Posts

Cambata Case: IRS Wins Against Former U.S. Citizen on Offshore Income

/0 Comments/in , /by

In the Cambata case, the IRS successfully demonstrated once again that renunciation of U.S. citizenship will not protect a taxpayer from being pursued for unreported income from foreign accounts. On February 3, 2016, Mr. Albert Cambata pleaded guilty to filing a false income tax return with respect to his unreported Swiss account income.

Facts Related to Mr. Cambata’s Unreported Swiss account income

According to court documents, in 2006, Mr. Albert Cambata established Dragonflyer Ltd., a Hong Kong corporate entity, with the assistance of a Swiss banker and a Swiss attorney. Days later, he opened a financial account at Swiss Bank 1 in the name of Dragonflyer. Although he was not listed on the opening documents as a director or an authorized signatory, Mr. Cambata was identified on another bank document (which the IRS obtained most likely through the Swiss Bank program) as the beneficial owner of the Dragonflyer account. That same year, Mr. Cambata received $12 million from Hummingbird Holdings Ltd., a Belizean company. The $12 million originated from a Panamanian aviation management company called Cambata Aviation S.A. and was deposited to the Dragonflyer bank account at Swiss Bank 1 in November 2006.

On his 2007 and 2008 federal income tax returns, Mr. Cambata failed to report interest income earned on his Swiss financial account in the amounts of $77,298 and $206,408, respectively. In April 2008, Mr. Cambata caused the Swiss attorney to request that Swiss Bank 1 send five million Euros from the Swiss financial account to an account Mr. Cambata controlled at the Monaco branch of Swiss Bank 3. In June 2008, Cambata closed his financial account with Swiss Bank 1 in the name of Dragonflyer and moved the funds to an account he controlled at the Singapore branch of Swiss Bank 2.

In 2012, Mr. Cambata, who has lived in Switzerland since 2007, went to the U.S. Embassy in Bratislava, Slovakia, to renounce his U.S. citizenship and informed the U.S. Department of State that he had acquired the nationality of St. Kitts and Nevis by virtue of naturalization.

Link between the Cambata Case and Swiss Bank Program

It appears that the IRS was able to focus on Mr. Cambata due to information provided by one of the Swiss Bank that participated in the Swiss Bank Program. This led to the IRS investigation that unraveled the whole scheme constructed by Mr. Cambata. Additional information might have been provided to the IRS by one of the Category 1 banks as part of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement.

This affirms what the IRS has stated in the past about its determination to continue to pursue older fraud cases based on the information it already obtained from the Swiss banks. “IRS Criminal Investigation will continue to pursue those who do not pay the taxes they owe to the United States,” said Special Agent in Charge Thomas Jankowski of the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation, Washington, D.C. Field Office. “Today’s plea is a reminder that we are committed to following the money trail across the globe and will not be deterred by the use of sophisticated international financial transactions that hide the real ownership of income taxable by the United States.”

The Global Reach of the IRS Investigations Grows

Mr. Cambata’s accounts were spread out among the local branches of Swiss banks in Monaco, Singapore and Switzerland. The funds originated from companies based in Belize and Panama (the information regarding these companies was probably obtained through John Doe summons issued in 2015).

It becomes obvious from this case that our earlier warnings about the spread of the IRS investigations beyond Switzerland were correct. The IRS now reaches far beyond Switzerland and focuses more and more on jurisdictions like Belize, Cayman Islands, Cook Islands, Monaco, Panama, Singapore and other favorite offshore jurisdictions. The Cambata case is a grave warning to U.S. taxpayers who still operate in offshore jurisdictions to hide assets from the U.S. government.

The Cambata Case is a Warning to Taxpayers Who Pursued Quiet Disclosure to Cover-Up Past Tax Noncompliance

One of the most curious aspects about the Cambata case is that the IRS never imposed any FBAR penalties or tax return penalties with respect to the later years. While it is not clear from the documents, it appears that Mr. Cambata probably did a quiet disclosure in the year 2009 and has properly filed his FBARs and tax returns ever since.

The FBAR statute of limitations probably did not allow the IRS to impose the FBAR penalties, but the IRS still ignored the quiet disclosure and pursued criminal penalties for the 2006 and 2007 fraudulent tax returns (in addition to restitution of $84,849 – presumable the tax Mr. Cambata would have owed had he filed his 2006 and 2007 returns correctly).

Therefore, U.S. taxpayers who filed quiet disclosure should heed one of the main lessons of the Cambata case – quiet disclosure will not protect you from the IRS criminal prosecution.

The Cambata Case is also a Warning to Taxpayers Who Renounced U.S. Citizenship to Hide Past Tax Noncompliance

The Cambata case also dispels another myth common to U.S. taxpayers: renouncing citizenship somehow prevents the IRS criminal prosecution for past noncompliance. On the contrary, U.S. taxpayers who renounce citizenship may draw the IRS attention because they have to certify that they are fully compliant with the tax laws of the United States.

If the IRS is able to prove that these taxpayers are not fully tax-compliant, then, as the Cambata case clearly demonstrates, the IRS can pursue criminal penalties against former U.S. citizens. It is possible that one of the chief purposes of the IRS in this case was to scare other U.S. citizens who renounced their citizenship to hide their past tax noncompliance.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Legal Help with Your Foreign Accounts

If you have undisclosed foreign accounts, contact Sherayzen Law Office as soon as possible. Whether your case involves complex beneficial ownership structures or you own your foreign accounts personally, our highly experienced team of tax professionals can help you!

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!

Prison Sentence for Quiet Disclosure: the Kaminsky Case

/0 Comments/in , /by

On March 4, 2015, Gregg A. Kaminsky, a former UBS client, was sentenced for willfully failing to file a Foreign Bank Account Report (the “FBAR”) with the U.S. Department of Treasury in connection with his concealment of income and assets in accounts in Switzerland, Hong Kong, and Thailand over several years, as well as his failure to report certain income earned in the virtual world, “Second Life.”

“Federal tax revenue is crucial to protecting our borders; fighting terrorism, cybercrime, and other national security threats; providing disaster relief; and to performing other critical government functions,” said Acting U. S. Attorney John Horn. “This office is committed to investigating and prosecuting those who intentionally avoid paying their fair share, whether their schemes involve income earned or hidden offshore, here at home, or even in a virtual world.”

“U.S. citizens who seek to avoid their tax obligations by hiding income in undeclared bank accounts abroad should by now be fully on notice that they will be held accountable for their actions, both civilly and criminally,” stated IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agent in Charge, Veronica F. Hyman-Pillot. “Americans who file accurate, honest and timely returns can be assured that the government will hold accountable those who don’t.”

Facts of the Case

According to Acting U.S. Attorney Horn, the charges and other information presented in court:

Kaminsky was an Internet entrepreneur who served as the Chief Executive Officer of Circlenet LLC, based in Atlanta, Georgia. From 2000 through mid-2009, Kaminsky owned and controlled a foreign bank account with Union Bank of Switzerland AG (“UBS”). By 2006, Kaminsky’s UBS account held approximately $1.1 million. From time to time between 2002 and 2009, Kaminsky caused funds to be wire-transferred from his UBS account in Switzerland to other foreign bank accounts controlled by him in Thailand and Hong Kong. Also during that time, Kaminsky caused his income from at least two different U.S. companies to be direct-deposited into his UBS account in Switzerland.

Yet, over this period, Kaminsky did not disclose his UBS account or other foreign financial accounts to the U. S. Treasury Department as required, and thereby concealed several hundred thousand dollars in taxable income, interest, and dividends from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

In addition, in 2007 and 2008, Kaminsky omitted his UBS account and associated income from Free Applications for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) that he electronically filed with the U.S. Department of Education in order to qualify for need-based federal financial aid to fund his tuition for an Executive MBA program at Emory University. At the time of the FAFSA applications, Kaminsky controlled over a half million dollars in his UBS account, which would have made him ineligible for federal student loan assistance.

On June 30, 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice sought court approval to compel UBS to disclose the identities of U.S. account holders who may be using UBS accounts to hide assets overseas and thereby evade U.S. taxes. The request and the order authorizing it were widely reported by the media throughout the United States, and this coverage continued throughout 2008 and 2009 as the U.S., UBS, and Switzerland negotiated a resolution and UBS began disclosing U.S. account holders to the IRS.

Following this news, Kaminsky closed his UBS account and transferred the balance of his UBS account to an account that he controlled at HSBC Bank in Hong Kong. Further, in spring 2010, Kaminsky filed FBARs for his Swiss and Hong Kong accounts for the very first time, also filing amended individual income tax returns for 2007 and 2008 that disclosed the previously unreported income in his UBS account. However, in his amended 2007 and 2008 returns, and in his subsequently filed returns for 2009 through 2012, Kaminsky still failed to report nearly $150,000 in taxable income earned from his business activities in the virtual world, “Second Life.”

Participants in Second Life, referred to as “residents,” can engage in a wide variety of business activities, including buying, renting, and sub-leasing virtual land and buying and selling other virtual goods, services, and experiences for their “avatars.” Transactions are conducted using a virtual currency, “Linden Dollars.” Linden Dollars can be bought and traded on the “Linden Exchange,” and are redeemable for cash.

Including his virtual world income, Kaminsky failed to report over $400,000 in income to the IRS between 2000 and 2012, resulting in a loss to the IRS of approximately $125,000.

Kaminsky’s Sentence

Kaminsky was sentenced to serve four months in federal prison to be followed by two years of supervised release, two months of home confinement, and 200 hours of community service. Kaminsky was also ordered to pay restitution to the IRS in the amount of $91,983. Kaminsky was convicted on these charges on December 18, 2014, after he pleaded guilty. As part of his plea agreement with the United States, Kaminsky was also required to pay a civil penalty to the IRS in the amount of $250,635.20, which is equivalent to fifty percent of the value of the balance in Kaminsky’s HSBC account in Hong Kong as of June 30, 2009.

Lesson from the Kaminsky’s Case – the Dangers of Attempting Incomplete Quiet Disclosure

Kaminsky’s case is a good illustration of my last year’s article on the how quiet disclosure in the current enforcement environment can be a very dangerous option. Kaminsky amended two tax returns and disclosed income from his UBS account for those two years and filed the FBARs for 2009. This was a fairly standard way of doing quiet disclosure, but it could not in any form qualify as a voluntary disclosure – and Kaminsky paid dearly for this attempt.

However, there is another important lesson of Kaminsky’s case for the persons who intend to engage in a voluntary disclosure – you cannot do a partial voluntary disclosure. Kaminsky failed to report his worldwide income on his amended tax returns – he only reported income that was directly relevant to the foreign accounts. Failure to submit complete and accurate amended tax returns undoubtedly contributed to the criminal sentence in this case.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help with Conducting Proper Voluntary Disclosure

If you have undisclosed foreign accounts and foreign income, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional legal and tax help. Our international tax lawyer, Mr. Eugene Sherayzen will thoroughly analyze your case and advise you on your voluntary disclosure options. Once you choose your voluntary disclosure path, our firm will prepare all of the necessary documents and legal forms, and conduct your voluntary disclosure in a proper and expeditious manner.

We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the globe, and we can help you. So, Call Us Now to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Who Must File IRS Form 1042

/0 Comments/in , /by

Form 1042 (“Annual Withholding Tax Return for U.S. Source Income of Foreign Persons”) serves a number of important reporting purposes. In general, it is used to report the tax withheld under chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) on certain income of foreign persons (such as nonresident aliens, foreign partnerships, foreign corporations, foreign estates, and foreign trusts), as well as to report the tax withheld under chapter 4 of the IRC on payments subject to tax withholding. It also utilized to report tax withheld pursuant to IRC Section 5000C (“Imposition of tax on certain foreign procurement”), and reportable payments from Form 1042-S under chapters 3 or 4.

In this article, we will cover who is responsible for filing Form 1042. US individuals involved with cross-border businesses or living overseas should be aware of this form as they may be subject to the form’s filing requirements for a variety of common reasons, without even knowing it. For instance, US-source alimony paid to a nonresident alien former spouse may be reportable by a withholding agent on Form 1042 (in addition to 1042-S), even if the entire amount is exempt under a tax treaty.

This article provides general information and is not intended to convey tax or legal advice. Please contact Mr. Eugene Sherayzen, an experienced tax attorney at Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. if you have any questions about filing this form, or any other US-international tax questions.

Who is Responsible for Filing Form 1042?

As noted by the IRS, unless an exception applies, “every withholding agent or intermediary who receives, controls, has custody of, disposes of, or pays a withholdable payment, including any fixed or determinable annual or periodical income, must file an annual return for the preceding calendar year” on Form 1042. The IRS defines “withholding agent” to mean any person who is required to withhold tax. This definition is expansive and can include, in general, any individual, trust, estate, partnership, corporation, nominee, government agency, association, or tax-exempt foundation (both domestic and foreign) that is required to withhold tax. Withholding agents are personally liable for any tax required to be withheld, as well as interest and applicable penalties.

An “intermediary” means, “a person who acts as a custodian, broker, nominee, or otherwise as an agent for another person, regardless of whether that other person is the beneficial owner of the amount paid, a flow-through entity, or another intermediary.”

When Must Form 1042 Be Filed?

Form 1042 must be filed in a number of different circumstances. As stated by the IRS, an individual or entity must file the form if, “you are required to file or otherwise file Form(s) 1042-S for purposes of either chapter 3 or 4 (whether or not any tax was withheld or was required to be withheld to the extent reporting is required)…; You file Form(s) 1042-S to report to a recipient tax withheld by your withholding agent; You pay gross investment income to foreign private foundations that are subject to tax under section 4948(a); You pay any foreign person specified federal procurement payments that are subject to withholding under section 5000C; You are a qualified intermediary (QI), withholding foreign partnership (WP), withholding foreign trust (WT), participating foreign financial institution (FFI), or reporting Model 1 FFI making a claim for a collective refund under your respective agreement with the IRS.” Note, that the FFI classification may also require other extensive reporting under FATCA.

2014 Form 1042: Due Date and Place of Filing

The 2014 Form 1042 must be filed by March 16, 2015, to the IRS’ Ogden (UT) Service Center, and an extension of time to file may be granted by submitting Form 7004, (“Application for Automatic Extension of Time To File Certain Business Income Tax, Information, and Other Returns”).

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With International Tax Compliance

US-International tax reporting and planning can involve many complex areas, and you are advised to seek the advice of attorneys practicing in this area. If you have any questions, please contact Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. for all of your tax and legal needs.

Exceptions to Filing Form 8865: Part I

/in , /by

As most international tax attorneys in Minneapolis would point out, Form 8865 (“Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Partnerships”) is used to report the information required under section 6038 (reporting with respect to controlled foreign partnerships), section 6038B (reporting of transfers to foreign partnerships), or section 6046A (reporting of acquisitions, dispositions, and changes in foreign partnership interests), and is required for certain defined categories of filers. However, there are certain exceptions to filing Form 8865.

This article will briefly explain the Form 8865 exceptions for multiple Category 1 filers and for indirect partners under the constructive ownership rules (there are more exceptions that will be explained in future articles). This article is not intended to constitute tax or legal advice.

Multiple Category 1 Filers Exception

In general, Category 1 filers must file Form 8865. As the instructions to Form 8865 note, “A Category 1 filer is a U.S. person who controlled the foreign partnership at any time during the partnership’s tax year. Control of a partnership is ownership of more than a 50% interest in the partnership.” However, if during a partnership’s tax year more than one U.S. person qualifies as a Category 1 filer, only one of these Category 1 partners will be required to file Form 8865. (A U.S. person with a controlling interest in the losses or deductions of the partnership will not be permitted to be the lone filer of Form 8865 if another U.S. person has a controlling interest in capital or profits; only the latter may file the form). Note that Form 8865 must still be filed by taxpayers under the multiple filers’ exception if they are separately subject to the Category 3 or 4 filing requirements.

When the form is filed by only one U.S. person Category 1 filer, it still must contain all of the information that would be required if each Category 1 filer filed a separate Form 8865, including various required schedules. The Category 1 taxpayer who does not submit Form 8865 because of multiple filers must attach a statement entitled, “Controlled Foreign Partnership Reporting” to that person’s income tax return with the following information: (1) A statement that the person qualifies as a Category 1 filer, but is not filing Form 8865 under the “multiple Category 1 filers” exception; (2) the name, address, and identifying number (if applicable) of the qualifying foreign partnership; (3) a statement noting that the filing requirement has been, or will be, satisfied; (4) the name and address of the person submitting Form 8865 for the foreign partnership; and (5) the IRS Service Center where the Form 8865 must be filed, if sent by mail.

Constructive Owners Exception

For Category 1 or 2 filers who do not own a direct interest in a foreign partnership, and who are only required to file because of the constructive ownership rules (please see form instructions and IRS regulations for the specific definition of this complex term), an exception from filing is possible, provided that: (1) Form 8865 is filed by the U.S. person(s) through which the indirect partner constructively owns an interest in the foreign partnership, (2) the U.S. person through which the indirect partner constructively owns an interest in the foreign partnership is also a constructive owner and meets all the requirements of this constructive ownership filing exception, or (3) Form 8865 is filed for the foreign partnership by another Category 1 filer under the “multiple Category 1 filers exception”. To qualify for this exception, the indirect partner must also file a statement entitled “Controlled Foreign Partnership Reporting” with its tax return containing certain specified information (see Form 8865 instructions for more details).

Contact The International Tax Firm of Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Form 8865 Filing

International taxation concerning foreign partnerships is very likely to involve many complex tax and legal issues, so you are advised to seek an experienced attorney in these matters. Sherayzen Law Office is highly experienced in Form 8865 matters, whether you need help with respect to annual compliance or offshore voluntary disclosure. Contact Us by telephone or email to schedule a confidential consultation!