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

call us toll free: 888-8TAXAID

Yearly Archives: 2018

Court of Claims Rejects Colliot & Wadhan: Willful FBAR Penalty Not Limited to $100,000

On July 27, 2018 we posted 2nd Taxpayer Victory on a FBAR Penalty Case - FBAR Limited to $100M!  where we discussed US v. Dominique G. Colliot, case number 1:16-cv-01281, in the U.S. where a District Court for the Western District of Texas how that the maximum FBAR penalty was limited to $100,000 a year.

We also discussed that a second district court has determined that, despite a statutory change authorizing higher penalties, IRS couldn't impose penalties, for willfully failing to file a Report of Foreign Bank and Foreign Accounts (FBAR), in excess of the amounts provided in regs that were promulgated before the law change and that haven't been changed to reflect the increase in United States v. Wadhan, D. Colo. Dkt 17-CV-1287 Dkt Entry 5

Now on July 31, 2018 in Norman v. United States, Ct. Fed. Cl. Dkt 15-872, the Court held that the taxpayer Norman was liable for the FBAR willful penalty and this Court rejected the Colliot holding that the FBAR willful penalty was limited to a maximum of $100,000, because the regulations had not been changed to reflect the statutory amendment increasing the maximum FBAR willful penalty. 

.
Congress’ Intent in Amending § 5321 The court stated that:

"In addition to the unambiguous language of the statute, Congress clearly stated its intent to raise
the maximum amount of FBAR penalties when it passed the AJCA in 2004
. (emphasis added) ... “Congress believed that increasing the [previous law’s] penalty for willful non-compliance” would “improve the reporting of foreign financial accounts.” Joint Committee on Taxation, General Explanation of Tax Legislation Enacted in the 108th Congress, JCS-5-05 at 387 (2005)."
The Reasoning in Colliot The court went on to state that:

"In Colliot, the district court held that Congress’ amendment to §5321 in the AJCA did not supersede the regulation promulgated under the statute before amendment. The district court reasoned: [The amendment] sets a ceiling for penalties assessable for willful FBAR violations, but it does not set a floor. Instead, §5321(a)(5) vests the Secretary of the Treasury with discretion to determine the
amount of the penalty to be assessed so long as that penalty does not exceed the ceiling set by § 5321(a)(5)(C). 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83159 at *5-6 (citations omitted).  

It is true that the statute vested the Treasury Secretary with discretion to determine a penalty’s amount. However, this statement mischaracterizes the language of § 5321(a)(5)(C), by ignoring the mandate created by the amendment in 2004. Crucially, the amended statute dictates that the usual maximum penalty “shall be increased” tothe greater of $100,000 or 50 percent of the account. § 5321(a)(5)(C)(i) (emphasis added). Congress used the imperative, “shall,” rather than the permissive, “may.”

Therefore, the amendment did not merely allow for a higher “ceiling” on penalties while allowing the Treasury Secretary to regulate under that ceiling at his discretion. Rather, Congress raised the new ceiling" itself, and in so doing, removed the Treasury Secretary’s discretion to regulate any other maximum."

 
Finally, the court ruled that:

There is no question whether Congress can supersede regulations, only whether Congress did supersede the regulation in this instance... The regulation in question, 31 C.F.R. 1010.820, which guided enforcement of § 5321 before its 2004 amendment, sets the maximum penalty for a willful violation of § 5314 to $100,000.00. However, because § 5321(a)(5)(C)(i) mandates that the maximum penalty be set to the greater of $100,000.00 or 50 percent of the balance of the account, the
regulation is no longer consistent with the amended statute.
Therefore, 31 C.F.R. 1010.820
is no longer valid.
 
In conclusion, the court said that "although IRS believes that it is empowered by 31 U.S.C. 5321 to act, it is not. It is empowered by the Secretary who has discretion to determine what penalties are imposed. 1010.820 remains in effect until amended or repealed." 
Have Undeclared Income from an Offshore Account?
 
 
Want to Know Make Sure You Are Not Over Penalized 
If You Do Not Enter The OVDP Program?

 
 

 

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

IRS & Treasury Issue Proposed Regulations Implementing IRC Section 965

The Internal Revenue Service and the Department of the Treasury on August 1, 2018 issued proposed regulations on Section 965 of the Internal Revenue Code. The proposed regulations affect United States shareholders, as defined under section 951(b) of the Code, with direct or indirect ownership in certain specified foreign corporations, as defined under section 965(e) of the Code.

Section 965, enacted in December 2017, levies a transition tax on post-1986 untaxed foreign earnings of specified foreign corporations owned by United States shareholders by deeming those earnings to be repatriated. For domestic corporations, foreign earnings held in the form of cash and cash equivalents are generally intended to be taxed at a 15.5 percent rate for 2017 calendar years, and the remaining earnings are intended to be taxed at an 8 percent rate for 2017 calendar years.

The lower effective tax rates applicable to section 965 income inclusions are achieved by way of a participation deduction set out in section 965(c) of the Code.  A reduced foreign tax credit also applies with respect to the inclusion under section 965(g) of the Code.

Taxpayers may generally elect to pay the transition tax in installments over an eight-year period under section 965(h) of the Code. The proposed regulations contain detailed information on the calculation and reporting of a United States shareholder’s section 965(a) inclusion amount, as well as information for making the elections available to taxpayers under section 965.

Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing on this proposed regulation must be received within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register, which is forthcoming.

More information regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, as well as Section 965, can be found at the Tax Reform page.
  

Need International Tax Help?
 

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



 

Read more at: Tax Times blog

US Removes Beneficial Ownership Registration From Bill HR 6068

The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services scheduled a June 14th markup on the Counter Terrorism and Illicit Finance Act (HR 6068) (CTIFA),  which has been stripped of provisions that would require collection of beneficial ownership information at the time of company formation, a necessary step to address this widely-recognized and well-documented vulnerability in the U.S. AML regime. A November 2017 version of the same bill included a section to address this critical issue.

The CTIFA was originally introduced to compel national registration of beneficial owners of all US legal entities, has been amended by the deletion of all its transparency clauses.

It originally included an amendment to establish a national directory of beneficial owners of legal entities, corporations and limited liability companies, administered by the US Treasury's FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network). Civil and criminal penalty provisions were included, to force compliance.

However, these clauses were eliminated from the bill on June 12th, just before it was passed to the House Financial Services Committee for 'mark-up'.

The new version of the bill merely requires the US Comptroller General to 'submit a report evaluating the effectiveness of the collection of beneficial ownership information under the Customer Due Diligence regulation, as well as the regulatory burden and costs imposed on financial institutions subject to it.'

The Customer Due Diligence regulation, which came into force in May this year, forces all US banks to verify the identity of new business customers' beneficial owners. It was introduced at the Treasury's behest to improve the US' legislative grip on beneficial ownership identification, but is acknowledged to leave considerable gaps, notably the need to make companies know and disclose their beneficial owners to the government at the time of company formation.

Maybe that's because Congress wants to keep the US as the 2nd Largest Tax Haven or maybe largest tax even in the world?

 

Want to Restructure Your Holdings through the US?
 

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

Sources

Global Financial Integrity

Wall Street Journal

FinCEN (CDD rule FAQs, PDF)
 

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Have an Offshore Account with Mirelis InvestTrust? You May Want to Consider the OVDP Program Before Sept. 28!

The DoJ announced on Friday, July 27, 2018today that Swiss-based Mirelis Holding S.A. reached a resolution with the Tax Division.

“The agreement reached today demonstrates the Department’s resolve toward ending the practice of using Swiss bank accounts to evade one’s taxes,”
said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman DoJ Tax Division.
 
“The Department will continue to pursue culpable banks and asset management and investment advisory firms that assist U.S. clients in their concealment of assets and the evasion of their U.S. tax obligations.”

According to the terms of the non-prosecution agreement, Mirelis Holding S.A. (formerly known as Mirelis InvestTrust S.A.) agrees to cooperate in any related criminal or civil proceedings, demonstrate its implementation of controls to stop misconduct involving undeclared U.S. accounts, and pay $10.245 million to the United States, in return for the Department’s agreement not to prosecute this entity for tax-related criminal offenses.

Mirelis operated as a Geneva-based securities trading institution licensed by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (“FINMA”).  Mirelis was established in 1997 to provide independent portfolio and asset management services following the sale of a minority ownership interest held by Mirelis’s controlling family and associates in Société Bancaire Julius Baer S.A.

During the Applicable Period, August 1, 2008, through December 31, 2014, the aggregate maximum balance of the assets under management of Mirelis’s U.S. taxpayer-clients was in 2008 and was approximately $315 million, consisting of both assets held in custody at Mirelis and assets held at third-party depository institutions.  Mirelis provided custodial account services for approximately 177 U.S. Related Accounts  and portfolio and asset management services to an additional approximately 95 U.S. Related Accounts that were custodied at third-party banks.

Since it began its operations, Mirelis was aware that its U.S. taxpayer-clients had a legal duty to report to the IRS, pay taxes on the basis of, all of the income, including income earned in accounts at Mirelis.  Despite being aware of the obligations of its U.S. taxpayer-clients to report to the IRS and pay taxes on income earned in accounts maintained outside of the United States, Mirelis opened, maintained, and serviced accounts for U.S. taxpayer-clients where Mirelis knew or had reason to know that the U.S. taxpayer-clients were not complying with these obligations or were using their accounts outside of the United States to evade U.S. taxes and reporting requirements, filing false tax returns with the IRS, and/or concealing assets maintained outside of the United States from the IRS (hereinafter, “undeclared assets”).

On at least four occasions, in or about 2011 or 2012, Mirelis facilitated the introduction of U.S. taxpayer-clients to the Singapore-based representatives of a trust company, who advised the U.S. taxpayer-clients to create non-U.S. trusts and fund non-U.S. life insurance policies. Mirelis agreed to accept and effect the transfer of the funds held in the U.S. taxpayer-clients’ accounts pursuant to instructions despite knowing or having reason to know that these U.S. taxpayer-clients were likely to use the advice received from the trust company to conceal their ownership of undeclared assets.

In order to reduce the chances of undeclared accounts being discovered, Mirelis opened and falsely designated at least one account as a non-U.S. account when it knew the account holder was in fact a U.S. person. Prior to August 2008, Mirelis opened an account using the client’s U.S. passport. When this account was closed in 2009, the account holder withdrew all funds in cash. In 2010, Mirelis opened another account for the same client, but this time used the client’s non-U.S. passport. The account documents were completed without mention of the client’s U.S. citizenship, which was then known to Mirelis.

On at least five occasions, Mirelis effected the transfer of funds from one U.S.  Related Account owned or beneficially owned by individual U.S. taxpayer-clients to other U.S. Related Accounts maintained at Mirelis owned by U.S. limited liability companies, which in turn were owned by U.S. trusts with U.S. beneficiaries. The accounts owned by the limited liability companies were all later closed and the custody of their funds transferred to another Swiss bank (a so-called Category 1 bank) while the independent portfolio and asset management services were provided by Mirelis Advisors, a wholly owned subsidiary that is a registered investment adviser with the SEC.  Mirelis effected these transfers without knowing or checking whether the U.S. taxpayer-clients of the original accounts were compliant with their U.S. tax and reporting obligations.

Mirelis also assisted in the establishment of trusts and entities (collectively, “structures”) for U.S. taxpayer-clients with both accounts maintained at Mirelis and accounts maintained at third-party depository financial institutions, in particular at a Category 1 Bank, by making referrals to known purveyors of such structures both within and outside of Switzerland.  Mirelis knew or had reason to know that these purveyors often operated structures in contravention of corporate formalities and/or Mirelis’s own policies and procedures and that one purpose of these structures was to add an additional layer of nominal ownership to conceal the U.S. taxpayer-clients’ ownership of undeclared accounts.

With respect to at least 24 U.S. Related Accounts maintained by Mirelis, Mirelis obtained or accepted IRS Forms W-8BEN (or substitute self-certification forms) from these entity account holders that falsely indicated the beneficial owner of the undeclared account was the non-U.S. entity itself and not the U.S. taxpayer-client. These false Forms W-8BEN directly contradicted the Swiss Forms A that Mirelis obtained identifying the U.S. taxpayer-clients as the true beneficial owners of the accounts. 

Mirelis submitted a letter of intent to participate as a Category 2 bank in the Department’s Swiss Bank Program in December 2013.  Although it was ultimately determined that Mirelis was not eligible for the Swiss Bank Program due to its structure as both an asset management firm and a bank, Mirelis is required under today’s agreement to fully comply with the obligations imposed under the terms of that program. 

Mirelis has fully cooperated with the Department of Justice in this investigation, including undertaking a separate and thorough review of the provision of independent portfolio and asset management services to U.S. taxpayer-clients with accounts maintained at third-party depository financial institutions and encouraging a significant number of its remaining non-compliant U.S. taxpayer-clients to participate, or provide proof of prior participation, in OVDP covering many of the U.S. Related Accounts maintained by Mirelis during the Applicable Period.

While U.S. account holders at Mirelis who have not yet declared their accounts to the IRS may still be eligible to participate in the IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program, the price of such disclosure has increased.  Most U.S. taxpayers who enter the IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program to resolve undeclared offshore accounts will pay a penalty equal to 27.5 percent of the high value of the accounts.  With today’s announcement of this non-prosecution agreement, noncompliant U.S. clients of Mirelis must now pay that 50 percent penalty to the IRS if they wish to enter the IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program.  The IRS recently announced that the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program will close on September 28, 2018.

Have Undeclared Income from an Offshore 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
Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Live Help