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

call us toll free: 888-8TAXAID

Monthly Archives: May 2021

Ten Facts About Tax Expatriation – Part II

On May 11, 2021 we posted Ten Facts About Tax Expatriation - Part I, where we discussed that whatever your motives, just because you leave the United States and renounce your citizenship, don't assume you can leave U.S. taxes (or U.S. tax forms and complexity) behind, particularly if you are financially well-off.

For those who expatriate after June 16, 2008, the rules are different, since Internal Revenue Code Section 877A applies instead of Section 877. You are subject to an immediate exit tax, which deems you (for tax purposes) to have sold all of your worldwide property for its fair market value the day before your departure from the U.S.
We also discussed in Ten Facts About Tax Expatriation - Part I:

1. Uncle Sam taxes income worldwide. 

2. Expatriating means really leaving.

3. The old 10-year window is closed.

Herein will discuss 7 more, of the 10 things you need to know about Expatriation:
(set forth below and in one subsequent blog posts)

4. Big changes came in 1996.
Thirty years later, in 1996, after the Forbes story on "The New Refugees" created a stir, Congress tried again. As part of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (otherwise known as HIPAA), Congress added a presumption of tax avoidance if an expatriate's five-year average net income tax exceeded $100,000, or if the expatriate's net worth was $500,000 or more (both adjusted each year for inflation). But people could--and with the help of skilled lawyers did--rebut the presumption, and the IRS still had to show tax avoidance in most cases.

5. Tax avoidance is now irrelevant.
In 2004 (in the American Jobs Creation Act), Congress threw out the tax avoidance motive test altogether, imposing 10 years of U.S. tax on U.S. source gross income and gains on a net basis if you left the country for any reason. However, Congress increased the threshold for determining who was subject to this expatriation tax. An individual was only subject to the expatriation tax if he had an average net annual income tax for the five years preceding expatriation of $124,000, or if he had a net worth of $2 million or more on the date of expatriation. (If you expatriated on or after June 17, 2008, under the new Section 877A, there is a higher net worth threshold--currently $145,000 of annual net income tax for 2010.)

In some cases, even if you're below these thresholds, you'll get taxed. For example, expatriates must certify their past U.S. tax compliance by filing an IRS Form 8854. Any expatriate who fails to certify compliance with U.S. federal income tax laws for the five taxable years preceding expatriating is subject to the expatriate income tax even if he didn't meet the income tax liability or net worth tests.
Plus, later U.S. visits can be expensive if you expatriated before June 17, 2008 (and Internal Revenue Code Section 877 applies). In that case if an expatriate comes back to the U.S. for more than 30 days in any year during the 10 years following expatriation, that person is considered a resident of the U.S. for that whole tax year. That means the person would again be subject to U.S. tax on his worldwide income, not just his U.S.-source income. Ouch!

This 30-day rule does, however, have an exception for any days (up to a 30-day limit) that the individual performed personal services in the U.S. for an employer (who is not related). This exception only applies if that individual either had certain ties with other countries or was physically present in the U.S. for 30 days or less for each year in the 10-year period on the date of expatriation or termination of residency.

6. There are special rules for long-term residents.
It's easy to define who is or is not a U.S. citizen, but the term "long-term resident" isn't quite so clear. A long-term resident is a non-U.S. citizen who is a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. in at least eight years during the 15-year period before that person's residency ends. A "lawful permanent resident" means a green card holder. However, a person is not treated as a lawful permanent resident for purposes of this eight-year test in a year in which that person is treated as a resident of a foreign country under a tax treaty, and does not waive the treaty benefits applicable to the residents of that country. Caution: holding a green card for even one day during a year will taint the whole year.

7. There's an exit tax for expatriations on or after June 17, 2008.
The Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008 (generally known as the Heroes Act) changed the method of taxation for those who became expatriates on or after June 17, 2008, adding even more complexity and usually higher U.S. taxes. If you are a U.S. citizen or long-term resident who expatriates on or after June 17, 2008, you will be deemed (for tax purposes) to have sold all of your worldwide property for its fair market value the day before you leave the U.S.! All that gain is subject to U.S. tax at the capital gains rate. Plus, all your gain is taken into account without regard to any ameliorative tax provisions in the Internal Revenue Code.
Put differently, you get all of the bad parts of the tax code, and none of the good. That would include, for example, the inability to benefit from the $250,000 per person ($500,000 per couple) exclusion from gain on a principal residence (Section 121 of the Internal Revenue Code) and many other rules. The exit tax is like an estate tax, in the sense that everything that would be part of your estate will be subject to income tax on unrealized gains as of the day before you expatriate, as if you sold all your assets the day before leaving. In effect this is Congress' way of making sure your assets don't escape the estate tax entirely through expatriation.

"Should I Stay or Should I Go?"

Need Advise on Expatriation? 
 

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

For a FREE Tax Consultation at:
or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid ( 888 882-9243)  

  

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Swiss Life & Affiliates Admits to Conspiring with U.S. Taxpayers to Hide Assets & Income in Offshore Accounts

The Department of Justice today filed a criminal information charging Swiss Life Holding AG (Swiss Life Holding), Swiss Life (Liechtenstein) AG (Swiss Life Liechtenstein), Swiss Life (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (Swiss Life Singapore), and Swiss Life (Luxembourg) S.A. (Swiss Life Luxembourg), collectively, the “Swiss Life Entities,” with conspiring with U.S. taxpayers and others to conceal from the IRS more than $1.452 billion in offshore insurance policies, including more than 1,600 insurance wrapper policies, and related policy investment accounts in banks around the world and the income generated in these accounts. 

The Justice Department also announced a deferred prosecution agreement with the Swiss Life Entities (“the Agreement”) under which they agreed to accept responsibility for their criminal conduct by stipulating to the accuracy of the Statement of Facts attached to the Agreement. The Agreement requires the Swiss Life Entities to refrain from all future criminal conduct, enhance remedial measures, and continue to cooperate fully with further investigations into hidden insurance policies and related policy investment accounts. 

Further, As Part of Today’s Resolution, The Swiss Life Entities Agreed To Pay Approximately $77.3 Million To The U.S. Treasury, Which Includes Restitution, Forfeiture of
All Gross Fees, and a Penalty Component.

If the Swiss Life Entities abide by all of the terms of the Agreement, the government will defer prosecution on the information for three years and then seek to dismiss the charge. 

“Swiss Life today is held responsible for creating and marketing specially designed insurance products to U.S. tax evaders seeking a new way to hide their offshore assets, in light of heightened Justice Department and IRS tax enforcement efforts,” said Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart M. Goldberg of the Justice Department’s Tax Division. 

“Financial Enablers Here And Abroad,
And The Taxpayers Seeking Their Services,

Should Know That We Will Continue
To Identify And Unmask Such Schemes.”

As they admit, Swiss Life and its subsidiaries sought out and offered their services to U.S. taxpayers to help them become U.S. tax evaders,” said U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss for the Southern District of New York. “The Swiss Life Entities offered private placement life insurance policies and related investment accounts to U.S. customers, and provided services that concealed the policies and other assets from the IRS. Indeed, the Swiss Life Entities saw U.S. authorities’ stepped-up offshore tax enforcement as an opportunity to pitch themselves to tax-evading U.S. customers as an alternative to Swiss banks. Under the terms of today’s agreement, Swiss Life will turn over more than $77 million and be required to continue to cooperate with the United States in identifying U.S. tax evaders.” 

“The successful resolution of this investigation is an important victory for the American taxpayer for two primary reasons,” said Chief James C. Lee of the IRS Criminal Investigation. “First, the recovery of more $77 million owed to the U.S. government sends an unequivocal message that offshore evasion is still a high priority of IRS Criminal Investigation. Secondly, this agreement further requires Swiss Life Entities to continue to cooperate with the government and does not shield them from future civil or criminal sanctions, which should put every entity engaged in offshore evasion on notice.

According to documents filed on May 14, 2021 in Manhattan federal court: 

Swiss Life Holding is the ultimate parent company of the Swiss Life group of companies (Swiss Life), a Switzerland based provider of comprehensive life insurance and pension products for individuals and corporations, as well as asset management and financial planning services. From 2005 to 2014, Swiss Life through affiliated insurance carriers in Liechtenstein (Swiss Life Liechtenstein), Luxembourg (Swiss Life Luxembourg), and Singapore (Swiss Life Singapore), (collectively, the PPLI Carriers) maintained approximately 1,608 Private Placement Life Insurance (PPLI) policies. The PPLI Carriers’ issuance and administration of those policies (colloquially known as “insurance wrappers”) and the related investment accounts were often done in a manner to assist U.S. taxpayers in evading U.S. taxes and reporting requirements and concealing the ownership of offshore assets. 

Swiss Life engaged in other misconduct with respect to U.S.-related policies: 

  • U.S.-related PPLI Policies were funded or terminated through asset transfers from/to an account maintained by a third party associated with the policyholder, such as an offshore law firm or intermediary. 
  • Swiss Life PPLI personnel assisted U.S. taxpayers in establishing and maintaining Swiss Life PPLI policies in the name of a foreign relative with the effect of obscuring the U.S. nexus of the assets used to fund the policy or to repatriate the U.S. taxpayer’s undeclared assets through a sham death payout. 
  • Certain U.S.-related PPLI Policies issued by Swiss Life Liechtenstein involved transfers of physical gold, other precious metals, or precious gemstones into or out of the policy investment account, presumably for the purpose of avoiding detection by U.S. authorities. 
  • The PPLI Carriers allowed policyholders to designate an authorized recipient – typically the policyholder’s asset manager or other foreign representative – to receive policy documents and custodian investment account statements, rather than having those documents sent directly to the policyholder. 
  • Certain Swiss Life Liechtenstein personnel promoted the use of Swiss Life products to turn U.S. taxpayers’ undeclared or so-called “black” money into so-called “white” money by parking the funds in a Swiss Life insurance policy until the clock had run on the perceived statute of limitations for tax offenses. 
  • Corporate premium bank accounts were also misused as a transitory account to help conceal the movement of U.S. clients’ funds. 

Under today’s resolution, the Swiss Life Entities are required to continue to cooperate fully with ongoing investigations and affirmatively disclose any information they may later uncover regarding U.S.-related insurance policies and related policy investment accounts. The Swiss Life Entities are also required to disclose information consistent with the Department of Justice’s Swiss Bank Program relating to accounts closed between Jan. 1, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2019. The Agreement provides no protection from criminal or civil prosecution for any individuals.

Swiss Life Holding will pay a total of $77,374,337, which has three parts. First, Swiss Life Holding has agreed to pay $16,345,454 in restitution to the IRS, which represents the approximate unpaid taxes resulting from the Swiss Life Entities’ participation in the conspiracy. Second, Swiss Life Holding has agreed to forfeit $35,782,375 to the United States, which represents the approximate gross fees (not profits) that the Swiss Life Entities earned on the penalized insurance policies and related policy investment accounts between 2002 and 2014. Finally, Swiss Life Holding has agreed to pay a penalty of $25,246,508. 

The penalty amount takes into consideration that:

  1. Swiss Life conducted a robust internal investigation, 
  2. Supplied client related data
  3. Facilitated the acquisition by the Justice Department of information relating to custodian banks, asset managers, and other entities and individuals related to Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and Singapore, and 
  4. Otherwise meaningfully assisted the department’s cross-border tax enforcement efforts
  5. In addition, Swiss Life conducted extensive outreach to current and former U.S. clients to confirm historical tax compliance, and to encourage disclosure to the IRS when policyholders’ historical tax compliance issues had not yet been resolved. 
  6. Swiss Life further implemented remedial measures to protect against the use of its services for tax evasion in the future.

  Do You Have Undeclared Income from an Offshore PPLI?

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

1st TC Case on Innocent Spouse Relief and Newly Discovered Evidence

In an oral finding of fact and opinion in Momoudou Fatty v. Comm., Docket No. 3787-20S, the Tax Court has denied a taxpayer's petition for innocent spouse relief. The Court said, in one of the first cases to come after a change in Code Sec. 6015(e)(7)'s scope of review, that evidence given under oath and subject to cross-examination was "newly available evidence."

Individuals who are married may file a joint return with their spouse. (Code Sec. 6013(a)) Generally, spouses filing a joint Federal income tax return are jointly liable for the tax shown on the return. (Code Sec. 6013(d)(3))

However, in some situations, a joint return filer can avoid joint liability by qualifying for innocent spouse relief under Code Sec. 6015.

For petitions or requests for innocent spouse relief filed after June 30, 2019, any review of a determination under Code Sec. 6015 will be reviewed de novo by the Tax Court and will be based on: 

  1. the administrative record established at the time of the determination, and
  2. any additional newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence. (Code Sec. 6015(e)(7))

Prior to July 1, 2019, Court's could not review the evidence mentioned in (2).

Ms. and Mr. Fatty had filed a joint return, but later Mr. Fatty sought innocent spouse relief.

When Mr. Fatty applied for innocent spouse relief, he was not able to give sworn testimony, and neither he nor Ms. Fatty was subject to cross-examination.

The Tax Court, in denying Mr. Fatty innocent spouse relief, said that this is one of the first cases to come after the June 30, 2019 change to Code Sec. 6015(e)(7)

The Court took the opportunity to review newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence. In this case, the Court said that the evidence that Ms. and Mr. Fatty gave under oath and subject to cross-examination was "newly available evidence" because, when Mr. Fatty applied for innocent spouse relief, he was not able to give sworn testimony, and neither party was subject to cross-examination.

But the Court also cautioned that it "was not deciding this for all future cases," as the case was an S case. Presumably, the Court was saying that it was not making a binding decision on the Tax Court that evidence given under oath and subject to cross-examination is always "newly available evidence." 

Have IRS Tax Problems?


     Contact the Tax Lawyers at

Marini & Associates, P.A. 

for a FREE Tax HELP 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

The Appeals Process Has Recently Been Taking Approximately 7-8 Months

The Chief of the IRS Independent Office of Appeals (Appeals) has set out information about Appeals including the fact that the entire Appeals process for non-docketed cases has recently been taking approximately 7-8 months.

Appeals' function is to resolve tax controversies without litigation on a basis that: 

  1. is fair and impartial to both IRS and the taxpayer; 
  2. promotes a consistent application and interpretation of, and voluntary compliance with, federal tax laws; and 
  3. enhances public confidence in the integrity and efficiency of IRS. (Code Sec. 7803(e)(3))

The Appeals Chief set out a number of facts, etc. about Appeals, including:

  • Appeals has an overall staff of approximately 1,240 employees, mostly Appeals Officers and Settlement Officers. An Appeals Officer typically handles matters involving audit-related issues like penalties or additions to tax. For some complex matters, Appeals Officers may work as a team with other Appeals Officers. A Settlement Officer typically handles matters involving collection matters like whether IRS followed proper procedures when imposing a lien or proposing a levy for unpaid taxes.

  • Appeals is unique within tax administration, because it has the authority to compromise the amount of tax owed to resolve a dispute. This means Appeals can offer taxpayers a settlement based on the probable outcome if their case were to go to court. Appeals calls this "evaluating the 'hazards of litigation.'" The Chief noted that not every dispute merits a compromise and some issues do not raise hazards of litigation. 

  • When IRS makes a determination regarding tax liability, it will provide the taxpayer with a notice. If you receive an IRS notice and your case is eligible for an appeal, the notice will explain your appeal rights. At that point, if you disagree with IRS determination, you can request an appeal. The next step is to write down, either in a formal protest or simple statement, the issues with which you disagree and why. It’s important to remember that you should make your appeal request with the IRS compliance person who worked your case. That employee then will be able to send your appeal request, along with your case file, to Appeals.

  • Taxpayers can also come to Appeals after filing a petition in the United States Tax Court to dispute the IRS compliance action.

  • Once your case arrives in Appeals, Appeals will assign it to an Appeals Officer or Settlement Officer depending on the type of case. Appeals' goal is to have the assigned Appeals employee contact you by mail or telephone within approximately 30 days of receiving your case; however, it is taking longer these days due to pandemic-related delays and other resource constraints.

  • You may request to view the non-privileged part of the Compliance file prior to meeting with Appeals.

  • If you are unable to locate an important document that might help explain your position, please try to explain the document, why it isn’t available and what steps you took to try to obtain copies, etc.

  • Appeals Officers and Settlement Officers try to resolve cases after holding a taxpayer conference or by correspondence. But, some complex cases may take more than one conference to resolve.

  • The time it takes for Appeals to work your case depends on several factors, including the type of case, the facts of the case, the complexity of the issues, the availability of legal precedents, other legal theories involved and Appeals’ determination of the hazards of litigation. If you have petitioned the Tax Court prior to coming to Appeals, you have a “docketed” case and the time involved will also be affected by dates and timeframes established by the court and beyond Appeals’ ability to control.

  • Cases received directly from a compliance function that have not been petitioned to the Tax Court are referred to as “non-docketed” cases. Recently, for non-docketed examination or collection appeals, the entire process, from the time your case is received in Appeals to the time it is resolved or closed in Appeals, takes on average 7 or 8 months.

  • Appeals has set out the following goals: 

  1. Increasing staffing; 
  2. Adopting secure digital messaging to communicate with taxpayers electronically; 
  3. Expanding taxpayer access to videoconferences so they can meet with Appeals “face-to-face” even during the pandemic; 
  4. Expanding internal paperless processes to allow Appeals to process cases more quickly.

Have IRS Tax Problems?


     Contact the Tax Lawyers at

Marini & Associates, P.A. 

for a FREE Tax HELP 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