Articles Posted in Tax Disputes

A Los Angeles, California man pled guilty to one count of failing to file a Foreign Bank Account Form TDF 90.22-1 (FBAR) pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act 31 USC 5314. This is the fourth person with a UBS Swiss bank account to plead guilty to tax evasion charges. John McCarthy admitted that he skimmed funds from his business, and sent it to an offshore bank account at UBS held in the name of his Hong Kong corporation. According to the plea agreement it was UBS, and his Swiss lawyers who came up with this idea that created all of McCarthy’s offshore tax problems. The IRS found out about McCarthy when UBS turned over his name as part of the criminal tax case against UBS that was resolved earlier this year. The maximum penalty that the Court can impose is five years in prison; a fine of $250,000, or twice the amount of gross gain or loss from the offense whichever is greater. Sentencing hasn’t yet occurred. In addition, McCarthy agreed to civil FBAR penalties equal to 50% of the highest year balance in the account will be imposed, along with a 75% civil tax fraud penalty.

Most interesting to me about the case is that the IRS is reaching lower down the food chain. The amount of the unpaid tax was somewhere between $200,000 and $400,00 spread over a 5 year period. Assuming a 33% tax rate this suggests unreported income of as little as $120,000 per year. While this is hardly chicken feed, it shows the IRS willingness to prosecute medium size tax evasion cases.

If you have a foreign financial account, or any kind of tax problem contact the tax lawyers at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C.

On Wednesday, the UBS offshore tax evasion case moved one step closer to UBS disclosing the names of persons the IRS believes have committed tax fraud and/or failed to file TD F-90-22.1, Foreign Bank Account Report (FBAR). The IRS announced that it had “initialed a settlement” with the Swiss government to settle the suit seeking the names of 52,000 U.S. persons with offshore UBS bank accounts. The terms of the settlement has not yet been disclosed, but most tax attorneys believe that it will require UBS to provide the names of thousands of Swiss bank account holders. The IRS has said that the terms will not be disclosed until final signatures have been obtained on the settlement, and that could occur as early as next week.

Some tax lawyers speculate that it will be only the names of the largest UBS account holders that will be disclosed, but I tend to disagree. Any settlement would have to provide the Swiss with a fig leaf to argue that they had not compromised their privacy laws. One way of doing this would be to loosen the interpretation of tax fraud under Swiss law, and provide the names of individuals who engaged in some activity suggesting they were covering up the existence of the offshore account. For example, holders of numbered accounts, or accounts held in the name of dummy corporations or trusts, or perhaps dual citizens of the U.S. and other countries who did not use their U.S. passports to open the accounts.

Once the settlement terms have been announced it is unknown how quickly names of UBS Swiss bank account holders will be turned over. However, once the IRS has the names it will be too late for those individuals to participate in the IRS tax amnesty, and receive the benefits of the offshore voluntary disclosure program.

On Friday it was announced that UBS and the Internal Revenue Service had reached a settlement in the IRS lawsuit against UBS. The lawsuit sought to require UBS to turn over the names of 52,000 U.S persons with Swiss bank accounts at UBS. The IRS believes that the owners of some of these offshore accounts failed to file foreign bank account reports (FBARs), and may also have engaged in tax fraud. Settlement negotiations have been ongoing, and apparently those discussions have focused on how many offshore account holder names will be turned over to the IRS. The terms of the deal have not been announced, and the parties have agreed not to reveal the details at this time. The final settlement papers are due to be filed on August 7th, at which point I expect that the IRS will reveal how many offshore account holders names will be turned over.

This puts the holders of offshore financial accounts at UBS in a precarious position. Once UBS turns over the information those folks will no longer be eligible to make a voluntary disclosure under the IRS tax amnesty program, and will subject the owners of these Swiss bank accounts at risk for the 50% FBAR penalty, possible criminal prosecution for tax evasion, and a pile of other tax problems.

UBS Swiss bank account holders would be well advised to speak with a tax attorney to decide whether or not to participate in the tax amnesty because the window may be closing very shortly.

The past few months have been filled with contention from the Swiss government and UBS in response to the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) “John Doe Summons,” which seeks to have UBS turn over the names of their US account holders. So far, UBS has been unwilling to provide the names of all but 250 or so Swiss bank accounts holders. UBS officials argue that disclosing names is a violation of Swiss law.

Several days ago Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a legal brief arguing that its summons to obtain offshore bank account information is enforceable under both US and Swiss law. DOJ points out that Swiss secrecy laws provide disclosure exceptions for certain circumstances – such as when providing information to an “authority,” and if approved by a UBS “regulator.” The fact that the law explicitly states there are exceptions, and that a person who violates this law can be exonerated in certain circumstances, leads the DOJ to conclude that Swiss law permits UBS to release the names of US taxpayers with offshore accounts.

Without commenting on the merits, it would seem that those with Swiss bank accounts have two basic choices:

When the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released its FBAR tax amnesty FAQs it stated that there would be no standard list of questions asked of foreign bank account holders who made a voluntary disclosure. The Wall Street Journal reported that at least one tax attorney has stated that his clients have been asked 30 standard questions. None of the questions are particularly surprising and are in line with questions our clients have been asked under the IRS’ previous voluntary compliance initiative (VCI). Nevertheless no-one who is filing for the FBAR tax amnesty should consider answering them without a tax attorney present, and maybe not even then. The questions appear designed to probe for signs of tax evasion, or tax fraud, as well assure the IRS that all Foreign Bank Account Reports Form 90-22.1 (FBARs) being filed are accurate. More troubling to tax preparers is that some of the questions are also designed to see if the tax preparer was complicit in the non-filing which could expose him or her to tax preparer penalties, or even criminal tax charges. It seems a CPA or other tax preparer who prepared the original tax returns must consider very carefully whether he has a conflict of interest before he represents that person in making a voluntary disclosure.

According to the Wall Street Journal those questions were:

• Is it your statement that the tax payers are willing to comply with the IRS and make a good faith arrangement to pay all taxes, penalties, fees and interest?

I have been speaking a lot lately to the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) tax amnesty hotline to obtain answers to the many practical questions that have arisen under the IRS Tax Amnesty a.k.a. tax amnesty program take place?” The agent that I spoke with at the tax audits will be centralized. Twenty revenue agents have undergone tax amnesty revenue agents have only just begun looking at civil tax audits, and these are for tax amnesty guidelines. My guess is that tax audits by the IRS for another 6 months.

If you are considering a IRS tax amnesty program, contact the tax litigation attorney who understands all of the details of your case.

The IRS has just issued new FAQs related to the Foreign Bank Account Reports (FBAR). There are 21 new offshore financial account penalty as part of the FBAR prior post. If the taxpayer disagrees with the imposition of the penalties then the taxpayer may go to the IRS Appeals Division.

It is unfortunate that the IRS has chosen to take this draconian stance with respect to the tax litigation attorneys are currently advising clients with tax attorneys at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C.