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

call us toll free: 888-8TAXAID

Monthly Archives: June 2019

IRS Review of Foreign Reporting Information Results in Another 50% FBAR Penalty Case

A real estate developer willfully failed to report an overseas bank account to the Internal Revenue Service and is responsible for $456,000 in penalties, a Texas federal court found on June 11,2019.

 

Defendant Edward Flume is a U.S. citizen who has lived and worked in Mexico since 1990. A savvy businessman, Flume has successfully parlayed his background in Texas real estate into a range of enterprises and investments in Mexico. 

During the 1990s, Flume owned forty-two Whataburger franchises in Mexico and oversaw a total of approximately 1,500 employees. To operate the franchises, Flume and a U.S.-citizen business partner incorporated Franchise Food Services de Mexico S.A. de C.V. (FFM), a Mexican limited liability stock corporation. 

Flume sold the Whataburger franchises in the late 1990s. (RT1 66:11–13.) Since then, Flume, together with his wife Martha, business partner Victor Mendez Tornell, and Tornell’s wife, has developed residential real estate in Guadalajara and San Miguel de Allende.
 
In 1999, the Flumes became clients of Leonard Purcell’s Mexico City-based tax-preparation firm. In each tax year at issue, either Purcell himself or his employee, Adriana Bautista Luna, prepared the Flumes’ U.S. tax returns.   

To manage his real estate projects, Flume incorporated Wilshire Holdings, Inc. in the Bahamas in 2000. The following year, Flume reincorporated Wilshire Holdings in Belize, a country identified by IRS Agent Raphaelle Johnson as a “tax haven” that “advertises that they don’t cooperate with the U.S. authorities” in civil tax investigations.  
At trial, Flume testified that he moved the company to Belize because “the Bahamas was becoming too restrictive or didn’t allow these accounts.” Flume was the incorporator, president, and sole director of Wilshire Holdings. 
In 2005, Flume opened an account at Swiss UBS in Wilshire’s name. According to UBS’s account-opening documents, the purpose of the account was to manage the Flumes’ retirement funds. Flume and his wife were the only people with signature authority over the account, and together they owned all of Wilshire’s stock.
Upon opening the account, Flume signed a waiver of the right to invest in U.S. securities, a choice Agent Johnson suggested indicated a desire to hide the account from the IRS. The Flumes maintained a personal credit card linked to the UBS account and, beginning in 2008, they transferred large amounts of money from the UBS account to their personal Banco Monex account. Flume testified at trial that he opened the UBS account without the knowledge or assistance of his tax preparers, although he stated that he “probably” told them about the account after it was opened. Instead, he opened the UBS account on the advice of a Mexico-based UBS account representative whom he met through a mutual friend.
Despite having a legal obligation to do so, Flume failed to report his financial interest in the UBS account to the IRS in both 2007 and 2008. In 2007, the average monthly balance of the UBS account was $899,342.02; in 2008, its average monthly balance was $718,811.24. By mid-2008, Flume had become aware that the IRS was investigating UBS’s involvement in tax evasion on behalf of its American clients. Flume soon began transferring all his assets out of the UBS account. First, he directed the transfer of $245,000 into Wilshire’s Laredo National Bank account, almost all of which he then moved to his personal Banco Monex account. Flume then moved the UBS  account’s remaining balance into a Fidelity account in the United States, most of which he subsequently transferred to himself as well.
In 2010, UBS ended its longtime nondisclosure practice and agreed to comply with an IRS summons by releasing the names of its American clients—among them Edward Flume—to the IRS. As part of a deferred prosecution agreement with U.S. law enforcement, UBS had announced in early 2009 that it would no longer provide offshore banking services to Americans.
 
 
In June of 2010, Flume filed delinquent FBARs for tax years 2006 through 2009. Even then, however, he significantly underrepresented the value of his UBS account. Moreover, despite being eligible, Flume did not apply to the IRS’s Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative (OVDI), which could have reduced his financial liability in exchange for full disclosure of the Swiss account.  Flume’s tardy efforts at transfer and disclosure were insufficient to avoid IRS scrutiny.
Upon receiving Flume’s records from UBS, IRS agent Raphaelle Johnson began an examination of his tax filings. Johnson’s investigation had three components, each of which resulted in a separate penalty assessment against Flume.  
1.    First, Johnson determined that the Flumes had underreported their income in tax years 2006 through 2009. The Flumes settled the 2009 assessment out of court but proceeded to trial in Tax Court on the remaining penalties. The Tax Court has not yet issued an opinion in that case.
2.    Second, Johnson determined that Flume had violated his obligation to file international information returns on his holdings in FFM and Wilshire. Following a trial, the Tax Court upheld the penalties assessed against him. and
3.    Finally, and most relevant here, Johnson found that Flume had failed to file timely FBARs for his Swiss bank account in 2007 and 2008.
In 2014, the IRS determined that Flume’s filing failures were a willful attempt to avoid U.S. taxation and assessed penalties of $456,509.00. When Flume did not pay, the Government instituted this action to collect those penalties, plus accrued interest, late payment penalties, and other fees.
In defense, Flume claims that his filing failures were inadvertent because he had no knowledge of the FBAR requirement until 2010, when he attended a financial seminar for American expatriates in San Miguel. By Flume’s account, he called Purcell immediately after the seminar, and Purcell “coached” him on how to file the delinquent FBARs and what to include in a letter to the Treasury Department requesting leniency from tax authorities.
At trial, Purcell and Luna, who together prepared Flume’s personal income tax returns from 1999 to 2010, both testified that Flume never disclosed the Swiss UBS account to them. They stated they had never seen Wilshire’s general ledgers listing the UBS account balance, which were prepared by a bookkeeper in San Miguel. Purcell and Luna further testified that they sent all their clients, including Flume, a form letter each year reminding them of their obligation to report all foreign bank accounts and financial interests.
Purcell and Luna both explained that because Flume’s Banco Monex account was the only non-U.S. account they were aware of, they marked “Mexico” on Schedule B of his tax returns. However, because Flume never asked them to prepare an FBAR for him—a separate service that would have incurred a separate fee—they assumed he wished to fill the forms out himself, as many of their other clients did.  

In this case, the parties stipulated that only the sixth element—willfulness—was in dispute. A defendant willfully violates the reporting requirement “when he either knowingly or recklessly fails to file” an FBAR. Bedrosian v. United States, 912 F.3d 144, 152 (3d Cir. 2018). That is, he either knows the statute applies to him and chooses to violate it, or he engages in conduct “entailing ‘an unjustifiably high risk of harm that is either known or so obvious that it should be known.’” Id. at 153 (quoting Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 68 (2007)).
With respect to IRS requirements in particular, a person acts recklessly when he “(1) clearly ought to have known that (2) there was a grave risk that the filing requirement was not being met and if (3) he was in a position to find out for certain very easily.” Id. (internal alterations omitted) (quoting United States v. Vespe, 868 F.2d 1328, 1335 (3d Cir.1989)).
Willful blindness—as where a defendant consciously chooses to avoid learning about reporting requirements—is also a form of recklessness. See United States v. Williams, 489 F. App’x 655, 659 (4th Cir. 2012); Flume, 2018 WL 4378161, at *7 & *8 n.15. 
Having considered the case law, the evidence in the record, and the witnesses’ testimony at trial, the Court concluded that Flume’s 2007 and 2008 FBAR filing failures were willful within the meaning of 31 U.S.C. § 5314.
 

Flume’s attempt to blame Purcell and Luna for his filing failures is unavailing.  Given his large international holdings and complex business arrangements, Flume was reckless in failing to investigate the credentials of the people he claims to have entrusted with his tax liability.
 
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Defendant Edward Flume willfully failed
to disclose his interest in a foreign bank account in tax years 2007 and 2008. The IRS’s
assessment of $456,509.00 in penalties is therefore proper.  
 
 Do You Have Undeclared Income
From An Offshore Bank ?
 
 
Is Your Name Being Handed Over to the IRS?
  
Want to Know Which Remaining IRS Program
 is Right for You? 
 
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

Few Accuracy-Related Penalties Are Proposed in LB&i Examinations and They Are Generally Not Sustained on Appeal!

The Internal Revenue Service tends to impose relatively few accuracy-related penalties during audits of large businesses, according to a new report.

The report, from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, noted accuracy-related penalties are generally 20 percent of the underpayment of taxes due, and in certain cases, the penalty can be as high as 40 percent. TIGTA reviewed IRS databases for closed business return examinations conducted by the IRS’s Large Business and International (LB&I) Division from fiscal years 2015 through 2017 and identified 519 examinations in which LB&I examiners proposed accuracy-related penalties totaling $1.8 billion.
The IRS’s Office of Appeals worked on and closed 195 of the appealed examinations. They totaled $773 million in proposed penalties, but ultimately the appeals resulted in the elimination or reduction of the proposed penalties for 183 of the 195 returns, totaling $765 million, or the lion’s share of the $773 million in proposed penalties.
IRS systems also identified 4,600 LB&I business return examinations that resulted in additional tax assessments greater than $10,000, for a total of $14 billion of additional tax due. But of these 4,600 returns, only 295 returns (or just about 6 percent) had accuracy-related penalties assessed.
Examiners are supposed to document their reasons for proposing or not proposing penalties and involve their supervisors. But TIGTA’s review of a sampling of 50 business tax returns examined by the LB&I Division with an additional tax assessment of over $10,000 and no accuracy-related penalties showed that in 10 of the cases (that is, 20 percent), the examiners didn’t consider imposing an accuracy-related penalty. In another 10 cases (20 percent), the examiners didn’t justify their decisions not to propose the penalty, while in 13 cases (26 percent), there was no indication that the supervisor approved the decision not to propose the penalty, and in 13 cases (26 percent) with substantial understatements of income tax, there was no indication of supervisory involvement in penalty development.
TIGTA also reviewed a sample of 50 business tax returns examined by LB&I examiners with accuracy‑related penalties assessed. In four of those cases (that is, 8 percent), there was no indication the supervisor approved the decision to propose the penalty, and in three cases (6 percent), there wasn’t any indication that supervisors were actively involved in developing the TIGTA made several recommendations to the IRS on ways to improve the examiners’ accuracy-related penalty decisions. The IRS agreed with four of the five recommendations, and partially agreed with one recommendation.
However, an IRS official objected to some of TIGTA’ s conclusions. “While we agree there are improvements to be made in this area, we disagree with some of the conclusions of the audit,” wrote Douglas W. O’Donnell, commissioner of the IRS’s Large Business and International Division, in response to the report. “Due to the methodology and approach of this audit, we do not believe that some of the overall conclusions are supported. Each examination and the facts and circumstances of an individual case stand on their own.”
Have a Tax Problem?   

 
 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

Senate Passes IRS Reform Bill

The Senate passed the Taxpayer First  Act (H.R. 3151) on Thursday, June 13 by a voice vote. The bill includes provisions to improve customer service, protect personal data, preserve tax-preparation services and curb private debt collectors. The measure now goes to the President who is expected to sign. 
 
On June 6, House Ways and Means Committee member John Lewis (D-GA) introduced a revised Taxpayer First Act (HR 3151), which removes a section that would have required IRS to continue the Free File program in collaboration with private companies such as H&R Block and Turbo Tax, commonly referred to as the Free File Alliance.
 
An earlier version of the bill would have codified language potentially preventing IRS from creating its own Free File program for low-income households.
 
Aside from the Free File language, the bill preserves the IRS Oversight Board, establishes an independent Office of Appeals, and permanently authorizes the volunteer income tax assistance program for low-income filers.

The bill also limits the ability of private debt collectors to pursue unpaid taxes from low-income taxpayers and codifies an exclusion from upfront fees and initial payments in the offer in compromise program for taxpayers with incomes below 250% of the federal poverty level.

The bill would:

  • Change the management and oversight of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with the aim of improving customer service and the process for assisting taxpayers with appeals; restrict certain IRS enforcement activities, including the use of private debt collectors in certain cases; and modify the agency’s organization.
  • Aim to combat identity theft and tax refund fraud, create an automated system to verify taxpayer information for authorized users, modernize information technology systems within the IRS, and expand the use of electronic information systems within the IRS.
  • Change several provisions in the laws that govern the IRS.
  • Increase the penalty for tax returns filed more than 60 days after the due date.

Estimated budgetary effects would primarily stem from

  • A restriction on the use of private debt collectors for certain taxpayers.
  • An increase in the penalty for tax returns filed 60 days after the due date.
  • A modification to electronic filing requirements for certain preparers.
  • CBO has not completed an estimate of the bill’s costs that are subject to annual appropriation.

Have a IRS Tax Problem? 


  
Contact the Tax Lawyers at 

Marini& Associates, P.A. 

 
 

for a FREE Tax HELP Contact Us at:
orToll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243

 
 

Read more at: Tax Times blog

IRS & Treasury Issue Guidance on Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI)

The Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service issuedfinal and proposed regulations on June 14, 2019 concerning global intangible low-taxed income under section 951A the would expand an exception the GILTI tax, the foreign tax credit, the treatment of domestic partnerships for purposes of determining the subpart F income of a partner, and the treatment of income of a controlled foreign corporation subject to a high rate of foreign tax under section 951A. 

Commonly referred to as GILTI, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued final regulations that provide guidance to determine the amount of global intangible low-taxed income included in the gross income of certain U.S. shareholders of foreign corporations, including U.S. shareholders who are members of a consolidated group.

The final regulations retain, with certain modifications, the anti-abuse provisions that were included in the proposed regulations and revise the domestic partnership provisions to adopt an aggregate approach for purposes of determining the amount of global intangible low-taxed income included in the gross income of a partnership’s partners under section 951A with respect to controlled foreign corporations owned by the partnership. 

The final regulations also provide guidance relating to the determination of a United States shareholder’s pro rata share of a controlled foreign corporation’s subpart F income and global intangible low-taxed income included in the United States shareholder’s gross income, as well as certain reporting requirements relating to inclusions of subpart F income and global intangible low-taxed income.

In addition, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued final regulations under sections 78, 861 and 965 relating to certain foreign tax credit aspects of the transition to an exemption system for income earned through foreign corporations.

The Treasury Department and the IRS also issued proposed regulations regarding the treatment of domestic partnerships for purposes of determining amounts included in the gross income of their partners under section 951 with respect to controlled foreign corporations owned by the partnership and the treatment of income of a controlled foreign corporation that is subject to a high rate of foreign tax under section 951A.

The proposed regulations would allow U.S. companies to elect an exemption to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act's global intangible low-taxed income if they've already paid foreign taxes equal to 90% of the 21% U.S. corporate tax rate, or 18.9%. The proposed rules were included in a package of new releases from Treasury, which include final regulations on other aspects of GILTI.

The New, Expanded High-Tax Exception For GILTI Wasn't Included In The Final Regulations, Which Means It Won't Be Available For Taxpayers Retroactive To The Date Of Enactment Of The 2017 Legislation.

The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on these proposed rules.

Have an International Tax Problem?   

 
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

Live Help