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

call us toll free: 888-8TAXAID

Yearly Archives: 2017

Online Poker Accounts Not Subject to FBAR But Payment Processing Account Is.

November 29, 2017

In U.S. v. Hom, (CA 9 7/26/2016), 118 AFTR 2d ¶ 2016-5057 the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, affirming in part and reversing in part a district court decision, has found that one of three accounts a taxpayer maintained to facilitate online poker was with a financial company and had to be reported on a Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts Report (FBAR). 
 

However, the 2 online poker services, which created accounts for him in foreign countries,

 weren't financial companies subject to FBAR reporting.


Under the Bank Secrecy Act, U.S. citizens must file an FBAR with the U.S. Treasury disclosing any financial account in a foreign country with assets in excess of $10,000 in which they have a financial interest or over which they have signatory or other authority. (31 USC 5314)
 
IRS assessed Hom with 31 USC 5321(a)(5) penalties for his failure to submit FBARs regarding his interest in his FirePay, PokerStars, and PartyPoker accounts.
 

The district court found that Hom's accounts with FirePay, PokerStars, and PartyPoker had to be reported on an FBAR. (U.S. v. Hom, (DC CA 6/4/2014).
 
Hom admitted that he opened up all three accounts in his name, controlled access to the accounts, deposited money into the accounts, withdrew or transferred money from the accounts to other entities at will, and could carry a balance on the accounts. Thus, the district court held that FirePay, PokerStars, and PartyPoker functioned as banks, and Hom's online accounts with them were reportable.
 
As to whether the accounts were located in foreign countries, the district court agreed with IRS,“located in” refers to where the financial institution that created and managed the account is located. It said that it was irrelevant where PokerStars, FirePay, or PartyPoker opened their bank accounts; these accounts belonged to them, not Hom. Rather, his accounts were digital constructs that these financial institutions, all located outside of the U.S., created and maintained on his behalf. The court said that the Treasury had reasonably interpreted the statute in finding that an account's location is determined by the location of its host institution, not where the physical money might be stored after it is sent to a financial institution.
Image result for POKER STARS 
Hom appealed and the Ninth Circuit, agreed with the district court, that Hom's FirePay account fit within the definition of a financial institution for purposes of FBAR filing requirements because FirePay was a money transmitter under 31 USC 5312(a)(2) .
 

However, Unlike the District Court, the Ninth Circuit Found that Hom's PokerStars & PartyPoker Accounts
Did Not Fall Within the Definition of a
“Bank, Securities, or Other Financial Account.”

 
The Court reasoned that FirePay acted as an intermediary between Hom's Wells Fargo account and the online poker sites. Hom could carry a balance in his FirePay account, and he could transfer his FirePay funds to either his Wells Fargo account or his online poker accounts. It also appeared that FirePay charged fees to transfer funds. As such, FirePay acted as “a licensed sender of money or any other person who engages as a business in the transmission of funds” under 31 USC 5312(a)(2)(R), and so qualified as a “financial institution.”
 
Hom's FirePay account was also “in a foreign country” because FirePay was located in and regulated by the United Kingdom. The Court referenced IRS's FBAR Reference Guide (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/irsfbarreferenceguide.pdf, (last visited July 19, 2016)): “Typically, a financial account that is maintained with a financial institution located outside of the United States is a foreign financial account.”

 

On the other hand, the Court found that PartyPoker and PokerStars primarily facilitated online gambling. Hom could carry a balance on his PokerStars account, and indeed he needed a certain balance in order to “sit” down to a poker game. But the funds were used to play poker, and there was no evidence that PokerStars served any other financial purpose for Hom. His PartyPoker account functioned in essentially same manner.
 
The Ninth Circuit rejected IRS's argument that these entities were functioning as banks. Because neither the statute nor the regs defined banking, the Court looked to the plain meaning of the term.
 
It determined that there was no evidence that PartyPoker and PokerStars were established for any of the purposes of a bank; it defined “bank” as an establishment for the custody, loan, exchange, or issue of money, for the extension of credit, and for facilitating the transmission of funds.
 
Rather, accounts at PartyPoker and PokerStars were established for the purpose of facilitating poker playing.

Do You Have an FBAR Problem?
 
 
 Contact the Tax Lawyers at 

Marini & Associates, P.A.  
 
 

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

  

 

Read more at: Tax Times blog

No Motion To Dismiss For a Taxpayer With Hidden Foreign Bank Accounts

November 29, 2017

According to Law360 a Washington federal judge on October 6, 2017 declined to toss the U.S. government’s suit accusing a man of willfully failing to disclose foreign bank accounts, finding that the allegations could reasonably lead the court to infer that the man understood IRS reporting requirements.

In denying Jeffrey P. Pomerantz’s motion to dismiss the case, U.S. District Judge Marsha J. Pechman found that the government had alleged enough to allow the court “to draw the reasonable inference” that Pomerantz willfully failed to report his accounts with the Canada Imperial Bank of Commerce to the Internal Revenue Service in a Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts form. Judge Pechman noted that in an amended complaint, the government had contended that Pomerantz filed timely FBAR forms for the accounts a handful of times before he stopped reporting them.

“This allegation is sufficient to demonstrate that Mr. Pomerantz understood the reporting requirements regarding the CIBC accounts long before 2007, the first year that the government alleges Mr. Pomerantz willfully failed to report his income in these accounts,” Judge Pechman said.

Pomerantz, a U.S. citizen who is currently residing in British Columbia, Canada, was sued by the government in May 2016. In their complaint, government attorneys alleged that Pomerantz owed a little more than $860,000 in penalties for failing to timely file an FBAR form reporting his interest in foreign bank accounts for 2007 through 2009.

The accounts at issue include two personal accounts Pomerantz opened in Canada with the CBIC and Swiss bank accounts held by an entity called Chafford Ltd., which the government claimed was a shell company Pomerantz used to hold his personal investments.

U.S. District Judge James L. Robart, who was overseeing the case before Judge Pechman, tossed the complaint in June. He found that the government did not sufficiently allege that Pomerantz acted “willfully” in his failure to file FBAR forms regarding his personal CBIC checking accounts or that Pomerantz was aware of the reporting requirements.

However, Judge Robart did find enough facts to support the contention that Pomerantz sought to evade reporting requirements by creating bank accounts for Chafford. Judge Robart also gave the government another chance to make a case regarding the CIBC accounts.

Judge Pechman on October 6, 2017 also said that in the government’s amended complaint, there are additional allegations, including ones regarding Pomerantz’s tax returns for the years at issue, which report some of the income from the CIBC accounts, but not “higher maximum” balances, that also support the inference that Pomerantz knew his conduct was unlawful.

“The government’s amended complaint therefore pleads sufficient factual content to allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant willfully failed to file FBAR forms for the CIBC accounts,” Judge Pechman said.

Pomerantz, who is pro se, had urged Judge Pechman to dismiss the amended complaint, in part because he argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. However, Judge Pechman found he had waived that defense because he did not bring it up earlier.

In addition, Pomerantz had contended that the government is barred from raising the same claims that it lodged in the original complaint.

However, Judge Pechman noted that the government “correctly argues” that the res judicata and collateral estoppel doctrines preclude relitigating issues that were covered in a final judgment, but a dismissal without prejudice does not qualify as one.

Pomerantz had also urged the court to strike from the amended complaint the government’s references to what he said was “an unrelated” case before the U.S. Tax Court.

However, Judge Pechman declined to remove those portions of the complaint, citing the government's argument that claimed that Pomerantz’s admissions in the Tax Court case of “fraudulent intent” in failing to report income generated by the accounts at issue is “certainly probative of [his] state of mind.”

The case is U.S. v. Pomerantz, case number 2:16-cv-00689, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Undeclared Income from an Offshore Bank Account?
 
 
 Want to Know if the OVDP Program is Right for You?

 
 
Contact the Tax Lawyers at 
Marini& Associates, P.A. 
 
for a FREE Tax Consultation
at: www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com or
Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243

 
 
 

 

Read more at: Tax Times blog

325% Cost Where IRS Discovers Your Offshore Account! — Do You Feel Lucky?

November 28, 2017

There are both civil and criminal penalties for failure to file a

Foreign Bank Account Report 90-22.1 (FBAR).  

Criminal Penalties:
 
FAQ  #6:  What are some of the criminal charges I might face if I don't come in under OVDP and the IRS examines me? 
 
Possible criminal charges related to tax returns include tax evasion (26 U.S.C. § 7201), filing a false return (26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)) and failure to file an income tax return (26 U.S.C. § 7203). Willfully failing to file an FBAR and willfully filing a false FBAR are both violations that are subject to criminal penalties under 31 U.S.C. § 5322. 

· A person convicted of tax evasion is subject to a prison term of up to five years and a fine of up to $250,000.
· Filing a false return subjects a person to a prison term of up to three years and a fine of up to $250,000.
· A person who fails to file a tax return is subject to a prison term of up to one year and a fine of up to $100,000.
· Failing to file an FBAR subjects a person to a prison term of up to ten years and criminal penalties of up to $500,000. 

Civil Penalties

FAQ  #5: What are some of the civil penalties that might apply if I don't come in under the OVPD and the IRS examines me? How do they work? 

Depending on a taxpayer’s particular facts and circumstances, the following penalties could apply:

· A penalty for failing to file the Form TD F 90-22.1 (Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, commonly known as an “FBAR”). United States citizens, residents and certain other persons must annually report their direct or indirect financial interest in, or signature authority (or other authority that is comparable to signature authority) over, a financial account that is maintained with a financial institution located in a foreign country if, for any calendar year, the aggregate value of all foreign accounts exceeded $10,000 at any time during the year. Generally, the civil penalty for willfully failing to file an FBAR can be as high as the greater of $100,000 or 50 percent of the total balance of the foreign account per violation. See 31 U.S.C. § 5321(a)(5). Non-willful violations that the IRS determines were not due to reasonable cause are subject to a $10,000 penalty per violation.
 
· Beginning with the 2011 tax year, a penalty for failing to file form 8938 reporting the taxpayer’s interest in certain foreign financial assets, including financial accounts, certain foreign securities and interests in foreign entities, as required by I.R.C. §6038D. The penalty for failing to file each one of these information returns is $10,000, with an additional $10,000 added for each month the failure continues beginning 90 days after the taxpayer is notified of the delinquency, up to a maximum of $50,000 per return.
 
· A penalty for failing to file Form 3520, Annual Return to Report Transactions With Foreign Trusts and Receipt of Certain Foreign Gifts. Taxpayers must also report various transactions involving foreign trusts, including creation of a foreign trust by a United States person, transfers of property from a United States person to a foreign trust and receipt of distributions from foreign trusts under IRC § 6048.This return also reports the receipt of gifts from foreign entities under section 6039F.The penalty for failing to file each one of these information returns, or for filing an incomplete return, is the greater of $10,000 or 35 percent of the gross reportable amount, except for returns reporting gifts, where the penalty is five percent of the gift per month, up to a maximum penalty of 25 percent of the gift.
 
· A penalty for failing to file Form 3520-A, Information Return of Foreign Trust With a U.S. Owner. Taxpayers must also report ownership interests in foreign trusts, by United States persons with various interests in and powers over those trusts under IRC § 6048(b).The penalty for failing to file each one of these information returns or for filing an incomplete return, is the greater of $10,000 or 5 percent of the gross value of trust assets determined to be owned by the United States person.
 
· A penalty for failing to file Form 5471, Information Return of U.S. Persons with Respect to Certain Foreign Corporations. Certain United States persons who are officers, directors or shareholders in certain foreign corporations (including International Business Corporations) are required to report information under IRC §§ 6035, 6038 and 6046.The penalty for failing to file each one of these information returns is $10,000, with an additional $10,000 added for each month the failure continues beginning 90 days after the taxpayer is notified of the delinquency, up to a maximum of $50,000 per return.
 
· A penalty for failing to file Form 5472, Information Return of a 25% Foreign-Owned U.S. Corporation or a Foreign Corporation Engaged in a U.S. Trade or Business. Taxpayers may be required to report transactions between a 25 percent foreign-owned domestic corporation or a foreign corporation engaged in a trade or business in the United States and a related party as required by IRC §§ 6038A and 6038C. The penalty for failing to file each one of these information returns, or to keep certain records regarding reportable transactions, is $10,000, with an additional $10,000 added for each month the failure continues beginning 90 days after the taxpayer is notified of the delinquency.
 
· A penalty for failing to file Form 926, Return by a U.S. Transferor of Property to a Foreign Corporation. Taxpayers are required to report transfers of property to foreign corporations and other information under IRC § 6038B. The penalty for failing to file each one of these information returns is ten percent of the value of the property transferred, up to a maximum of $100,000 per return, with no limit if the failure to report the transfer was intentional.
 
· A penalty for failing to file Form 8865, Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Partnerships. United States persons with certain interests in foreign partnerships use this form to report interests in and transactions of the foreign partnerships, transfers of property to the foreign partnerships, and acquisitions, dispositions and changes in foreign partnership interests under IRC §§ 6038, 6038B, and 6046A. Penalties include $10,000 for failure to file each return, with an additional $10,000 added for each month the failure continues beginning 90 days after the taxpayer is notified of the delinquency, up to a maximum of $50,000 per return, and ten percent of the value of any transferred property that is not reported, subject to a $100,000 limit.
 
· Fraud penalties imposed under IRC §§ 6651(f) or 6663. Where an underpayment of tax, or a failure to file a tax return, is due to fraud, the taxpayer is liable for penalties that, although calculated differently, essentially amount to 75 percent of the unpaid tax.
 
· A penalty for failing to file a tax return imposed under IRC § 6651(a)(1). Generally, taxpayers are required to file income tax returns. If a taxpayer fails to do so, a penalty of 5 percent of the balance due, plus an additional 5 percent for each month or fraction thereof during which the failure continues may be imposed. The penalty shall not exceed 25 percent.
 
· A penalty for failing to pay the amount of tax shown on the return under IRC § 6651(a)(2). If a taxpayer fails to pay the amount of tax shown on the return, he or she may be liable for a penalty of .5 percent of the amount of tax shown on the return, plus an additional .5 percent for each additional month or fraction thereof that the amount remains unpaid, not exceeding 25 percent.
 
· An accuracy-related penalty on underpayments imposed under IRC § 6662. Depending upon which component of the accuracy-related penalty is applicable, a taxpayer may be liable for a 20 percent or 40 percent penalty.

FAQ  #8: Example of Application of Civil Penalties

It is assumed for purposes of the example that the $1,000,000 was in the account before 2003 and was not unreported income in 2003.

Year
Amount on Deposit
Interest Income
Account Balance
2003
$1,000,000
$50,000
$1,050,000
2004
 
$50,000
$1,100,000
2005
 
$50,000
$1,150,000
2006
 
$50,000
$1,200,000
2007
 
$50,000
$1,250,000
2008
 
$50,000
$1,300,000
2009
 
$50,000
$1,350,000
2010
 
$50,000
$1,400,000

(NOTE: This example does not provide for compounded interest, and assumes the taxpayer is in the 35-percent tax bracket, does not have an investment in a Passive Foreign Investment Company (PFIC), files a return but does not include the foreign account or the interest income on the return, and the maximum applicable penalties are imposed.) 
 
If the taxpayers didn’t come forward, when the IRS discovered their offshore activities, they would face up to $4,543,000 in tax, accuracy-related penalty, and FBAR penalty (325% of the Highest Balance in the Account!).
 
The Taxpayers Would Also be Liable for Interest and
Possibly Additional Penalties & an
Examination Could Lead to
Criminal Prosecution.
 
 
 
 
What about Reasonable Basis For Failure to Include Income & File an FBAR Report?

If the holder of an offshore account can successfully convince the IRS that the failure to file the FBAR was not willful then the penalties would be limited to $10,000 per violation. However, the IRS takes the position that a separate violation occurs for each bank account that is not listed on the FBAR. So for example if an offshore bank account holder has 6 separate accounts the penalty would be $60,000. As with the willful FBAR penalty this penalty, this penalty can be imposed for multiple years so that the total of these penalties can easily grow into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

It is only if the holder of an offshore account can convince the IRS that the failure to file an FBAR is due to "reasonable cause" that the FBAR penalty will be waived. 
Generally speaking the IRS has been intransigent on this topic, and it is the rare case where the IRS will agree that there is reasonable cause for failure to file an FBAR. In appropriate cases the only way to relief may be through litigation.

Undeclared Income from an Offshore Bank Account?
 
 
 Want to Know if the OVDP Program is Right for You?

 
 
Contact the Tax Lawyers at 
Marini& Associates, P.A. 
 
for a FREE Tax Consultation
at: www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com or
Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243

 
 
 

 

 
 

Read more at: Tax Times blog

146 Offshore Banks & Now Financial Advisors Are Turning Over Your Names To The IRS – What Are Your Waiting For?

November 22, 2017

On April 7, 2017 we posted 145 Offshore Banks & Now Financial Advisors Are Turning Over Your Names To The IRS - What Are Your Waiting For? and since then the Government has add 1 more Financial Advisor Prime Partners SA (effective 8/15/17) to this list bringing the number to 146 Offshore Banks and Foreign Financial Advisors.

The IRS keeps updating its list of foreign banks which are turning over the names of their US Account Holders, who are now subject to a 50% (rather than 27.5%) penalty in the IRS’s Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP). This penalty is based on the highest account balance measured over up to eight years. 

 Under the program, banks are required to:

  • Make a complete disclosure of their cross-border activities;
  • Provide detailed information on an account-by-account basis for accounts in which U.S. taxpayers have a direct or indirect interest;
  • Cooperate in treaty requests for account information;
  • Provide detailed information as to other banks that transferred funds into secret accounts or that accepted funds when secret accounts were closed;
  • Agree to close accounts of account holders who fail to come into compliance with U.S. reporting obligations; and
  • Pay appropriate penalties.

These Banks, Financial Instructions and Foreign Financial Advisors  have made substantial efforts to cooperate with the IRS investigation, including by:

  1. facilitating interviews that their Office with employees, including top level executives;
  2. voluntarily producing documents in response to the Office’s requests;
  3. providing, in response to a treaty request, unredacted client files for the U.S. taxpayer-clients who maintained accounts at their Banks or Financial Instruction; and
  4. committing to assist in responding to a treaty request that is expected to result in the production of un-redacted client files for U.S. taxpayer-clients who maintained accounts at these Banks and Financial Instructions and with these Foreign Financial Advisors. 

The complete list of Offshore Banks and Foreign Financial Advisors who are turning over the names of their US Account Holders, who are now subject to a 50% (rather than 27.5%) penalty in the IRS’s Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) is as of January 31, 2017: 

  1. UBS AG
  2. Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Fides, and Clariden Leu Ltd.
  3. Wegelin & Co.
  4. Liechtensteinische Landesbank AG
  5. Zurcher Kantonalbank
  6. swisspartners Investment Network AG, swisspartners Wealth Management AG, swisspartners Insurance Company SPC Ltd., and swisspartners Versicherung AG
  7. CIBC FirstCaribbean International Bank Limited, its predecessors, subsidiaries, and affiliates
  8. Stanford International Bank, Ltd., Stanford Group Company, and Stanford Trust Company, Ltd.
  9. The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited in India (HSBC India)
  10. The Bank of N.T. Butterfield & Son Limited (also known as Butterfield Bank and Bank of Butterfield), its predecessors, subsidiaries, and affiliates
  11. Sovereign Management & Legal, Ltd., its predecessors, subsidiaries, and affiliates (effective 12/19/14)
  12. 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)
  13. BSI SA (effective 3/30/15)
  14. Vadian Bank AG (effective 5/8/15)
  15. Finter Bank Zurich AG (effective 5/15/15)  
  16. Societe Generale Private Banking (Lugano-Svizzera) SA (effective 5/28/15)
  17. MediBank AG (effective 5/28/15)
  18. LBBW (Schweiz) AG (effective 5/28/15)
  19. Scobag Privatbank AG (effective 5/28/15)  
  20. Rothschild Bank AG (effective 6/3/15)
  21. Banca Credinvest SA (effective 6/3/15)
  22. Societe Generale Private Banking (Suisse) SA (effective 6/9/15)
  23. Berner Kantonalbank AG (effective 6/9/15)
  24. Bank Linth LLB AG (effective 6/19/15)
  25. Bank Sparhafen Zurich AG (effective 6/19/15)
  26. Ersparniskasse Schaffhausen AG (effective 6/26/15)
  27. Privatbank Von Graffenried AG (effective 7/2/15)
  28. Banque Pasche SA (effective 7/9/15)
  29. ARVEST Privatbank AG (effective 7/9/15)
  30. Mercantil Bank (Schweiz) AG (effective 7/16/15)
  31. Banque Cantonale Neuchateloise (effective 7/16/15)
  32. Nidwaldner Kantonalbank (effective 7/16/15)
  33. SB Saanen Bank AG (effective 7/23/15)
  34. Privatbank Bellerive AG (effective 7/23/15)
  35. PKB Privatbank AG (effective 7/30/15)
  36. Falcon Private Bank AG (effective 7/30/15)
  37. Credito Privato Commerciale in liquidazione SA (effective 7/30/15)
  38. Bank EKI Genossenschaft (effective 8/3/15)
  39. Privatbank Reichmuth & Co. (effective 8/6/15)
  40. Banque Cantonale du Jura SA (effective 8/6/15)
  41. Banca Intermobiliare di Investimenti e Gestioni (Suisse) SA (effective 8/6/15)  
  42. bank zweiplus ag (effective 8/20/15)
  43. Banca dello Stato del Cantone Ticino (effective 8/20/15)
  44. Hypothekarbank Lenzburg AG (effective 8/27/15)
  45. Schroder & Co. Bank AG (effective 9/3/15)
  46. Valiant Bank AG (effective 9/10/15)
  47. Bank La Roche & Co AG (effective 9/15/15)
  48. Belize Bank International Limited, Belize Bank Limited, Belize Corporate Services Limited, their predecessors, subsidiaries, and affiliates (effective 9/16/15)
  49. St. Galler Kantonalbank AG (effective 9/17/15)
  50. E. Gutzwiller & Cie, Banquiers (effective 9/17/15)
  51. Migros Bank AG (effective 9/25/15)
  52. Graubundner Katonalbank (effective 9/25/15)
  53. BHF-Bank (Schweiz) AG (effective 10/1/15)
  54. Finacor SA (effective 10/6/15)
  55. Schaffhauser Kantonalbank (effective 10/8/15)
  56. BBVA Suiza S.A. (effective 10/16/15)
  57. Piguet Galland & Cie SA (effective 10/23/15)
  58. Luzerner Kantonalbank AG (effective 10/29/15)
  59. Habib Bank AG Zurich (effective 10/29/15)
  60. Banque Heritage SA (effective 10/29/15)
  61. Hyposwiss Private Bank Genève S.A. (effective 10/29/15)
  62. Banque Bonhôte & Cie SA (effective 11/3/15)
  63. Banque Internationale a Luxembourg (Suisse) SA (effective 11/12/15)
  64. Zuger Kantonalbank (effective 11/12/15)
  65. Standard Chartered Bank (Switzerland) SA, en liquidation (effective 11/13/15)
  66. Maerki Baumann & Co. AG (effective 11/17/15)
  67. BNP Paribas (Suisse) SA (effective 11/19/15)
  68. KBL (Switzerland) Ltd. (effective 11/19/15)
  69. Bank CIC (Switzerland) Ltd. (effective 11/19/15)
  70. Privatbank IHAG Zürich AG (effective 11/24/15)
  71. Deutsche Bank (Suisse) SA (effective 11/24/15)
  72. EFG Bank AG (effective 12/3/15)
  73. EFG Bank European Financial Group SA, Geneva (effective 12/3/15)
  74. Aargauische Kantonalbank (effective 12/8/15)
  75. Cornèr Banca SA (effective 12/10/15)
  76. Bank Coop AG (effective 12/10/15)
  77. Crédit Agricole (Suisse) SA (effective 12/15/15)
  78. Dreyfus Sons & Co Ltd, Banquiers (effective 12/15/15)
  79. Baumann & Cie, Banquiers (effective 12/15/15)
  80. Bordier & Cie Switzerland (effective 12/17/15)
  81. PBZ Verwaltungs AG (effective 12/17/15)
  82. PostFinance AG (effective 12/17/15)
  83. Edmond de Rothschild (Suisse) SA (effective 12/18/15)
  84. Edmond de Rothschild (Lugano) SA (effective 12/18/15)
  85. Bank J. Safra Sarasin AG (effective 12/23/15)
  86. Coutts & Co Ltd (effective 12/23/15)
  87. Gonet & Cie (effective 12/23/15)
  88. Banque Cantonal du Valais (effective 12/23/15)
  89. Banque Cantonale Vaudoise (effective 12/23/15)
  90. Bank Lombard Odier & Co Ltd (effective 12/31/15)
  91. DZ Privatbank (Schweiz) AG (effective 12/31/15)
  92. Union Bancaire Privée , USP SA (effective 1/6/16)
  93. PHZ Privat - und Handelsbank Zürich AG reorganized as Leodan Privatbank AG (effective 1/25/16)
  94. Hyposwiss Privatbank AG reorganized as HSZH Verwaltungs AG (effective 1/27/16)
  95. Bank Julius Baer & Co., Ltd (effective 2/4/16)
  96. Cayman National Securities Ltd. (effective 3/9/16)
  97. Cayman National Trust Co. Ltd. (effective 3/9/16)
  98. Bradley Birkenfeld (effective 11/15/16)
  99. Renzo Gadola (effective 11/15/16)
  100. Martin Lack (effective 11/15/16)
  101. Christos Bagios (effective 11/15/16)
  102. Joshua Vandyk (effective 11/15/16)
  103. Eric St-Cyr (effective 11/15/16)
  104. Patrick Poulin (effective 11/15/16)
  105. Andreas Bachmann (effective 11/15/16)
  106. Josef Dörig (effective 11/15/16)
  107. David Kalai and Nadav Kalai (effective 11/15/16)
  108. David Almog (effective 11/15/16)
  109. Hansruedi Schumacher (effective 11/15/16)
  110. Matthias Rickenbach (effective 11/15/16)
  111. Cem Can (effective 11/15/16)
  112. IPC Management Services, LLC (effective 11/15/16)
  113. IPC Corporate Services Inc. (effective 11/15/16)
  114. IPC Corporate Services LLC (effective 11/15/16)
  115. Titan International Securities, Inc. (effective 11/15/16)
  116. Legacy Global Markets S.A. (effective 11/15/16)
  117. Unicorn International Securities LLC (effective 11/15/16)
  118. Andrew Godfrey (effective 11/15/16)
  119. Michael Little (effective 11/15/16)
  120. Edgar Paltzer (effective 11/15/16)
  121. Peter Amrein (effective 11/15/16)
  122. Daniela Casadei (effective 11/15/16)
  123. Fabio Frazzetto (effective 11/15/16)
  124. Michele Bergantino (effective 11/15/16)
  125. Mario Staggl (effective 11/15/16)
  126. Beda Singenberger (effective 11/15/16)
  127. Gian Gisler (effective 11/15/16)
  128. Felix M. Mathis (effective 11/15/16)
  129. Michael Berlinka (effective 11/15/16)
  130. Urs Frei (effective 11/15/16)
  131. Roger Keller (effective 11/15/16)
  132. Josef Beck (effective 11/15/16)
  133. Hans Thomann (effective 11/15/16)
  134. Stephan Fellmann (effective 11/15/16)
  135. Otto Huppi (effective 11/15/16)
  136. Christof Reist (effective 11/15/16)
  137. Stefan Buck (effective 11/15/16)
  138. Marco Parenti Adami (effective 11/15/16)
  139. Emanuel Agustino (effective 11/15/16)
  140. Roger Schaerer (effective 11/15/16)
  141. Markus Walder (effective 11/15/16)
  142. Susanne D. Rüegg Meier (effective 11/15/16)
  143. Martin Dunki (effective 11/15/16)
  144. Robert Bandfield (effective 11/15/16)
  145. Michael A. Behr (effective 1/25/17)
  146. Prime Partners SA (effective 8/15/17)
Outside of these banks and financial advisors, the norm within the OVDP remains 27.5%. That is far better than prosecution or much bigger civil penalties. Some taxpayers, including taxpayers with accounts at one of the 145 Foreign Banks and Financial Advisors listed above can opt for the easier and less costly Streamlined program. This list does not impact the Streamlined programs because you must be non-willful to qualify. All of this is part of the June 2014 improvements to the OVDP, which sparked new interest in cleaning up offshore accounts.
 
  1. With roughly 145 Foreign Banks and Financial Advisors cooperating with the DOJ & IRS and 
  2. FATCA requiring the entire world to report to the IRS
it is INEVITABLE that this increased disclosure, will result in EVERY AMERICAN eventually being discovered. Banks worldwide want to know if there US clients are compliant with the IRS.
 
 
Within the OVDP, people who Pre-Cleared
Before the various Effective  Dates
are generally Safe From the Higher 50% Penalty.
 
As additional banks are added to the list, only those American taxpayers that request pre-clearance before their bank is listed, will get the 27 1/2% OVDP penalty. The 50% penalty now applies to all taxpayers with accounts at financial institutions or with facilitators which are named, are cooperating or are identified in a court filing such as a John Doe summons.
 
Although the 50% penalty is high, willful civil violations can result in tax, penalties and interest totaling 325% of the highest balance in the account for the  most recent six years period. Recent guidance suggests that the IRS could be more lenient in the future, but the IRS’s definition of leniency can still make the OVDP a very good deal that provides certainty.  
 
Do You Have Undeclared Income from one of 
these Offshore Banks or 
Financial Advisors?
 
 
Is Your Name Being Handed Over to the IRS?
  
Want to Know if the OVDP Program is Right for You?
 
 
Contact the Tax Lawyers at 
Marini& Associates, P.A.  
 
 
 
for a FREE Tax Consultation
at: www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com or
Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Live Help