructively-owned by an entity solely by virtue of ownership of this stock by another owner of the entity.

Let’s look at the following example to illustrate the §318 Sidewise Attribution Limitation: A and B are unrelated persons, they equally own a partnership P and A owns 100 shares of corporation X’s stock. In this situation, partnership P is a constructive owner of A’s 100 shares of X under §318(a)(3)(A). Without any sideways limitation, B would have been also treated as an owner of these 100 shares of X due to §318(a)(2)(A). Under §318(a)(5)(C), however, none of these stocks are attributed to B.

§318 Sidewise Attribution Limitation: Attribution from Actual Ownership Not Affected

It is important to emphasize that §318(a)(5)(C) applies only to the re-attribution of stock constructively owned as a result of the application of §318(a)(3). This prohibition does not affect the §318(a)(2) attribution of stock actually owned by an entity to its beneficiary, partner, or shareholder.

§318 Sidewise Attribution Limitation: Re-Attribution Under Other Rules

Additionally, stock constructively owned under §318(a)(3) may still be re-attributed under an attribution rule other than §318(a)(2). In other words, stock constructively owned under §318(a)(3) may still be re-attributed under the upstream corporate attribution rules or the option attribution rules of §318(a)(4) (see Treas. Reg. §1.318-4(c)(2)).

Moreover, re-attribution under the §318 family attribution rules still possible. A potential situation for such re-attribution would arise in a situation where corporate stock is attributed from an entity to its member and from this member to a qualified family member of the same entity. Berenbaum v. Commissioner, 369 F.2d 337 (10th Cir. 1966), rev’g T.C. Memo 1965-147.

Let’s look at a couple of examples to understand better the interaction between the §318 Sidewise Attribution Limitation and the re-attribution rules other than §318(a)(2).

Here is the first hypothetical fact pattern: A is a beneficiary of a trust T, B is another beneficiary of T, T is a beneficiary of an estate, and A owns 100 shares of a C-corporation X. Under §318(a)(3)(B), T is a constructive owner of 100 shares of X. Since T is a constructive owner of A’s shares of X, these shares are re-attributed to the estate under §318(a)(3)(A); §318(a)(5)(C) does not apply to this type of a re-attribution since it is not a sidewise attribution. On the other hand, the §318 Sidewise Attribution Limitation would prevent the re-attribution of A’s shares of X to B that otherwise would have occurred under §318(a)(2)(B).

Note, however, that, if B is A’s son (or other qualified relative under the §318 family attribution rules), then the re-attribution of A’s stocks of X to B is possible under §318(a)(1)(A).

Let’s now look at another fact pattern to understand the power of the option rule attribution vis-a-vis §318(a)(5)(C): A and B are beneficiaries of a trust T; T has an option to buy corporate stock from A. The most important point to understand here is the fact that T is considered here as an owner of A’s stock not under the upstream trust attribution rules of §318(a)(3)(B), but under the option attribution rules of §318(a)(4). Hence, the sidewise attribution limitation under §318(a)(5)(C) does not apply and B becomes a constructive owner of a his proportional part of A’s stock under the downstream trust attribution rules of §318(a)(2)(B).

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With US International Tax Law Compliance

US international tax law is incredibly complex and the penalties for noncompliance are exceptionally severe. This means that an attempt to navigate through the maze of US international tax laws without assistance of an experienced professional will most likely produce unfavorable and even catastrophic results.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with US international tax law. We are a highly experienced, creative and ethical team of professionals dedicated to helping our clients resolve their past, present and future US international tax compliance issues. We have helped clients with assets in over 70 countries around the world, and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Japanese Bank Accounts : Main US Tax Obligations | FATCA Tax Lawyer

/in , /by

Despite the fact that FATCA has been implemented already in July of 2014, a lot of US taxpayers are still unaware of their obligation to disclose their Japanese bank accounts in the United States. In this essay, I will discuss the three most important US international tax requirements concerning Japanese bank accounts: worldwide income reporting, FBAR and FATCA Form 8938.

Japanese Bank Accounts: Japanese Income Must Be Disclosed on US Tax Returns

All US tax residents must disclose their worldwide income on their US tax returns. This requirement includes all income generated by the Japanese bank accounts. This obligation applies to all types of income: bank interest income, dividends, capital gains, et cetera.

In this context, it is important to reject two incorrect, but commonly-held beliefs concerning the reporting of Japanese-source income. First, a significant number of US taxpayers believe that Japanese income does not need to be reported if it never left Japan. This is completely false; it does not matter where the income is earned or held – as long as you are a US tax resident, you must disclose your Japanese income on your US tax returns whether or not it was ever transferred to the United States.

The second and most common myth is the belief that, if the income is subject to Japanese tax withholding, it does not need to be reported in the United States. Some taxpayers hold this belief because of their familiarity with the territorial system of taxation, while others assume that this is true due to the prohibition of double-taxation under the US-Japan tax treaty.

In either case, this myth is also completely false. All US tax residents must disclose their Japanese income on their US tax returns even if it is subject to Japanese tax withholding or reported on Japanese tax returns. However, you may be able to take advantage of the Foreign Tax Credit to reduce your US tax liability by the amount of taxes paid in Japan.

Japanese Bank Accounts: FBAR

The Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, FinCEN Form 114 (popularly known as “FBAR”) is one of the most important reporting requirements that applies to Japanese bank accounts. Generally, a US person is required to file FBAR if he has a financial interest in or signatory authority or any other authority over foreign bank and financial accounts which, in the aggregate, exceed $10,000 at any point during a calendar year.

FBAR has a severe penalty system for failure to file the form, failure to provide accurate information on the form and failure to maintain supporting documentation for the amounts reported on FBAR. The penalties range from criminal penalties (i.e. actual time in jail) to willful and non-willful civil penalties. The civil penalties are adjusted for inflation each year.

Given the fact that FBAR penalties may completely destroy one’s financial life, US taxpayers should strive to do everything in their power to make sure that they comply with this requirement.

Japanese Bank Accounts: FATCA Form 8938

In addition to FBAR, US tax residents with Japanese bank accounts may be required to file Form 8938. Form 8938 is the creation of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”). US tax residents must disclose their Specified Foreign Financial Assets (“SFFA”) on Form 8938 in each year their SFFA exceed the form’s filing threshold.

Form 8938 has a higher filing threshold than FBAR, but it is still relatively low, especially if the owner of Japanese bank accounts resides in the United States. For example, if a taxpayer resides in the United States and his tax return filing status is “single”, then he would only need to have $50,000 or higher at the end of the year or $75,000 or higher at any point during the year in order to trigger the Form 8938 filing requirement.

Moreover, SFFA is defined very broadly to include a lot of more financial assets than what is required to be reported on FBAR; hence, it is easier for US taxpayers to meet the Form 8938 filing Threshold. SFFA includes foreign bank and financials accounts, bonds, swaps, ownership interest in a foreign business, beneficiary interest in a foreign trust and many other types of financial assets. A word of caution: even when FBAR and Form 8938 cover the same assets, both forms must be filed despite the duplication of the disclosure.

The readers should also remember that Form 8938 has it own distinct penalty structure for failure to file the form or failure to comply with all of its requirements.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With Reporting of Your Japanese Bank Accounts in the United States

This essay broadly covered three most important and most common reporting requirements concerning Japanese bank accounts. There may be a lot more of these requirements depending on your particular fact pattern.

Sherayzen Law Office has extensive experience working with Japanese clients and their bank accounts. We can help you identify your US international tax requirements and prepare all of the tax documents necessary to comply with them. Moreover, if you did not comply with any of these US tax obligations in the past, we will help you with your offshore voluntary disclosure to minimize your IRS penalties and avoid IRS criminal prosecution.

We have successfully helped hundreds of US taxpayers to deal with their US international tax compliance, and We can help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!