Fluent in English, Spanish & Italian | 888-882-9243

call us toll free: 888-8TAXAID

Yearly Archives: 2011

9th Circuit Finds Fifth Amendment Privilege Does Not Apply to Swiss Banking Records

Ninth Circuit Finds Fifth Amendment Privilege Does Not Apply to Swiss Banking Records - The Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply to records that fall under the Required Records Doctrine.

On August 19, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court’s ruling compelling an individual, M.H., to comply with a grand jury subpoena duces tecum demanding that he produce records relating to foreign bank accounts. The decision turned on the issue of whether the subpoena violated the individual’s Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination or whether the Fifth Amendment did not apply under the Required Records Doctrine.
M.H. was the target of a grand jury investigation into whether he used Swiss bank accounts to evade federal taxes. In 2009, as part of a deferred-prosecution agreement, UBS had provided M.H.’s name, along with approximately 250 others, to the United States Department of Justice, identifying him as someone who might have evaded taxes.

The government’s subpoena sought information that M.H. was required to keep and maintain for inspection under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 ("BSA"), and report to the government annually through the Form TD F 90-22.1, "Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts" or "FBAR," including records reflecting the name of the account holder, the account number, the name and address of each foreign bank maintaining the account, the type of account, and the maximum annual value for each account.
Finding thre elements of the Required Records Doctrine present, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s order compelling M.H. to produce the subpoenaed information. The court’s decision suggests that anyone claiming Fifth Amendment protection for foreign bank records will have a tough battle, particularly in the Ninth Circuit.

For more infromation go to http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/08/19/11-55712.pd



Read more at: Tax Times blog

All Swiss Banks Are Now Ready to Reveal Clients

Swiss banks will probably settle a sweeping U.S. probe of offshore tax evasion by paying billions of dollars and handing over names of thousands of Americans who have secret accounts, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Read more at: Tax Times blog

FATCA Guidance Expected By Year's End

IRS Deputy Associate Chief Counsel (International) Ronald Dabrowski said FATCA guidance is a key priority. The law requires foreign banks to disclose U.S. owned accounts to U.S. tax authorities or face, in some cases, a 30 percent withholding tax.

Speaking at the fall meeting of the American Bar Association Section of Taxation, Dabrowski said IRS is working on guidance on other tax provisions under the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act (Pub. L. No. 111-147), which created FATCA.

The government is committed to getting proposed rules on the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) out by the end of the year.

Regulations under new tax code Section 6038D, which imposes penalties if taxpayers do not report specified foreign financial assets on a form attached to their tax returns, should be out soon, Dabrowski said, noting that the recent draft version of the Form 8938 and instructions are “a good indication of where things are going.”

Read more at: Tax Times blog

The New Gift Tax Audits – IRS Identifies Non-Filers Using State Property Records

A new IRS gift tax compliance initiative responds to suspicions of widespread failure to file gift tax returns. According to Josephine Bonaffini, the Federal/State Coordinator for the IRS Estate and Gift Tax Program, between sixty percent and ninety percent of taxpayers fail to file a gift tax return despite having engaged in a transaction requiring a return.

Although gift tax audits are historically rare, the IRS has examined hundreds of taxpayers in the last two years whom the IRS suspects made large gifts, yet failed to file the appropriate returns. Borrowing from techniques long employed to identify noncompliant taxpayers in the income tax context, the IRS is using records obtained from third parties—namely, land records maintained in state and county offices—to root out intra-family land transfers for little or no consideration.

Land records maintained at local state offices are publicly available. However, the suspect transfers make up a small percentage of these voluminous and decentralized records. Thus, the IRS has asked state and county agencies that compile the relevant records to provide the IRS with those records. For instance, the California constitution contains cap on property tax increases following certain intra-family transfers, which inadvertently results in the California Board of Equalization (“BOE”) segregating the records of interest to the IRS—those on intra-family transfers—from the mass of irrelevant property records.

State or county agencies in fifteen states, including New York and Texas, have voluntarily agreed to provide records similar to those maintained by the California BOE. There is no reason to believe that the IRS has not made similar requests to agencies within many more, if not all, states, and more voluntary compliance from individual states may be forthcoming.

The recent flurry of gift tax compliance activity took many in the tax community by surprise. The compliance initiative received no appreciable public attention until the recent dispute in California federal court (discussed in more detail below), and the IRS has declined to comment on the initiative beyond the information provided in documents filed in that case. This mysterious quality gives the IRS’s recent activity the aura of a “stealth” program.

As with any federal tax law violation, the government may impose severe consequences for violating the gift tax provisions. But one curious aspect of the new gift tax compliance initiative is that the majority of examinations likely result in zero assessed tax or penalties.

According to Bonaffini, in the past two years, 323 taxpayers have been audited for failure to file gift tax returns relating to gifts of real property, 217 cases were still under examination, and another 250 cases were being researched to determine whether to conduct gift tax audits. At the time, the IRS had determined that ninety-seven taxpayers had violated gift tax reporting requirements by failing to file, and just twelve cases resulted in assessment of tax and penalties.

Although several states apparently complied voluntarily with the IRS’s requests for records, California did not. Rather, when the IRS requested the California BOE produce the neatly segregated records of intra-family transfers discussed above, the BOE refused, citing a state statute which forbids disclosure of personal information absent a court order.

On May 23, 2011, the court issued an order whereby it disagreed with the government and refused to issue the summons.

The IRS may heed the court’s suggestion and simply attempt to seek the relevant records directly from the counties. Alternatively, the government may resubmit its petition in federal court, in which case the tax community will await another court order. In any event, the court’s denial of the government’s petition may embolden additional states to refuse the IRS’s request for records.

For more information go to: http://www.forbes.com/sites/irswatch/2011/10/19/the-new-gift-tax-audits-irs-identifies-non-filers-

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Live Help