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

call us toll free: 888-8TAXAID

Yearly Archives: 2020

FBAR vs. Form 8938 Treatment of Financial Accounts Located in a U.S. Territory or Possession

The ABA posted Foreign Asset Reporting and U.S. Territories where they discuss that Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, The United States Virgin Islands, The Northern Mariana Islands—these are all United States territories or possessions. Individuals born in these territories are deemed by law to be either United States citizens or United States nationals. Yet these locations are separated from the contiguous United States by vast bodies of water. Many U.S. citizens from the contiguous United States have never been to any of the territories. Travel from the contiguous United States to any one of these territories involves a multiple-hour trip by either air or sea. In many ways, these locations seem foreign and exotic to most Americans.


The FBAR, Form 8938, Form 3520, Form 5471, Form 8621—these are all information reporting forms used to report various types of foreign assets to different bureaus within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, such as the Internal Revenue Service (the IRS) or the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCen). When most people think of “foreign” assets, they think of assets located in foreign countries, such as Switzerland, Israel, China, the United Kingdom, or Russia.

What about an asset, such as a bank account, located in a U.S. territory or possession? Is it a foreign or a domestic asset? The answer, unfortunately, is not so simple.An asset located in a U.S. territory or possession may or may not be considered “foreign” depending on the type of information reporting form. In addition, an individual’s residence in a U.S. territory or possession may impact whether or not they must report an asset located in that territory. This difference in treatment becomes most apparent when comparing the treatment of U.S. territories and possessions on the FBAR Form versus their treatment on Form 8938.

FBAR vs. Form 8938 Treatment of Financial Accounts Located in a U.S. Territory or Possession

The obligation to file Form 8938 depends on three factors: 

    (i) the filing status of the taxpayer; 
    (ii) the residence of the taxpayer; and 
    (iii) the aggregate value of the taxpayer’s specified foreign financial assets. 

For example, an unmarried taxpayer residing in the United States must file Form 8938 if her specified foreign assets exceed $50,000 on the last day of the tax year or more than $75,000 at any time during the tax year. 

At the other end of the spectrum, married taxpayers residing outside the United States and filing a joint Form 1040 income tax return must file Form 8938 if their specified foreign assets exceed $400,000 on the last day of the tax year or more than $600,000 at any time during the tax year. 

In between there are various other threshold amounts for married taxpayers residing in the United States and either filing separately or jointly, unmarried taxpayers residing outside the United States, and married taxpayers residing outside the United States but filing separately. 

Failure to file a Form 8938 may result in a $10,000 penalty, with an additional penalty of $10,000 for each 30-day period during which the Form 8938 is not filed, up to a maximum of $50,000. If the failure to disclose a specified foreign financial asset on Form 8938 also results in an underpayment of tax, then there is a 40 percent accuracy-related penalty on the underpayment.

With respect to a financial account located in a U.S. territory or possession, the asset will be reported differently on the two forms. For FBAR purposes, such an account is treated as a U.S. account and therefore does not need to be reported on the FBAR. That same account, however, is considered a foreign account for purposes of Form 8938 and must be reported on that form.

This difference in treatment can be traced to the different statutes that govern the FBAR and Form 8938. The obligation to file an FBAR is derived from Title 31 of the U.S. Code, specifically 31 U.S.C. § 5314, which requires U.S. persons to maintain records and file reports with respect to that person’s financial accounts held at a foreign financial institution. Title 31 deals with monetary instruments, including topics such as money laundering. The definition section of Title 31 defines the term “United States” as including U.S. possessions and territories.

    
    (6)     “United States” means the States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and, when the Secretary prescribes by                   regulation, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, American                      Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, a territory or possession of the United States, or a military or                               diplomatic establishment.

The practical effect of this definition is that U.S. territories and possessions are not deemed foreign for Title 31 purposes. As a result, a financial account in a U.S. territory or possession is deemed a United States-based account, and therefore does not need to be reported on the FBAR. This is confirmed by the FBAR regulations.

By contrast, the obligation to file Form 8938 is derived from Title 26 of the U.S. Code, specifically § 6038D. Title 26, of course, is the Internal Revenue Code that deals with topics related to the U.S. federal tax system. Title 26’s definition section defines the term “United States” as excluding U.S. possessions and territories.

    
    (9)    United States.--The term ‘United States’ when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of                 Columbia.

The practical effect of this definition is that U.S. territories and possessions are deemed foreign for Title 26 purposes. Thus, a financial account in a U.S. territory or possession is deemed a foreign account and must be reported on Form 8938, a fact confirmed by the regulations governing Form 8938.

Because of these different statutory definitions, it appears that a legislative change may be needed to harmonize the FBAR and Form 8938 in their treatments of accounts based in U.S. territories. That said, the FBAR was first introduced in the 1970s, and Form 8938 was introduced in mid-2010. 

There does not appear to be any legislative fix on the horizon for the differing manner in which these forms treat such accounts. Taxpayers and their professional advisers must therefore be mindful of the fact that accounts that do not need to be reported on the FBAR may nonetheless need to be reported on Form 8938.

For more  regarding FBAR vs. Form 8938
Treatment of Residents of U.S. Territories or Possessions and  the Treatment of U.S. Territories or Possessions on Other Information Reporting Forms see the ABA posted Foreign Asset Reporting and U.S. Territories. 

Have an International Tax Problem?

 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

IRS Doesn’t Have Superior Claim to Songwriter’s Royalties

 

In United States v. Edward J. Holland Jr. et al. No. 18-1712 (10 March 2020), Holland a songwriter, sold his song-rights to music companies, in exchange for royalty payments. Holland failed fully to report his income. 

 
In 1986-1990, the IRS levied Holland’s royalty assets and recovered $1.5 million. 
 
In 1997, the IRS informed him that it intended again to levy those assets. 
 
Holland converted his interest in future royalty payments into a lump sum and created a partnership wholly owned by him, to which he transferred title to the royalty assets ($23.3 million). The partnership borrowed $15 million, for which the royalty assets served as collateral. Bankers Trust paid $8.4 million directly to Holland, $5 million in fees, and $1.7 million for Holland’s debts, including his taxes. 
  • The IRS did not assess any additional amounts against Holland until 2003. 
  • In 2005, the partnership refinanced the 1998 deal, using Royal Bank. 
  • In 2012, the IRS concluded that the partnership held the royalty assets as Holland’s alter ego or fraudulent transferee and recorded a $20 million lien against the partnership.
In an enforcement suit, the partnership sold the royalty assets. The proceeds ($21 million) went into an interpleader fund, to be distributed to the partnership’s creditors in order of priority. The government’s lien ($20 million), if valid against the partnership, would take priority over Royal Bank’s security interest. 
 
The Sixth Circuit affirmed a judgment for Royal Bank. Transactions to monetize future revenue, using a partnership or corporate form, are common and facially legitimate. Holland received adequate consideration in 1998. The IRS’s delay in making additional assessments rather than the 1998 transfer caused the government’s collection difficulties.
 

 

Have a Tax Problem?  

 

 
 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

Atty Wife Not Entitled To Innocent Spouse Relief For Under Reporting

In Rogers v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 17-3358 (7th Cir. 2018) the US Court of Appeals affirmed the Tax Court’s conclusion that Mrs. Rogers’s participation through her counsel, an experienced tax attorney, in the prior Tax Court proceedings indicated her meaningful participation and therefore was not entitled to Innocent Spouse Relief.

Frances and her husband John filed a joint return for 2004. The IRS subsequently found the return deficient and informed them that they owed an additional $488,177 in income taxes and under reporting penalties of $138,732.

The couple filed suit. John, a Harvard-educated tax lawyer, represented them at trial. Frances, a former teacher with an MBA, doctorate, and a law degree, attended the trial. The Tax Court ruled against the couple, finding them jointly and severally liable, 26 U.S.C. 6013(d),

Three years later, Frances sought innocent spouse relief, 26 U.S.C. 6015. 

  • The Tax Court rejected the claim. 
  • The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that in the trial precluded Frances from after-the-fact seeking to avoid responsibility for those liabilities.

Such Relief Is Available Only If The Petitioner
Has Not “Participated Meaningfully In [The] Prior Proceeding,”
In This Case, The 2012 Trial.

Mrs. Rogers’s contention that she lacked knowledge of business and financial matters, including complex tax matters, and otherwise did not understand what transpired during the 2012 trial lacked credibility and she had every opportunity to raise her claim during the 2012 trial. Her testimony was self-serving and at odds with her education and experience.

Have a Tax Problem?  
 


 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

IRS Loses 2 FBAR Penalty Calculation Cases

We recently posted DC Determined That IRS Arbitrarily Calculated $1.5M FBAR Penalty, where we discussed that a California District Court in Margaret J. Jones v. U.S., case number 2:19-cv-04950, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, determined that the IRS arbitrarily calculated a penalty of over $1.5 million for a woman who failed to file foreign bank account reports.

The $1.5 million was an arbitrary figure because it was based on her 2013 account balances instead of 2011,when she had less money in her accounts, Jones added. Had it been based on the latter, she would have owed about $37,000 less, she said. Jones moved for summary judgment to dismiss the penalty and on the charge she willfully failed to file.

We also recently posted DC Finds That FBAR Penalty Not Violate 8th Amendment & Imposed a Penalty of $12.9M Based Upon FMV on June 30, where we discussed that a Florida District Court in U.S. v. Isac Schwarzbaum, case number 9:18-cv-81147, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, has determined that Schwarzbaum, will pay the IRS a $12.9 million penalty for failing to file reports on his foreign bank accounts, a federal court ordered after having determined that the agency erred when it calculated the penalty at $13.7 million or $800,000 more than the court determined to be correct.

According court documents, the USA originally utilized the highest aggregate balance in each account for each year to arrive at a mitigated willful FBAR penalty amount of $35,729,591.00 and then mitigated this penalty based on the highest aggregate account balances, which results in a maximum penalty of $23,826,738.00 (as opposed to $35,729,591.00).
 
Judge Bloom rejected the agency's arguments, saying it should have obtained the balance information before it assessed penalties. Using the $100,000 figure where the balances were estimated, she added half of the June 30 account balances, calculating the penalty amount at $12.9 million (down from the original $35,729,591.00 or 1/3 of the original assessment).

Finally The Court Concluded That The Penalty Assessed By The Government Did Not Conform To Statutory Requirements Because They Did Not Use Utilizing 50% of The Balance In Each Account At The Time Of The Violation, Which Was The Deadline To File The FBAR or June 30 of Each Year.

 

The government used the highest aggregate balance in each of the accounts for each year as reported by Taxpayer on a penalty calculation worksheet provided in connection with his OVDI disclosures. 
 
When representing taxpayers who have rolled out of the OVDP program or are being audited and assessed the willful FBAR penalty, be sure to check the IRS' calculation of the FBAR penalty and ensure that is based upon the balance in the foreign account as of June 30 of the following year!
Have an FBAR Penalty Problem?  
 
 
 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