Posts

Who is Required to File IRS Form 1041

/0 Comments/in , /by

IRS Form 1041 (“U.S. Income Tax Return for Estates and Trusts”) is used by a fiduciary of a domestic decedent’s estate, trust, or bankruptcy estate for a number of important reporting reasons. It is utilized to report income, deductions, gains, losses, and related items of an estate or trust; income that is either accumulated or held for future distribution or distributed currently to its beneficiaries; any income tax liability of the estate or trust; and employment taxes on wages paid to household employees. (It is also used to report the Net Investment Income Tax from Form 8960, line 21, on the Tax Computation section under Schedule G).

This article will cover the basics of who is required to file IRS Form 1041 for decedent’s estates and trusts in general; it is not intended to convey tax or legal advice. If you have further questions regarding filing IRS Form 1041, please contact Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd.

Who Must File IRS Form 1041?

In general, the fiduciary (or one of the joint fiduciaries) for a decedent’s domestic estate must file IRS Form 1041 if the estate has gross income for the tax year of $600 or more, or if it has a beneficiary who is a nonresident alien.

An estate is considered to be a “domestic” estate if it is not a foreign estate; a foreign estate is one in which its income is from sources outside the United States that is not effectively connected with the conduct of a U.S. trade or business, and is not includible in gross income. Note that fiduciaries of foreign estates file Form 1040NR, U.S. Nonresident Alien Income Tax Return, rather than IRS Form 1041.

In addition, the fiduciary (or one of the joint fiduciaries) of domestic trusts that are taxable under Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) Section 641 must file the form if the trust has any taxable income for the tax year, if it has gross income of $600 or more (regardless of whether it has taxable income), or if it has a beneficiary who is a nonresident alien.

A trust is considered to be “domestic” if a U.S. court is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of the trust (the “court test”), and one or more U.S. persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust (the “control test”). Additionally, a trust may be treated as a domestic trust (other than a trust treated as wholly owned by the grantor) if it was in existence on August 20, 1996, was treated as a domestic trust on August 19, 1996, and elected to continue to be treated as a domestic trust.

Trusts that are not considered to be domestic trusts will be deemed foreign trusts, and the trustees for such trusts file Form 1040NR instead of IRS Form 1041, and a foreign trust with a U.S. owner may also be required to file Form 3520-A, (“Annual Information Return of Foreign Trust With a U.S. Owner”). Further, if a domestic trust becomes a foreign trust, it will be treated as having transferred all of its assets to a foreign trust, except to the extent that a grantor or another person is treated as being the owner of the trust when the trust becomes a foreign trust (See IRC Section 684 for more information).

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With the IRS Form 1041, Estate and Trust Tax Compliance

Tax compliance for trusts and estates often involves many complex issues, and you are advised to seek the advice of a tax attorney. Eugene Sherayzen, an experienced international tax attorney of Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. can assist you in all of your tax and legal needs.

Kentucky Resident Charged for Maintaining Secret Swiss Bank Accounts

/0 Comments/in , /by

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara for the Southern District of New York and Acting Special Agent in Charge Shantelle P. Kitchen of the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) New York Field Office announced on November 18, 2014, the unsealing of an indictment against Peter Canale, a U.S. citizen and resident of Kentucky, for conspiring to defraud the IRS and evade taxes by establishing and maintaining secret Swiss bank accounts. Canale was arrested on November 18, 2014, at his residence in Jamestown, Kentucky, and is expected to be presented later today in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Canale is scheduled to be arraigned before US District Judge Katherine B. Forrest in Manhattan federal court on December 3, 2014, at 3:00 p.m.

Facts of the Case With Respect to Secret Swiss Bank Accounts According to Indictment

According to the allegations in the indictment unsealed on November 18, 2014, in Manhattan federal court, Canale conspired with others – including Michael Canale, his brother, Beda Singenberger, a Swiss citizen who ran a financial advisory firm, and Hans Thomann, a Swiss citizen who served as a client adviser at UBS and certain Swiss asset management firms – to establish and maintain secret Swiss bank accounts and to hide those accounts from the IRS. Canale used a sham entity to conceal from the IRS his ownership of the secret Swiss Bank Accounts and deliberately failed to report the accounts and the income generated in the accounts to the IRS.

One of the most surprising facts in this case is the source of money – it was foreign inheritance. In approximately 2000, a relative of Canale’s who held an undeclared bank account in Switzerland died and left a substantial portion of the assets in the undeclared account to Canale and Michael Canale. Canale and his brother met with Thomann and Singenberger and determined they would continue to maintain the assets in the secret Swiss Bank accounts for the benefit of Canale and his brother.

Thereafter, in approximately 2005, Canale, with Singenberger’s assistance, opened secret Swiss Bank Accounts at Wegelin bank (no longer in existence). The account was opened in the name of a sham foundation formed under the laws of Lichtenstein to conceal Canale’s ownership.

Equally surprising is that a criminal case was brought against an account that was under $1,000,000. As of December 31, 2009, the account held assets valued at approximately $789,000.

For each of the calendar years from 2007 through 2010, Canale willfully failed to report on his tax returns his interest in the secret Swiss Bank Accounts and the income generated in those secret Swiss Bank accounts. For each of these years, Canale also failed to file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) with the IRS, as the law required him to do.

Canale, 61, is charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, evade taxes, and file a false and fraudulent income tax return, which carries a statutory maximum sentence of five years in prison. The maximum potential sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge.

Secret Swiss Bank Accounts Charges Related to a Client List Obtained from Indicted Swiss Banker

The Canale case is another example of an indictment stemming directly from a misplaced letter mailed by a Swiss financial adviser Singenberger (the same advisor who helped Canale open his secret Swiss Bank Accounts) that ended up in the hands of the US tax authorities. The IRS has been picking off the clients on the list one by one since 2013 (including Jacques Wajsfelner and Michael Reiss).

Lessons to be Learned from Canale Case

As I mentioned in a recent article regarding the Cohen case, there has been a growing trend where the IRS is pursuing criminal prosecutions in cases that involve smaller balances on secret Swiss Bank Accounts as long as the IRS is comfortable with its ability to establish willfulness with respect to FBAR non-reporting.

Canale case is just one more example of this trend. The balances were not large at all – the highest balance was far under $1 million. However, the Canale case also included an aggravating factor of allegedly using a sham foundation to conceal his identity; these cases usually carry a higher than usual probability of an IRS criminal prosecution.

What was unusual about the Canale case is how little weight was given to the source of the funds on the secret Swiss Bank Accounts – inheritance. It appears that, in all likelihood, other circumstances were so negative as to simply overwhelm the positive nature of this factor.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help Regarding Your Undisclosed Foreign Accounts

If you had undisclosed foreign accounts at any point since the year 2006, you should consider your voluntary disclosure options as soon as possible. While the DOJ Program for Swiss Banks makes the maintenance of secret Swiss Bank Accounts extremely dangerous at this point, the implementation of FATCA since July 1, 2014, carries a far more potent chance that you undisclosed foreign accounts will be discovered even if they are outside of Switzerland.

If you need help, contact Mr. Sherayzen, a voluntary disclosure professional and international tax attorney at Sherayzen Law Office. Our team will thoroughly analyze your case, evaluate your current voluntary disclosure options, and proceed to implement your voluntary disclosure plan (including preparation of all legal documents and tax forms).

Contact Us to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation Now.

New IRS Regulations to Address Transactions to De-Control CFCs

/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 the recent wave of inversions. In a previous article, we covered the new regulations to be issued regarding Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) Section 956 so-called “Hopscotch loans” and related transactions. In this article, we will examine the new Treasury and IRS regulations to be issued to address transactions to de-control or significantly dilute controlled foreign corporations (“CFCs’”) under Notice Section 3.02.

This article is intended to provide explanatory material regarding the new inversion regulations as they relate to IRC Section Sections 954, 964, and 367 de-control aspects; the article does not convey legal or tax advice. Please contact the experienced international tax law practice of Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. for questions about your tax and legal needs.

Transactions to De-Control or Significantly Dilute CFCs

In general, foreign subsidiaries of acquired U.S. corporations will continue to hold CFC status following most expatriation transactions; such status makes these CFCs subject to U.S. taxation under the IRC subpart F provisions. Prior to the Notice, however, companies could structure inversions so that the newly-formed foreign parent would purchase sufficient stock in order to remove control (or “de-control”) of an expatriated foreign subsidiary away from the former U.S. parent company so that the foreign subsidiary would no longer be treated as a CFC.

By ceasing to be a CFC, as noted in the Notice, companies could thus “Avoid the imposition of U.S. income tax, so as to avoid U.S. tax on the CFC’s pre-inversion earnings and profits. For example, after an inversion transaction, a foreign acquiring corporation could issue a note or transfer property to an expatriated foreign subsidiary in exchange for stock representing at least 50 percent of the voting power and value of the expatriated foreign subsidiary. The expatriated foreign subsidiary would stop being a CFC, and the U.S. shareholders would no longer be subject to subpart F of the Code with respect to the expatriated foreign subsidiary…” Such an effect could also be achieved if the foreign acquiring corporation acquired enough stock to substantially dilute a U.S. shareholder’s ownership of the CFC; U.S. taxation of the CFC’s pre-inversion earnings and profits could be avoided if the CFC later redeemed on a non-pro rata basis, its stock held by the foreign acquiring corporation. (The Notice also provides other similar examples of pre-Notice tax avoidance strategies).

Regulations to Address Transactions to De-Control or Significantly Dilute CFCs

In response to the concerns addressed in the previous paragraphs, under Notice Section 3.02, Treasury and the IRS will issue regulations under IRC Section 7701(l) to “Recharacterize certain transactions that facilitate the avoidance of U.S. tax on the expatriated foreign subsidiary’s pre-inversion earnings and profits”, and they also intend to issue new regulations to modify the application of IRC Section 367(b) in order to require, “[I]ncome inclusion in certain nonrecognition transactions that dilute a U.S. shareholder’s ownership of a CFC.”

Under IRC Section 7701(l), Treasury and the IRS intend to issue regulations providing that a “specified transaction” will be recharacterized under the procedures of the Notice. A specified transaction is defined to be a, “[T]ransaction in which stock in an expatriated foreign subsidiary… is transferred (including by issuance) to a ‘specified related person.’” A specified person is defined to mean a, “[N]on-CFC foreign related person… a U.S. partnership that has one or more partners that if completed during is a non-CFC foreign related person, or a U.S. trust that has one or more beneficiaries that is a non-CFC foreign related person.”

Under the Notice, “if an expatriated foreign subsidiary issues specified stock to a specified related person, the specified transaction will be recharacterized as follows: (i) the property transferred by the specified related person to acquire the specified stock (transferred property) will be treated as having been transferred by the specified related person to the section 958(a) U.S. shareholder(s) of the expatriated foreign subsidiary in exchange for instruments deemed issued by the section 958(a) U.S. shareholder(s) (deemed instrument(s)); and (ii) the transferred property or proportionate share thereof will be treated as having been contributed by the section 958(a) U.S. shareholder(s) (through intervening entities, if any, in exchange for equity in such entities) to the expatriated foreign subsidiary in exchange for stock in the expatriated foreign subsidiary.” (See Notice for further information).

Further, under IRC Section 367(b), Treasury and the IRS also intend to amend the section’s regulations, in general, to require that “an exchanging shareholder described in §1.367(b)-4(b)(1)(i)(A) will be required to include in income as a deemed dividend the section 1248 amount attributable to the stock of an expatriated foreign subsidiary exchanged in a “specified exchange”. A specified exchange is defined to mean an exchange “in which a shareholder of an expatriated foreign subsidiary exchanges stock in the expatriated foreign subsidiary for stock in another foreign corporation pursuant to a transaction described in §1.367(b)-4(a).” Exceptions may be applicable in certain cases under the Notice. (See Notice for more details).

Effective Date for Notice Section 3.02(e)

The effective dates of Notice Section 3.02(e) will apply to specified transactions and specified exchanges (see definitions above) completed on, or after, September 22, 2014 (but only if the inversion transaction is completed on, or after, September 22, 2014). The Notice is currently in the comment period.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Complex International Tax Planning

With the new Treasury and IRS Notice, the need for successful international tax and legal planning will only increase. If you need legal and tax assistance, please contact Attorney Eugene Sherayzen at Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. for questions about your tax and legal needs.

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.

FBARs and Polish Lokata Accounts

/in , /by

In recent years, I have received a number of questions from my Polish clients about whether “Lokata” accounts are reportable on the FBARs. The short answer is “Yes”.

Lokata Accounts

Lokata is a fixed-term deposit account which is very common in Polish banks; a Lokata is very similar to U.S. CD-type of accounts. There are many types of lokatas – overnight, three-month, six-month and even twelve-month lokatas. Usually, the bank would automatically take the funds from a current account (so-called “rachunek biezacy”) and deposit it on the lokata at a certain fixed percent. At the end of the lokata period, the lokata is closed by the bank and the balance with interest (minus automatic 19% tax withholding for non-business accounts) is returned to the current account.

All major Polish banks (e.g. DZ Bank and Bank Zchodni WBK S.A.) offer lokatas to their clients.

Lokata and FBAR Complications

Every time lokata is opened, it is assigned a separate account number. For the purposes of the FBAR, it is a bank account which should be reported on the FBAR separately from the current accounts (contrary to some of the widely-held beliefs among U.S. taxpayers living and working in Poland).

So far, this sounds fairly simple. However, there are serious complications with respect to reporting lokata accounts on the FBAR. First, most current bank account statements are not likely to fully identify lokata accounts.

Second, even where a lokata is identified by a separate number, you still need to make sure that the amount shown on the statements actually reflects the gross amount (i.e. before tax withholding). Usually, it would not and you will need to request the bank to supply a separate bank statement for each lokata and keep track of all gross interest and withholding tax amounts.

Third, the sheer number of lokata accounts can be overwhelming. While there are may be renewable long-term lokatas, oftentimes, it is the opposite. The problem with short-term lokatas is that they terminate once the funds with interest are returned to the current account. This means that a new lokata account is likely to be open every time a new deposit is made. Imagine if a new lokata is opened every week, every three days or every day?! This can be an extremely burdensome requirement for U.S. taxpayers who maintain bank accounts in Poland.

Other problems may arise where the taxpayer needs records for prior years, a lokata is opened in one year and is closed in the following year, et cetera.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help with Reporting Undisclosed Lokata Accounts

If you have undisclosed bank and financial accounts in Poland, contact Sherayzen Law Office for help with your voluntary disclosure. Our team of experienced international tax professionals will thoroughly analyze your case, estimate your current potential FBAR liabilities, propose a solution to your FBAR problems, and implement your voluntary disclosure plan, including preparation of all required legal documents and tax forms.