Posts

California Streamlined Disclosure Lawyer | FBAR FATCA Tax Attorney

/in , /by

If you are a California resident with undisclosed foreign assets and you believe that you were non-willful with respect to your prior reporting noncompliance, you would be looking for professional help to bring your US tax affairs into full compliance with US international tax law through Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures. In other words, you are looking for a California streamlined disclosure lawyer. In this essay, I would like to analyze everyone included within the definition of a California streamlined disclosure lawyer.

California Streamlined Disclosure Lawyer: International Tax Lawyer

The first point to understand is that all California streamlined disclosure lawyers are international tax lawyers. The reason for this is very simple: an offshore voluntary disclosure of noncompliance concerning foreign assets and foreign income generated by these assets falls within a specific sub-area of US international tax law. In other words, an offshore voluntary disclosure is part of US international tax law. This means that, when you are looking for a lawyer who can help you with Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures, you are searching for an international tax lawyer.

California Streamlined Disclosure Lawyer: Voluntary Disclosure Expertise

You are not searching, however, for just any international tax lawyer. You want to find a lawyer who has developed expertise in a very narrow sub-field of offshore voluntary disclosures within US international tax law.

This means that you are looking for an international tax lawyer who specializes in offshore voluntary disclosure 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), 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.

California Streamlined Disclosure Lawyer: Geographical Location Does Not Matter

While the expertise and experience in offshore voluntary disclosures are highly important in choosing your international tax lawyer, the geographical location (i.e. the city where the lawyer resides) does not matter. The reason for it is also very simple: offshore voluntary disclosure options were all created by the IRS and form part of US international (i.e. federal) law; the local California law has no influence over how SDOP will be processed. This means that any international tax lawyer who specializes in this field may be able to help you irrespective of whether this lawyer resides in California or Minnesota.

Moreover, the development of modern means of communications pretty much eliminated any communication advantages that a lawyer in California might have had in the past over the out-of-state lawyers. This is especially true in our world today where the pandemic greatly reduced the number of face-to-face meetings.

Sherayzen Law Office May Be Your California Streamlined Disclosure Lawyer

Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. is a highly-experienced international tax law firm that specializes in all types of offshore voluntary disclosures, including SDOP, SFOP, DFSP, DIIRSP, 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 California, with the preparation and filing of their Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures disclosure. We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Vadian Bank AG Signs Non-Prosecution Agreement with DOJ

/0 Comments/in , /by

On May 8, 2015, Vadian Bank AG (Vadian) became the second bank to sign a Non-Prosecution Agreement with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) pursuant to the DOJ Program for Swiss Banks.

Program for Swiss Banks: Background Information

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)”. The basic goal of the program was to allow Swiss banks to purge themselves of the prior US tax non-compliance (or complicity with such non-compliance) in exchange for providing DOJ with detailed description of their illegal activities, bank accounts owned by US persons and, in many cases, the payment of monetary penalties.

The Program is a really a version of the 2014 OVDP for foreign banks. However, it was not open to all banks. The banks already under criminal investigation related to their Swiss-banking activities and all individuals were expressly excluded from the program.

As of the time of this writing, the application process has already been completed for the great majority of the Swiss banks, and the Program has entered into the resolution phase (i.e. the review of the banks’ disclosure and penalty calculation).

Vadian bank’s case was the second such case that completed the resolution phase (BSI SA was the first bank to do so).

Vadian Bank Background

Vadian has one office and 26 employees. Prior to 2008, Vadian’s business predominantly consisted of savings accounts, residential mortgage lending and small business loans. In 2007, Vadian hired a marketing firm to assist with its planned growth into private banking, and focused its efforts on attracting external asset managers. In 2008, after it became publicly known that UBS was a target of a criminal investigation, Vadian accepted accounts from U.S. persons who were forced out of other Swiss banks. At this time, Vadian’s management was aware that the U.S. authorities were pursuing Swiss banks that facilitated tax evasion for U.S. accountholders in Switzerland, but was not deterred because Vadian had no U.S. presence. As a result of its efforts, after August 2008, Vadian attracted cross-border private banking business and increased its U.S. related accounts from two to more than 70, with $76 million in assets under management.

Through its managers, employees and/or other individuals, Vadian knew or believed that many of its U.S. accountholders were not complying with their U.S. tax obligations, and Vadian would and did assist those clients to conceal assets and income from the IRS. Vadian’s services included: “hold mail” services; numbered accounts, where the client was known to most bank employees only by a number or code name; opening and maintaining accounts for U.S. taxpayers through non-U.S. entities such as corporations, trusts or foundations; and accepting instructions from U.S.-based accountholders to prevent investments from being made in U.S.-based securities that would require disclosure to U.S. tax authorities.

Vadian Bank: Terms the DOJ Non-Prosecution Agreement

According to the terms of the non-prosecution agreement that was signed on May 20, 2015, Vadian 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 $4.253 million penalty in return for the department’s agreement not to prosecute Vadian for tax-related criminal offenses.

In resolving its criminal liabilities under the program, Vadian also provided extensive cooperation and encouraged U.S. accountholders to come into compliance.

Consequences of Vadian Non-Prosecution Agreement for Vadian US Accountholders

If you have (or had at any point since the year 2008) undeclared foreign accounts at Vadian, you may still be eligible to participate in the OVDP (assuming that you can pass the IRS-CI Preclearance process). However, the price of participating in the OVDP has almost doubled from the pre-Agreement 27.5% to the current 50% of the highest value of your undisclosed foreign assets.

Of course, if the behavior was non-willful, Streamlined options remain available at the same penalty rates.

What Should Vadian US Accountholders Do?

If you are a US person and an accountholder at Vadian, please contact the experienced international tax law firm of Sherayzen Law Office to explore your voluntary disclosure options as soon as possible.

Introduction to US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regimes

/0 Comments/in , /by

Despite their enormous importance to tax compliance, there is a shocking level of ignorance of the US international tax anti-deferral regimes that is being displayed by US taxpayers, foreign bankers, foreign accountants, foreign attorneys, US accountants and even many US tax attorneys. In this article, for educational purposes only, I would like to provide a brief overview of the history and features of the main US international tax anti-deferral regimes.

What is a US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regime?

A US international tax anti-deferral regime is a set of US tax laws designed to prevent US taxpayers from utilizing various offshore strategies to defer US taxation of their income for a period of time or indefinitely.

Three Main US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regimes

Since 1937, there have been three main US international tax anti-deferral regimes: Foreign Personal Holding Company (“FPHC”) rules, subpart F rules, and PFIC rules. Let’s review the brief history and main features of each of these US international tax anti-deferral regimes.

First US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regime: FPHC

In 1937, the Congress for the first time addressed the offshore investment strategy problems by enacting the FPHC regime, which were designed to contemporaneously (i.e. in the year the income was earned) tax certain types of foreign corporations. In particular, FPHC rules targeted foreign corporations that had substantial investment income (i.e. passive income) compared to active business income – i.e. the FPHC rules effectively treat certain corporations as pass-through companies for the purposes of certain categories of passive income..

The FPHC rules were triggered only if both conditions of the then-Code §552(a) were satisfied. First, at least 60% of a foreign corporation’s gross income from the taxable year had to consist of “foreign personal holding company income”. The FPHC income included interest income, dividends, royalties, gains from the sale of securities or commodities, certain rents and certain income from personal services provided by shareholders of the FPHC. This was called the “income test”.

The second condition of the §552(a) was known as the “ownership test”. The ownership test was satisfied if at least 50% of either the total voting power or total value of the stock of the foreign corporation was owned by 5 or fewer individuals who were citizens or residents of the United States.

Despite the appearances, the FPHC regime was not very effective. It was actually not very hard to work around the FPHC rules with careful and creative tax planning. This is why, after the enactment of the Subpart F rules and the PFIC rules (which addressed some of the main inefficacies of the FPCH rules and made them redundant as a US international tax anti-deferral regime), the FPHC regime was finally repealed in the year 2004.

Second US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regime: Subpart F Rules

The second US international tax anti-deferral regime, the Subpart F rules, was enacted in 1962 and, despite numerous amendments, forms the core of the anti-deferral rules with respect to Controlled Foreign Corporations (“CFCs”). It is definitely one of the most important and complex pieces of US tax legislation.

The most important feature of the Subpart F regime is that it greatly expands the scope of the former FPHC regime by expanding the contemporaneous (i.e. pass-through) taxation to a much broader range of income and activities, including many kinds of active business activities as well as passive investment activities of a foreign corporation. Obviously, the focus of this US international tax anti-deferral regime is still on passive income or attempts to disguise passive income as active income.

Third US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regime: PFIC Rules

The third US international tax anti-deferral regime consists of the passive foreign investment company (“PFIC”) rules that were adopted by US Congress in 1986. Perhaps because it is the youngest of all US international tax anti-deferral regimes, the PFIC regime is more aggressive and less forgiving than Subpart F rules or FPHC regime. A lot of innocent taxpayers have fallen victims to this severe law.

The PFIC rules impose a unique additional US income tax in two circumstances: where (1) there is a gain on the disposition of the PFIC stock by the US person; or (2) there are PFIC distributions that are considered “excess distributions”. The PFIC rules also impose an additional PFIC interest (calculated similarly to underpayment interest) on the PFIC tax.

The definition of a PFIC is in some ways reminiscent of FPHC rules, but the PFIC regime is a lot more aggressive. Generally, a PFIC is any foreign corporation if it meets either the income tax or the assets test. The income tax is met if 75% of a foreign corporation’s gross income is passive; the assets test is satisfied if at least an average of 50% of a foreign corporation’s assets produce passive income.

Notice that the PFIC rules apply irrespective of the US ownership percentage of the company. This elimination of the FPHC and Subpart F ownership rules makes PFIC rules a much more comprehensive US international anti-deferral tax regime, because it is very easy to trigger PFIC rules – a lot of US naturalized citizens and permanent residents fall into the PFIC trap by simply owning foreign mutual funds as part of their former home countries’ investment portfolio.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With Dealing with US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regimes

If you have an ownership interest in a foreign business or have foreign investments, you may be facing the extremely complex rules of US international tax anti-deferral regimes.

Please contact Mr. Eugene Sherayzen, an experienced international tax attorney at Sherayzen Law Office. Our international tax firm has helped hundreds of clients around the globe and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

San Francisco International Tax Lawyer: Influence of Location

/in , /by

While looking for a San Francisco international tax lawyer, one of the important issues that clients face is whether it is better to retain an international tax attorney in San Francisco or in Minneapolis if you live in San Francisco? If you were to search “San Francisco international tax lawyer”, Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. (which is based in Minneapolis) is likely to come out on the first page together with other international tax attorneys in San Francisco. The question is: should the geographical proximity of an attorney play a role in the retainer decision?

The answer depends on many factors. On the one extreme, if you are looking for a sales tax lawyer, then you may not have a choice but to find a local lawyer. This is because local law and procedure would govern in this case, and an lawyer familiar with local sales tax issues would be the best choice for handling a sales tax case. Of course, even in this case, there are exceptions because, sometimes, the unique qualities of an outside lawyer are so desirable by the client that the court may accede in temporarily admitting this outside lawyer to practice just for one case.

One the other end of the spectrum, if you are searching for a San Francisco international tax lawyer because you have undeclared offshore accounts, then the knowledge of local law and procedure are likely to be of very little value. Instead, the experience and knowledge of a lawyer in his area of practice (i.e. international tax law) will become the overriding factors in retaining a San Francisco international tax lawyer.

What if you have an international tax lawyer in San Francisco, do you still want to consider an attorney in Minneapolis? The answer is “yes” – for two reasons. First, international tax lawyers differ in their natural ability to identify problems and find solutions, creativity, advocacy and many other factors. Therefore, there is no reason to stay away from a better international tax lawyer in Minneapolis even if there is a lawyer in San Francisco.

Second, in addition to differences in personal qualities, the experience of the international tax lawyer in the international tax sub-area that you need and the ability to analyze the specific subject matter in the broader context are very important factors in retaining the lawyer and should override the lawyer’s particular geography.

What is a fairly unique feature about Sherayzen Law Office is that we can handle the entire case internally – both, the legal and the accounting sides of it. Most San Francisco international tax lawyers in this area of law do not do that and rely on the outside accountant to provide such additional services. The outsourcing approach has various disadvantages, including potential leak of information, lack of close coordination between both sides of the case, increased possibility of missed opportunities and absence of the unity of goal among the professionals who are preoccupied with their respective areas only. The approach adopted by Sherayzen Law Office is aimed to reduce and eliminate such problems.

So, the next time you search for a San Francisco international tax lawyer, keep these issues in mind while retaining a lawyer from Minneapolis or any other city.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With International Tax Issues

If you have any international tax issues with respect to undeclared foreign assets, international tax compliance or international tax planning, contact Eugene Sherayzen, an experienced tax attorney of Sherayzen Law Office for comprehensive legal and tax help.

New 2013 FBAR form: E-filing Explanation for Late FBARs

/in , /by

On October 1, 2013, in response to various requests from FBAR tax lawyers and accountants, FinCEN updated the online FBAR filing form. There are various new technical additions and a much friendlier user interface, but the inclusion of the explanation for the delay in FBAR filing is definitely the key new feature for the FBAR tax lawyers who are thinking about recommending the reasonable cause disclosure (a/k/a Modified Voluntary Disclosure) to their clients.

The late FBAR explanation has two particularly interesting characteristics.

Analysis of the Late Filing Explanation Choices

First, a taxpayer who files his FBAR late can choose among the following ten answers to explain the reason for filing the FBAR late:

A. Forgot to file
B. Did not know that I had to file
C. Thought account balance was below reporting threshold
D. Did not know that my account qualified as foreign
E. Account statement not received in time
F. Account statement lost (replacement requested)
G. Late receiving missing required account information
H. Unable to obtain joint spouse signature in time
I. Unable to access BSA E-Filing System
Z. Other

These choices are somewhat surprising for FBAR tax lawyers because some of these choices would not normally constitute a reasonable cause, others are repetitive and some may actually get the taxpayer (especially a taxpayer who is not represented by an FBAR tax lawyer).

The most dangerous answer is “A” – forgetting the FBAR means that the taxpayer admits to the knowledge of the existence of the FBAR requirement and non-willfully but negligently fails to comply with the FBAR requirement. Potentially, the IRS can use this answer to impose a $10,000 penalty per violation.

Choice “B” is a good but insufficient choice. Lack of knowledge of the FBAR may help establish non-willfulness, but it is not sufficient in itself for a reasonable cause. FBAR tax lawyers usually start with non-willfulness, but this is not where they end.

Choices “C” and, to a lesser extent, “F” may be dangerous because it is unclear where the confusion (in case of “C”) comes from and why the statements (in the case of “F”) were lost. The taxpayer could be opening the door to potential charge that he is not compliant with the FBAR recordkeeping requirements.

Outside of U.S. territories, I am not certain who would be using answer “D”. In any case, by itself, it does not appear to be sufficient to avoid the imposition of an FBAR penalty.

Choices “E” and “G” are pretty much the same and would be useful in presenting the argument for the reasonable cause, but this task can hardly accomplished without presenting a comprehensive context in which these events occurred. The same problem applies to “H” and “I”.

Choice “Z” – Other Explanation

The second and most important feature of the new FBAR is that it provides the space for writing an explanation for why the FBARs are filed late – this is the last choice “Z”.

There is, however, a very important limitation with respect to choice “Z”; there are only a maximum of 750 characters allowed. In other words, FinCEN and the IRS only gave taxpayers a few tweets to present a complex argument for non-willfulness and reasonable cause. Most FBAR tax lawyers will agree that 750 characters is a laughable amount of space for a reasonable cause explanation.

I believe that this feature will continue to be a great obstacle to submitting reasonable cause explanations purely electronically. More likely, the electronic explanation will need to reference the reasonable cause statement on paper.

Possibility of PDF File Upload in the Future

It seems that the IRS also understands that there is a big problem with choice Z. I fully expect the IRS to finish and implement a new feature (probably in the next version of the FBAR) that would allow FBAR tax lawyers to upload their reasonable cause statements as a pdf file (in a same manner as it is currently done in many court systems in the United States).

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Legal Help With Late FBARs

If you have undisclosed foreign accounts and you are facing a situation where your FBARs will be filed late, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional legal help with your late FBARs. Our experienced FBAR tax firm will thoroughly analyze your case, present the available choices, and properly conduct your voluntary disclosure, including the preparation and filing of late FBARs and other necessary legal documents and tax forms.