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

call us toll free: 888-8TAXAID

Monthly Archives: April 2013

The Noose Tightens as Criminal Charges are brought against a Swiss Banker and a Swiss Attorney.

Authorities charged a Swiss banker and a Swiss attorney with helping American clients hide millions of dollars in offshore accounts to evade paying taxes.

The case is the latest in a string of prosecutions from the Justice Department aimed at curtailing offshore tax evasion services sold by Swiss and Swiss-style banks.

Stefan Buck and Edgar Paltzer were each charged with one count of conspiracy, an indictment filed in Manhattan federal court showed. It did not name the defendants' employers.

Buck is the head of private banking and a member of the executive board at "Swiss Bank No. 1," while Paltzer is a partner at a "Swiss Law Firm" and was admitted to the New York bar in 1988, according to the indictment.

Zurich-based Bank Frey lists Stefan Buck as its head of private banking and a member of its
executive board on its website.

The Swiss law firm Niederer Kraft & Frey lists Edgar Paltzer as a partner on its website, and New York state records show he was admitted to the New York bar in 1988.

According to the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's office, which brought the charges, Buck's bank saw an increase of 300 percent in U.S. taxpayers as clients between the time of UBS's settlement and Wegelin's indictment in February 2012.

Around $938 million, or 44 percent, of the bank's $2.1 billion in managed assets as of September 2012 was held by U.S. taxpayers, prosecutors said.

Buck and Paltzer opened and managed undeclared accounts for U.S. clients who had been informed by other Swiss banks that they had to close their accounts there.

Both men reside in Switzerland, and neither has been arrested, prosecutors said.

Paltzer, a dual U.S.-Swiss citizen, is admitted to practice law in New York, authorities said.

The defendants each face fines and a maximum prison sentence of five years.

The case is U.S.A. v Paltzer and Buck, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 13-282.

Are you a US Person with a Not So Secret Foreign Bank Account?

Having FATCA Problems?Contact the Tax Lawyers at Marini & Associates, P.A.

for a FREE Tax Consultation at:
Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243).

Source:

Reuters

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Obama Budget Would Bring Parody To FATCA Information Exchange

The Obama fiscal year 2014 budget contains language that would require the United States to collect and exchange the same kinds of information under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) that the United States is seeking from other countries.

The Obama administration may soon ask Congress for the power to require more disclosure by U.S. banks of information about foreign clients' accounts to those clients' home governments, as part of a crackdown on tax evasion.

 

Read more at: Tax Times blog

The IRS Can Read Your Emails If It Wants.

If you've been swapping emails with your accountant about the best way to avoid paying taxes, be aware: The IRS says it has the right to go into your account and read them.

A report from the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a Freedom of Information Act request to find out whether the IRS is reading your emails without a warrant.

A bit of background is necessary here. When it comes to getting a warrant to read your email, the relevant law is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which was enacted way back in 1986. As you might expect, the law is a bit dated: According to the law, a government agency can read your email without a warrant as long as the email has been opened, or if it's been sitting in your inbox for more than 180 days. Only unopened email that's been on the server for less than 180 days requires a warrant.
aware: The IRS says it has the right to go into your account and read them.

It's exactly the kind of arbitrary distinction you might expect from a law written before email was widely used and understood. And accordingly, a Sixth Circuit appeals court ruled in 2010 that in fact, agencies needed to get a warrant before reading any emails, not just those that were new and unopened.

Before that decision, the IRS was certainly opening emails without warrants -- in fact, the ACLU got hold of an internal handbook claiming that the "the Fourth Amendment does not protect communications held in electronic storage."

The question, then, is whether those practices changed after the Sixth Circuit decision.

The ACLU is calling on the IRS to amend its procedures to bring them in line with the Fourth Amendment. In the meantime, just be aware that the taxman might sift through your inbox if he thinks you're holding something back.
 

Do you Have IRS Problems?

Contact the Tax Lawyers at Marini & Associates, P.A.

for a FREE Tax Consultation at www.TaxAid.us or www.TaxLaw.ms or
Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243).

 
Source: 
 
Daily Finance

Read more at: Tax Times blog

CCA Finds That Information Reporting Penalties Are Divisable Taxes For The “Full Payment Rule” for a Refund Suit.

In Chief Counsel Advice 201315017, the IRS has determined that the penalties under Code Sec. 6721 for failure to file an information return and Code Sec. 6722 for failure to furnish a correct payee statement are divisible taxes for purposes of establishing refund suit jurisdiction.
 
The penalties are calculated on a per-transaction basis, and the penalties are waived on an individual basis if the failure at issue is due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.
 
To meet the jurisdictional requirements of a refund suit, a taxpayer must generally make full payment of assessed taxes due before the matter may be adjudicated. See Flora, 362 U.S. at 177. In general, the partial payment of assessed taxes or a proposed deficiency is insufficient to support refund suit jurisdiction. Id. 
 
The majority opinion in Flora, however, noted that one possible exception to the full payment rule might exist where certain “tax assessments may be divisible into a tax on each transaction or event, so that the full-payment rule would probably require no more than payment of a small amount.” Flora, 362 U.S. at 175-78, n.38. The Court was referring at that time to excise taxes. The Court’s analysis, however, hinged divisibility on a tax being levied on each transaction or event.
 
The CCA found that the Code Sec. 6721 and Code Sec. 6722 penalties are divisible penalties. Therefore, Taxpayer was only required to pay the divisible amount of the penalty attributable to a single failure before filing a refund claim and instituting a refund suit under Code Sec. 7422.

Disagree with the IRS' Assessment of an Exercise or Withholding Tax?

Want to Pay for 1Incident or 1 Transaction and Sue in Court Of Claims for Refund?

Contact the Tax Lawyers of Marini & Associates, P.A.

for a FREE Tax Consultation at: www.TaxAid.us or www.TaxLaw.ms or
Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243).
 
 

Read more at: Tax Times blog