Today, July 31, 2015, President Barack Obama signed into a law HR 3236 a highway funding bill. Buried in the Bill is a provision which changes the filing date for Foreign Bank Account Reports (FBARs) to April 15th. Up until now the due date for the FBAR, which must be filed electronically on FinCEN Form 114 (formerly TD F 90-22.1) was June 30th. The Bill also provides for an extension of time of up to 6 months to file the FBAR, making the extended due date October 15th. This reconciles the due date for the FBAR with the individual tax return filing date. Before now many taxpayers were tripped up by the differences in the filing dates. Because many taxpayers go on extension for their tax returns, and don't have extensive discussions with their CPAs, or other tax preparers until shortly before the extended deadline of October 15th, there were many instances of individuals not realizing they had a filing responsibility until after the June 30th deadline. Those taxpayers were usually stunned to find out that the extension of the filing date for their tax return did not extend the time to file their FBARs. This was a common sense fix to an unnecessary problem.
The Bill also authorizes a first time abate (FTA) procedure of sorts. Specifically the Bill states: "[f]or any taxpayer required to file such [FBAR] Form for the first time any penalty for failure to timely request for, or file, an extension may be waived by the Secretary." This appears to provide authority to abate an FBAR penalty if the FBAR is filed after April 15th, but before October 15th, if this is the first time the FBAR was due. The language doesn't really add anything to the law since the IRS already has wide latitude to waive FBAR filing penalties. These provisions become effective next year so the FBAR filing due date for 2015 will be April 15, 2016.
Finally, the Bill overturns the Supreme Court's decision in Home Concrete (Home Concrete & Supply LLC, 132 S. Ct. 1836 (2012)). That case dealt with the 6 year statute of limitations under Internal Revenue Code Section 6501(e)1)(1)(A) which provides for the longer statute of limitations where there is an omission from gross income in excess of 25%. The Supreme Court held that this rule did not apply in the case of basis overstatements. The Bill specifically amends Code Section 6501(e)(1) to provide that an omission from gross income includes an overstatement of basis. This is part of a disturbing trend by Congress to continue to increase time the IRS has to assess additional taxes.
For the most effective use of this blog and the links, readers must have the background and skills to test the information by further research and analysis before reaching any conclusion as to its usefulness and correctness in actual situations. Legal advice is always individual, considering the unique facts and circumstances of each client and shaping legal advice and strategies for the particular client. That simply cannot happen on this blog.
Friday, July 31, 2015
Moore v US / Western District of Washington Punishes IRS for Failing to Justify or Explain Itself in FBAR Case
In Moore v US judges hold up IRS misconduct to the bright and sanitizing light of judicial review.
One benefit that hopefully comes from decisions like Moore is that in addition to its impact on the party to the litigation, one hopes that the scathing court review has some impact on how the IRS goes about its business of administering the FBAR penalty regime.
The case is an important case for lots of reasons, including how it emphasizes that the IRS has a legal obligation to explain the underlying reasons for its actions when it proposes and assesses FBAR penalties. Taxpayers, even those who may have stashed cash overseas, have fundamental rights that the IRS should respect. If the IRS fails to respect those rights, cases like Moore provide an important precedent for checking what may be systemic abuses of power but which at a minimum raise troubling fairness concerns for the affected party.
As the IRS gets knee deep in determinations that move away from its traditional deficiency cases, especially when the review is on an abuse of discretion basis, courts are starting to take a more careful look at agency practices. A good example of this is in the FBAR area, where IRS administers the potentially draconian Title 31 penalty regime (See IRM 4.26.16.4.1 (07-01-2008) (discussing the delegation to IRS and how the Code does not apply to the FBAR regime). IRS adopted a Taxpayer Bill of Rights and it stands to remind IRS employees alike of the importance of informing taxpayers.
Absent a remedy in court, however, sometimes those rights are illusory (or require parties to sue or pursue FOIA to find out what the IRS has done).
One benefit that hopefully comes from decisions like Moore is that in addition to its impact on the party to the litigation, one hopes that the scathing court review has some impact on how the IRS goes about its business of administering the FBAR penalty regime.
The case is an important case for lots of reasons, including how it emphasizes that the IRS has a legal obligation to explain the underlying reasons for its actions when it proposes and assesses FBAR penalties. Taxpayers, even those who may have stashed cash overseas, have fundamental rights that the IRS should respect. If the IRS fails to respect those rights, cases like Moore provide an important precedent for checking what may be systemic abuses of power but which at a minimum raise troubling fairness concerns for the affected party.
As the IRS gets knee deep in determinations that move away from its traditional deficiency cases, especially when the review is on an abuse of discretion basis, courts are starting to take a more careful look at agency practices. A good example of this is in the FBAR area, where IRS administers the potentially draconian Title 31 penalty regime (See IRM 4.26.16.4.1 (07-01-2008) (discussing the delegation to IRS and how the Code does not apply to the FBAR regime). IRS adopted a Taxpayer Bill of Rights and it stands to remind IRS employees alike of the importance of informing taxpayers.
Absent a remedy in court, however, sometimes those rights are illusory (or require parties to sue or pursue FOIA to find out what the IRS has done).
In the first Moore opinion, the judge was troubled by the IRS’s failing to explain why it penalized Moore:
The court can only guess, however, as to whether the IRS considered relevant factors or made a clear error of judgment. The record before the court contains no administrative explanation of the IRS's decision to impose penalties.
Moreover, the court was deeply troubled that one of its agents promised Moore that it would not assess the penalty pending an appeal of a proposed assessment but then the IRS assessed Moore anyway:
The Government may also choose to supplement the record to provide contemporaneous explanation of its decision to assess the 2005 penalty without providing the "appeal" it promised Mr. Moore. On the record before the court, that decision is baffling. The only reason the Government offered, its concern that the statute of limitations would expire, is nonsensical on the record before the court.
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Determining “Reasonable Cause” for Non-Willful FBAR Violations
For violations involving the non-willful failure to report
the existence of a reportable interest in a foreign financial account,
the maximum amount of the FBAR penalty that may be assessed under Title
31, Section 5321(a)(5)(B) shall not exceed $10,000, per year, for up to six calendar years. However, no penalty shall be imposed if such non-willful violation was due to reasonable cause and
the amount of the transaction or the balance in the account at the time
of the transaction was properly reported [see 31 U.S.C. §
5321(a)(5)(B)(ii)]. The reasonable cause exception does not apply to
willful FBAR violations. [see 31 U.S.C. § 5321(a)(5)(C)(ii)].
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
UBS Too Dirty To Sue Billionaire Offshore Tax Cheat, Judge Rules
Billionaire offshore tax cheat Igor Olenicoff has won a big
one in his long running court battle with his former Swiss bank, UBS AG,
and his former UBS banker turned whistleblower, Bradley Birkenfeld.
In a ruling from the bench Thursday, Orange County Superior Court Judge Kim G. Dunning shot down a malicious prosecution suit UBS and Birkenfeld had brought against real estate developer Olenicoff, Olen Properties, and an Olen lawyer, on the grounds that they themselves are too dirty to sue. The big bank and Birkenfeld both sued Olenicoff in state court in 2012 after he lost a federal court suit claiming they had duped him into breaking the tax law and then secretly ratted him out to U.S. authorities, while also mismanaging the $200 million plus he had hidden offshore.
In a ruling from the bench Thursday, Orange County Superior Court Judge Kim G. Dunning shot down a malicious prosecution suit UBS and Birkenfeld had brought against real estate developer Olenicoff, Olen Properties, and an Olen lawyer, on the grounds that they themselves are too dirty to sue. The big bank and Birkenfeld both sued Olenicoff in state court in 2012 after he lost a federal court suit claiming they had duped him into breaking the tax law and then secretly ratted him out to U.S. authorities, while also mismanaging the $200 million plus he had hidden offshore.
Monday, July 27, 2015
green card holder case study
My original question / case
——————————-
* 5+ year green card holder, EU citizen
* Looking to potentially get US citizenship
* No FBARs filed (ever) (at the time of asking the question at least, which was June 2015)
* Aggregate foreign balances of $30-$100k in the last 6 years, not reported anywhere
* Total capital gain + income from accounts less than $1000 per year (and in most cases, as little as $200 per year), but never reported on US tax returns
* Everything fully taxed in home country, and no taxes owed in the US even if it had been properly reported here
* Had contacted 3 lawyers about how to come into compliance, and gotten three different responses
– Lawyer 1: Go with Streamlined Domestic
– Lawyer 2: Follow the Delinquent FBAR procedures since there are no taxes owed
– Lawyer 3: Amend 3 tax-returns, and back-file 6 FBARs.
——————————-
* 5+ year green card holder, EU citizen
* Looking to potentially get US citizenship
* No FBARs filed (ever) (at the time of asking the question at least, which was June 2015)
* Aggregate foreign balances of $30-$100k in the last 6 years, not reported anywhere
* Total capital gain + income from accounts less than $1000 per year (and in most cases, as little as $200 per year), but never reported on US tax returns
* Everything fully taxed in home country, and no taxes owed in the US even if it had been properly reported here
* Had contacted 3 lawyers about how to come into compliance, and gotten three different responses
– Lawyer 1: Go with Streamlined Domestic
– Lawyer 2: Follow the Delinquent FBAR procedures since there are no taxes owed
– Lawyer 3: Amend 3 tax-returns, and back-file 6 FBARs.
Some of the advice I received :
—————————-
a) * Lawyer 2 has best answer…
* Streamlined just opens a can of worms, don’t do it
* Amending tax returns is a red flag
b) * Simply file FBARs going forward
* Do nothing else
* Use the “I didn’t know” option when filing FBARs
* Don’t attach any written statements (someone has to read them -> red flag)
a) * Lawyer 2 has best answer…
* Streamlined just opens a can of worms, don’t do it
* Amending tax returns is a red flag
b) * Simply file FBARs going forward
* Do nothing else
* Use the “I didn’t know” option when filing FBARs
* Don’t attach any written statements (someone has to read them -> red flag)
Some responses from the Expat Forum :
——————————-
a) * File past 6 years FBARs as a first step
* Select “I didn’t know” as the reason for the late ones
* Potentially amend tax returns as a second step
b) * File past 6 years FBARs as a first step
* Do nothing more
c) * File FBARs for the last 6 years
* Use “I didn’t know” as the reason
* Review tax returns / amend, as need be
a) * File past 6 years FBARs as a first step
* Select “I didn’t know” as the reason for the late ones
* Potentially amend tax returns as a second step
b) * File past 6 years FBARs as a first step
* Do nothing more
c) * File FBARs for the last 6 years
* Use “I didn’t know” as the reason
* Review tax returns / amend, as need be
What I decided
——————————-
I filed 6 years worth of FBARs (this was the one thing nearly all commenters agreed on!), and I will continue filing going forward, both as the FBAR goes, and also including any foreign investment income on my US tax return. A word of note here — which wasn’t really a factor for me as my wish would have been to be in compliance anyway — would be to everyone that lots of European banks will start reporting this information back to the US this year. So coming into compliance before that happens, arguably would be the better the option, in my opinon.
——————————-
I filed 6 years worth of FBARs (this was the one thing nearly all commenters agreed on!), and I will continue filing going forward, both as the FBAR goes, and also including any foreign investment income on my US tax return. A word of note here — which wasn’t really a factor for me as my wish would have been to be in compliance anyway — would be to everyone that lots of European banks will start reporting this information back to the US this year. So coming into compliance before that happens, arguably would be the better the option, in my opinon.
Regarding
tax returns / amending: at this moment I haven’t yet amended any tax
returns for any of the past 3 years, as I’m still undecided on whether
it’s worth it (primarily talking about my time / their time, the effort
needed, and the cost of filing, potentially paying an accountant as
well, and also the fact that I am wondering if such action could come
with the risk of opening up issues and just having the potential to be
another huge time sink for me. Someone said “let sleeping dogs lie”, and
while my own preference would always be to do these things as
“correctly” as possible; given the threatening language and scare
tactics that the IRS employs, I’m quite frankly concerned that any
benevolent actions on my part could backfire. Who knows.
IRS Advises re Delinquent International Information Return Submission Procedures
Taxpayers
who do not need to use the OVDP or the Streamlined Filing Compliance
Procedures to file delinquent or amended tax returns to report and pay
additional tax, but who:
- have not filed one or more required international information returns,
- have reasonable cause for not timely filing the information returns,
- are not under a civil examination or a criminal investigation by the IRS, and
- have not already been contacted by the IRS about the delinquent information returns
should
file the delinquent information returns with a statement of all facts
establishing reasonable cause for the failure to file.
Describe your situation in the reasonable cause statement
As
part of the reasonable cause statement, taxpayers must also certify
that any entity for which the information returns are being filed was
not engaged in tax evasion. If a reasonable cause statement is not
attached to each delinquent information return filed, penalties may be
assessed in accordance with existing procedures.
- All delinquent international information returns other than Forms 3520 and 3520-A should be attached to an amended return and filed according to the applicable instructions for the amended return.
- All delinquent Forms 3520 and 3520-A should be filed according to the applicable instructions for those forms.
- A reasonable cause statement must be attached to each delinquent information return filed for which reasonable cause is being requested.
Information
returns filed with amended returns will not be automatically subject to
audit but may be selected for audit through the existing audit
selection processes that are in place for any tax or information
returns.
Saturday, July 25, 2015
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
Form 1040NR with Form 8833 attached or Green card + treaty election = exit tax danger
This matters to you if you are a green card holder:
- thinking about expatriating, or
- you want to keep the green card, live abroad, and stop paying income tax in the United States.Let's say you are a citizen of another country, and you are living there. You also happen to hold a U.S. green card.Within two years of living in the United States, you decide to return to your home country to live permanently. You will no longer live in the United States. So you leave and you have been living in your home country for a year or so.Since you are leaving the United States and will no longer live here, you want to stop paying U.S. income tax and filing U.S. income tax returns.
How to do this
There are two ways to go about this: - One way is to give up your green card. You do this by filing Form I-407.
- The other way to stop paying U.S. income tax is by taking advantage of the income tax treaty between your home country and the United States (if such a treaty exists).
Sunday, July 19, 2015
Ex-US Rep. Michael Grimm Gets 8 Months For Tax Fraud
Former Staten Island Rep. Michael Grimm was sentenced to eight months
Friday for under-reporting taxes from a restaurant business after a
Brooklyn federal judge acknowledged the rarity of prison terms for such
crimes in New York but noted his status as lawyer, former FBI agent and
lawmaker who “exploited” bottom-rung workers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)