FBAR Tax Compliance Issues (U.S. Taxpayer)
FBAR rules are not found in the Code. Rather, they are set forth in the Bank Secrecy Act, first enacted by Congress in 1970. Since 2003, however, the IRS bears responsibility for enforcing these rules.
The FBAR rules require that every U.S. Person report (i) any financial interest or authority over a (ii) financial account in a foreign country with (iii) an aggregate value over $ 10,000 at any time during the taxable year. The report must be filed on a Form TD F 90-22.1, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (hence the acronym “FBAR”). U.S. Persons must also disclose the existence of the account on their Form 1040, Schedule B, Part III. This is commonly referred to as “checking the ‘B’ box.”
Taxpayers who fail to disclose the account on their Form 1040 could be subject to criminal sanctions for filing a false tax return.
The FBAR report is due on June 30th. This due date is not subject to extensions. The FBAR report must be filed separately from the U.S. Person’s tax return.
Financial Interest Or Authority
A U.S. Person has a financial interest in a foreign account if he or she is the legal or beneficial owner. Attribution rules apply in making this determination. A person serving as a shareholder, partner, and trustee may also be deemed to hold a financial interest if the owner of the account is (i) a person acting as an agent on behalf of the U.S. Person, (ii) a corporation where the U.S. Person owns, directly or indirectly, more than 50 percent of the outstanding stock, (iii) a partnership in which the U.S. Person owns more than 50 percent of the profits, or (iv) a trust in which a U.S. Person has either a present interest in more than 50 percent of the assets or from which the U.S. Person receives more than 50 percent of the income. If these thresholds arc met, the U.S. Person has an FBAR reporting obligation, regardless of whether he or she has any authority over the account.
Non-owners with authority over a foreign account are also subject to the FBAR reporting rules. Authority means the U.S. Person has the ability to order a distribution or disbursement of funds or other property held in the account. This is not limited to signature authority, but includes the ability to order distributions by verbal commands or other communication. Authority does not include persons who have the right to invest, but not distribute, the foreign account funds.
There is no limitation for taxpayers who have authority over a foreign account, but only in an official capacity. (For example, the president of a corporation, the general partner of a partnership, or the manager of an LLC may be subject to these rules.)
Both the entity, as beneficial owner, and the representative, who has control over the account, may be required to file an FBAR report. Similarly, when more than one U.S. Person has authority over an account, i.e., president and vice president, both persons may have an FBAR reporting obligation.
Even when the account is subject to joint control, and the signature of someone other than the taxpayer is required to cause a distribution, the taxpayer is still considered to have authority over the account for FBAR reporting purposes.
Financial Account In A Foreign Country
The term financial account is broadly defined as any asset account and encompasses simple bank accounts (checking or savings), as well as securities or custodial accounts. It also includes a life insurance policy or other type of policy with an investment value (i.e., surrender value).
Foreign country naturally refers to any country other than the United States. Puerto Rico, U.S. possessions and territories are included as part of the United States (as they should) for these purposes. Accounts held by U.S. Persons in these areas are not foreign accounts subject to FBAR reporting.
The IRS has indicated that a traditional credit card with a foreign bank is not a foreign account. However; use of a credit card as a debit or check card could trigger foreign account status and thus an FBAR reporting obligation.
$10,000 Threshold
To be reportable, the account must have assets the value of which during the year, exceeds $10,000.
The Instructions to the FBAR report state that if the aggregate value of all financial accounts exceeds $10,000 at any time during the year, the U.S. Person must file an FBAR report. A U.S. Person who possesses multiple foreign accounts, all of which have less than $10,000, but which collectively exceed $10,000, may have an FBAR reporting obligation.
Taxpayers may transfer an appreciating asset to a foreign account, such as stock or securities. As these assets increase in value, they may trigger an FBAR reporting requirement.
Whether the account generates any income is not relevant.
Penalties
In an attempt to improve compliance, Congress enhanced the FBAR penalties in 2004. Under pre-2004 law, civil penalties applied only to willful violations. In 2009, civil penalties up to $10,000 may be imposed on non-willful violations. This penalty may be avoided if there was reasonable cause and the U.S. Person reported the income earned on the account. 31 U.S. C. §5321(a)(5).
Although reasonable cause is not defined, the IRS will likely apply the reasonable-cause standard for late-payment/late-filing penalties.
The penalty for willful violations is far more severe. It is equal to the greater of $100,000 or 50 percent of the balance of the account at the time of the FBAR violation. No reasonable cause exception exists for a willful violation. 31 U. S. C. §5321(a)(5)(c) .
The IRS has six years to assess a civil penalty against a taxpayer that violates the FBAR reporting rules.
FBAR Civil Penalties: Reasonable Cause Exception
A failure to file a FBAR has civil and criminal penalties (which are in addition to any income tax penalties if the income is not reported). The IRS must assess the civil penalties within 6 years of the FBAR violation (31 USC 5321(b)(1)).
For a willful failure to file, the civil penalty increases from $10,000 (non-willful failure to file) to the greater of $100,000 or 50% of the account balance in the foreign account for the tax year.
The civil penalties for non-willful failure to file may be waived by the IRS if the Taxpayer can show reasonable cause. If the Taxpayer has a reasonable cause exception, the FBAR should be filed with an explanation (i.e., the reasonable cause, with an express request for waiver of penalties).
The waiver of civil penalties for a reasonable cause exception may include among other factors:
1. All the income from the foreign account was included on the US Taxpayer’s return.
2. The Taxpayer was unaware of the requirement to file (for example, lack of understanding of what constitutes a financial interest).
3. Once the Taxpayer became aware of the filing requirements, he filed all delinquent reports (up to 6 years).
FBAR Filing and Hedge Funds
After the landmark agreement between the U.S. and Swiss government over secret (UBS) Swiss bank accounts, held by U.S. Citizens, the IRS is now focusing on hedge funds in the Cayman Islands. (Please see 8/24/09 Wall Street Journal article, IRS Could Target Off-Shore Hedge-Fund Investors Next.)
Recently, IRS officials advised that certain U.S. investors in off-shore hedge funds must file a FBAR.
On June 12, 2009, an IRS official stated that the term “financial interest” (which requires a FBAR filing) includes hedge funds that “function as mutual funds”.
It appears the IRS and Justice Department will identify U.S. Taxpayers who evade U.S. taxes, by investing with off-shore hedge funds. The IRS and Justice Department are pressing foreign financial institutions to provide them with information about Americans with “foreign, secret bank accounts”.
FBAR: Amended Tax Returns, and the Risks of Voluntary Disclosure
U.S. Taxpayers who fail to report offshore accounts by filing FBAR (TD F 90.22-1) face criminal and civil penalties:
1. Failure to Report Income
(3 Felonies and 1 Misdemeanor) up to 14 years in jail, plus 75% Civil Tax Fraud Penalty, 25% Failure to Pay Tax Penalty.
2. Failure to File FBAR’s
(a maximum annual penalty of 50% of the account balance, up to 10 years in jail a $500,000 fine).
3. Perjury
Taxpayers Form 1040/Schedule B must declare whether Taxpayers have any authority over, or interest in foreign accounts with a total of more than $10,000.
In the IRS 6/24/09 FAQ update, the IRS stated:
What is the distinction between filing amended returns to correct errors and filing a voluntary disclosure?
An amended return is the proper vehicle to correct an error on a filed return, whether a taxpayer receives a refund or owes additional tax. A voluntary disclosure is a truthful, timely and complete communication to the IRS in which a taxpayer shows a willingness to cooperate (and does in fact cooperate) with the IRS in determining the taxpayer’s correct tax liability and makes arrangements in good faith to fully pay that liability. Filing correct amended returns is normally a part of the process of making a voluntary disclosure under IRM 9.5.11.9.
Taxpayers and practitioners trying to decide whether to simply file an amended return with a Service Center or to make a formal voluntary disclosure under the process described in IRM 9.5.11.9 and the March 23, 2009 memoranda should consider the nature of the error they are trying to correct. Taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts or entities should consider making a voluntary disclosure because it enables them to become compliant, avoid substantial civil penalties and generally eliminate the risk of criminal prosecution. Making a voluntary disclosure also provides the opportunity to calculate, with a reasonable degree of certainty, the total cost of resolving all offshore tax issues. It is anticipated that the voluntary disclosure process is appropriate for most taxpayers who have underreported their income with respect to offshore accounts and assets. However, there will be some cases, such as where a taxpayer has reported all income but failed to file the FBAR (FAQ 9), or only failed to file information returns (FAQ 42), where it remains appropriate for the taxpayer to simply file amended returns with the applicable Service Center (with copies to the Philadelphia office listed in FAQ 9).
The IRS stated position is that a Taxpayer’s voluntary disclosure entitles the Taxpayer to become compliant, avoid substantial civil penalties and generally eliminate the risk of criminal prosecution.
In reality, a taxpayer who makes a voluntary disclosure may:
1. Spotlight their “tax crimes”
2. If the voluntary disclosure is not accepted, jeopardize them and subject them to criminal prosecution
The IRS SBSE 3/23/09 memorandum, Subject: Routing of Voluntary Disclosure Cases, which addresses a change in the processing of voluntary disclosure requests containing offshore issues.
1. Such requests will continue to be initially screened by Criminal Investigation to determine eligibility for voluntary disclosure, and, if involving only domestic issues will be forwarded to Area Planning and Special Programs for Civil Processing;
2. Voluntary disclosure eligibility for offshore issues will be initially screened by Criminal Investigation and forwarded to the Philadelphia Offshore Identification Unit (POIU) for processing.
Voluntary Disclosure risks include:
1. Heightened risk of criminal prosecution (since initial screening is by the IRS Criminal Investigation Division);
2. A voluntary disclosure may be used as an evidentiary admission of Taxpayer’s unreported income;
3. A voluntary disclosure may waive Taxpayer’s 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination;
4. While a voluntary disclosure is pending the IRS may request more information, commence an audit or initiate criminal prosecution.
As an alternative strategy to a voluntary disclosure, the “quiet filing” (for the Tax Years at issue) of an amended tax return (or original tax return) may instead:
1. Pre-empt criminal charges for the failure to file FBAR returns, Form 1040 tax returns and failure to pay tax;
2. Pre-empt a 75% civil tax fraud penalty, for failure to file or pay tax and a 25% failure to pay tax penalty;
3. If the income is properly reported (i.e., no substantial understatments which are subject to a 6 year statute of limitations), the tax filing will commence the 3 year statute of limitations (for each year) for IRS audit.
IRS Corporate Audit Division Will Examine UBS Tax Evasion Cases
By Ryan J. Donmoyer, Bloomberg.com
The U.S. Internal Revenue Service is shifting audits of wealthy Americans suspected of offshore tax evasion to an elite division that usually examines businesses as it prepares to receive data on 4,450 UBS AG Swiss bank accounts.
The tax agency posted internal job listings yesterday seeking auditors to work for a newly created office within its Large and Mid-Size Business division that will be tasked with monitoring what it called the “global high-wealth industry.”
The move centralizes responsibility for auditing wealthy individuals suspected of offshore tax evasion in a unit with the most experience navigating international tax treaties and untangling complex cross-border business structures.
“That’s where the most sophistication is at IRS,” said Michael Murphy, a former deputy IRS commissioner who is now a consultant for the law firm Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP in Washington.
Responsibility for auditing wealthy individuals is currently split among IRS divisions devoted to small businesses and self-employed wage earners and investors, which don’t have as much experience in cross-border transactions, Murphy said.
The IRS says it anticipates handling up to 10,000 new cases related to UBS, including thousands of people who come forward voluntarily in exchange for reduced penalties before Sept. 23.
Click link above for complete article.
UBS whistle-blower gets 40-month sentence
By Martha Brannigan, MiamiHerald.com
In a surprisingly heavy judgment, Bradley Birkenfeld, the former UBS private banker who blew the whistle on a wide-ranging scheme in which the Swiss bank helped wealthy Americans dodge income taxes through secret accounts, was sentenced to 40 months in prison Friday morning.
The sentence was 10 months longer than the prosecution had asked for. The defense had sought probation, pointing to the major impact of Birkenfeld’s unprecedented cooperation. The prosecutors said Birkenfeld is still helping the government and will remain free until Jan. 8, 2010.
In federal court in Fort Lauderdale, U.S. District Judge William J. Zloch ordered Birkenfeld to pay a $30,000 fine. After prison, he has three years of probation.
Birkenfeld, a tall and athletic man of 44, laid the foundation for the federal government’s most devastating assault ever on Swiss banking secrecy and offshore tax cheats. He wore a gray pinstripe suit, blue shirt, red tie and the beginnings of a goatee.
Drawing heavily on details Birkenfeld provided about UBS’ illegal practices in helping U.S. tax cheats, the Internal Revenue Service filed a civil suit seeking to force the bank to turn over information on thousands of unidentified UBS account-holders with secret offshore accounts.
As a result, the U.S. and Swiss government on Wednesday unveiled details of an agreement under which the IRS will end up getting details on 4,450 secret accounts through diplomatic channels in exchange for abandoning its aggressive court tactics.
Assistant U.S. attorney Jeffrey A. Neiman recommended that Birkenfeld get 30 months in prison for his conviction on one count of conspiracy to defraud the government — down from the 60-month maximum sentence he is exposed to — because of his extensive cooperation.
Zloch had delayed Birkenfeld’s sentencing four times at the request of prosecutors who are continuing to debrief him, but last week turned down a fifth request.
Birkenfeld was one of about 50 UBS private bankers catering to U.S. clients. His special services to rich Americans who wanted to hide money in secret offshore accounts once included slipping through U.S. Customs carrying diamonds stuffed inside a toothpaste tube.
Click link above for complete article.
Swiss Banking Executive and Swiss Lawyer Charged With Conspiring to Defraud the United States
Defendants Aided Wealthy Americans Conceal Assets in Secret Swiss Bank Accounts
From PRNewswire.com
Hansruedi Schumacher and Matthias Rickenbach, both of Switzerland, were indicted today for conspiring to defraud the United States, the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced. According to the indictment, Schumacher worked as an executive manager at Neue Zuercher Bank (NZB), a Swiss private bank located in Zurich, Switzerland. Rickenbach worked as a Swiss attorney who provided legal advice and services to U.S. clients. Both are alleged to have aided wealthy Americans conceal assets and income in Switzerland from United States authorities.
According to the indictment, Schumacher and Rickenbach helped wealthy American clients conceal their assets by establishing sham and nominee offshore entities to hide their U.S. clients’ assets and income while allowing these clients to still control the assets and make investment decisions.
The indictment further alleges that Schumacher and Rickenbach regularly traveled to the United States to conduct banking and investment activities with their U.S. clients and that when they traveled they concealed their business activities in the United States by falsely representing to American authorities that they were traveling to the U.S. for personal reasons. While in the United States, the defendants would sometimes bring cash for their clients..
According to court documents, Schumacher and Rickenbach aided their wealthy American clients repatriate money back to the United States using several deceptive means. Schumacher and Rickenbach helped their clients obtain offshore credit cards and created sham loan documents. Additionally, Schumacher and Rickenbach falsified bank documents to generate the appearance that assets of their U.S. clients belonged to Swiss citizens, and they falsified documents to disguise their United States clients’ repatriation of offshore funds as inheritances from foreign citizens.
According to court documents, Schumacher and Rickenbach discouraged their U.S. clients from voluntarily coming into compliance in the United States. Instead, the defendants encouraged their clients to transfer their assets from UBS, a large Swiss bank, to NZB, a smaller bank in Switzerland. The defendants told their clients that their assets and identification would be safer at NZB because they had no presence in the United States and was therefore less likely to be pressured by the American authorities to disclose the identities of their United States clients.
“The Justice Department will continue to investigate leads provided by U.S. taxpayers who have come forward to disclose foreign bank accounts and will prosecute those foreign bankers and banks who illegally helped U.S. clients evade taxes,” said John A. DiCicco, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Tax Division. “We encourage foreign banks to come forward and disclose their conduct immediately, before we learn about their criminal conduct from U.S. taxpayers.”
Click link above for complete article.
UBS to Give 4,450 Names to U.S.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting (8/20/09)…
The U.S. could within months begin criminally prosecuting hundreds of wealthy Americans — from the obscure to the “rich and famous” — for using foreign bank accounts to evade income taxes.
In a settlement with the Swiss government detailed Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service said Swiss bank UBS AG will ultimately turn over the identities behind 4,450 secret accounts.
At least $10 billion had been stashed to avoid payment of U.S. taxes or the disclosure of foreign accounts, according to a person familiar with the matter. The U.S. government investigation and settlement ultimately could produce some 10,000 account identities.
Click link above for complete article.
UBS Tax Crackdown Widens to Hong Kong
By Carrick Mollenkamp, The Wall Street Journal
The U.S. crackdown on clients of UBS AG is widening into a global hunt, with the government detailing in court documents how the Swiss bank and outside advisers helped Americans hide money using enterprises set up in Hong Kong.
For the first time in the government’s long-running bid to ferret out the names of U.S. tax-evaders from the Swiss bank’s client list, plea agreements entered in the case are providing a clearer picture of UBS’s sophisticated efforts to help Americans hide income or the existence of foreign bank accounts.
On Friday, John McCarthy, a UBS client in California, agreed to plead guilty to one count of failing to file an annual report to the Treasury Department. A document filed with the plea shows the tax scheme relied in part on channeling funds to a Swiss UBS account held in the name of a Hong Kong entity, the second time accounts in the Asian financial hub have figured in these cases.
Click link above for complete article.
Malibu man to plead guilty to using Swiss bank to avoid U.S. taxes
John McCarthy is the first Californian to be prosecuted after Swiss bank UBS agreed to reveal identities of its customers. The IRS is seeking more names from the bank.
By Nathan Olivarez-Giles, LATimes.com
A nationwide crackdown on federal income tax evasion using secret Swiss bank accounts yielded an agreement from a Malibu businessman to plead guilty to hiding at least $1 million abroad.
John McCarthy is the first tax dodger in California — and the fourth nationwide — to be prosecuted after Switzerland’s largest bank, UBS, agreed to reveal the identities of U.S. customers.
The Internal Revenue Service is seeking the names of more than 52,000 U.S. residents who deposited money into secret accounts through agreements with both UBS and the Swiss government. The charge against McCarthy was based on information provided by UBS in February, officials said.
McCarthy funneled the money to a UBS account with the help of a Swiss lawyer and bank officials between 2003 and 2008, court documents said.
Click link above for complete article.
-
Subscribe via RSS
Translator
-
BlogRoll
