Posts

Personal Services Income Sourcing | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

This article continues our series of articles on the source of income rules. Today, I will explain the general rule for individual personal services income sourcing. I want to emphasize that, in this essay, I will focus only on individuals and provide only the general rule with two exceptions. Future articles will cover more specific situations and exceptions.

Personal Services Income Sourcing: General Rule

The main governing law concerning individual personal services income sourcing rules is found in the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) §861 and §862. §861 defines what income is considered to be US-source income while §862 explains when income is considered to be foreign-source income.

The general rule for the individual personal services income is that the location where the services are rendered determines whether this is US-source income or foreign-source income. If an individual performs his services in the United States, then this is US-source income. §861(a)(3). On the other hand, if this individual renders his services outside of the United States, then, this will be a foreign-source income. §862(a)(3).

In other words, the key consideration in income sourcing with respect to personal services is the location where the services are performed. Generally, the rest of the factors are irrelevant, including the residency of the employee, the place of incorporation of the employer and the place of payment.

As always in US tax law, there are exceptions to this general rule. In this article, I will cover only two statutory exceptions; in the future, I will also discuss other exceptions as well as the rule with respect to situations where the work is partially done in the United States and partially in a foreign country.

Personal Services Income Sourcing: De Minimis Exception

IRC §861(a)(3) provides a statutory exception to the general rule above specifically for nonresident aliens whose income meet the de minimis rule. The de minimis rule states that the US government will not consider the services of a nonresident alien rendered in the United States as US-source income as long as the following four requirements are met:

1. The nonresident alien is an individual;

2. He was only temporarily in the United States for a period or periods of time not exceeding a total of 90 days during the tax year;

3. He received $3,000 or less in compensation for his services in the United States; AND

4. The services were performed for either of two persons:

4a. “A nonresident alien, foreign partnership, or foreign corporation, not engaged in trade or business within the United States”. §861(a)(3)(C)(i); OR

4b. “an individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States, a domestic partnership, or a domestic corporation, if such labor or services are performed for an office or place of business maintained in a foreign country or in a possession of the United States by such individual, partnership, or corporation.” §861(a)(3)(C)(ii).

Personal Services Income Sourcing: Foreign Vessel Crew Exception

The personal services income performed by a nonresident alien individual in the United States will not be deemed as US-source income if the following requirements are satisfied:

1. The individual is temporarily present in the United States as a regular member of a crew of a foreign vessel; and

2. The foreign vessel is engaged in transported between the United States and a foreign country or a possession of the United States. See §861(a)(3).

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help Concerning US International Tax Law, Including Personal Services Income Sourcing Rules

Sherayzen Law Office is a leading international tax law firm in the United States that has successfully helped hundreds of US taxpayers with their US international tax compliance issues. Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

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!

Finter Bank Zurich AG Reaches Resolution with US DOJ

/0 Comments/in , /by

On May 15, 2015, Finter Bank Zurich AG (Finter Bank) became the third Swiss bank to sign a Non-Prosecution Agreement with US DOJ according to the terms of the DOJ Program for Swiss Banks.

DOJ Program for Swiss Banks

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)” with the goal or creating a voluntary disclosure program for Swiss banks. Under the Program, the Swiss banks would prove DOJ with detailed description of specified activities with respect to US-owned accounts as well as the identification of all accounts held by US persons at any point since August of 2008. In exchange, the Program promised Swiss banks an opportunity to forever resolve their past US non-compliance issues (including criminal illegal activities) with respect to US-held accounts. For Category 2 banks, the Program also imposed various penalty requirements. The banks already under criminal investigation related to their Swiss-banking activities and all individuals were expressly excluded from the program.

Finter Bank timely entered the Program and payed the required penalties. This is why it became the third Swiss bank to resolve its issues under the Program.

Finter Bank Background

Finter Bank was founded in 1958 in Chiasso, Switzerland, and has a branch office in Lugano, Switzerland. Since August 1, 2008, Finter Bank has maintained 283 U.S.-related accounts with an aggregate maximum balance of approximately $235 million.

Since its establishment and continuing through at least October 2011, Finter Bank, through its managers, employees and others, aided and assisted U.S. clients in opening and maintaining undeclared accounts in Switzerland and concealing the assets and income they held in these accounts from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). After August 2008, when Swiss bank UBS AG publicly announced that it was the target of a criminal investigation by U.S. tax authorities, Finter Bank accepted accounts from U.S. persons exiting other Swiss banks.

Finter Bank provided services that allowed U.S. clients to eliminate the paper trail associated with the undeclared assets and income, including “hold mail” services and numbered and coded accounts. In addition, Finter Bank assisted clients in using sham entities as nominee beneficial owners of undeclared accounts, solicited Forms W-8BEN that falsely stated under penalties of perjury that the sham entities beneficially owned the assets in the undeclared accounts, and provided cash cards and credits cards linked to the undeclared accounts.

Finter Bank Non-Prosecution Agreement

According to the terms of the non-prosecution agreement signed on May 15, Finter Bank 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 $5.414 million penalty in return for the department’s agreement not to prosecute Finter Bank for tax-related criminal offenses.

Consequences of Finter Bank Non-Prosecution Agreement for US Taxpayers

In resolving its criminal liabilities under the program, Finter Bank encouraged U.S. accountholders to come into tax compliance and participate in the IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program. However, the taxpayers who did not listen to Finter Bank’s pleas and have not disclosed their secret Swiss accounts now face an importance consequence as a result of Finter Bank Non-Prosecution Agreement – if these taxpayers wish to enter the OVDP now, the penalty percentage has increased from 27.5 percent to 50% of the highest balance of their accounts for the past eight years.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Disclosure of Your Foreign Bank Accounts

If you have undisclosed foreign bank accounts and any other assets, you should contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help as soon as possible. Our legal team consists of tax professionals who specialize in offshore voluntary disclosures and have helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world.

We can help You! Contact Us to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation Now!

Abusive Tax Shelters on the IRS “Dirty Dozen” List of 2015

/0 Comments/in , /by

On February 3, 2015, the IRS said using abusive tax shelters and structures to avoid paying taxes continues to be a problem and remains on its annual list of tax scams known as the “Dirty Dozen” for the 2015 filing season.

“The IRS is committed to stopping complex tax avoidance schemes and the people who create and sell them,” said IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. “The vast majority of taxpayers pay their fair share, and we are warning everyone to watch out for people peddling tax shelters that sound too good to be true.”

Compiled annually, the “Dirty Dozen” lists a variety of common scams that taxpayers may encounter anytime but many of these schemes peak during filing season as people prepare their returns or hire people to help with their taxes.

Abusive tax shelters are classified as illegal scams and can lead to significant penalties and interest and possible criminal prosecution. IRS Criminal Investigation works closely with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to shutdown scams and prosecute the criminals behind them.

Abusive Tax Shelters

Abusive tax shelters have evolved from simple structuring of abusive domestic and foreign trust arrangements into sophisticated strategies that take advantage of the financial secrecy laws of some foreign jurisdictions and the availability of credit/debit cards issued from offshore financial institutions.

IRS Criminal Investigation (CI) has developed a nationally coordinated program to combat these abusive tax shelters. CI’s primary focus is on the identification and investigation of the promoters of the abusive tax shelters as well as those who play a substantial or integral role in facilitating, aiding, assisting, or furthering the abusive tax shelters, such as accountants or lawyers. Just as important is the investigation of investors who knowingly participate in abusive tax shelters.

What are these abusive tax shelters? The Abusive Tax Schemes program encompasses violations of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and related statutes where multiple flow-through entities are used as an integral part of the taxpayer’s scheme to evade taxes. These abusive tax shelters are characterized by the use of Limited Liability Companies (LLCs), Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs), International Business Companies (IBCs), foreign financial accounts, offshore credit/debit cards and other similar instruments. The abusive tax shelters are usually complex involving multi-layer transactions for the purpose of concealing the true nature and ownership of the taxable income and/or assets.

Whether something is “too good to be true” is important to consider before buying into any arrangements that promise to “eliminate” or “substantially reduce” your tax liability. If an arrangement uses unnecessary steps or a form that does not match its substance, then that arrangement may be classified as abusive tax shelter. Another thing to remember is that the promoters of abusive tax shelters often employ financial instruments in their schemes; however, the instruments are used for improper purposes including the facilitation of tax evasion.

Abusive Tax Shelters: Misuse of Trusts

Trusts also commonly show up in abusive tax shelters. They are highlighted here because unscrupulous promoters continue to urge taxpayers to transfer large amounts of assets into trusts. These assets include not only cash and investments, but also successful on-going businesses. There are legitimate uses of trusts in tax and estate planning, but the IRS commonly sees highly questionable transactions. These transactions promise reduced taxable income, inflated deductions for personal expenses, reduced (even to zero) self-employment taxes, and reduced estate or gift transfer taxes.

These transactions commonly arise when taxpayers are transferring wealth from one generation to another. Questionable trusts rarely deliver the tax benefits promised and are used primarily as a means of avoiding income tax liability and hiding assets from creditors, including the IRS.

IRS personnel continue to see an increase in the improper use of private annuity trusts and foreign trusts to shift income and deduct personal expenses, as well as to avoid estate transfer taxes. As with other arrangements, taxpayers should seek the advice of a trusted professional before entering a trust arrangement.

Abusive Tax Shelters: Captive Insurance

Another abuse involving a legitimate tax structure involves certain small or “micro” captive insurance companies. Tax law allows businesses to create “captive” insurance companies to enable those businesses to protect against certain risks. The insured claims deductions under the tax code for premiums paid for the insurance policies while the premiums end up with the captive insurance company owned by same owners of the insured or family members.

The captive insurance company, in turn, can elect under a separate section of the tax code to be taxed only on the investment income from the pool of premiums, excluding taxable income of up to $1.2 million per year in net written premiums.

In the abusive tax shelters, unscrupulous promoters persuade closely held entities to participate in this scheme by assisting entities to create captive insurance companies onshore or offshore, drafting organizational documents and preparing initial filings to state insurance authorities and the IRS. The promoters assist with creating and “selling” to the entities oftentimes poorly drafted “insurance” binders and policies to cover ordinary business risks or esoteric, implausible risks for exorbitant “premiums,” while maintaining their economical commercial coverage with traditional insurers.

Total amounts of annual premiums often equal the amount of deductions business entities need to reduce income for the year; or, for a wealthy entity, total premiums amount to $1.2 million annually to take full advantage of the Code provision. Underwriting and actuarial substantiation for the insurance premiums paid are either missing or insufficient. The promoters manage the entities’ captive insurance companies year after year for hefty fees, assisting taxpayers unsophisticated in insurance to continue the charade.

Title 26 Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty under SDOP

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Title 26 Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty (“Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty”) is one of the most critical aspects of the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures (“SDOP”). In this article, I want to conduct a general overview of how the Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty is calculated.

As a side note, it is important to keep in mind that this is an educational article which aims to provide a general overview of the calculation of the Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty in common situations. In providing this general overview of the SDOP Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty, the article necessarily glosses over some complex issues that may change the determination of Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty in a particular case.  In order to calculate your Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty properly, the readers should contact an experienced international tax attorney for a legal advice based on their specific facts and circumstances.

What is Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty?

A taxpayer who enters SDOP is required to pay a 5% Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty as part of the SDOP requirements. The Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty is paid in lieu of the penalties associated with the delinquent filings of FBARs, Forms 8938 and other information returns.

The calculation of SDOP Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty is very different from 2014 OVDP calculation in terms of the relevant time period and the penalty base. (Note: OVDP is now closed). Let’s explore each of these factors.

Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty: Time Period

Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty is equal to 5 percent of the highest aggregate balance/value of the taxpayer’s foreign financial assets that are subject to the miscellaneous offshore penalty during the years in the covered tax return period and the covered FBAR period. Generally, this means that the Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty is imposed on the past six years covered by the FBAR statute of limitations.

However, there is an exception where the three-year tax covered tax return period does not completely overlap with the six-year covered FBAR period. For example, the SDOP disclosure for tax returns covers years 2012 and 2014 because the due date for the 2014 tax return is passed, but the FBAR period is 2008-2013 because the due date for the 2014 FBAR has not passed. In such cases, the Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty is imposed on the highest aggregate value of the foreign financial assets for the past seven years.

In most cases, six years will be the standard time period for the calculation of the Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty, which is a lot better than the 2014 OVDP eight-year disclosure period.

Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty: Penalty Base

SDOP introduced a new way to calculate Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty which mixed the old FBAR-focused penalty orientation of the 2014 OVDP with the new FATCA-focused Form 8938.

In general, the Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty is imposed on any foreign financial asset in a given year within the covered SDOP time period if one of the following is true:

1. The asset should have been, but was not, reported on an FBAR (FinCEN Form 114) for that year;

2. The asset should have been, but was not, reported on a Form 8938 for that year; or

3. If the asset was properly reported for that year, but gross income in respect of the asset was not reported in that year.

Two important features of this calculation of the penalty base under SDOP must be emphasized. First, the Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty should be calculated not only on the foreign bank and financial accounts listed on the FBAR, but also on “other specified assets” required to be listed on Form 8938. This means that many more assets outside of a foreign financial account can now be subject to the Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty . Examples of such assets include but not limited to: foreign stocks not held in a financial account, a capital or profits interest in a foreign partnership, certain forms of indebtedness issued by a foreign person (such as a note, bond, debenture, an interest in a foreign trust, foreign swaps, foreign options, foreign derivatives and other assets. It should be remembered, though, that this is a generalization and, in certain circumstances, an international tax attorney may except certain such assets from Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty base.

The second critical difference between SDOP Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty and 2014 OVDP Offshore Penalty is the inclusion in the calculation of the penalty base the assets for which no additional income needs to be reported. There are a lot of nuances with respect to the exclusion and inclusion of assets under the 2014 OVDP which are beyond the scope of this article. For the purposes of the present discussion, I will ignore them and concentrate on the general rule only (again, this is an area that should be explored with an international tax attorney based on the specific facts of a client’s case) that if an asset should have been reported on Forms 8938 and FinCEN Form 114 and it was not, then, it should be included in the penalty base.

Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty: Calculation of Highest Aggregate Value of Assets

As it was mentioned above, the Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty is calculated based on the highest aggregate balance/value of the taxpayer’s foreign financial assets that are subject to the miscellaneous offshore penalty during the years in the covered tax return period and the covered FBAR period. The issue is how this “highest aggregate balance/value of assets” is calculated.

For the purposes of SDOP Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty, the highest aggregate balance/value is determined by a two-step process. First, you need to aggregate the year-end account balances and year-end asset values of all the foreign financial assets subject to the miscellaneous offshore penalty for each of the years in the covered tax return period and the covered FBAR period. Then, you select the highest aggregate balance/value from among those years and calculate the 5% value of this balance.

It is the first step that is radically different from the 2014 OVDP Offshore Penalty determination process, and it can produce very interesting results especially in the case of bank accounts. The most surprising result is that an account that was closed in one of the covered years is likely to produce a zero end-of-year balance irrespective of how much money was on it prior to December 31.

This factor can be a very important consideration when one decides to participate in SDOP. For this reason, I highly encourage the readers to consult an experienced international tax lawyer in these matters.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help with Your Undisclosed Foreign Assets

If you have undisclosed foreign accounts and any other assets, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional legal and tax help. Our team of experienced tax professionals will thoroughly analyze your case, estimate 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!