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

call us toll free: 888-8TAXAID

Category Archives: criminal tax law

2nd Circ. Affirms UK Lawyer's Conviction of Aiding Clients in US Tax Evasion

On  November 26, 2018 we posted Decade Of Dodging US Taxes Gets UK Lawyer 20 Months in Prison where we discussed that English lawyer Michael Little was set to 20 months in prison on November 20, 2018 for helping the children of a deceased investor dodge taxes on their $14 million inheritance over a decade and for failing to pay his own taxes, ruling also that the former Royal Marine lied as he testified in his own defense.

U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel ordered Little, 68, to report to federal prison on Feb. 19. The sentence came in well below a request by prosecutors for a prison term in the range of 10 to 12 years as contemplated by official guidelines.

Evasion Unpunished Breeds More Evasion,” The Judge Said, Saying Little’s Tax-Dodging Was Born f Greed And Arrogance But Adding He Was Unlikely To Offend Again

Upon Leaving Custody.

Judge Castel held off on the government’s request to order Little to pay roughly $4.4 million of restitution. Little contests the amount, and the matter will be briefed in coming weeks.

Now according to Law360, the Second Circuit ruled on September 30, 2020 upholding a lower court, the sufficient evidence existed to convict a U.K. attorney on charges he helped the children of a dead investor avoid taxes on their $14 million inheritance, 

The attorney, Michael Little, failed to support his argument on appeal that the lower court's jury instructions didn't match the charges in his indictment, a panel of judges ruled.
Little was sentenced to 20 months of incarceration and a one-year term of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay $4.4 million in restitution to the U.S. government.
Little appealed on various grounds. He argued that the jury instructions were so different from his original indictment that they violated his Fifth Amendment rights by amending the indictment.

The indictment had described Little's crime as assisting in the preparation of fraudulent Forms 1040 or Forms 706, the estate tax return. The court instructed the jury to determine whether Little had prepared fraudulent Forms 3520, which reports receipt of foreign gifts.

The Second Circuit disagreed. To prevail on a constructive amendment claim, defendants must show that the terms of an indictment are altered by the presentation of evidence and jury instructions, the court said. They must modify "essential elements" of the offense to the point that a defendant is indicted on one offense and convicted of another, the court said. The statute criminalizing aid in filing a false 1040 also criminalizes filing a false 3520, it said.
Little also argued his indictment charged him with failing to file a foreign bank account report for at least one bank in the Channel Islands, but the jury instructions referred to a second foreign account in the U.K. The court rejected that argument as well, finding the "essential element" of the offense was the same.
As for his failure to file FBARs, Little said evidence that he willfully failed to file the reports was insufficient. He had merely misunderstood a complex tax code, the attorney argued.
The court, however, said Little was an experienced attorney with a quarter-century of experience conducting international financial transactions. A reasonable juror could conclude his failure to comply with the law was willful, the decision said.
While agreeing with the lower court on most the merits of the case, the appeals court struck down part of the lower court's order of restitution. The trial court lacked the authority to order restitution immediately upon judgment, the Second Circuit said, citing U.S. v. Adams . 
The U.S. and U.K. governments also agreed that the U.S. had the authority to tax Little's income only for the years 2005 through 2008. The court vacated the finding that Little owed $134,000 and ordered the lower court to recalculate the amount.

Have a Criminal 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

Electronic filing of Form 1040-NR Now Mandated With Certain Exceptions


In a Notice, IRS has announced that Form 1040-NR, U.S. Nonresident Alien Income Tax Return, for 2021 and later tax years, will, in most cases, be removed from the list of returns that are administratively exempt from the electronic filing requirement. The Notice also contains an update on how IRS will announce future changes to the list of returns that are administratively exempt from the electronic filing requirement.

In Notice 2011-26, 2011-17 IRB 720, sets forth the specific administrative exemptions to the electronic filing requirement. In Notice 2011-26 the IRS provided an exemption for Form 1040-NR. 

The IRS has announced in Notice 2020-70, 2020-43 IRB that, except as otherwise provided below, the exemption for Form 1040-NR from the electronic filing requirement under Code Sec. 6011(e)(3) is removed. 

Accordingly, a specified tax return preparer must electronically file a Form 1040-NR, unless (1) an exemption described below or (2) an exemption under Reg § 301.6011-7(c) or Notice 2011-26, as modified by this new Notice (the Notice), applies. 

IRS does not currently accept Form 1040-NR tax returns via electronic filing by certain taxpayers. Therefore, the exemption from the electronic filing requirement set forth in Code Sec. 6011(e) (3) remains in effect for a Form 1040-NR filed for the following taxpayers:

  1. Dual-status taxpayers (taxpayers who have changed status between resident alien and nonresident alien during the tax year),

  2. Fiscal-year taxpayers,

  3. Trusts, and

  4. Estates.

The exemption for Form 1040-NR-EZ, U.S. Income Tax Return for Certain Nonresident Aliens With No Dependents, also remains in effect.

The Notice does not affect the exemptions provided in Notice 2011-26 for certain categories of specified tax return preparers, including certain foreign tax return preparers. 

Foreign tax return preparers without a social security number, who live and work abroad, remain exempt from the electronic filing requirement if they are not a member of a firm that is eligible for electronic filing with IRS and they applied for a Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN) under one of the methods described in Notice 2011-26.

Updates to all other administrative exemptions described in Notice 2011-26 (aside from exemptions due to IRS e-file limitations) will continue to be announced in a Notice or other appropriate guidance, rather than in IRS Publication 4164.

The Notice is effective for individual tax returns filed for tax years ending on or after December 31, 2020.  

Have 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

IRS Clamping Down on Financial Crimes According to 2019 Annual Report To Address Nearly $10 Billion In Tax Fraud in 2018!

In its IRS Criminal Investigation Annual Report for 2019 the IRS Criminal Investigation division found nearly $10 billion in tax fraud in fiscal year 2018, four times more than last year thanks to its focus on using data analytics. 

The unit identified $9.7 billion in tax fraud in 2018, up from $2.5 billion in 2017. The team also found $10.4 billion in other financial crimes, a steep hike from the $1.1 billion identified in fiscal year 2017. 

Bloomberg BNA  reports that Don Fort, chief of the Criminal Investigation division, said in a statement “We prioritized the use of data in our investigations in fiscal 2018.” “The future for CI must involve leveraging the vast amount of data we have to help drive case selection and make us more efficient in the critical work that we do. Data analytics is a powerful tool for identifying areas of tax non-compliance.” 

The number of special agents working on the CI team fell below 2,100 by the end of the unit’s 2018 fiscal year because of retirements and hiring freezes, leading CI to look at everything from bank records to the dark web to help investigate cases, according to the statement. 

The figures are also a testament to the Department of Justice’s crackdown on U.S. taxpayers hiding money in Swiss banks, because a “huge amount of money” is now entering the system, said Neiman, who worked at the DOJ’s tax and criminal divisions and in investigations into Switzerland’s largest bank, UBS Group AG. 

But the combined $20 million discovered in fiscal 2018 is “just the tip of the iceberg,” according to Betty J. Williams, managing shareholder of Law Office of Williams & Associates, P.C. in Sacramento, Calif. 

“Just As Quickly as Criminals Become More Crafty in the Way They Commit Crimes, The Criminal Investigation Division is Trying To Keep Up With How To Detect Those Crimes.
And While They’re Catching More Criminals,
There Are More Criminals To Catch,” said Williams

The evolution of financial crime mirrors the evolution of money movement in general, said CI Chief, Don Fort. Criminals stay current with the trends and adopt their methods to match the public’s tendencies. 

The Speed At Which Money Moves Today Is Almost Instantaneous And The Convenience That Comes With That Opens The Door For Criminals To Exploit The Latest Technological Advancements. 

Years ago, we had time on our side and we could allow things to play out without losing a trace of a criminal or their proceeds. Now, money disappears in the blink of an eye. 

All that is needed is a smartphone to move money from one location to another, anywhere in the world. The internet and the dark web have facilitated this change and law enforcement has had to make adjustments to keep up. 

CI has made significant investments in training our new employees and experienced employees and this investment is unmatched within the IRS. We instituted Master Your Craft training for special agents while introducing new specialized training for our professional staff as well. You can expect these investments to continue.

Have a Criminal 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

The Deceptive Simplicity of Form 706 NA


For those of you whose practice involves international tax, I would like to take this opportunity to explain the deceptive simplicity of the form 706 NA.
 

You must have a client who is a nonresident alien who dies. He/she owns US situs assets so you look at section 2014 of the Internal Revenue Code; you correctly determine that since these assets exceed $60,000 in value, the estate is required to file a form 706NA which is the form analogous to a 706 in the hands of a nonresident alien. The form itself is deceptively simple-two pages-what kind of problems can this create? Once you start reading the form, you realize that to complete it properly, you may have to incorporate almost every schedule which appears in a 706. 

The deceptive part of the form occurs when you are trying to determine which of decedent’s US assets (based on section 2014) are taxable by the United States.
 
The United States has more than 20 tax treaties or conventions with foreign countries designed, for the most part, to eliminate double taxation. It is critically important for you, the preparer, to determine which, if any, treaties may exist to reduce the tax liability of your client.
 
The IRS, on its website, has a list of the countries which currently  share estate tax treaties/conventions with the United States. Even this provides only a partial clue.
 
Example- You have a client who was a German who lived in Brazil. Since the decedent was a German citizen,  you make the assumption that treaty benefits will be available to his/her estate. Not always so. Some of the treaties base their benefits on decedents who are domiciliaries of but not necessarily citizens of a particular country. Ergo, you learn that the estate of the German client domiciled in Brazil cannot utilize the benefit of the German treaty.
 
Additionally, since some treaties are predicated on domicile while others are predicated on both domicile and citizenship, you may find yourself in an anomalous situation where you have more than one treaty you can elect to apply. In this particular case, use the treaty which best suits your client.
As a rule, the 20 or so treaties are generally address estates of decedents who were citizens of Europe, England or Canada. There are no treaties with South or Central America or Africa. Remember, however, that some treaties are based on citizenship, not domicile. Therefore the estate of an English citizen domiciled in Sudan could benefit by the UK tax convention.

 

The benefits as well as the applications of the treaties very widely. This is a result of the fact that these treaties were negotiated over various periods of years from the 1950s to the year 2000. The treaties themselves must be read carefully. They are, for the most part, extremely poorly drafted and difficult to fathom. In the case of confusion, look up the meaning of what the treaty means in a publication called the technical explanations of treaties which are a little bit better written but still no works  of Shakespeare. Remember, if you fail to utilize an existing treaty and it costs your client a significant amount of money, you may become involved with your insurance carrier. For those of us who are attorneys, remember the hornbook, Prosser On Torts.  As I recall, and it's been a while, the first topic addressed is “negligence, the basis of liability”. If you fail to find and utilize an existing treaty, you are negligent and potentially headed for big trouble.

 

Some of you feel that the IRS will find incorrect your failure to utilize an estate tax treaty. Not so. First of all, not all estate tax returns are selected for examination, so if the return you filed failing to utilize a treaty is not examined, there is no way that treaty benefits will inure your to your client's estate.  Second, even if the estate is examined, it is not the job of the auditing attorney to tell you that you failed to utilize a treaty. Utilization of a treaty is not mandatory. Therefore, if you file the 706NA utilizing the situs rules of section 2014, the IRS agent will merely agree with your situs depiction and not discuss the availability of the treaty.  

If you feel that you are able to utilize one of the existing treaties, you are required to use a form 8833. In this form you explain which treaty you are using, why you feel it is applicable to your particular situation, and determine the treaty benefits of utilizing the treaty. 
 

Over my 32 years as a senior attorney with the IRS in the international estate tax forum, I audited perhaps 1,800 to 2,000 706 NA's. Utilization of the treaty benefit was not frequent, and I recall situations where some estates could have benefited to the tune of roughly $1 million in tax savings.  

Need Help Preparing Form 706 NA?

 

 

Estate Tax Problems Require 

an Experienced Estate Tax Attorneys

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