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

call us toll free: 888-8TAXAID

Blog

FBAR Consent to Extend Statute Held Valid!

In United States v. Schwarzbaum (S.D. Fla. No. 18-cv-81147) a federal district court rejected an individual's claims that FBAR penalties assessed against him should be set aside because they were assessed after the limitations period expired.

Generally, U.S. persons who maintain a financial account in a foreign country (foreign financial account) must file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) with the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement (FinCEN) division. (31 CFR §1010.350(a)) Willful failure to file an FBAR may result in a penalty. (31 USC § 3521(a)(5)(A)). An FBAR penalty may be assessed at any time before the end of the 6-year period beginning on the date of the transaction with respect to which the penalty was assessed. (31 USC § 5321(b)(1)).

Between 2006 and 2009, the taxpayer, Isac Schwarzbaum, maintained several foreign financial accounts, including accounts in Costa Rica and Switzerland. Isac did not file FBARs for his accounts in Switzerland before 2011. 

In 2011, Isac joined the IRS’s Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative (OVDI). As part of his participation in the OVDI, Isac signed an extension of the limitations period to assess and collect taxes and penalties related to his 2006-2009 returns. 

Isac then opted out of OVDI and underwent full examinations of his returns. After the examinations, the IRS decided to assert willful FBAR penalties against Isac. Those FBAR penalties (for tax years 2006-2009) were assessed in Sept. 2016.

Isac argued that the FBAR penalty assessments were time-barred. The IRS argued that Isac voluntarily signed a consent to extend the limitations period to assess and collect taxes related to his 2006-2009 returns. 
The district court held that Isac’s argument that the FBAR penalties assessed against him were time barred was meritless. The district court found that it was Isac's burden to show that his voluntary agreement to extend the limitations period to assess FBAR penalties was invalid since that was Isac’s affirmative defense. However, Isac failed to point to any legal authority to support his argument that the agreement he signed was invalid. (See Pages 8-9):
  • To the extent that Schwarzbaum argues that the penalties are time-barred, the argument lacks merit. Although Title 31 does not expressly authorize the extension of the applicable statute of limitations by agreement, it does not expressly prohibit such extensions. Schwarzbaum has failed to point to any legal authority indicating that such extensions would be improper. See Melford v. Kahane & Assocs., 371 F. Supp. 3d 1116, 1126 n.4 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (“Generally, a litigant who fails to press a point by supporting it with pertinent authority, or by showing why it is sound despite a lack of supporting authority or in the face of contrary authority, forfeits the point. The court will not do his research for him.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted).  
  • Notably, Schwarzbaum does not dispute that he signed consents agreeing to extend the time during which FBAR penalties could be assessed and collected. See ECF Nos. [44-5], [44-6], [44-7].  
  • Rather, in his Reply he acknowledges the lack of authority, argues that the USA relies upon three irrelevant cases in its Response, and then endeavors to distinguish them.  
  • However, Schwarzbaum ignores that it is he who bears the burden of establishing the defense of statute of limitations in the first instance. See, e.g. Feldman v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 20 F.3d 1128, 1132 (11th Cir. 1994) (“When a taxpayer raises the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations, the taxpayer bears the burden to prove that defense.”) (citation omitted).  
  • Here, Schwarzbaum has failed to provide any authority to support his argument that an agreement to extend the time to assess FBAR penalties under Title 31 is invalid.

Have Undeclared Income from an Offshore Bank Account?  

 
Want to Know Which 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

Congress issues Report on TCJA Revisions to International Corporate Tax Rules

The Congressional Research Service has issued the Congressional Research Service-Issues in International Corporate Taxation: The 2017 Revision (P.L. 115-97)  report that looks at how changes made in 2017 by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA, PL 115-97) to the international corporate tax rules addressed concerns under prior tax law and what problems, issues, and legal uncertainties arose under the TCJA.
The report is divided into three sections. The first section explains prior international tax rules and the revisions made in the TCJA. The second section discusses the four major issues of concern under prior law: allocation of investment; profit shifting; repatriation; and inversions. The second section also discusses how the TCJA addresses these concerns and raises new ones. It also discusses issues associated with international agreements. The third section summarizes commentary about problems and issues, including legal challenges and uncertainty, within the new international tax regime and options that have been suggested.
The report states that one of the major motivations for the TCJA was concern about the international tax system. Issues associated with these rules involved the allocation of investment between the US and other countries; the loss of revenue due to the artificial shifting of profit out of the US by multinational firms (both US and foreign); the penalties for repatriating income earned by foreign subsidiaries that led to the accumulation of deferred earnings abroad; and inversions (US firms shifting their headquarters to other countries for tax reasons). In addition to lowering the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% and providing some other benefits for domestic investment (such as temporary expensing of equipment), the TCJA also substantially changed the international tax regime.
The TCJA moved the tax system from a nominal worldwide tax on all foreign-source income, with a credit against US tax for foreign taxes due, to a nominal territorial system that does not tax foreign-source income. Nevertheless, the report says, both systems could be considered a hybrid of a worldwide and territorial system. Prior law reduced the tax on foreign-source income by allowing deferral (taxing income of foreign subsidiaries only if it was repatriated or paid as a dividend to the US parent) and cross-crediting of foreign taxes (so the credit for high taxes paid in one country could offset US tax on income from a low-tax country). The new system exempts dividends but also imposes a current worldwide tax on global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI), but at a lower rate. It also introduces a corresponding lower rate on intangible income derived from abroad from assets in the US (foreign-derived intangible income, or FDII). The TCJA adds the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT) to existing anti-abuse measures aimed at artificial profit shifting. BEAT imposes a minimum tax on ordinary income plus certain payments to related foreign companies.
Despite the lower corporate tax rate, the report says it is not clear that capital will be shifted into the US from abroad; although a lower rate reduces the tax rate on equity-financed investments, it decreases the subsidy to debt-financed investments. Whether equity investments increase or decrease depends on the magnitude of the TCJA (which appear largely offsetting) and the international mobility of debt versus equity. It is also not clear whether the investment in stock will be allocated more efficiently or in a way more optimal for US welfare, although economic theory suggests that reducing the tax subsidy for debt is a clear improvement.
Although the TCJA's territorial tax may make profit shifting more attractive, overall, given other elements of the new system, the report says it appears to make profit shifting less important. GILTI and FDII bring the tax treatment of income from intangibles in the US and abroad closer together, and BEAT and stricter thin capitalization rules (rules limiting interest deductions) also limit profit shifting, including shifting through leveraging.
The TCJA ends most "penalties" for repatriating earnings and thus eliminates the prior incentives to retain earnings abroad. As part of ending these penalties, the TCJA also introduced a series of measures aimed at making inversions (a method of retaining earnings abroad where a corporation restructures itself so that the current parent is replaced by a foreign parent; thus moving its tax residence to the foreign country) less attractive.
The report says some TCJA measures may violate international agreements such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), bilateral tax treaties, and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) minimum standards to prevent harmful tax practices.
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

Streamline Offshore Submission Turned Criminal!

According to DoJ, a former CPA Indicted for Failing to Report Foreign Bank Accounts and Filing False Documents with the IRS A federal grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging Brian Booker, a former resident of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, whose business specialized in international trade, with failing to file Reports of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBARs) and filing false documents with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

According to the superseding indictment, Booker, a former Certified Public Accountant, owned a cocoa trading company that was organized under the laws of the Republic of Panama. Booker allegedly operated that company from Venezuela, Panama, and his former residence in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The superseding indictment further alleges that, for calendar years 2011 through 2013, Booker failed to disclose his interest in financial accounts located in Switzerland, Singapore, and Panama on annual Reports of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBARs) as required by law. Booker also allegedly filed false individual income tax returns for tax years 2010 through 2012 that failed to report to the IRS all of Booker’s foreign bank accounts.

Booker is also charged with filing a false “Streamlined Submission” in conjunction with the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures. The IRS Streamlined procedures allowed eligible taxpayers residing within the United States, who failed to report gross income from foreign financial accounts on prior tax returns, failed to pay taxes on that gross income, or who failed to submit an FBAR disclosing foreign financial accounts, to voluntarily disclose their conduct to the IRS. The superseding indictment alleges that Booker’s Streamlined submission falsely claimed that his failure to report all income, pay all tax, and submit all required information returns, such as FBARs, was due to non-willful conduct.

If convicted, Booker faces a maximum sentence of five (5) years in prison for each count (15 years in total) relating to his failure to file an FBAR. He also faces a maximum sentence of three (3) years in prison for each of the counts related to filing false tax documents (another 9 years in total). An indictment is an accusation. A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
 

Streamlined Domestic Offshore Filings Are No Longer
Cookie-Cutter Filings, To Be Prepared Without The
Advice of an Experienced Tax Attorney.

The linchpin for qualification for the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Filingis that the taxpayer must certify that their failure to report the income and/or file a correct FBAR report resulted from non-willful conduct. 


Am I “non-willful”?
For purposes of the streamlined procedures, non-willful conduct is conduct that is due to negligence, inadvertence, or mistake or conduct that is the result of a good faith misunderstanding of the requirements of the law. The vast majority of taxpayers having previously undisclosed interests in a foreign financial account or asset likely believe they are “non-willful.” However, the real issue is whether the IRS will agree

Be cautious when certifying non-willful status to the government.
The government may have or subsequently receive information that does not support such status. All relevant facts and circumstances must be carefully analyzed before making a determination regarding the submission of a “non-willful” certification requesting participation in the Streamlined Filing Compliance Procedures.

Will They Actually Inquire Regarding the “Non-Willful” Certification? 
The IRS has indicated it will review each certification of non-willful status seeking participation in the streamlined procedures.

Will the IRS Interview the Taxpayer?
Further questions often lay within the responses to each of the foregoing questions. An interview by an IRS examiner (in person or by phone) should be anticipated in most cases and are more likely with respect to resident taxpayers.


Those directly involved in creating and maintaining the foreign account and assets are the only ones capable of determining non-willful status. If such status is not supported by sufficient objective facts, consider other methods of coming into compliance, including the OVDP.
 
Have Undeclared Income from an Offshore Bank Account?
 
 
Want to Know Which 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

IRS Warns of New IRS Impersonation Email Scam

The IRS and its Security Summit partners warned tax professionals this week about a new IRS impersonation scam campaign spreading nationally on email.  

The new scam illustrates the growing sophistication of cybercriminal organizations. The scam now relies on dozens of compromised websites and web addresses that pose as IRS.gov, making it a challenge to shut down. By infecting computers with malware, these impersonators can get control of a taxpayer’s computer or secretly download software that tracks every keystroke, eventually giving them access to passwords to sensitive accounts, such as financial accounts.

“The IRS does not send emails about your tax refund or sensitive financial information,” said Commissioner Chuck Rettig. 

 
“This latest scheme is yet another reminder that tax scams are a year-round business for thieves. We urge you to be
on-guard at all times.”


The IRS, state tax authorities and the tax industry that are part of the Security Summit effort noted that they have made progress in fighting stolen identity tax refund fraud, but victims remain vulnerable to scams by IRS imposters who send them bogus emails or make harassing phone calls.

The IRS emphasized that it doesn't initiate contact with taxpayers via email, text message or social media to ask for personal or financial information. That includes requests for PIN numbers, passwords or other access information for credit cards, banks or other financial accounts.

The IRS also doesn’t call taxpayers to demand immediate payment using a specific payment method such as a prepaid debit card, gift card or wire transfer. The IRS typically will first mail a bill to a taxpayer who owes taxes.

The IRS does not initiate contact with taxpayers by email, text messages or social media channels to request personal or financial information. This includes requests for PIN numbers, passwords or similar access information for credit cards, banks or other financial accounts.

Have an IRS Tax Problem?

 

 
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