Posts

3 Main Streamlined Domestic Compliance Disadvantages | SDOP Lawyer

In a previous article, I described the three main advantages of doing an offshore voluntary disclosure through Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures (“Streamlined Domestic Compliance”). Today, I would like to discuss three main Streamlined Domestic Compliance disadvantages.

Streamlined Domestic Compliance Disadvantages: Audit Risks

The first main disadvantage of Streamlined Domestic Compliance is the potential IRS audit within three years after the voluntary disclosure is completed. The audit is likely to include everything: FBARs, amended tax returns, Miscellaneous Offshore Penalty calculation and, most importantly, the determination of non-willfulness.

The potential IRS audit stands in a shark contrast to the IRS flagship Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (“OVDP”) which closed in September of 2018. At the end of a voluntary disclosure through OVDP, the taxpayer and the IRS sign the Closing Agreement, which (absent fraud or material mis-statements) effectively closes prior tax noncompliance issues forever.

The audit risks may be particularly important to taxpayers who are in the process of obtaining their US citizenship or US permanent residence.

Streamlined Domestic Compliance Disadvantages: Penalty Base Not Limited to Income Noncompliance

One of the main Streamlined Domestic Compliance disadvantages is the fact that the calculation of the penalty base (i.e. what assets are subject to the 5% penalty) includes assets that never produced any foreign income. Moreover, the penalty base includes a foreign asset even if the foreign income from this asset was timely disclosed on the taxpayer’s original tax return, but the asset itself was not reported on FBAR or any other international information return.

In other words, a taxpayer who participates in the Streamlined Domestic Compliance should be prepared to pay a 5% penalty even on assets that are compliant with the US income tax laws.

Again, this is contrary to the rules of the OVDP. In the OVDP, only assets that are tied to income tax noncompliance are included in the penalty base.

Streamlined Domestic Compliance Disadvantages: Danger of Superficial Analysis

Finally, the danger of superficial analysis concerning non-willfulness constitutes the third main disadvantage of the Streamlined Domestic Compliance. In reality, there are two dangers which should be placed at the opposite ends of the voluntary disclosure continuum.

The first danger is the natural bias in the self-assessment of non-willfulness. Oftentimes, a taxpayer may exaggerate the facts in his favor while selectively ignoring the facts that may establish willful noncompliance. This is very natural. It is difficult to find a person who will state outright that he was willful in his prior tax noncompliance.

Usually, this problem can be (and should be) fixed by retaining an international tax attorney to do an independent assessment of the taxpayer’s non-willfulness.

At the opposite end is the danger of concentrating on non-willfulness and ignoring the possibility of doing a Reasonable Cause disclosure. In most cases, this is not a problem because Streamlined Domestic Compliance would be a superior choice despite the 5% penalty. This, however, is not true in all cases and real opportunities are often lost by failure to explore this route.

I should state that the biggest problem that I found in my practice is the fact that some taxpayers do not consult an international tax attorney on this issue. Instead, they try to do everything themselves even though they have no specialized knowledge in this field. I strongly discourage this practice.

I believe that the involvement of an international tax attorney is essential to doing a proper offshore voluntary disclosure.

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

Choosing the correct offshore voluntary disclosure path is the most important decision for a taxpayer who wishes to remedy his past noncompliance with US tax laws. Every voluntary disclosure option has its advantages and disadvantages. All essential factors must be considered.

The failure to do proper legal analysis may have highly negative legal and tax consequences. It may even put a taxpayer in a position worse than what he was prior to his attempt to do a voluntary disclosure.

This is why you need the professional help of Sherayzen Law Office. Our experienced legal team has helped hundreds of US taxpayers to do their offshore voluntary disclosures properly. We Can Help You! Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

2017 FBAR Currency Conversion Rates | FBAR Lawyer and Attorney

Using proper currency conversion rates is a very important part of preparing 2017 FBAR and 2017 Form 8938. The instructions to both forms require (in case of FATCA Form 8938, this is the default choice) US taxpayers to use the 2017 FBAR Currency Conversion Rates published by the Treasury Department. The 2017 FBAR Currency Conversion Rates may also be used for other purposes, not just the preparation of the 2017 FBAR and Form 8938.

The 2017 FBAR Currency Conversion Rates are the December 31, 2017 rates officially published by the U.S. Department of Treasury (they are called “Treasury’s Financial Management Service rates” or the “FMS rates”) and they are the proper conversion rates that must be used while preparing FBAR and Form 8938.

Due to this importance of the 2017 FBAR Currency Conversion Rates to US taxpayers, international tax lawyers and international tax accountants, Sherayzen Law Office provides the table below the official 2017 FBAR Currency Conversion Rates (keep in mind, you still need to refer to the official website for any updates).

Country – Currency

Foreign Currency to $1.00

AFGHANISTAN – AFGHANI

69.3200

ALBANIA – LEK

110.6000

ALGERIA – DINAR

114.6590

ANGOLA – KWANZA

170.0000

ANTIGUA – BARBUDA – E. CARIBBEAN DOLLAR

2.7000

ARGENTINA – PESO

19.1600

ARMENIA – DRAM

485.0000

AUSTRALIA – DOLLAR

1.2790

AUSTRIA – EURO

0.8330

AZERBAIJAN – NEW MANAT

1.7100

BAHAMAS – DOLLAR

1.0000

BAHRAIN – DINAR

0.3770

BANGLADESH – TAKA

82.0000

BARBADOS – DOLLAR

2.0200

BELARUS – NEW RUBLE

1.9730

BELGIUM – EURO

0.8330

BELIZE – DOLLAR

2.0000

BENIN – CFA FRANC

562.3300

BERMUDA – DOLLAR

1.0000

BOLIVIA – BOLIVIANO

6.8600

BOSNIA – HERCEGOVINA – MARKA

1.6300

BOTSWANA – PULA

9.8040

BRAZIL – REAL

3.3120

BRUNEI – DOLLAR

1.3420

BULGARIA – LEV

1.6310

BURKINA FASO – CFA FRANC

562.3300

BURMA – KYAT

1354.0000

BURUNDI – FRANC

1720.0000

CAMBODIA (KHMER) – RIEL

4103.0000

CAMEROON – CFA FRANC

567.7900

CANADA – DOLLAR

1.2550

CAPE VERDE – ESCUDO

92.0260

CAYMAN ISLANDS – DOLLAR

0.8200

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC – CFA FRANC

567.7900

CHAD – CFA FRANC

567.7900

CHILE – PESO

614.2300

CHINA – RENMINBI

6.5040

COLOMBIA – PESO

2981.7900

COMOROS – FRANC

411.0000

CONGO – CFA FRANC

567.7900

CONGO, DEM. REP – CONGOLESE FRANC

1580.0000

COSTA RICA – COLON

564.0000

COTE D’IVOIRE – CFA FRANC

562.3300

CROATIA – KUNA

6.2300

CUBA – PESO

1.0000

CYPRUS – EURO

0.8330

CZECH REPUBLIC – KORUNA

20.8840

DENMARK – KRONE

6.2070

DJIBOUTI – FRANC

177.0000

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC – PESO

48.1100

ECAUDOR – DOLARES

1.0000

EGYPT – POUND

17.7300

EL SALVADOR – DOLARES

1.0000

EQUATORIAL GUINEA – CFA FRANC

567.7900

ERITREA – NAKFA

15.0000

ESTONIA – EURO

0.8330

ETHIOPIA – BIRR

27.2000

EURO ZONE – EURO

0.8330

FIJI – DOLLAR

2.0170

FINLAND – EURO

0.8330

FRANCE – EURO

0.8330

GABON – CFA FRANC

567.7900

GAMBIA – DALASI

47.0000

GEORGIA – LARI

2.6100

GERMANY FRG – EURO

0.8330

GHANA – CEDI

4.5200

GREECE – EURO

0.8330

GRENADA – EAST CARIBBEAN DOLLAR

2.7000

GUATEMALA – QUENTZAL

7.3300

GUINEA – FRANC

9004.0000

GUINEA BISSAU – CFA FRANC

562.3300

GUYANA – DOLLAR

215.0000

HAITI – GOURDE

62.9500

HONDURAS – LEMPIRA

23.5000

HONG KONG – DOLLAR

7.8150

HUNGARY – FORINT

258.4500

ICELAND – KRONA

104.0900

INDIA – RUPEE

63.7500

INDONESIA – RUPIAH

13490.0000

IRAN – RIAL

36057.0000

IRAQ – DINAR

1166.0000

IRELAND – EURO

0.8330

ISRAEL – SHEKEL

3.4710

ITALY – EURO

0.8330

JAMAICA – DOLLAR

128.0000

JAPAN – YEN

112.5500

JERUSALEM – SHEKEL

3.4710

JORDAN – DINAR

0.7080

KAZAKHSTAN – TENGE

331.3100

KENYA – SHILLING

103.2000

KOREA – WON

1065.9301

KUWAIT – DINAR

0.3010

KYRGYZSTAN – SOM

69.0000

LAOS – KIP

8274.0000

LATVIA – EURO

0.8330

LEBANON – POUND

1500.0000

LESOTHO – SOUTH AFRICAN RAND

12.3160

LIBERIA – U.S. DOLLAR

125.1700

LIBYA – DINAR

1.3570

LITHUANIA – LITAS

0.8330

LUXEMBOURG – EURO

0.8330

MACAO – MOP

8.0000

MACEDONIA FYROM – DENAR

51.0700

MADAGASCAR – ARIA

3235.6201

MALAWI – KWACHA

731.0000

MALAYSIA – RINGGIT

4.0440

MALI – CFA FRANC

562.3300

MALTA – EURO

0.8330

MARSHALL ISLANDS – DOLLAR

1.0000

MARTINIQUE – EURO

0.8330

MAURITANIA – OUGUIYA

355.0000

MAURITIUS – RUPEE

33.4000

MEXICO – NEW PESO

19.7040

MICRONESIA – DOLLAR

1.0000

MOLDOVA – LEU

17.0580

MONGOLIA – TUGRIK

2427.3999

MONTENEGRO – EURO

0.8330

MOROCCO – DIRHAM

9.3520

MOZAMBIQUE – METICAL

58.8500

NAMIBIA – DOLLAR

12.3160

NEPAL – RUPEE

102.4000

NETHERLANDS – EURO

0.8330

NETHERLANDS ANTILLES – GUILDER

1.7800

NEW ZEALAND – DOLLAR

1.4050

NICARAGUA – CORDOBA

30.6000

NIGER – CFA FRANC

562.3300

NIGERIA – NAIRA

359.0000

NORWAY – KRONE

8.1960

OMAN – RIAL

0.3850

PAKISTAN – RUPEE

110.4000

PALAU – DOLLAR

1.0000

PANAMA – BALBOA

1.0000

PAPUA NEW GUINEA – KINA

3.1350

PARAGUAY – GUARANI

5574.0000

PERU – NUEVO SOL

3.2360

PHILIPPINES – PESO

49.8490

POLAND – ZLOTY

3.4830

PORTUGAL – EURO

0.8330

QATAR – RIYAL

3.6400

ROMANIA – LEU

3.8800

RUSSIA – RUBLE

57.8450

RWANDA – FRANC

855.0000

SAO TOME & PRINCIPE – DOBRAS

20597.2227

SAUDI ARABIA – RIYAL

3.7500

SENEGAL – CFA FRANC

562.3300

SERBIA – DINAR

101.3300

SEYCHELLES – RUPEE

13.3800

SIERRA LEONE – LEONE

7645.0000

SINGAPORE – DOLLAR

1.3360

SLOVAK REPUBLIC – EURO

0.8330

SLOVENIA – EURO

0.8330

SOLOMON ISLANDS – DOLLAR

7.4910

SOMALI – SHILLING

575.0000

SOUTH AFRICA – RAND

12.3160

SOUTH SUDANESE – POUND

126.0000

SPAIN – EURO

0.8330

SRI LANKA – RUPEE

153.4000

ST LUCIA – EC DOLLAR

2.7000

SUDAN – SUDANESE POUND

9.0000

SURINAME – GUILDER

7.5200

SWAZILAND – LILANGENI

12.3160

SWEDEN – KRONA

8.1930

SWITZERLAND – FRANC

0.9750

SYRIA – POUND

515.0000

TAIWAN – DOLLAR

29.6460

TAJIKISTAN – SOMONI

8.7500

TANZANIA – SHILLING

2235.0000

THAILAND – BAHT

32.6000

TIMOR – LESTE – DILI

1.0000

TOGO – CFA FRANC

562.3300

TONGA – PA’ANGA

2.1140

TRINIDAD & TOBAGO – DOLLAR

6.6300

TUNISIA – DINAR

2.4580

TURKEY – LIRA

3.7880

TURKMENISTAN – MANAT

3.4910

UGANDA – SHILLING

3635.0000

UKRAINE – HRYVNIA

28.1450

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES – DIRHAM

3.6730

UNITED KINGDOM – POUND STERLING

0.7400

URUGUAY – PESO

28.7600

UZBEKISTAN – SOM

8030.0000

VANUATU – VATU

105.0000

VENEZUELA – BOLIVAR

3345.0000

VIETNAM – DONG

22708.0000

WESTERN SAMOA – TALA

2.4400

YEMEN – RIAL

250.5000

ZAMBIA – NEW KWACHA

9.9750

ZAMBIA – KWACHA

5455.0000

ZIMBABWE – DOLLAR

1.0000

Sherayzen Law Office Ltd | US International Tax Law Firm

Sherayzen Law Office PLLC hereby gives notice that, as of January 1, 2018, its official owner is Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd (“Sherayzen Law Office Ltd”). Sherayzen Law Office Ltd will continue to utilize “Sherayzen Law Office” as its trade name. Furthermore, Sherayzen Law Office Ltd will continue to maintain the disregarded entity (for tax purposes) Sherayzen Law Office PLLC for an indefinite period of time.

This means that Sherayzen Law Office Ltd is the official name of our international tax law firm as of January 1, 2018. Sherayzen Law Office Ltd has assumed all assets, liabilities, rights and duties of Sherayzen Law Office PLLC as of January 1, 2018.

The change in the corporate structure of Sherayzen Law Office occurred for marketing purposes. “PLLC” is a highly specified form of doing business which is not recognized outside of the United States, whereas “Ltd” is a very common form of doing business worldwide.

Sherayzen Law Office Ltd is an international tax law firm owned by attorney Eugene Sherayzen, Esq., who specializes in US international tax law. In particular, Mr. Sherayzen is a leading expert in the area of offshore voluntary disclosures (IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (“OVDP”), Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures, Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures, Delinquent International Information Return Submission Procedures, Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures, Reasonable Cause Disclosures, et cetera), FATCA compliance (including Form 8938, W8-BEN-E, et cetera), FBAR compliance, international tax compliance (including information returns for the ownership of a foreign business – Forms 5471, 8865, 8858, 926, et cetera), foreign trust US tax compliance (Forms 3520 and 3520-A), foreign inheritance reporting, foreign gift reporting, PFIC compliance (Form 8621), international tax planning and others.

Additionally, Sherayzen Law Office Ltd is helping its clients with domestic tax compliance, IRS audits, appeals to the IRS Office of Appeals and tax litigation.

Sherayzen Law Office Ltd operates worldwide. In fact, since 2005, Sherayzen Law Office has helped hundreds clients from close to 70 countries from every continent: Australia, North America (Canada, Mexico and the United States), South America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Colombia), including Central American countries like Barbados, Belize, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Panama, Africa (Ethiopia, Ivory Coast, Nigeria), the Middle East region of Asia (Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Kuwait, Lebanon, United Emirates and so on), Southeast Asian countries (China, India, Thailand, et cetera), Far Eastern region of Asia (Japan) and the great majority of European countries (Western, Eastern, Northern and Southern Europe) including Great Britain and Ireland as well as Russia.

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Broadcom Re-domiciliation Approved | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

On January 29, 2018, Broadcom Board of Directors approved the plan for Broadcom re-domiciliation in the United States. This move was expected after Broadcom’s November of 2017 pledge to president Trump that the company would return to the United States.

Broadcom Re-domiciliation: A Story of Tax Inversion and Tax Remorse

The story of the Broadcom re-domiciliation began fairly recently in February of 2016. At that time, Broadcom did what was very popular during the Obama administration – tax inversion. California-based Broadcom allowed itself to be acquired by Singapore’s Avago Technologies Limited with the result of creation of a single Singapore entity.

The real motivation for the inversion was lowering the corporate taxes. At that time, during the political climate that existed in the United States, Broadcom thought that it was a good move.

Now, Broadcom believes that the tax inversion might not have been such a great thing to do in light of the new developments and certain consequences that it did not seem to have anticipated prior to tax inversion. First of all, Broadcom’s business in the US has continued to expand as it stepped-up its acquisition strategy. Already in 2017, barely a year and a half after tax inversion, Broadcom has stated that the benefits of this business strategy outweigh the potential additional taxes it might have to pay when it returns to the United States (especially after the tax reform – see below).

Second and closely related to the first reason, as a foreign company based in Singapore, Broadcom is under constant scrutiny of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFI”). CFI focuses on the review of transactions that may result in control of a US business by a foreign person and the impact of such control on US national security. This is an irritating and expensive factor that continuously hinders Broadcom’s acquisition strategy in the United States.

Third, Broadcom apparently did not anticipate that the tax reform be so radical and so beneficial to corporations. There is one issue in particular that makes Broadcom re-domiciliation in the United States so important. At the time of its tax inversion, Broadcom established a deferred tax liability on its balance sheet with respect to integration of the company’s intellectual property (“IP”). Under the old law, this deferred tax liability would have become payable at 35% tax rate in the United States.

Now, under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (“TCJA”), this deferred liability will be recognized in fiscal year 2018 as deemed repatriated foreign earnings at a much lower tax rate. This means that Broadcom re-domiciliation in 2018 will save the company a huge amount in taxes; or, as the company itself put it: “a material reduction in the amount of other long-term liabilities on our balance sheet”.

Broadcom Re-domiciliation Approved Within One Month of TCJA

The tax motivation behind Broadcom re-domiciliation became especially evident in light of the fact that the Broadcom Board approved it within just one month of the passage of TCJA. Moreover, in its filings with SEC, Broadcom directly stated that, as a result of TCJA, the tax cost of being a US-based multinational company has decreased substantially.

Sherayzen Law Office will continue to observe the impact of the recent tax reform on the behavior of US companies that went through tax inversion.

IMF Wants “Modern” Croatian Real Estate Tax | Tax Lawyer News

On January 16, 2018, the International Monetary Fund (“IMF”) released its 2017 Article IV consultation notes with respect to Croatia. Among its recommendations is the introduction of a modern Croatian Real Estate Tax.

Croatian Real Estate Tax: IMF assessment of Croatian Economy

The IMF began on the positive note stating that, in 2017, Croatia continued its third year of positive economic growth, mostly supported by tourism, private consumption, trade partner growth and improved confidence. The IMF also noted that the fiscal consolidation was progressing at a much faster pace than originally anticipated with Croatia leaving the European Union’s Excessive Deficit Procedure in June of 2017. The international organization made other positive comments, particularly stressing that Croatia was overcoming its Agrokor crisis.

Then, the IMF turned increasingly negative. It first noted that, while the balance risks has improved, it was not satisfied with the high level of Croatian public and external debt levels. Then, it stated that the full impact of the Agrokor restructuring is not yet known. The IMF was also unhappy about the pace of structural reforms since 2013 (when Croatia became a member of the EU), further stating that Croatia’s GDP per capita stood at about 60% of the EU average and Croatian business environment remained less favorable than that of its peers.

Finally, the IMF expressed its concerns over the fact that the output did not recover from its pre-recessing level and stated that, in the medium-term, the Croatia’s economic growth is expected to decelerate. Hence, the IMF emphasized that Croatia needed to do more to improve its economic prospects.

Croatian Real Estate Tax: IMF Recommendations

What precisely does Croatia need to do in the IMF opinion? Mainly reduction of public debt.

How does the IMF recommend that Croatia accomplish this task? The IMF made a number of proposals that can be consolidated into five courses of action. First, enhance the efficiency of public services by streamlining public services. Second, keep the wages low and reform the welfare state policies (here, it probably means either slashing the state benefits or privatizing them). Third, relaxing the labor regulations, particularly in the areas of hiring and temporary employment. Fourth, enhancement of legal and property rights. Finally, improvement of the structure of revenue and expenditure.

This last enigmatic phrase is the keyword for reducing the expenses and the introduction of new taxes. In particular, the IMF wants to see an introduction of a modern Croatian real estate tax.

What is a “Modern” Croatian Real Estate Tax According to IMF

The IMF defined a “modern” Croatian real estate tax as a “real estate tax that is based on objective criteria” and the one that “would be more equitable and would yield more revenue than the existing communal fees.” The idea is that “a modern more equitable property tax could allow for a reduction of less growth-friendly taxes.” In fact, the additional revenue derived from this tax “could compensate for a further reduction in the income tax burden, the parafiscal fees, or even VAT.”

It should be noted that the Croatian government already listened to the IMF and tried to impose a Croatian real property tax starting January of 2018, but the implementation of the law was suspended in light of strong public opposition.

Sherayzen Law Office will continue to monitor the situation.