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

call us toll free: 888-8TAXAID

Yearly Archives: 2018

Understanding IRS Tax Audits – Part III

On July 24, 2018 we posted Understanding IRS Tax Audits - Part I where we discussed that careful advance preparation can help reduce the scope of a tax audit or examination and can lead to a more favorable outcome. Although a thorough understanding of the underlying facts and applicable law is a must, understanding IRS procedures is critical to preserving a taxpayer’s rights.

On August 24, 2018 we posted  Understanding IRS Tax Audits - Part II where we discussed when possible, the taxpayer’s representative, not the taxpayer, should interact with the agent. Indeed, in most cases, the meetings should take place at the representative’s office, not the taxpayer’s place of business. Direct contact between the agent and the taxpayer (or taxpayer’s employees) should be minimized.

Understanding IRS Tax Audits - Part III

We have summarize below and in Parts I & II some of the more important IRS procedural rules and guidelines governing civil IRS examinations and audits, including: how returns are selected for examination; a brief description of the types of civil examinations; an explanation of the tools available to IRS examining agents and revenue agents; dispositions in IRS audits or examinations and, if necessary, where to seek relief from an unfavorable result in an examination or audit.

Careful advance preparation can help reduce the scope of a tax audit or examination and can lead to a more favorable outcome. Although a thorough understanding of the underlying facts and applicable law is a must, understanding IRS procedures is critical to preserving a taxpayer’s rights.

Dealing with a Potential Criminal Referral

If an agent has a “firm indication of fraud” he or she is required to suspend the civil examination without disclosing the reason to the taxpayer. IRS regulations prohibit an agent from developing a criminal case against a taxpayer under the guise of a civil investigation (but it happens all the time see Reverse Eggshell Audit Below). Then the agent must refer the case to the Criminal Investigation Division. The agent may be aware of potential fraud before he has enough evidence to suspend the exam and turn over the case.   This is referred to as an eggshell audit which is a civil tax audit in which the taxpayer has filed a false tax return. If the falsity comes to light then there is possibility that the IRS can refer the case for criminal investigation, and ultimately criminal prosecution.  Because of the sensitivity of the issues and the potential for disastrous results, anyone involved in the audit must walk on eggshells. Hence the term "eggshell audit.“ Take care to look for clues in the agent’s actions and behavior as to whether the nature of the case will shift to a criminal investigation. Among the tell tale signs that a civil case may be heading toward a criminal referral is the sudden cessation of communication with you by the agent; the agent asks the client “state of mind” questions usually starting with words like “why” and “didn’t you know" or the agent issues summons for otherwise closed tax periods, or summonses are issued for periods other than those contained in the original examination notice.  Most importantly, look for the appearance of a “special agent”. A special agent is a federal law enforcement officer. He or she is required to identify himself as such and to give a Miranda-type warning. A special agent may arrive with the revenue agent or alone.  Note that a special agent may make an unannounced visit to the taxpayer. The sole purpose of any such meeting is to catch the taxpayer off guard and without counsel, so that the client can incriminate himself. Because it is human nature to try to explain things, a taxpayer should be advised never to speak to a special agent without counsel present.
If an examination becomes a criminal investigation, or if you think that the examining agent is heading in that direction, consider the following: terminating all direct contact between the taxpayer and the IRS, which I don't recommend under most circumstances; obtaining taxpayer records from third parties and holding them; advising the taxpayer to refrain from witness tampering and document creation or alteration.

Cooperation with the revenue agent will not save the day. If there is evidence of criminal conduct and that evidence is enough to obtain a conviction, there will be a referral, irrespective of how a taxpayer cooperates.

You also need to keep your eyes open for what is referred to as a "reverse eggshell audit." This is a tax audit in which IRS agent is collecting information for what purports to be a  civil tax audit with the intent of providing that information to the IRS' criminal investigation division for criminal tax prosecution. It is the taxpayer who is unaware of the parallel or simultaneous criminal investigation.

Dispositions of Audits  “Agreed” or “Unagreed”

Audits may be concluded with an “agreed case” or an “unagreed case.” Of course, if the taxpayer presents sufficient documentation for the items at issue, the examining agent may accept the return as it was filed. If the taxpayer and the examining agent reach an agreement on adjustments, the taxpayer and examining agent complete a form describing the adjustments to the return and agreeing that any additional tax may be assessed.

Where the taxpayer and the examining agent cannot reach an agreement, the examining agent’s next step will depend upon whether there is sufficient time remaining on the statute of limitations on assessment, generally six months. If there is sufficient time left on the statute of limitations, the examining agent will prepare a report that will be reviewed by the examining agent’s manager. Once approved, the report is sent to the taxpayer along with a “30-day letter”. If there is not sufficient time left on the statute of limitations and the taxpayer will not agree to extend the statute, the report will be sent to the taxpayer with a statutory notice of deficiency, sometimes referred to as a “90-day letter”.

A 30-day letter gives the taxpayer an opportunity to protest the examining agent’s proposed adjustments to an administrative appeals officer. The taxpayer has 30 days within which to submit a written protest outlining the taxpayer’s position on fact and law. Appeals officers are charged with evaluating the case ex parte based upon the record created by the revenue agent and as supplemented by the taxpayer. The appeals officer can uphold the examining agent; find for the taxpayer or attempt to reach a settlement with the taxpayer.

The appeals officer is instructed to consider the “hazards of litigation” for both sides in his or her evaluation of the case. If the case is agreed at this level, the parties will sign an agreement permitting the Service to assess and collect the agreed amounts. If the parties can not reach an agreement or if the taxpayer does not respond to the 30-day letter, the appeals officer will issue a statutory notice of deficiency.

The Service must issue a statutory notice of deficiency before it assesses additional tax. The Notice gives the taxpayer one last chance to contest the proposed deficiency prior to paying it. A taxpayer has 90 days to file a petition with the Tax Court to redetermine the deficiency.

If the taxpayer does not respond to the 90-day letter, the Service will assess the proposed deficiency and will issue a bill to the taxpayer. At this point, the taxpayer must pay the amount assessed. The taxpayer then has the opportunity to contest the assessment by filing a refund claim. If the refund claim is disallowed, the taxpayer may then file a refund suit in United States District Court or United States Court of Claims.

Statutes of Limitations

The Service does not have an unlimited time to examine a tax return. As a general rule, the IRS has a three-year statute of limitation to make an assessment of additional tax (i.e., the Service has only three years from the later of the due date of the return or the date the return was filed to assess a tax deficiency). (I.R.C. § 6501(a)). If no return was filed or, if filed, it was fraudulent, the statute of limitations is unlimited.( I.R.C. § 6501(c)). If the filed return omitted gross income representing more than 25% of that which was stated on the return, and no statement was attached to explain the omission, the statute of limitations is six years. (I.R.C. § 6501(e)). Then there is a special rule in the case of any information on foreign activities which is required under section 6038, 6038A, 6038B, 6038D, 6046, 6046A, or 6048 -Form 8938, the time for assessment of any tax shall not expire until 3 years after the date on which the IRS is furnished the information required to be reported.When no return was filed, the tax may be assessed at any time.
 
In certain circumstances, a taxpayer may agree to extend the statute of limitations. This is done in writing on IRS Form 872 (Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax) or 872-A (Special Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax).

A Form 872 extends the time to assess the tax to a specified date. A Form 872-A is a consent extending the period of limitations on assessment for an indefinite period of time. The consent given on Form 872-A can be revoked by filing a Form 872-T, which starts the running of the 90-day period for assessment of tax or issuance of a notice of deficiency.

Another special type of consent is a “Restricted Consent” which can be used to extend the statutory period of assessment with respect to specific restricted issues. The statute of limitations is allowed to expire with respect to all other issues.

Special statute of limitations rules also apply to tax returns on which a taxpayer failed to include any information required with respect to a “listed transaction” as defined by Code Section 6707A(c)(2). In such cases, the time for assessment does not expire before the date which is one year after the earlier of the date the information is furnished to the Service or the date a material advisor provides the identifying information to the Service.

The decision to extend the statute of limitations must be made carefully. Under certain circumstances, giving consent to extend the statute may benefit the taxpayer. For example, in an unagreed case, consent may be given so that the case can be considered by the appeals division. In other cases, extending a statute may simply provide the agent with additional time to identify and develop additional adjustments.

The IRS has broad authority to examine tax returns. An understanding of the rights and responsibilities of both taxpayers and the examining agent, can help reduce the scope of a tax audit or examination and can lead to a more favorable disposition. Hiring Experience Tax Counsel can also tilt the scales in your favor, in your effort to obtain a favorable resolution of your Tax Audit and your Tax Appeal.

Have a IRS Tax Problem? 

  
Contact the Tax Lawyers at 
Marini& Associates, P.A. 
 
 
for a FREE Tax HELP Contact Us at:

Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243

Read more at: Tax Times blog

TIGTA Released It's Review of the Office of Appeals CDP Program

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) released on September 5, 2018 their Final Audit Report of their Review of the Office of Appeals Collection Due Process Program. 

The Collection Due Process (CDP) Program was designed to give taxpayers an opportunity for an independent review to ensure that a levy action that has been proposed or a lien that has been filed is warranted and appropriate.  An effective process is necessary to ensure that statutory requirements are met and taxpayers’ rights are protected.
This audit was initiated because TIGTA is statutorily required to determine whether the IRS complied with the required procedures under 26 United States Code Sections 6320 and 6330 when taxpayers exercised their rights to appeal the filing of a Notice of Federal Tax Lien or the issuance of a Notice of Intent to Levy.

During this year’s audit, TIGTA identified similar deficiencies in the IRS’s processing of CDP cases as previously reported.  Specifically, the Office of Appeals did not always classify taxpayer requests properly and, as a result, some taxpayers received the wrong type of hearing.  From two statistically valid samples, TIGTA identified eight taxpayer cases that were misclassified.  This is a slight increase from the six misclassified taxpayer cases that were identified in the prior year’s review.

TIGTA also identified an issue involving taxpayers that mail or fax their hearing request to the wrong IRS location.  When taxpayers mail or fax their hearing request to other than the required IRS location, Compliance function guidance requires employees to fax the taxpayer’s request to the CDP Coordinator at the correct Compliance function site on the same day. 


TIGTA determined that the IRS Compliance function did not timely process the hearing requests for an additional eight taxpayers.  These taxpayers were not granted a CDP hearing but properly requested an Equivalent Hearing, and Appeals appropriately provided the hearing per guidelines. 

However, the IRS Compliance function did not follow procedures and may not have adequately protected taxpayer rights by the untimely processing of the misdirected hearing requests.

In addition, TIGTA continued to identify errors related to the determination of the Collection Statute Expiration Date (CSED) on taxpayer accounts.  From two statistically valid samples, TIGTA identified nine taxpayer cases that had an incorrect CSED.  For the nine taxpayer cases identified, the IRS incorrectly extended the time period in seven of the taxpayer cases, allowing the IRS additional time it should not have had to collect the delinquent taxes. 
TIGTA recommended that the Chief, Appeals, update the taxpayer accounts identified with CSED errors and coordinate with the proper IRS function to resolve any systemic issues causing incorrect CSEDs. In their response, IRS management agreed with our recommendation.
Click Here to view the report, including the scope, methodology, and full IRS response.
Have an IRS Tax Problem? 
   
Contact the Tax Lawyers at 
Marini & Associates, P.A. 
 
 
for a FREE Tax HELP Contact us at:

Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243
 
 

 

Read more at: Tax Times blog

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

On August 15, 2018 we posted 148 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  Atlas Capital, S.A. (effective 8/21/2018) and Basler Kantonalbank (effective 8/28/2018) to this list bringing the number to 150 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)
  147. NPB Neue Privat Bank AG (effective 7/18/18 )
  148. Mirelis Holding S.A., formerly known as Mirelis InvestTrust S.A. (effective 7/27/18)
  149.  Atlas Capital, S.A. (effective 8/21/2018)
  150.  Basler Kantonalbank (effective 8/28/2018)
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? 
 
Ends September 28, 2018
 
Contact the Tax Lawyers at 
Marini & Associates, P.A.   
 
 
for a FREE Tax Consultation contact us at:
Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Mizrahi Bank Close To Settling with IRS on Tax Conspiracy Charges

Israel's Mizrahi-Tefahot bank now expects to pay the US authorities a penalty of USD116.5 million, to ward off prosecution for helping US persons evade tax on their offshore assets, it revealed in its second quarter results statement. Previously, it had estimated the penalty at only USD44 million. Last month, it rejected an offer from the US Department of Justice to settle at USD342 million, and negotiations are still continuing.
 Mizrahi-Tefahot, Israel’s third-largest bank, reported a 48 percent drop in quarterly net profit on August 30, 2018, as it hiked a provision to cover the potential settlement of a U.S. tax evasion investigation. 
 
US authorities targeted three Israeli banks with investigations regarding tax evasion in the US by customers. In 2014, Bank Leumi Le-Israel Ltd. agreed to pay some $400 million to US regulators to settle a criminal probe after admitting it helped US taxpayers hide assets. Investigations by US regulators into Bank Hapoalim Ltd. and Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot Ltd. are ongoing.

The IRS investigations have caused Israeli banks to decrease their activities abroad, and there has been a dramatic drop in the number of deposits held by foreign residents in Israeli banks, the Bank of Israel has said. In the past 10 years, almost NIS 70 billion ($19 billion) worth of deposits by foreign residents have left Israel’s banking system, according to central bank data.

Earlier this in August, Mizrahi rejected a proposal from the U.S. Department of Justice to pay a fine of $342 million to settle the U.S. tax evasion investigation.
 
 

Do You Have Undeclared Income From
Mizrahi-Tefahot bank ?
 


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 contact us 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