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

call us toll free: 888-8TAXAID

Yearly Archives: 2019

All That You Wanted to Know About Form 706NA – Part II


We previously posted All That You Wanted to Know About Form 706NA - Part I, where we discussed that in the area of estate tax compliance, many of us have prepared Form 706’s, the estate tax return for US citizens and domiciliaries.  To be sure, this form is quite voluminous and can take a while to fill out but there are very few mysteries beyond schedule E; what percentage of an asset might be includable in an estate, the value of an annuity, what debts and expenses are deductible, the calculation of the marital deduction, and the generation-skipping tax computation. The Form 706NA, however, preparation of the tax return for the estate of the nonresident alien owning property in the United States, can present a more daunting task.  
Based on my 32 years of experience as a senior attorney at the International office of the IRS, I am revealing some of the strange and exotic problems that I came upon while auditing roughly 1,500 estate tax returns and preparing about 300 of the same in the last few years.
 

As I pointed out, one of the critical areas for each estate is to focus on is the decedent’s citizenship and domicile. To assist the IRS in reaching a conclusion, it is best to include the death certificate (required) as well as the birth certificate, passport, and any documents revealing the fact that the decedent expatriated from one country. This information may well be beneficial in avoiding an IRS examination. The problem is that once the IRS examines a tax return for one issue (i.e. citizenship or domicile), it opens the door for the IRS to examine a number of other issues that they might not have otherwise addressed. Kind of like opening Pandora's box. 

After we get through the information about the decedent himself, we reach an area of the return, Part III, General Information. Most of it is pretty obvious but… The first area of major concern may be whether the decedent died intestate. Many people who have assets in several countries have country specific wills, for instance one for the United States and one for say Canada, England etc. If the decedent did die testate, one should always include the US will. If there are other wills, go through them carefully before you submit them to the IRS because they make contain data which would create questions or problems with the IRS. In the alternative, many folks have a Universal Will which covers the disposition of assets in all countries. Because of the difference of rules from country to country, such a universal will may create problems with assets passing to a surviving spouse or a charity. 

Question two addresses debt obligations  or other property located in the United States. One of the major problems that I saw as an auditor was that people will value the house or condominium in the United States allocating no value to the contents. In most cases this is not a big deal but in the case of an expensive property, I, as the auditor always requested (summoned if the estate did not cooperate) a copy of the insurance policy plus the floater. Generally I found nothing specific but from time to time, I found an art collection worth several million dollars, an automobile collection worth over million dollars, and an extensive collection of rare China worse close to $1 million. If the client is wealthy or as expensive real estate in the United States, obtain a copy of the insurance floater before you prepare the 706NA to avoid great embarrassment. 

Question five relates to whether the decedent owned jointly held property in the United States. If the taxpayer plans to include 100% of the value of the asset, then this question should pose no problems. Two potential problems come to light: if the decedent came from a community property jurisdiction, is one half of the value of the asset excluded by operation of law in the foreign country? If one wishes to exclude a portion of an asset from a decedent in a non-community property jurisdiction, Section 2040 of the IRC places the onus again, of proving contribution on the surviving co-tenant. This can sometimes be a very difficult task, especially if the property is been held for a substantial number of years and many records/canceled checks etc. have been destroyed over the years. 

Question six asks whether the decedent had ever been a US citizen. If the answer to the initial question is yes but at the time of death, the decedent is no longer a US citizen, it is necessary to include in the paperwork sent to the IRS some evidence that the decedent properly expatriated from the United States. Based on the timing, if this happened shortly before death, it could raise the issue of expatriation to avoid tax. Again, getting this information before preparing the return is a good way to avoiding embarrassment at  the examination.

Have a US Estate Tax Problem?

 

Estate Tax Problems Require

an Experienced Estate Tax Attorney
 
 
 
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).

 

Robert S. Blumenfeld  - 
 Estate Tax Counsel
Mr. Blumenfeld concentrates his practice in the areas of International Tax and Estate Planning, Probate Law, and Representation of Resident and Non-Resident Aliens before the IRS.

Prior to joining Marini & Associates, P.A., he spent 32 years as the Senior Attorney with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Office of Deputy Commissioner, International.

While with the IRS, he examined approximately 2,000 Estate Tax Returns and litigated various international and tax issues associated with these returns.As a result of his experience, he has extensive knowledge of the issues associated with and the preparation of U.S. Estate Tax Returns for Resident and Non-Resident Aliens, Gift Tax Returns, Form 706QDT and Qualified Domestic Trusts.

 

 

 

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Taxpayer Appeals Ct of Claims Ruling Upholding FBAR Penalty in excess of $100,000

The Court of Federal Claims, granted summary judgment in IRS' favor earlier this year, determining that a taxpayer's failure to file a Report of Foreign Bank and Foreign Accounts (FBAR or FinCEN Form 114 was willful and upheld IRS's imposition of a $697, 229 penalty, i.e., an amount greater than the $100,000 maximum set out in regs that have not been removed despite a statutory increase in the penalty amount.
 



The Court Found That The Revisions To The Statute Effectively Nullified The Contrary Regs. 

 
See Kimble v. U.S., (Ct Fed Cl 12/27/2018) 122 AFTR 2d ¶2018-5544).
 

Under 31 USC 5314(a) and 31 C.F.R. 1010.350, every U.S. person that has a financial interest in, or signature or other authority over, a financial account in a foreign country must report the account to IRS annually on an FBAR. The penalty for violating the FBAR requirement is set forth in 31 USC 5321(a)(5). 31 USC 5321(a)(5)(A) provides that the Secretary of the Treasury may impose a civil money penalty on any person who violates, or causes any violation of 31 USC 5314(a).

The maximum amount of the penalty depends on whether the violation was non-willful or willful. The maximum penalty amount for a nonwillful violation of the FBAR requirements is $10,000. (31 USC 5321(a)(5)(B)(i)) The maximum penalty amount for a willful violation is the greater of $100,000 or 50% of the balance in the account at the time of the violation. (31 USC 5321(a)(5)(C), 31 USC 5321(a)(5)(D)).

The penalty amounts described above reflect a 2004 law change that increased the maximum civil penalties that can be assessed for willful failure to file an FBAR. Before that change, the maximum penalty was $100,000. Regs that were promulgated before the statutory increase continue to reflect the former $100,000 maximum (as opposed to the "greater of $100,000 or 50%" maximum). (31 C.F.R. 1010.820(g)). There is currently disagreement amongst courts as to whether the 2004 statutory amendment invalidated the $100,000 cap established by 31 C.F.R 1010.820. 

Alice Green, the taxpayer, is a U.S. citizen. Sometime prior to '80, her parents opened an investment account at the Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS account) and designated Alice as a joint owner.Alice's father was Jewish, and members of his family had been killed in the Holocaust. According to Alice, her father's intent with respect to the UBS account was to provide Alice with funds in case she needed to escape America. The money in the UBS account was only to be used in an emergency, and its existence was to be kept a secret.


In 2008, Alice learned from a newspaper article that the U.S. was “putting pressure on UBS to reveal the names of people who had secret accounts in UBS" and retained counsel to comply with foreign reporting requirements. On June 30, 2008, the balance in the UBS account was $1,365,662, and the balance in the HSBC account was $134,130.

Alice didn't report any investment income from either account on her original income tax returns from 2004 through 2008 despite having income each year. She also answered a question on those tax returns regarding the existence of reportable foreign financial accounts in the negative for three of those returns, and left the question blank on the fourth. The instructions for that question indicated that a "yes" answer would mean that an FBAR should be filed. Alice didn't file FBARs during these years.

In 2009, Alice applied, and was accepted, to the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP). As part of her participation in the OVDP, in 2011, she filed amended tax returns for 2003 through 2008 reflecting the unreported investment income. On her 2007 amended returns, she also changed her answer to "yes" regarding the existence of a foreign account, but left it unchanged on the others.
She negotiated a closing agreement with IRS in 2012 that required her to pay the tax liability due as well as a $377,309 penalty.


She Decided Later To Withdraw From The OVDP,
On Account Of The Penalty Amount and 

"Take Her Chances." 
 
 
IRS began an examination in 2013 and concluded that Alice's failure to file an FBAR for 2007 was willful based on facts including the value of the UBS account, her repeated failure to disclose the accounts and income therefrom, her efforts to conceal their existence, and her active involvement with them. IRS recalculated the total penalty as $697,229, i.e., 50% of the UBS account balance in 2007 and assessed the penalty in 2016, which Alice paid in full then filed a claim for refund. 

The Court of Federal Claims concluded that Alice's 2007 failure to file an FBAR was willful, finding that her actions were voluntary and that she knew of the requirement vis-a-vis her affirmative answer to the question on her amended 2007 return regarding the existence of foreign reportable accounts. In so holding, the Court rejected Alice's construction of the term "willfulness" as meaning criminal behavior and requiring more than a simple failure to check a box and file an FBAR, and found that Supreme Court precedent supported treating reckless conduct as "willful" for various purposes.

Finally, the Claims Court found that the $100,000 maximum in the regs was no longer valid in light of the new statutory maximum. The Court noted that IRS has stated, in the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM), that while its regs hadn't been revised to reflect the change in the penalty ceiling, the statute raising the maximum was "self-executing and the new penalty ceilings apply." (IRM § 4.26.16.4.5.1)


The Court found that the reasoning of recent district court cases reaching a contrary conclusion (e.g., U.S. v. Colliot, (DC TX) 121 AFTR 2d 2018-1834) conflicted with the reasoning of the Federal Circuit in Barseback Kraft AB v. U.S., (CA Fed Cir 1997) 121 F.3d 1475, which held that certain pricing regs, while not formally withdrawn, had been rendered invalid by an intervening law change.

Now Alice Kimble has asked the appeals court in a brief filed on April 30, 2019, to reverse the U.S. Court of Federal Claims’ ruling that she had willfully failed to disclose her account at UBS AG. She asked the court to decide that the Internal Revenue Service by law cannot impose a penalty of greater than $100,000 for willful failure to file a Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts report.

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

Painter Who White Washes Tax Liability Pleads Guilty to Tax Evasion

According to DoJ, a Long Island, New York, business owner pleaded guilty today to tax evasion.
 
According to documents filed with the court, Warren J. Krotz, 62, of Huntington, New York, owned and operated W. Krotz Enterprises Inc. (WKEI), a professional painting business that provided services throughout Long Island. Krotz admitted to evading both his individual and employment tax liabilities.

 

From Around 2010 Through 2016, Krotz Cashed Approximately $6 Million In Checks At Various Check-Cashing Facilities.

  • These checks were gross receipts of WKEI, but Krotz did not report the amounts on WKEI’s corporate income tax returns.
  • He admitted to paying approximately $2 million in wages to employees in cash.
    • As a result, Krotz did not withhold and pay over to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) approximately $300,000 in employment taxes. 

Additionally, Krotz admitted to receiving approximately $3 million in income that he did not report on his personal tax returns.

In Total, Krotz Admitted to Causing a Tax Loss to the IRS of Approximately $1 Million.

The Honorable Joseph F. Bianco scheduled sentencing for Sept. 25, 2019. Krotz faces a statutory maximum sentence of 5 years in prison, as well as restitution and monetary penalties.


Have a IRS Tax Problem? 

 
 

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

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

 

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Michael Avenatti Charged Stealing From Clients & Avenatti Charged With Tax Evasion -Pleads Not Guilty

Los Angeles federal prosecutors had already charged Avenatti in March with embezzling client funds and bank fraud. The 61-page indictment on Thursday includes those charges.

At a press conference in Los Angeles on Thursday morning, U.S. Attorney Nick Hanna said restitution for the alleged victims will be one of the highest priorities for prosecutors.

“As an attorney, holding a client’s money in a trust is one of your duties,” Hanna said. “This is ‘Lawyer 101’ — you don’t steal your client’s money.”

While he said they wouldn’t be specifically contacting the California State Bar, Hanna said he was sure the bar will see the public indictment and “act accordingly” regarding Avenatti’s law license status.

Avenatti’s attorney, Steven J. Katzman, said in a statement that the indictment proves nothing against his client.

“We intend to fully investigate the charges and provide Mr. Avenatti the robust defense he deserves,” Katzman said.

Los Angeles federal prosecutors claim Avenatti defrauded five of his former clients by lying to them about the details of settlements in their favor while using the money for his own ends.

The indictment alleges that:

  1. Avenatti appropriated a $4 million settlement he had negotiated in 2015 for a client who sued Los Angeles County over injuries that left the client a paraplegic.
  2. As to a second client who settled for $3 million over a personal relationship, prosecutors claim Avenatti used $2.5 million from the settlement to buy a private jet in 2017.
  3. A third client was allegedly duped out of money from a $1.9 million intellectual property settlement in 2017. Avenatti put some of those funds towards his Tully's Coffee business, prosecutors claim.
  4. Avenatti is further accused of stealing from two additional clients who were to be paid $35 million minus attorney fees in a corporate stock transaction. Prosecutors claim Avenatti improperly used some $4 million of the funds to pay bankruptcy creditors and other clients with settlements into which he had dipped.
  5. The government alleges Avenatti also used funds from his coffee business to make payments to clients whose settlement funds he had taken.

Meanwhile, Avenatti was stiffing the government on payroll taxes from his coffee business to the tune of $3.2 million between 2015 and 2017, according to the indictment.

When the IRS started inquiring about taxes the business owed in 2016, Avenatti allegedly lied and claimed he was not involved in the business’ finances and did not know it had failed to pay.

He also started having Tully’s employees deposit funds into an account associated with his car racing team to avoid an IRS levy on an account associated with the coffee chain, according to the indictment.

Avenatti is further charged with failing to file personal tax returns between 2014 and 2017, and failing to file returns for his law firms Eagan Avenatti LLP and Avenatti & Associates between 2015 and 2017.

The case is U.S. v. Avenatti, case number 8:19-cr-00061, in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Michael Avenatti pled not guilty in a California federal courtroom April 29, 2018 to a 36-count indictment that includes charges of embezzling millions from five clients and tax evasion, on top of separate charges in New York that he tried to extort $20 million from Nike.

Have a IRS Tax Problem? 

 


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

 

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

 

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Live Help