Posts

Happy New Year 2022 From Sherayzen Law Office!!!

/in , /by

Dear clients, followers, readers and colleagues:

Sherayzen Law Office wishes you a very Happy New Year 2022!!!

For those of you who are currently not in compliance with their US international tax reporting obligations, including FBAR or FinCEN Form 114, we wish you to successfully resolve your prior noncompliance in this new year 2022 with a minimal amount of IRS penalties!

Dear friends, in the year 2022, you can continue to rely on Sherayzen Law Office for your annual US international tax compliance (including the preparation of FBAR and other US international tax compliance forms such as: Forms 3520, 3520-A, 5471, 8621, 8865, 8938 and 926), your international tax planning (inbound and outbound) and your offshore voluntary disclosures (including: Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures (SDOP), Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures (SFOP), Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures, Delinquent International Information Return Submission Procedures, IRS Voluntary Disclosure Practice and Reasonable Cause Disclosures).

In 2022, we will also continue to help you with your IRS audits and examination, including audits of: your prior SDOP and SFOP submissions (as well as other voluntary disclosure options) and your annual international tax compliance. We can also help you fight the imposition of IRS penalties for prior international tax noncompliance, including Form 3520 and 3520-A penalties, Form 5471 penalties, Form 5472 penalties, Form 8865 penalties, Form 926 penalties, et cetera.

In 2022, the US international tax compliance requirements are going to grow more complex, detailed and extensive. The IRS will continue to demand more and more information from US taxpayers, introducing heretofore unknown reporting obligations such as Schedules K-2 and K-3.

In order to deal with this ever-increasing US tax compliance burden, you will need the professional help of Sherayzen Law Office. In this New Year 2022, we can help you!

Your professional US international tax help is but a phone call away from you! Contact us today to schedule a confidential consultation in this New Year 2022!

HAPPY NEW YEAR 2022 EVERYONE!!!

2022 Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures: Pros and Cons

/in , , /by

As the year 2021 winds down, US taxpayers with undisclosed foreign assets and foreign income need to consider their 2022 offshore voluntary disclosure options. As it has been the case since the second half of 2014 (really the year 2018 when the 2014 OVDP was closed), I expect that Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures will continue to be the flagship voluntary disclosure option in 2022 for US taxpayers who reside in the United States. This is why noncompliant US taxpayers should understand well the main advantages and disadvantages of participating in the 2022 Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures.

2022 Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures: Background Information and Purpose

The IRS created the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures (usually abbreviated as “SDOP”) on June 18, 2014, though the Certification forms became available only a few months later. Since its introduction, Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures quickly eclipsed the then-existing IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (“OVDP”) and became the most popular offshore voluntary disclosure option for US taxpayers who reside in the United States. As we discuss the advantages of the 2022 SDOP, you will quickly understand the reason for this meteoric rise in popularity of the SDOP.

The main purpose of the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures is to encourage non-willful US taxpayers to voluntarily resolve their prior noncompliance with US international tax reporting requirements in exchange for a reduced penalty, simplified disclosure procedure and a shorter disclosure period. Pretty much any non-willful US international tax noncompliance can be resolved through SDOP: foreign income, FBAR, Form 8938, Form 5471, Form 8621, Form 926, et cetera.

2022 Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures: Main Advantages

In exchange for a voluntary disclosure of their prior tax noncompliance through SDOP, US taxpayers escape income tax penalties and pay only a one-time Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty with respect to their prior failures to file the required US international information returns. It is important to emphasize that the Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty replaces not only FBAR penalties, but also penalties for noncompliance with respect to other US international information returns, such as Forms 5471, 8865, 926, et cetera. Depending on the specific circumstances of a case, the Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty is usually below the combined potential penalties normally associated with failure to file these forms. In other words, noncompliant taxpayers can greatly reduce their IRS noncompliance penalties through their participation in the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures. This is one of the most important SDOP benefits.

Another advantage of the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures is the limited procedural scope of this voluntary disclosure option. What I mean by this is that the taxpayers should only submit the forms covered by the general statute of limitations unless they choose (i.e. not required, actually choose to do so) to do otherwise. The taxpayers only need to file three (sometime even less) amended US tax returns and six FBARs (sometimes seven and sometimes less than six). This limited disclosure stands in stark contrast with other major voluntary disclosure initiatives, such as 2014 OVDP (which required filings for the past eight years).

Moreover, despite the limited scope of the SDOP filings, taxpayers who utilize the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures are usually able to fully resolve their prior US international tax noncompliance issues even if these years are not included in the actual SDOP filings. This means that the participating taxpayers are able “wipe the slate clean” – i.e. to erase their prior US international tax noncompliance from the time when it began. I should warn, however, that this is not necessarily always the case; I have already encountered efforts from the IRS to open years for which amended tax returns were not submitted (there were specific circumstances, however, in all of these cases that resulted in this increased IRS interference).

The last major advantage of the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures is that this option only requires to establish non-willfulness rather than reasonable cause. Non-willfulness is a much easier legal standard to satisfy (be careful, this is NOT an “easy standard”, just an easier one) than reasonable cause.

2022 Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures: Main Disadvantages

Usually, participation in the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures is highly advantageous to noncompliance taxpayers. However, there are some disadvantages and shortcomings in this program. In this article, I will concentrate only on the three most important of them.

First, this voluntary disclosure option is open only to taxpayers who filed their US tax returns for prior years. This requirement is the exact opposite of the Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures (“SFOP”) which allows for the late filing of original returns.

The problem is that there is a large segment of taxpayers who were perfectly non-willful in their prior US international tax noncompliance, but they never filed their US tax returns either due to special life circumstances (such as death in the family, illness, unemployment, et cetera), they were negligent or they believed that they were not required to file them (especially in situations where all of their income comes from foreign sources). These taxpayers would be barred from participating in the SDOP.

Second, when they participate in the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures, the taxpayers have the burden of proof to establish their non-willfulness with respect to their inability to timely report their foreign income as well as file FBARs and other US international information returns. Outside of the SDOP, the IRS has the burden of proof to establish willfulness; if it cannot carry this burden, then the taxpayer is automatically considered non-willful.

The problem is that most cases have positive and negative facts at the same time. This means that a lot of taxpayers are actually in the “gray” area between willfulness and non-willfulness. In many of these cases, the burden of proof may play a critical role in determining whether a taxpayer is eligible to participate in the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures. By the way, this decision should be made only by an experienced international tax attorney who specializes in this area of law, such as Mr. Eugene Sherayzen of Sherayzen Law Office.

Finally, participation in the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures does not provide a definitive closure to its participants. Unlike OVDP, SDOP does not offer a Closing Agreement without an audit; there may be a follow-up audit after the IRS processes your voluntary disclosure package This means that going through Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures may not be the end of your case; the IRS can actually audit you over the next three years. If this happens, the audit of your voluntary disclosure will focus not only on the correctness of your disclosure, but also on the truthfulness and correctness of your non-willfulness certification.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With 2022 Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures

If you have undisclosed foreign accounts or any other foreign assets, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with your offshore voluntary disclosure. We have successfully helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world with their offshore voluntary disclosures, including Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures. We can also help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Pakistani Bank Accounts FBAR & FATCA Compliance | International Tax Lawyer

/in , , /by

Over the past couple of years, I have seen a rise in the number of clients with Pakistani bank accounts. This increase is undoubtedly tied to the last year’s changes to Pakistani tax laws, which now require a disclosure of certain foreign assets for certain Pakistani tax residents. These new laws created for the very first time awareness among Pakistani taxpayers that foreign assets may be subject to a separate disclosure. For Pakistanis who are also US Persons, this awareness created further inquiries into their US tax reporting of their Pakistani bank accounts. In this article, I will discuss the two most important US tax reporting requirements that may be applicable to US taxpayers with Pakistani bank accounts – FBAR and FATCA Form 8938.

Pakistani Bank Accounts: Income-Reporting Requirements

Before we delve into our discussion of FBAR and FATCA, it is important to address the income tax reporting requirements concerning foreign accounts in general as well as Pakistani accounts in particular. If you are a tax resident of the United States, you are subject to the worldwide income reporting requirement and you must disclose all income generated by your Pakistani bank accounts on your personal US tax return.

This is an absolute rule with almost no exceptions. It does not matter whether you live outside of the United States or reside in the United States, whether this income is brought to the United States or if it continues to accumulate in your foreign bank accounts, or whether you already paid Pakistani taxes on this income or not. As long as you are a tax resident of the United States, you must comply with the worldwide income reporting requirement.

This requirement applies to all reportable income as determined by US tax rules. I want to emphasize this point: the worldwide income reporting rule requires US tax residents to disclose all of their foreign income deemed reportable under the US tax rules, not the Pakistani rules. Since there are huge differences between the Pakistani tax code and the US Internal Revenue Code, this is a potential tax trap for US taxpayers with Pakistani bank accounts.

Pakistani Bank Accounts: Asset Disclosure In General

As I mentioned above, under FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) as well as the BSA (Bank Secrecy Act of 1970), Pakistani bank accounts may be subject to multiple asset disclosure requirements. FinCEN Form 114 (FBAR) and FATCA Form 8938 are undoubtedly the most important among these requirements.

Pakistani Bank Accounts: FBAR

The most important requirement that applies to US taxpayers with Pakistani bank accounts is FinCEN Form 114, the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, commonly known as “FBAR”. As long they meet the filing threshold (see below), US taxpayers are required to disclose all of their Pakistani bank accounts over which they have signatory authority or in which they have a financial interest (i.e. they own an account directly or indirectly, either individually or jointly).

FBAR is a unique information return. The anomaly begins with the fact that FBAR is not technically a tax form, but a BSA form which has been administered by the IRS since the year 2001. This is why FBAR is not filed together with the tax return, but has to be e-filed separately through BSA website.

Second, FBAR also has a very low filing threshold – just $10,000. Moreover, this threshold is determined by taking the highest balances during a calendar year of all of the taxpayer’s foreign accounts (even if these accounts are located in another country in addition to Pakistan) and adding them all up. Sometimes, this results in significant over-reporting of a person’s actual balances, which easily satisfies the reporting threshold.

Finally, FBAR has the most severe noncompliance penalties among all information returns concerning foreign asset disclosure. Its penalties range from non-willful penalties (i.e. potentially a situation where a person simply did not know about FBAR’s existence) to extremely high civil willful penalties and even criminal penalties. In other words, in certain circumstances, FBAR noncompliance may result in actual jail time.

Pakistani Bank Accounts: FATCA Form 8938

While a relative newcomer, FATCA Form 8938 quickly occupied a special place in US international tax compliance. It may appear that Form 8938 duplicates FBAR with respect to foreign bank account reporting, but there are very important differences between these forms. Let’s focus on the top five differences.

First of all, unlike FBAR, it is filed with a US tax return and forms part of the return. This means that the Form 8938 noncompliance may keep the statute of limitations open on the entire tax return indefinitely, potentially subjecting it to an IRS audit indefinitely.

Second, there are differences in how information concerning foreign accounts is being disclosed on FBAR and Form 8938. Form 8938 forces US taxpayers to disclose not only most of the information that is required to be reported on FBAR, but also such details as whether an account was opened or closed in the reporting year, whether it produced any income, how much income was produced, et cetera. This may give the IRS additional information necessary to determine if there was prior tax noncompliance with respect to these accounts.

Third, there are important substantive differences between these two forms with respect to what accounts have to be disclosed. For example, signatory authority accounts must be disclosed on FBAR, but Form 8938 has no such requirement. On the other hand, a bond certificate may not need to be reported on FBAR, but it must be disclosed on Form 8938. In general, Form 8938 is likely to apply to a wider range of Pakistani assets than FBAR; this is why it is often called the “catch-all” form.

Fourth, while FBAR penalties are extremely severe, Form 8938 sports its own arsenal of noncompliance penalties. While they are theoretically lower than FBAR penalties, the Form 8938 penalties may have an equivalent impact due to the fact that they have a much wider range. For example, Form 8938 noncompliance may lead to higher accuracy-related penalties with respect to income-tax noncompliance. A taxpayer’s ability to utilize foreign tax credit may also be impacted by the Form 8938 penalties.

Finally, unlike FBAR, Form 8938 comes with a third-party FATCA verification mechanism. Under FATCA, the IRS should receive foreign-account information not only from taxpayers who file Forms 8938, but also from their foreign financial institutions. This means that it is much easier for the IRS to identify Form 8938 noncompliance than that of FBAR. It also means that Form 8938 noncompliance may have a higher chance to be investigated and penalized by the IRS.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With US Tax Reporting of Your Pakistani Bank Accounts

If you are a US Person who has undisclosed Pakistani bank accounts, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help as soon as possible. We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the globe to resolve their past FBAR and FATCA noncompliance, including with respect to financial accounts in Pakistan We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Beware of Flat-Fee Lawyers Doing Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures

/in , /by

Recently, I received a number of phone calls and emails from people who complained about incorrect filing of their Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures (“SDOP”) packages by lawyers who took their cases on a flat-fee basis. In this article, I would like to discuss why a flat fee is generally not well-suited for a proper SDOP preparation and why clients should critically examine all facts and circumstances before retaining flat-fee lawyers.

A small disclosure: the analysis below is my opinion and the result of my prior experience with SDOPs. Moreover, I am only describing general trends and there are certainly exceptions which may be applicable to a specific case. Hence, the readers should consider my conclusions in this article carefully and apply them only after examining all facts and circumstances related to a specific lawyer before making their final decision on whether to retain him.

Flat-Fee Lawyers versus Hourly-Rate Lawyers

The two main business models that exist in the professional tax community in the United States with respect to billing their clients are the hourly-rate model and the flat-fee model. The hourly-rate model means that an attorney’s fees will depend on the amount of time he actually worked on the case. The flat-fee model charges one fee that covers a lawyer’s work irrespective of how much time he actually spends on a case.

Both billing models have their advantages and disadvantages. Generally, the chief advantage of an hourly-rate model is potentially higher quality of work. The hourly-rate model has a built-in incentive for attorneys to do as accurate and detailed work as possible, maximizing the quality of the final work product. An hourly-rate attorney is likely to take more time to explore the documents, uncover hidden problems of the case and properly resolve them.

The disadvantage of an hourly-rate model is that it cannot make an absolutely accurate prediction of what the legal fees will ultimately be. However, this problem is usually mitigated by estimates – as long as he knows all main facts of the case, an experienced attorney can usually predict the range of his legal fees to cover the case. Only a discovery of substantial unexpected issues (that were not discussed or left unresolved during the initial consultation) will substantially alter the estimate, because more time would be needed to resolve these new issues.

The chief advantage of the flat-fee model is the certainty of the legal fee – the client knows exactly how much he will pay. A secondary advantage of this model is the built-in incentive for flat-fee lawyers to complete their cases as fast as possible.

However, this advantage is undermined by several serious disadvantages. First, the flat-fee model provides a powerful incentive for lawyers to spend the least amount of time on a client’s case in order to maximize their profits; in other words, the flat-fee model has a potential for undermining the quality of a lawyer’s work product. Of course, it does not happen in every case, but the potential for such abuse is always present in the flat-fee model.

Second, closely-related to the first problem, the flat-fee model discourages lawyers from engaging in a thorough analysis of their clients’ cases. This may later result in undiscovered issues that may later expose a client to a higher risk of an unfavorable outcome of the case. Again this does not happen in every case, but I have repeatedly seen this problem occur in voluntary disclosures handled by flat-fee lawyers and CPAs.

Finally, a client may actually over-pay for a flat-fee lawyer’s services compared to an hourly-rate attorney, because a flat-fee lawyer is likely to set his fees at a high level to make sure that he remains profitable irrespective of potential surprises contained in the case. Of course, there is a risk for flat-fee lawyers that the reverse may occur – i.e. despite being set to a high level, the fee is still too small compared to issues involved in a case.

The effective usage of either one of these billing models differs depending on where they are applied. In situations where the facts are simple and legal issues are clear, a flat-fee model may be preferable. However, where one deals with a complex legal situation and the facts cannot all be easily established during an initial consultation, the hourly-rate model with its emphasis on thoroughness and quality of legal work is likely to be the best choice.

Flat-Fee Lawyers Can Be An Inferior Choice for Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures

In my opinion and based on the analysis above, in the context of an SDOP voluntary disclosure, a flat-fee engagement is particularly dangerous because of the nature of offshore voluntary disclosure cases.

Voluntary disclosures are likely to deal with complex US international tax compliance issues and unclear factual patterns. It may be difficult to identify all legal issues and all US international tax reporting requirements during an initial consultation. There are too many facts that clients may simply not have at their disposal during an initial consultation. Moreover, additional issues and questions are likely to arise after the documents are processed. I once had a situation where I discovered that a client had an additional foreign corporation with millions of dollars only several months after the initial consultation – the corporation was already closed and the client forgot about it.

For these reasons, SDOP and offshore voluntary disclosures in general require an individualized, detailed and thorough approach as well as a hard-to-determine (during an initial consultation) depth of legal analysis which is generally ill-fit for a flat-fee engagement. A flat-fee lawyer is unlikely to accurately estimate how much time is required to complete a client’s case and, hence, unlikely to accurately set his flat fee for the case.

This can cause a huge conflict of interest as the case progresses. I have seen a number of cases where, in an attempt to remain profitable, flat-fee lawyers did their analysis too fast and failed to properly identify all relevant tax issues; as a result, the voluntary disclosures (including SDOP disclosures) done by them had to amended later by my firm. This caused significant additional financial costs and mental stress to my clients.

In my opinion, this potential conflict of interest makes the flat-fee model unsuitable for the vast majority of the SDOP cases.

Beware of Some Flat-Fee Lawyers Including Unnecessary Services Into the Flat Fee

This applies only to a tiny minority of flat-fee lawyers. I have observed several times where flat-fee lawyers included irrelevant services that the client never used to increase the flat fee for the case (for example, audit fees for years not included in the SDOP). My recommendation is that, if you decide to go with a flat-fee arrangement, you should make sure that it includes only the services that you will likely use.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures

Sherayzen Law Office is a leader in SDOP disclosures. We have helped clients from over 70 countries with their offshore voluntary disclosures, including SDOPs. Our firm follows an hourly-rate billing model, because we value the quality of our work above all other considerations. Of course, we make every effort to make our fees reasonable and competitive, but our priority is the peace of mind of our clients who know that they can rely on the creativity of our legal solutions and the high quality of our work.

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Introduction to Corporate Distributions | US Business Tax Law Firm

/in , /by

This essay opens our new series of articles which focuses on corporate distributions. The new series will cover the classification, statutory structure and tax treatment of various types of corporation distributions, including redemptions of corporate stock. This first article seeks to introduce the readers to the overall US statutory tax structure concerning corporate distributions.

Corporation Distributions: Legal Philosophy for Varying Treatment

In the United States, the tax code provisions with respect to corporate distributions were written based on the belief that stock ownership bestows on its owner an inherent right to determine the right to receive distributions from a corporation.

Generally, a corporation can make distributions from three types of sources. First, a corporation can distribute funds from its accumulated earnings, to be even more precise accumulated Earnings and Profits (E&P). Second, a corporation may also distribute some or all of the invested capital to its shareholders. Finally, in certain circumstances, a corporation may distribute funds or property in excess of invested capital.

Moreover, certain corporate distributions may in reality be made in lieu of other types of transactions, such as payment for services. Additionally, some corporate distributions may be made in the form of stocks in the corporation, which may or may not modify the ownership of the corporation and which may or may not entitle shareholders to additional (perhaps unequal) future distribution of profits.

This varied nature of corporate distributions lays the foundation for their dissimilar tax treatment under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).

Corporation Distributions: General Treatment under §301

IRC §301 generally governs the tax treatment of corporation distributions. This section classifies these distributions either as dividends, return of capital or capital gain (most likely, long-term capital gain). In a future article, I will discuss §301 in more detail.

Corporation Distributions: Special Case of Stock Dividends

The IRC treats distribution of stock dividends in a different manner than distribution of cash and property. Under §305(a), certain stock distributions are not taxable distributions. However, §305 contains numerous exceptions to this general rule; if any of these exceptions apply, then such stock distributions are governed by §301.

Moreover, additional exceptions to §305(a) are contained in §306. If a stock distribution is classified as a §306 stock, then the disposition of this stock will be treated as ordinary income. In a future article, I will discuss §§305 and 306 in more detail.

Corporation Distributions: Special Case of Stock Redemptions

Stock redemptions is a special kind of a corporate distribution. §317(b) defines redemption of stock as a corporation’s acquisition of “its stock from a shareholder in exchange for property, whether or not the stock so acquired is cancelled, retired, or held as treasury stock.”

§302 governs the tax treatment of stock redemptions. In general, it provides for two potential legal paths of stock redemptions. First, if a stock redemption satisfies any of the four §302(b) tests, then it will be treated as a sales transaction under §1001. Assuming that the redeemed stock satisfied the §1221 definition of a capital asset, the capital gain/loss tax provisions will apply.

On the other hand, if none of the §302(b) tests are met, then the stock redemption will be treated as a corporate distribution under §301. Again, in a future article, I will discuss stock redemptions in more detail.

Corporate Distributions in the Context of US International Tax Law

All of these tax provisions concerning corporate distributions are relevant to US shareholders of foreign corporations. In fact, in the context of US international tax law, these tax sections become even more complex and may have far graver consequences for US shareholders than under purely domestic tax law. These consequences may be in the form of higher tax burden (for example, due to an anti-deferral tax regime such as Subpart F rules) or increased compliance burden (for example, triggering the filing of international information returns such as Form 5471 or Form 926).

A failure to recognize these differences between the application of aforementioned tax provisions in the domestic context from the international one may result in the imposition of severe IRS noncompliance penalties.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Tax Help Concerning Corporation Distributions

Sherayzen Law Office is an international tax law firm highly-experienced in US and foreign corporate transactions, including corporate distributions. We have helped our clients around the world not only to engage in proper US tax planning concerning cash, property and stock distributions from US and foreign corporations, but also resolve any prior US tax noncompliance issues (including conducting offshore voluntary disclosures). We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!