Asher Rubinstein’s article on End-of-Year Tax and Estate Planning published on Forbes.com
Are you Protected from Whistle Blowers?
New laws are generous to whistle blowers, who are now incentivized to turn you in, in return for a payout. The IRS is authorized by law (Section 7623 of the Internal Revenue Code, the “Informant Claims Program”) to reward whistle blowers who report tax violators. If the information provided by the whistle blower is used by the IRS, the whistle blower may receive up to 30 percent of the additional tax, penalty and other amounts collected by the IRS. In addition, the identity of the whistle blower is protected by the IRS (at least until the whistle blower becomes a necessary witness in a tax prosecution). Reports to the IRS can also be made anonymously.
In addition, under Section 922(a) of the new Dodd-Frank Act, whistle blowers are now empowered to report information to the SEC. If the whistle blower report leads to enforcement action resulting in sanctions greater than $1 million, the whistle blower may receive a payment of 10 to 30 percent of the sanctions.
Recent examples directly relevant to our legal practice highlight the power of whistle blowers. First, the recent IRS success against UBS and the significant erosion of Swiss banking secrecy would not have come about without Bradley Birkenfeld, a UBS banker turned whistle blower, who came forward and exposed internal UBS policies and practices that were designed to facilitate non-reporting of offshore assets by US taxpayers. Although Birkenfeld is currently in jail because of his own role in facilitating tax fraud, he stands to reap millions of dollars as a result of the nearly $1 billion paid by UBS to the government when it admitted its role in aiding offshore tax fraud.
In addition, bank employees have stolen internal banking documents from HSBC and LGT Bank in Liechtenstein, and have sold this information to foreign tax authorities, resulting in tax fraud investigations and prosecutions in the US, Germany, UK and other countries.
As we wrote a year ago:
Taxpayers are not only at risk of discovery by the IRS; they face an increased danger of being turned in by private informants seeking recently enlarged rewards. . . . Foreign tax haven banks offer an opportunity for underpaid employees to get rich by becoming IRS informants. Additionally, taxpayers are at risk of being turned in by ex-partners, ex-spouses, ex-companions, ex-employees, litigation/arbitration adversaries, estranged children, or anyone else with a grudge who senses an opportunity to get even and get a reward.
The threat of whistle blowers is not limited to the offshore realm. If you have a non-compliant foreign bank account, it is vulnerable to a bank employee giving bank account information to the IRS, or to a foreign tax authority which later shares information with the IRS. The tax authorities of various governments all cooperate with each other. For instance, the German government shared the LGT information with multiple governments as far as India and New Zealand. But whistle blowers may also pose a threat much closer to home.
When should you be concerned? If threats exists from, e.g., a spouse, business associate, employee, etc. who may feel motivated to contact a government authority such as the IRS or SEC, and share potentially damaging information about you, your business, your assets or your finances, you should take preemptive action to mitigate the potential consequences.
What can you do? Make sure your house is in order.
-
- Run a self-tax audit. Is there reason to go back and alter past tax returns to disclose previously unreported income, foreign accounts, improper deductions taken, etc.? Should you file tax forms or reports that should have been filed but were not, e.g., for involvement in foreign accounts, ownership of foreign trusts or offshore corporations? Preemptively addressing these issues before they are brought to the attention of the IRS could result in lower fines and penalties and avoidance of criminal prosecution. As we have long-counseled, any of these threats – whether from weakening bank secrecy laws, exchange of information by governments, from renegade bank employees, or an angry business partner or former spouse – are harmless if you are tax-compliant. Correcting past tax non-compliance would serve multiple purposes: make good with the IRS, lower potential penalties and punishment, and eliminate the tax blackmail card that a nasty creditor might play. If you bring your tax matters into compliance, a whistle blower or creditor would not be able to threaten to report you.
- Protect your assets. Don’t leave your assets exposed to potential claimants and litigants. Protect your assets proactively, before legal action against you, rather than defensively, in response to an action already commenced, when your asset protection options may be limited.
We must acknowledge the good that some whistle blowers do. When corporate abuses and criminals are brought to the attention of authorities, we all benefit. Yet when “telling the government on you” becomes a tactic for harassment or blackmail, we must stand up to the threat by rectifying any non-compliance, eliminating the threat and protecting assets from further vulnerability.
Asher Rubinstein interviewed on Reuters on Tax Minimization strategies
Asher Rubinstein interviewed on Reuters on Tax Minimization strategies
Asher Rubinstein discusses Family Limited Partnerships and Dynasty Trusts , both excellent tax strategies, in addition to providing asset protection benefits.
Ken Rubinstein interviewed on WebCPA regarding tax and estate planning strategies for high net worth clients
Ken Rubinstein interviewed on WebCPA regarding tax and estate planning strategies for high net worth clients
http://www.webcpa.com/podcasts/Tax-Advice-High-Net-Worth-Clients-55819-1.html
WebCPA requires registration, which is free.
Ken discusses various topics, including estate tax planning, capital gains tax planning, captive insurance, the benefits of foreign tax treaties, and the IRS Voluntary Disclosure for offshore bank accounts.
The Role of the Attorney in the Voluntary Disclosure Process
The Role of the Attorney in the Voluntary Disclosure Process
by Asher Rubinstein, Esq.
Many people wonder if they need an attorney to represent them in connection with a voluntary disclosure to the IRS. They wonder if they can, or should, make a disclosure to the IRS themselves. Perhaps they believe that the process is simple: contact the IRS, tell the IRS about the account, pay some back taxes and they’re done. Other people reason that if the IRS is going to impose a penalty based on a percentage of the value of the foreign account, and the penalty will apply whether or not the taxpayer is represented by legal counsel, then why go through the additional expense of paying a lawyer?
There are various reasons why representation by an attorney is important in making a voluntary disclosure.
First and foremost, a non-compliant foreign account can have criminal consequences. For that reason alone, representation by legal counsel is important in order to minimize the criminal implications.
The lawyer should first gather the facts related to the foreign account: at what bank, in what country? What is the source of funds in the account? Is there an entity involved, such as a foreign trust, corporation or foundation? Has the client received communication that the foreign account is being disclosed? Has the bank requested the client to sign a W-9? Were illegal funds deposited into the account? Was money laundering involved? These questions and others will frame the possibilities of discovery of the account, help determine whether the client will or will not be accepted into the Voluntary Disclosure Program and what are the risks of criminal prosecution. The lawyer should assess the risk of criminal consequences, or whether the implications are confined to the civil realm. If anything, this initial assessment could, at a minimum, comfort the client that he or she may not be going to jail.
The lawyer should also provide the client with a roadmap of possible courses of action with respect to the offshore account. For instance, what happens if the client doesn’t disclose the account? What are the possibilities of IRS discovery of the account, and what would be the consequences in that event?
One possible course of action might be to convert the foreign account into a tax-compliant structure. The attorney may counsel the client with regard to transforming a non-compliant offshore account into one that complies with current US law. Although the attorney cannot erase a noncompliant past, the attorney can ensure compliance going forward. Converting a non-compliant foreign account into a compliant structure is often done in tandem with a voluntary disclosure. In other words, make amends for past non-compliance, and ensure ongoing future compliance.
The attorney should also explore the possibility of filing the proper reporting documents (e.g., the FBAR forms), while not formally applying for the voluntary disclosure program. This avenue may be appropriate, for example, for accounts that did not earn US taxable income and only earned de minimis income, or for clients who did not own a foreign account but had signatory authority over the account of a family member. If no US tax returns need to be amended, penalties may be entirely avoided. Such determination requires the expertise of experienced tax attorneys.
All of these possible courses of action will vary depending on the client’s specific situation. Clients and their foreign accounts all have different histories and family situations. The nature of the client’s strategy will of course depend on the client’s unique facts and circumstances, and the attorney is the proper advisor to assess the background and the facts and recommend how to proceed.
In one case that we handled, a US client inherited a complex web of foreign corporations owned by foreign trusts established by a non-US parent. As attorneys, we had to first untangle issues of international corporate taxation and liaise with the foreign trustees before giving our US client proper guidance on how to proceed.
We’ve also seen many instances of foreign accounts established by parents who are deceased. We’ve thus had to address issues of estate taxation and probate in order to properly guide the clients on foreign account compliance. We represented a brother who was in litigation with his sister over their inheritance. The parents had foreign accounts, and we were called upon to advise regarding inheritance of the accounts and making them compliant, within the context of the siblings’ litigation.
One client had a foreign account, but was in the midst of a bitter divorce. This led to issues of whether the foreign account might be marital property, as well as strategic issues of disclosure of the account in the context of a contest over the couple’s assets.
Many foreign account matters also involve foreign taxation issues. In one case, a client had to decide whether to disclose an account to the IRS or to the German tax authorities, or both, and we addressed the application of international tax treaties to the income earned in the account.
Thus, the role of the attorney often involves not only the client’s unique situation, but also the intersection of other areas of law: domestic and international taxation, corporate, marital, family, estate, and international law, among others. While addressing the client’s micro issues, the lawyer must also consider a broader, more global context.
Of course, closer to home, representing the client before the IRS is the threshold concern, and the attorney becomes the client’s advocate for the essential purpose of becoming tax compliant and avoiding criminal consequences. Even if a client will ultimately avoid criminal prosecution by making a voluntary disclosure, the client must still pass the Criminal Investigations Division (CID) of the IRS. A CID agent will be assigned to the client’s matter, and this agent will require specific information about the client, the account, the source of funds and other details. A qualified lawyer will assist the client in answering these questions and passing the CID investigation.
Legal counsel is necessary in interaction with the IRS in order to protect the client from making incriminating statements, or giving the IRS documents that may be prejudicial. Someone representing himself may reveal too much to the IRS, and should have the benefit of legal counsel to determine what to say, how and when to say it, what not to say, what documents to give the IRS, etc.
In many cases, the role of the attorney is to identify and respond to hidden dangers. We represented a family who left their home country after a military coup, and feared religious persecution. The family placed their family savings in a Swiss account not to hide funds from taxation, but because of reasons of safety and stability. When we noticed that a sister’s name was on the account years ago, we had to address the issue of the brother disclosing the account to the IRS, but the sister not wanting to join in disclosing. The brother’s disclosure alone would have pointed the IRS directly at the sister. We counseled the family in their difficult choice of brother and sister both coming forward, or neither coming forward and both assuming certain risks.
Attorneys also have experience in dealing with the IRS and with IRS procedures. Experienced attorneys may have pre-existing, professional relationships with IRS agents, which may benefit the client. A good tax lawyer is well versed in the administrative mechanisms of the IRS, and how to navigate the bureaucracy, saving the client time and aggravation.
A good attorney works to obtain the best results for the client. Thus, the attorney should serve the client’s interests by framing the facts in the best light possible for the client. The attorney will advance arguments in favor of the client’s interests, pointing out the positive and minimizing the negative, in order to arrive at the best results possible for the client. While IRS agents may not have much discretion in assessing penalties, a good attorney will argue on behalf of the client in order to achieve the best results possible. In the event that the client is unhappy with the IRS agent’s assessment of penalties, the attorney can advise regarding appeal procedures and challenging the IRS determination.
Thus, the role of the attorney in a voluntary disclosure is multi-faceted. We minimize the criminal implications. We are family advisors. We bring non-compliant foreign accounts into tax compliance. We identify issues and give clarity where multiple areas of domestic and international law intersect. We advance the client’s interests before the IRS and guide the client through the administrative, bureaucratic process as smoothly as possible. Yes, at the end of the process, the client may pay the same back taxes, interest and penalties as if the client was not represented by counsel. However, along the way, the client benefits from the lawyer’s mitigation of criminal consequences, identification and response to unseen dangers and risks, legal analysis, strategic guidance and experience with the IRS.
Jail Sentence for Investment Advisor with Unreported UBS Account
Jail Sentence for Investment Advisor with Unreported UBS Account
An investment advisor was sentenced to one year in jail and six months house arrest for failing to report his foreign accounts at UBS. His name was one of the 250 names of account holders that UBS gave to the IRS when UBS settled allegations of aiding and abetting tax fraud. (Another 4,500 names are in the process of being transferred to the IRS.) The accounts were held in the names of Panamanian and British Virgin Islands corporations. As we’ve noted earlier, although the IRS has targeted accounts owned in the names of offshore entities like corporations and foundations, non-compliant accounts in individual names are targeted also. As part of the criminal sentence, the judge imposed a penalty of $4.4 million, representing 50% of the value of the foreign accounts.
We continue to represent people interested in bringing their foreign accounts into tax compliance. Through the IRS voluntary disclosure program, clients can avoid criminal prosecution by paying their back taxes and penalties. The IRS will welcome a voluntary disclosure provided that the funds in the foreign account are not criminally derived, the IRS is not already investigating the account owner and does not already know about the foreign account. If these pre-requisites are met, the foreign account can be made tax compliant, criminal prosecution can be avoided and the client can sleep at night. However, timing is crucial: come see us before the IRS sees you.
What’s New with Foreign Bank Accounts and Voluntary Disclosures?
What’s New with Foreign Bank Accounts and Voluntary Disclosures?
by Asher Rubinstein, Esq.
With regard to the UBS matter, the SFTA (Swiss Federal Tax Authority) continues to transmit once-“secret” banking files to the IRS, as per the UBS settlement agreement. Americans whose UBS accounts are being revealed to the IRS and who have not already come forward and voluntarily disclosed their accounts can expect to be on the receiving end of an IRS investigation or subpoena and should consult with a tax attorney. Americans with accounts at foreign banks other than UBS must consider that the IRS is now targeting other banks, including but not limited to Credit Suisse, HSBC and Julius Baer, and these account holders must give thought to cleaning up non-compliant accounts before the IRS discovers the accounts.
Now that the UBS settlement is finalized (i.e., approved by the Swiss Parliament) and the transfer of account information to the IRS is proceeding, the IRS is analyzing the account information that it is receiving, launching investigations against account holders, and prosecuting account holders for not reporting the accounts and not paying taxes on income earned in those accounts. The IRS is also moving past UBS and investigating other banks, in other countries. India is one target of investigation. We also understand that the IRS is focusing on accounts in Israel. We are getting many calls from people with accounts in India and Israel, and also Hong Kong and Singapore, who are looking to put their banking affairs in order.
Also important are the subtle but significant changes in IRS voluntary disclosure practice. First, there are rumors that voluntary disclosures made after June 18, when the Swiss Parliament approved the UBS settlement, will not be accepted. The theory is that once the Swiss Parliament approved the settlement, disclosures are not sufficiently voluntary. In practice, however, we are still representing numerous clients who are still coming forward and making disclosures after June 18, and their disclosures are not being rejected.
Second, the “pre-clearance” process of the voluntary disclosure (whereby the IRS lets us know whether the IRS already has the name of the account holder, which would render the disclosure too late), has also changed, slightly but significantly. In the past, to request pre-clearance, we would only have to provide the individual’s name, address, social security number and date of birth. This is sufficient information whereby the IRS could tell us whether it already had knowledge of the individual, in which case pre-clearance would come back denied, or whether the individual was pre-cleared to continue the voluntary disclosure. Now, however, the IRS is asking for the name of the foreign bank in order to process the pre-clearance. The name of the bank is potentially incriminating information. If pre-clearance is denied, then the IRS already has the person’s name, plus the foreign bank, which makes investigation and prosecution easier for the IRS. The IRS has changed its procedure to require incriminating information in advance of any indication of acceptance into the voluntary disclosure program. This could have a chilling effect on future voluntary disclosures, because people will not be handing over incriminating information without the slightest indication of whether they will be accepted by the IRS. However, if the individual is not concerned with being rejected from the program (for example, the foreign funds are not illegal source funds), then it may still make sense to provide the bank information and proceed with the disclosure. The benefit of disclosure – lower penalties and avoidance of criminal prosecution – may outweigh the provision of potentially incriminating information, especially when there is little risk of non-acceptance into the voluntary disclosure program.
We can assist foreign account holders in addressing such risks, navigating the changing rules and procedures of the voluntary disclosure program, and cleaning up non-compliant foreign accounts.
Kenneth Rubinstein interviewed on CNBC Asia regarding offshore bank accounts
Kenneth Rubinstein interviewed on CNBC Asia regarding offshore bank accounts
The Estate Tax and . . . Baseball?
The Estate Tax and . . . Baseball?
by Asher Rubinstein
As we noted earlier , it’s not often that there is a confluence of professional sports and matters of taxation. George Steinbrenner, who owned the New York Yankees for some four decades, died at the right time . . . from a tax perspective. By passing away in 2010, his family will probably not have to pay federal estate tax. Had Steinbrenner died last year, 45% of his $1.2 billion fortune would have gone to the IRS in estate taxes, rather than to his family. Had he died next year, 55% would have gone to the IRS rather than to his family. By dying in 2010, his family avoids the estate tax and will probably get to keep all $1.2 billion, including the $500 million that would have gone to estate taxes. Why “probably”? Because Congress might still vote to impose an estate tax for 2010, retroactive to January 1. But there isn’t much time left for Congress to act, and such retroactive legislation will certainly be challenged in the courts.
Suppose you have a large estate and don’t want to die in 2010, is there something you can you do to preserve your wealth for your loved ones, rather than the IRS? Yes, you can contact us to discuss tax planning strategies to minimize or possibly eliminate the estate tax and preserve your wealth for your family or worthy charities. George Steinbrenner conveniently died in 2010 and saved his family a bundle. You can take the proper active steps to make sure your wealth goes where you want.