Posts

Higher OVDP Penalties May Affect More US Taxpayers

/0 Comments/in , /by

As of August 25, 2015, and as a result of increasing number of DOJ Swiss Bank Program Non-Prosecution agreements, 2015, higher OVDP penalties (50 %) apply to US account holders of 43 banks. Between August 1 and August 20, 2015, six more banks were added to the 50% penalty list. In this article, I would like to discuss this trend of higher OVDP penalties and analyze how it affects US taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts.

2014 OVDP Background

The 2014 IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (“OVDP”) is a sequel to at least six prior voluntary disclosure initiatives since 2003. In reality, 2014 OVDP most closely resembles 2012 OVDP, but there are some crucial differences between 2014 OVDP and 2012 OVDP both now closed.

2012 OVDP was a voluntary disclosure program created by the IRS to allow U.S. taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts to come forward and settle their US tax problems related to foreign accounts under specific terms. The biggest advantage to participating in the 2012 OVDP (and it remains the same for 2014 OVDP) was the reduction of civil penalties (especially in a willful situation) and avoidance of criminal liability.

Over the years, the offshore voluntary disclosure programs have gotten more and more demanding in terms of information that needed to be submitted by the participating taxpayers and penalties that needed to be paid. Since 2012 OVDP never considered the difference between willful and non-willful taxpayers, many international tax lawyers considered it unfair for non-willful taxpayers to participate in the OVDP.

Learning from these experiences, the IRS realized that it could get better and more widespread compliance if it is able to effectively process non-willful taxpayers while, at the same time, imposing harsher penalties on willful taxpayers. Hence, the IRS implemented dramatic changes to the 2012 OVDP; from these changes, the Streamlined Options and 2014 OVDP with higher OVDP penalties were born.

Higher OVDP Penalties under 2014 OVDP

Since most of the non-willful taxpayers were likely to follow the Streamlined options, the IRS felt that it could impose higher OVDP penalties on the more stubborn willful taxpayers, particularly taxpayers with undisclosed Swiss accounts who did not heed the IRS warnings and did not enter the 2014 OVDP timely.

From this desire, the dual-tier OVDP penalty system was born. The first tier imposes a regular 27.5% (of the” OVDP penalty base”) penalty if the foreign accounts of US taxpayers who entered the OVDP program were not held in the banks on the IRS list. Also, there was a limited opportunity to enter the OVDP at 27.5% penalty rate even the “listed” foreign bank accounts if the taxpayer filed the preclearance request prior to August 4, 2014.

The second tier imposes higher OVDP penalties of 50% if the taxpayer filed the preclearance request after August 4, 2014, and the foreign accounts were held at a bank which is on the IRS list of foreign banks/facilitators.

DOJ Swiss Bank Program and the Expansion of the IRS List of Foreign Banks/ Facilitators

Initially, the IRS List of Foreign Banks consisted of a dozen banks already under investigation as of June 18, 2014, which included such big names as UBS, Credit Swiss, Zurcher Kantonalbank, et cetera. This means that higher OVDP penalties were imposed on US taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts at these banks if these taxpayers did not file the preclearance request timely.

On August 29, 2013, the US Department of Justice announced an unprecedented initiative – The Program for Non-Prosecution Agreements or Non-Target Letters for Swiss Banks (“Swiss Bank Program”) – which was intended to allow Swiss banks avoid DOJ prosecution in exchange for disclosure of their non-compliant US account holders and payment of monetary penalties. In essence, this was a voluntary disclosure program for Swiss banks similar to OVDP for US individuals (and, similarly to higher OVDP penalties, the Swiss Bank Program also had its own graduated scale of penalties).

More than one hundred Swiss banks decided to participate in the DOJ Swiss Bank Program and complied with December 31, 2013 filing deadline. Starting March of 2015, the Swiss Bank Program entered its final stage in which the DOJ and the Swiss banks entered into individualized Non-Prosecution Agreement.

As these banks enter into the Non-Prosecution Agreements, the IRS adds each bank to the IRS List of Foreign Banks. This directly results in higher OVDP penalties for US taxpayers who owned foreign accounts at the “listed” banks and did not file the OVDP preclearance requests prior to the relevant Non-Prosecution Agreement.

As of August 26, 2015, this list consists virtually exclusively of Swiss banks and includes 43 foreign banks:

UBS AG
Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Fides, and Clariden Leu Ltd.
Wegelin & Co.
Liechtensteinische Landesbank AG
Zurcher Kantonalbank
swisspartners Investment Network AG, swisspartners Wealth Management AG, swisspartners Insurance Company SPC Ltd., and swisspartners Versicherung AG
CIBC FirstCaribbean International Bank Limited, its predecessors, subsidiaries, and affiliates
Stanford International Bank, Ltd., Stanford Group Company, and Stanford Trust Company, Ltd.
The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited in India (HSBC India)
The Bank of N.T. Butterfield & Son Limited (also known as Butterfield Bank and Bank of Butterfield), its predecessors, subsidiaries, and affiliates
Sovereign Management & Legal, Ltd., its predecessors, subsidiaries, and affiliates (effective 12/19/14)
Bank Leumi le-Israel B.M., The Bank Leumi le-Israel Trust Company Ltd, Bank Leumi (Luxembourg) S.A., Leumi Private Bank S.A., and Bank Leumi USA (effective 12/22/14)
BSI SA (effective 3/30/15)
Vadian Bank AG (effective 5/8/15)
Finter Bank Zurich AG (effective 5/15/15)
Societe Generale Private Banking (Lugano-Svizzera) SA (effective 5/28/15)
MediBank AG (effective 5/28/15)
LBBW (Schweiz) AG (effective 5/28/15)
Scobag Privatbank AG (effective 5/28/15)
Rothschild Bank AG (effective 6/3/15)
Banca Credinvest SA (effective 6/3/15)
Societe Generale Private Banking (Suisse) SA (effective 6/9/15)
Berner Kantonalbank AG (effective 6/9/15)
Bank Linth LLB AG (effective 6/19/15)
Bank Sparhafen Zurich AG (effective 6/19/15)
Ersparniskasse Schaffhausen AG (effective 6/26/15)
Privatbank Von Graffenried AG (effective 7/2/15)
Banque Pasche SA (effective 7/9/15)
ARVEST Privatbank AG (effective 7/9/15)
Mercantil Bank (Schweiz) AG (effective 7/16/15)
Banque Cantonale Neuchateloise (effective 7/16/15)
Nidwaldner Kantonalbank (effective 7/16/15)
SB Saanen Bank AG (effective 7/23/15)
Privatbank Bellerive AG (effective 7/23/15)
PKB Privatbank AG (effective 7/30/15)
Falcon Private Bank AG (effective 7/30/15)
Credito Privato Commerciale in liquidazione SA (effective 7/30/15)
Bank EKI Genossenschaft (effective 8/3/15)
Privatbank Reichmuth & Co. (effective 8/6/15)
Banque Cantonale du Jura SA (effective 8/6/15)
Banca Intermobiliare di Investimenti e Gestioni (Suisse) SA (effective 8/6/15)
bank zweiplus ag (effective 8/20/15)
Banca dello Stato del Cantone Ticino (effective 8/20/15)

Possible Future Scenario: Higher OVDP Penalties for Non-Swiss Bank Accounts?

Given the success of the Swiss Bank Program, I expect that this experience maybe applied by the IRS in another country and even worldwide. If this happens, higher OVDP penalties may affect a larger percentage of US taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts outside of Switzerland. Israel, Singapore, the Caribbean islands (e.g. the Cayman Islands) and other tax shelter and low-tax jurisdictions are all good candidates for the expansion of the Swiss Bank Program.

Impact on US Taxpayers

Given the continuous expansion of the IRS List of Foreign Banks (as a result of Swiss Bank Program Resolutions), more and more US taxpayers are likely to be affected by the higher OVDP penalties. Moreover, in light of the potential expansion of the Swiss Bank Program to other countries, it is very likely that higher OVDP penalties will commence to impact more US taxpayers with non-Swiss foreign accounts. Finally, there is a possibility that the almost worldwide implementation of FATCA may lead to higher OVDP penalties in the future.

Thus, in light of these developments, US taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts should contact an experienced international tax attorney to review their offshore voluntary disclosure options. Failure to do so may lead not only to higher OVDP penalties down the road, but also to the total loss of the possibility of doing a voluntary disclosure (for example, if the IRS commences an investigation) and imposition of willful FBAR penalties.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With Your Offshore Voluntary Disclosure

This is why you should contact the experienced legal team of Sherayzen Law Office lead by the founder of the firm – Eugene Sherayzen, Esq. Mr. Sherayzen is a highly experienced international tax attorney who has helped hundreds of US taxpayers worldwide to bring their US tax affairs in full compliance with US tax laws. He can help you!

New Convictions for Helping Hide Millions in Israeli Offshore Accounts

/0 Comments/in , /by

On December 19, 2014, a federal jury sitting in Los Angeles convicted two California tax return preparers of one count of conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and two counts of willfully failing to file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) with respect to secret Israeli Offshore Accounts.

Israeli Offshore Accounts: Facts of the Case

According to the second superseding indictment and evidence introduced at trial, David Kalai and Nadav Kalai were principals of United Revenue Service Inc. (URS), a tax preparation business with 12 offices located throughout the United States. David Kalai worked primarily at URS’s former headquarters in Newport Beach, California, and later at URS’s location in Costa Mesa, California. Nadav Kalai, who is David Kalai’s son, worked out of URS’s headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland, as well as the URS locations in Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. David Almog was the branch manager of the New York office of URS and supervised tax return preparers for URS’s East Coast locations.

The second superseding indictment and the evidence introduced at trial established that the co-conspirators prepared false individual income tax returns that did not disclose the clients’ secret Israeli Offshore Accounts nor reported any income earned from these Israeli Offshore Accounts. In order to conceal the clients’ ownership and control of Israeli Offshore Accounts and to conceal the clients’ income from the IRS, the co-conspirators incorporated offshore companies in Belize and elsewhere and helped clients open secret Israeli Offshore Accounts at the Luxembourg locations of two Israeli banks, Bank A and Bank B. Bank A is a large financial institution headquartered in Tel -Aviv, Israel, with branches worldwide. Bank B is a mid-size financial institution, also headquartered in Tel Aviv, with a presence on four continents.

As further proven at trial, the co-conspirators incorporated offshore companies in Belize and elsewhere to act as named account holders on the secret Israeli Offshore Accounts. The co-conspirators then facilitated the transfer of client funds to the secret Israeli Offshore Accounts and prepared and filed tax returns that falsely reported the money sent offshore as a false investment loss or a false business expense. The co-conspirators also failed to disclose the existence of, and the clients’ financial interest in and authority over, the secret Israeli Offshore Accounts and caused the clients to fail to file FBARs with the U.S. Treasury.

The evidence at trial established that David Kalai and Nadav Kalai each failed to file FBARs for calendar years 2008 and 2009 concerning secret Israeli Offshore Accounts. The bank account for Bank A in Luxembourg was held in the name of a nominee corporation in Belize and held over $300,000.

“The Kalais created sham foreign corporate entities and used banks in Luxembourg and Israel as havens for hiding their U.S. clients’ money from the U.S. government,” said Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Wszalek. “Today’s guilty verdict sends a clear message that those professionals who facilitate tax evasion through the use of offshore bank accounts will be held accountable for their criminal conduct. The Tax Division will continue its vigorous tax enforcement efforts in prosecuting return preparers, bankers, and other facilitators who assist clients in concealing assets offshore.”

“As the defendants in this case have learned, hiding income and assets offshore is not tax planning; it’s tax fraud,” said Chief Richard Weber IRS-Criminal Investigation. “There is no secret formula that can eliminate an individual’s tax obligations. Today’s verdict reinforces our commitment to every American taxpayer that we will identify and prosecute those who implement off-shore tax schemes designed to evade the payment of taxes.”

Sentencing of the defendants is scheduled for March 16, 2015.

Israeli Offshore Accounts: Obligation to Report Foreign Accounts and Income Including Israeli Offshore Accounts

U.S. citizens, resident aliens and legal permanent residents have an obligation to report to the IRS on Schedule B of the U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, Form 1040, whether they had a financial interest in, or signature authority over, a financial account in a foreign country in a particular year by checking “yes” or “no” in the appropriate box and identifying the country where the account is maintained. They further have an obligation to report all income earned from the foreign financial account on the tax returns. Separately, U.S. citizens, resident aliens and legal permanent residents with a foreign financial interest in, or signatory authority over, a foreign financial account worth more than $10,000 in a particular year must also file an FBAR with the U.S. Treasury disclosing such an account by June 30th of the following year.

Israeli Offshore Accounts: Lessons from the Kalai Case

The Kalai case is pretty much in line with other similar cases where the IRS was able to obtain criminal conviction for failing to file FBARs to disclose foreign accounts, including secret Israeli Offshore Accounts.

The highly negative factors include: evidence of sophisticated planning to conceal the identify of the secret Israeli Offshore Accounts owners; evidence of international concealment of funds (by reporting them as a business loss) that formed the balances of the secret Israeli Offshore Accounts; evidence of intentional failure to report income from the secret Israeli Offshore Accounts; and the education level of Kalai as tax preparers.

What is critically important for US taxpayers with undisclosed secret Israeli Offshore Accounts to remember is that, if they engaged tax preparers to avoid disclosing their Israeli Offshore Accounts or foreign financial accounts in any other country, they are at an even higher risk of exposure. The reason is because these tax preparers are likely to have engaged in similar pattern of criminal behavior with respect to their other clients; when these other clients do their voluntary disclosure, they are very likely to exposure their tax preparers as well.

This is why it is critically important for US taxpayers with undisclosed secret Israeli Offshore Accounts or foreign financial accounts in any other country to explore their voluntary disclosure options as soon possible and before they are precluded by an IRS investigation.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help with Your Undisclosed Foreign Accounts

If you have undisclosed foreign financial accounts and any other foreign assets, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional legal and tax help. We will thoroughly analyze your current penalty exposure, identify the offshore voluntary disclosure options available to you, prepare all legal documents and tax forms (including amended tax returns) needed in your case, rigorously defend your interests in front of the IRS, and guide you through the entire voluntary disclosure process.

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

IRS Criminal Investigation Co-Hosts First International Criminal Tax Symposium

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division (IRS-CI) and Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC) co-hosted a three-day International Criminal Tax Symposium in Washington, D.C. on January 27 – 29, 2015. The symposium focused on combating offshore tax evasion and international financial crimes. It is worth mentioning that delegates from criminal tax and enforcement programs from Australia, Canada, The Netherlands, Norway and New Zealand also attended the symposium.

IRS states that, recognizing the increasing trends in sophisticated tax evasion and other financial crimes crossing international borders, the symposium participants discussed best practices and methods of effective investigations as well as other strategies to combat emerging issues.

“The IRS continues to enhance its international efforts through a number of strategies working with international law enforcement and actively participating in a number of international financial task force groups. We will continue our recent successes in international cases, following the money across the world to bring criminals to justice,” said Richard Weber, Chief, IRS-Criminal Investigation. “Those who believe they can cross international borders to commit financial crimes will find that they have far fewer places to hide.”

“HMRC is committed to tackling tax crimes through international collaboration and ensuring there is no safe haven for the proceeds of crime,” said Richard Summersgill, Director, HMRC Criminal Investigation. “The world is becoming a much smaller place for those who want to hide themselves and their assets behind anonymous corporate structures.”

Focus of the Symposium

The delegates focused on four key areas: combating beneficial ownerships and the use of shell companies, transnational organized crime, combating offshore tax evasion and refund crimes and repayment fraud.

Combating international financial crimes is a top priority for all of the participating countries and each actively pursues offshore tax evaders, promoters and financial institutions involved in hiding income and assets offshore. Currently, many countries coordinate through international and interagency task forces, exchange of information methods, joint investigations and other formal and informal methods of international cooperation. The IRS affirms that the symposium delegates discussed further enhancements to this international collaboration moving forward.

FATCA and Beneficial Ownership Issue

The beneficial ownership problem is one that is probably most difficult to trace for the IRS at this point, because it may not be as easily detectable through FATCA as, for example, individual or partnership ownership of foreign accounts. Therefore, it is not surprising that the symposium emphasized this aspect of international tax enforcement.

Symposium and Non-Compliant Foreign Accounts

This symposium is one more evidence of an ever closer cooperation between countries in terms tackling international tax enforcement. With FATCA being adopted as the global standard for tax enforcement, US owners of non-compliant foreign accounts are in ever-more present danger of discovery.

If the evidence is found that these owners used foreign entities to conceal their beneficial ownership of the foreign accounts, there is a very high likelihood of the IRS pursuing criminal penalties against non-compliant US taxpayers.

This is why it is so important for non-compliant US taxpayers to consider their voluntary disclosure options before it is too late (if the IRS commences an investigation of these accounts, the voluntary disclosure options may be entirely precluded).

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Experienced Help with Undisclosed Foreign Accounts and Other Assets

If you are a US person with undisclosed foreign accounts, please contact Sherayzen Law Office to secure professional, experienced and creative legal help. Our experienced law firm will thoroughly analyze your case, discuss with you the available voluntary disclosure options, prepare and file your entire voluntary disclosure case (including all legal documents and tax forms), and negotiate the final settlement with the IRS.

IRS Increases Use of John Doe Summons for Unreported Offshore Bank Accounts

/in , /by

Some time ago, in a joint statement before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs of the United States Senate for a hearing on “Offshore Tax Evasion: The Effort to Collect Unpaid Taxes on Billions in Offshore Accounts”, Deputy US Attorney General James M. Cole and Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division, Kathryn Keneally detailed a number of enforcement actions targeting US taxpayers with undisclosed foreign bank accounts and the foreign banks in question.

The Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Department of Justice utilize various tools to track and hold accountable individuals who evade their taxes and reporting obligations by sheltering money in undisclosed foreign bank accounts. One important law enforcement mechanism that has led to much success in gathering information about foreign accounts has been the use of John Doe summons. The IRS defines a John Doe summons as “[A]ny summons where the name of the taxpayer under investigation is unknown and therefore not specifically identified.” A John Doe summons, if authorized, allows the IRS request the identities of U.S. taxpayers who may have offshore bank accounts.

If you are an individual subject to U.S. taxes and you have an undisclosed foreign bank account, you should be aware that the odds are increasing each year that the IRS will eventually determine your identity. The penalties for not disclosing a foreign bank account are severe; if you have such an account you should seek the advice of a tax attorney. The experienced international tax law firm of Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. can assist you in these important matters.

John Doe Summons and Other Enforcement Mechanisms

In a previous article, we covered the IRS John Doe summons seeking records of the correspondent account at Wells Fargo for Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce FirstCaribbean International Bank (FCIB), a Barbados-based bank with branches in eighteen Caribbean countries. The IRS has been utilizing John Doe summons frequently and will likely increase its use in the future. For example, in a recent high-profile case, the federal district court for the Southern District of New York entered an order authorizing the IRS to issue a John Doe summons seeking records for Wegelin Bank’s U.S. correspondent account at the Swiss bank, UBS.

According to the joint statement, on November 13, 2013, the same court, “[E]ntered an order authorizing the IRS to issue John Doe summonses seeking records of the Zurcher Kantonalbank and its affiliates (collectively ZKB) correspondent accounts at Bank of New York Mellon and Citibank NA for information relating to U.S. taxpayers holding undisclosed accounts in ZKB.” Several days later the court also issued an order that authorized the IRS to issue John Doe summonses seeking correspondent account records held by the Bank of N.T. Butterfield & Son Limited and its affiliates in the Bahamas, Barbados, Cayman Islands, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Malta, Switzerland and the United Kingdom at Bank of New York Mellon, Citibank NA, HSBC Bank NA, JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, and Bank of America NA.

In the joint statement, it was also noted that the DOJ has also “[E]nforced summonses and subpoenas for records that account holders are required to maintain concerning their foreign banking activities through the successful litigation of the applicability of the ‘required record’ exception to the production privilege under the Fifth Amendment.” The statement notes that every appellate court that has reviewed the issue has, “[R]ejected the argument that witnesses can refuse to comply with a subpoena for the bank records that are required by law to be kept and presented for inspection as a condition of maintaining an offshore account.”

Impact on U.S. Taxpayers with Undisclosed Foreign Accounts

John Doe Summons constitute a very useful technique for the IRS to find non-complying U.S. taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts. It is important to keep in mind that the enforcement mechanisms detailed in this article are in addition to other programs, such as the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program and the US-Switzerland Bank Disclosure program, among others. Moreover, with the continuous expansion of FATCA enforcement, the non-complying U.S. taxpayers are now running a very high risk of detection by the IRS.

The consequences for these non-complying U.S. taxpayers can be very grave. There are extremely high civil penalties as well as potential criminal penalties that may be applied in such cases.

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

The analysis above means that, if you are a U.S. taxpayer with an undisclosed offshore bank account, you need to consider your voluntary disclosure options as soon as possible.

We can help you. At Sherayzen Law Office, Mr. Eugene Sherayzen an experienced international tax attorney will thoroughly analyze your case, estimate your potential FBAR exposure, create a plan for your voluntary disclosure and implement it (i.e. we will prepare all of the tax forms and legal documents that you need for the voluntary disclosure). We will guide you every step of the way and offer rigorous ethical representation before the IRS.

Contact Us to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation Now!

Filing an Extension for US Taxpayers Residing Outside of the United States

/in , /by

As is commonly known, US taxpayers who file on a calendar year basis have a filing due date of April 15th. In general, if a tax is owed, it should be paid by the due date of your tax return, without regard to any extension of time for filing the return. Most US taxpayers who reside in the United States are aware that they can obtain a tax return filing extension. But what if you are one of the numerous US taxpayers residing outside of the United States when a tax return is due? Can an extension be filed, and if so, will any penalties be applied if the tax owed is not paid on time? Will interest be owed on the unpaid tax?

This article strives to answer these questions and explain different types of extensions that the IRS may grant for US taxpayers who are not in the country when their returns are due.

Extension Options for US Taxpayers Residing Outside of the United States

In general, there are four possible types of extensions the IRS may grant for US taxpayers who are out of the country: an automatic two-month extension, an automatic six-month extension (in reality, this is a four-month extension), an additional extension for taxpayers residing outside of the United States, and an extension of time to meet tests (also for the US taxpayers residing outside of the United States).

The information contained in this article is intended for general knowledge, and does not constitute tax or legal advice. If you have further questions, please contact the experienced US-International tax law firm of Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd.

Automatic Two-Month Extension for US Taxpayers Residing Outside of the United States

Taxpayers are allowed an automatic two-month extension to file their return and pay federal income taxes owed if they are US citizens or resident aliens, and on the regular due date of the return, they are either US taxpayers residing outside the United States and Puerto Rico or their post of duty is outside the US and Puerto Rico (or if they are in military or naval service on duty outside the US and Puerto Rico).

In order to qualify for this extension, taxpayers must attach a statement to their returns demonstrating which of these two circumstances they meet. Note though, that even if taxpayers are granted this extension (or any extension detailed in this article), they will still have to pay any interest on any tax liability owed by the regular due date of their return (April 15th for calendar year taxpayers).

Automatic Six-Month Extension for US Taxpayers Residing Outside of the United States

In addition to the automatic two-month extension, US taxpayers who are not able to file their returns on time by the due date can generally get an automatic six-month extension of time to file. The two-month and the six-month extensions start at the same time; so, in reality, this is a merely four-month additional extension for US taxpayers residing outside of the United States.

It is important to emphasize that this additional automatic extension however does not extend the time to pay.

In order to get this automatic extension, the taxpayer must file Form 4868 or use the IRS efile system showing a correctly-estimated tax liability based on all available information. However, if a taxpayer intends for the IRS to figure his or her tax, or is under a court order to file by the regular due date, they may not be eligible for this extension

Additional Extension of Time (Two-Months) for US Taxpayers Residing Outside of the United States

In addition to the six-month extension, a taxpayer who is out of the country can also request a discretionary two-month additional extension of time to file his or her tax return (to December 15 for calendar year taxpayers) by sending the IRS a letter detailing the reasons why the additional two-month extension is necessary. The letter needs to be sent by the extended due date (October 15 for calendar year taxpayers) to the Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service Center Austin, TX 73301-0045 address. Check irs.gov for any mailing changes and updates.

Note that taxpayers will not receive any notification from the IRS unless their requests are denied. In addition, taxpayers who have an approved extension of time to file Form 2350 (described below) will not be able to request the discretionary two-month additional extension.

Extension of Time to Meet Tests for US Taxpayers Residing Outside of the United States

In general, a taxpayer cannot get an extension of more than six months (or eight months if you count the additional extension of time for taxpayers residing outside of the United States). However, an exception may exist if a taxpayer is outside the US and meets certain requirements. A taxpayer may be granted an extension of more than six months to file a tax return if time is needed to meet either the bona fide residence test or the physical presence test in order to qualify for either the foreign earned income exclusion or the foreign housing exclusion or deduction (see IRS rules for specifics of the exclusion or deduction).

Taxpayers should request an extension of time to meet tests if all three of the following factors are applicable: 1) They are US citizens or resident aliens, 2) they anticipate meeting either the bona fide residence test or the physical presence test, but not until after their tax return are due, and 3) their tax homes are in foreign countries throughout the period of bona fide residence or physical presence, whichever applies.

In general, if a taxpayer is granted this extension it will typically be 30 days beyond the date on which either the bona fide residence test or the physical presence test can reasonably be expected to be met. (If a taxpayer has moving expenses that are for services performed in two years, the extension may be granted as long as an until after the end of the second year).

To apply for this extension, Form 2350 (“Application for Extension of Time To File US Income Tax Return”) will need to be filed by the due date for filing a taxpayer’s return. The IRS notes, “Generally, if both your tax home and your abode are outside the United States and Puerto Rico on the regular due date of your return and you file on a calendar year basis, the due date for filing your return is June 15.” Note that if a taxpayer meets either test, but happens to file a tax return before the test is actually met, the foreign earned income exclusion, the foreign housing exclusion, or the foreign housing deduction can subsequently be claimed on a Form 1040X.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help with Your Tax Returns as a Taxpayer Residing Outside of the United States

If you are a US taxpayer who is residing outside of the United States, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with your US compliance. In additional to preparing your US tax return, we will do a thorough overview of your other potential US tax compliance requirements (such as PFICs, FBARs, Form 8938, et cetera) so that you remain in full compliance with US tax laws.

Contact Us to schedule a Confidential Consultation!