William Byrnes' Tax, Wealth, and Risk Intelligence

William Byrnes (Texas A&M) tax & compliance articles

Archive for the ‘Compliance’ Category

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

106 Swiss Banks seek Non-Prosecution Agreements and Non-Target Letter with the DOJ (but twice that, did not…)

Posted by William Byrnes on January 31, 2014


free chapter download here —> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2457671   Number of Pages in PDF File: 58

On January 25, Kathryn Keneally, assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s Tax Division, served as the keynote speaker for the American Bar Association Section of Taxation 2014 Midyear Meeting. to provide agency updates – including on the Switzerland banks non-prosecution agreement program that expired December 31.  

David Voreacos of Bloomberg News reported that Kathryn Keneally, in her keynote remarks, stated that 106 Swiss banks (of approximately 300 total) filed the requisite letter of intent to join the Program for Non-Prosecution Agreements or Non-Target Letters (the “Program“) by the December 31, 2013 deadline.  Renown attorney Jack Townsend reported on his blog on December 31st a list of 47 Swiss banks that had publicly announced the intention to submit the letter of intent, as well as each bank’s category for entry: six announced seeking category 4 status, eight for category 3, thirty-three for category 2.  106 is a large jump from the mid-December report by the international service of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation (“SwissInfo”) that only a few had filed for non prosecution with the DOJ’s program (e.g. Migros Bank, Bank COOP, Valiant, Berner Kantonalbank and Vontobel). [1]

SwissInfo reported that Migros Bank selected Program Category 2 because “370 of its 825,000 clients, mostly Swiss citizens residing temporarily in the US or clients with dual nationality”, met the criteria of US taxpayer.  Valiant told SwissInfo that “an internal review showed it had never actively sought US clients or visited Americans to drum up business. The bank said less than 0.1% of its clients were American.”   The DOJ reported that in July 2013, Liechtensteinische Landesbank AG, a bank based in Vaduz, Liechtenstein, entered into a non-prosecution agreement and agreed to pay more than $23.8 million stemming from its offshore banking activities, and turned over more than 200 account files of U.S. taxpayers who held undeclared accounts at the bank.

William R. Davis and Lee A. Sheppard of Tax Analysts’ Worldwide Tax Daily reported that “one private practitioner estimated that some 350 banks holding 40,000 accounts have not come in.” (see “ABA Meeting: Keneally Reports Success With Swiss Bank Program”, Jan. 28, 2014, 2014 WTD 18-3.)

Two court orders entered in November 2013 in a New York federal court will further aid the offshore compliance investigations by authorizing the IRS to serve what are known as “John Doe” summonses on five banks to obtain information about possible tax fraud by individuals whose identities are unknown.  The John Doe summonses direct the five banks to produce records identifying U.S. taxpayers holding interests in undisclosed accounts at Zurcher Kantonalbank (ZKB) and its affiliates in Switzerland and at The Bank of N.T. Butterfield & Son Limited (Butterfield) and its affiliates in Switzerland, the Bahamas, Barbados, Cayman Islands, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Malta and the United Kingdom.  The summonses also direct the five banks to produce information identifying foreign banks that used ZKB’s and Butterfield’s correspondent accounts at the five banks to service U.S. clients.

Swiss banks Wegelin ceased operations because of the DOJ investigation and its consequent guilty plea.  Bank Frey followed suit because of the DOJ investigation and costs of future compliance with FATCA (its former head of private banking was indicted, and an > attorney in the same indictment pled guilty to conspiracy to commit tax fraud <).  Frey bank, in a November 28, 2013 statement, defended itself: “In October, the former Bank Frey & Co. AG decided to cease its banking activities and to terminate all of its client relationships. Beforehand, the Bank verified the tax compliance of all its US clients, and an external auditor confirmed so. In addition, the Bank examined all of its other clients to determine whether they had any link to the US. Again, an external auditor checked and confirmed these findings. As a result, it was determined that Bank Frey did not have any clients with potential US tax issues.”

What is the Program for Non-Prosecution Agreements or Non-Target Letters for Swiss Banks?

The Tax Division of the Department of Justice > released a statement on December 12 < strongly encouraging Swiss banks wanting to seek non-prosecution agreements to resolve past cross-border criminal tax violations to submit letters of intent by a Dec. 31, 2013 deadline required by the Program for Non-Prosecution Agreements or Non-Target Letters (the “Program“).  The Program was announced on Aug. 29, 2013, in a > joint statement < signed by Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole and Ambassador Manuel Sager of Switzerland (> See the Swiss government’s explanation of the Program < ).  Switzerland’s Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) has issued a deadline of Monday, December 16, 2013 for a bank to inform it with its intention to apply for the DOJ’s Program.[2]

The DOJ statement described the framework of the Program for Non-Prosecution Agreements: every Swiss bank not currently under formal criminal investigation concerning offshore activities will be able to provide the cooperation necessary to resolve potential criminal matters with the DOJ.  Currently, the department is actively investigating the Swiss-based activities of 14 banks.  Those banks, referred to as Category 1 banks in the Program, are expressly excluded from the Program.  Category 1 Banks against which the DoJ has initiated a criminal investigation as of 29 August 2013 (date of program publication).

On November 5, 2013 the Tax Division of the DOJ had released > comments about the Program for Non-Prosecution Agreements or Non-Target Letters for Swiss Banks < .

Swiss banks that have committed violations of U.S. tax laws and wished to cooperate and receive a non-prosecution agreement under the Program, known as Category 2 banks, had until Dec. 31, 2013 to submit a letter of intent to join the program, and the category sought. 

To be eligible for a non-prosecution agreement, Category 2 banks must meet several requirements, which include agreeing to pay penalties based on the amount held in undeclared U.S. accounts, fully disclosing their cross-border activities, and providing detailed information on an account-by-account basis for accounts in which U.S. taxpayers have a direct or indirect interest.  Providing detailed information regarding other banks that transferred funds into secret accounts or that accepted funds when secret accounts were closed is also a stipulation for eligibility. The Swiss Federal Department of Finance has released a > model order and guidance note < that will allow Swiss banks to cooperate with the DOJ and fulfill the requirements of the Program.

The DOJ’s November comments responded to such issues as: (a) Bank-specific issues and issues concerning individuals, (b) Choosing which category among 2, 3, or 4, (c) Qualifications of independent examiner (attorney or accountant), (d) Content of independent examiner report, (e) Information required under the Program – no aggregate account data, (f) Penalty calculation – permitted reductions, (g) Category 4 banks – retroactive application of FATCA Annex II, paragraph II.A.1, and (h) Civil penalties.

Regarding which category to file under, the DOJ replied: “Each eligible Swiss bank should carefully analyze whether it is a category 2, 3 or 4 bank. While it may appear more desirable for a bank to attempt to position itself as a category 3 or 4 bank to receive a non-target letter, no non-target letter will be issued to any bank as to which the Department has information of criminal culpability. If the Department learns of criminal conduct by the bank after a non-target letter has been issued, the bank is not protected from prosecution for that conduct. If the bank has hidden or misrepresented its activities to obtain a non-target letter, it is exposed to increased criminal liability.”

Category 2 Banks against which the DoJ has not initiated a criminal investigation but have reasons to believe that that they have violated US tax law in their dealings with clients are subject to fines of on a flat-rate basis.  Set scale of fine rates (%) applied to the untaxed US assets of the bank in question:

– Existing accounts on 01.08.2008: 20%
– New accounts opened between 01.08.2008 and 28.02.2009: 30%
– New accounts after 28.02.2009: 50%

Category 2 banks must delivery of information on cross-border business with US clients, name and function of the employees and third parties concerned, anonymised data on terminated client relationships including statistics as to where the accounts re-domiciled.

Category 3 banks have no reason to believe that they have violated US tax law in their dealings with clients and that can have this demonstrated by an independent third party. A category 3 bank must provide to the IRS the data on its total US assets under management and confirmation of an effective compliance programme in force.

Category 4 banks are a local business in accordance with the FATCA definition.

Regarding the requirement of the independence of the qualified attorney or accountant examiner, the DOJ stated that the examiner “is not an advocate, agent, or attorney for the bank, nor is he or she an advocate or agent for the government. He or she must provide a neutral, dispassionate analysis of the bank’s activities. Communications with the independent examiner should not be considered confidential or protected by any privilege or immunity.”  The attorney / accountant’s report must be substantive, detailed, and address the requirements set out in the DOJ’s non-prosecution Program.  The DOJ stated that “Banks are required to cooperate fully and “come clean” to obtain the protection that is offered under the Program.”

In the ‘bottom line’ words of the DOJ: “Each eligible Swiss bank should carefully weigh the benefits of coming forward, and the risks of not taking this opportunity to be fully forthcoming. A bank that has engaged in or facilitated U.S. tax-related or monetary transaction crimes has a unique opportunity to resolve its criminal liability under the Program. Those that have criminal exposure but fail to come forward or participate but are not fully forthcoming do so at considerable risk.”

[1] See Mathew Allen, US tax deal could prove deadly for small banks, SwissInfo, December 10, 2013, available at http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/US_tax_deal_could_prove_deadly_for_small_banks.html?cid=37506872

[2] See Supermarket banks sign up to US tax probe, SwissInfo, December 11, 2013, available at http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/Supermarket_banks_sign_up_to_US_tax_probe.html?cid=37516028 (accessed December 12, 2013).

FATCA Compliance Program and Manual

book coverFifty contributing authors from the professional and financial industry provide 600 pages of expert analysis within the LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance (2nd Edition): many perspectives – one voice crafted by the primary author William Byrnes.

The LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance (2nd Edition) comprises 34 Chapters grouped in three parts: compliance program (Chapters 1–4), analysis of FATCA regulations (Chapters 5–16) and analysis of FATCA’s application for certain trading partners of the U.S. (Chapters 17–34), including intergovernmental agreements as well as the OECD’s TRACE initiative for global automatic information exchange protocols and systems. The 34 chapters include many practical examples to assist a compliance officer contextualize the regulations, IGA provisions, and national rules enacted pursuant to an IGA.  Chapters include by example an in-depth analysis of the categorization of trusts pursuant to the Regulations and IGAs, operational specificity of the mechanisms of information capture, management and exchange by firms and between countries, insights as to the application of FATCA and the IGAs within new BRIC and European country chapters.

Posted in Compliance, FATCA, Financial Crimes, information exchange | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

IRS Offers Tips for Year-End Giving

Posted by William Byrnes on December 19, 2013


In its December 16th Newswire (IR-2013-98), the IRS reminded individuals and businesses making contributions to charity of several important tax law provisions that have taken effect in recent years. The IRS highlighted the following changes in the end of year Newswire.

Special Tax-Free Charitable Distributions for Certain IRA Owners

This provision, currently scheduled to expire at the end of 2013, offers older owners of individual retirement arrangements (IRAs) a different way to give to charity.  An IRA owner, age 70½ or over, can directly transfer tax-free up to $100,000 per year to an eligible charity. This option, first available in 2006, can be used for distributions from IRAs, regardless of whether the owners itemize their deductions. Distributions from employer-sponsored retirement plans, including SIMPLE IRAs and simplified employee pension (SEP) plans, are not eligible.

To qualify, the funds must be transferred directly by the IRA trustee to the eligible charity. Distributed amounts may be excluded from the IRA owner’s income – resulting in lower taxable income for the IRA owner. However, if the IRA owner excludes the distribution from income, no deduction, such as a charitable contribution deduction on Schedule A, may be taken for the distributed amount.

Not all charities are eligible. For example, donor-advised funds and supporting organizations are not eligible recipients.

Amounts transferred to a charity from an IRA are counted in determining whether the owner has met the IRA’s required minimum distribution. Where individuals have made nondeductible contributions to their traditional IRAs, a special rule treats amounts distributed to charities as coming first from taxable funds, instead of proportionately from taxable and nontaxable funds, as would be the case with regular distributions. See Publication 590, Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs), for more information on qualified charitable distributions.

Rules for Charitable Contributions of Clothing and Household Items

To be tax-deductible, clothing and household items donated to charity generally must be in good used condition or better. A clothing or household item for which a taxpayer claims a deduction of over $500 does not have to meet this standard if the taxpayer includes a qualified appraisal of the item with the return.

Donors must get a written acknowledgement from the charity for all gifts worth $250 or more that includes, among other things, a description of the items contributed. Household items include furniture, furnishings, electronics, appliances and linens.

Guidelines for Monetary Donations

To deduct any charitable donation of money, regardless of amount, a taxpayer must have a bank record or a written communication from the charity showing the name of the charity and the date and amount of the contribution. Bank records include canceled checks, bank or credit union statements, and credit card statements. Bank or credit union statements should show the name of the charity, the date, and the amount paid. Credit card statements should show the name of the charity, the date, and the transaction posting date.

Donations of money include those made in cash or by check, electronic funds transfer, credit card and payroll deduction. For payroll deductions, the taxpayer should retain a pay stub, a Form W-2 wage statement or other document furnished by the employer showing the total amount withheld for charity, along with the pledge card showing the name of the charity.

These requirements for the deduction of monetary donations do not change the long-standing requirement that a taxpayer obtain an acknowledgment from a charity for each deductible donation (either money or property) of $250 or more. However, one statement containing all of the required information may meet both requirements.

Reminders

To help taxpayers plan their holiday-season and year-end giving, the IRS offers the following additional reminders:

  • Contributions are deductible in the year made. Thus, donations charged to a credit card before the end of 2013 count for 2013. This is true even if the credit card bill isn’t paid until 2014. Also, checks count for 2013 as long as they are mailed in 2013.
  • Check that the organization is eligible. Only donations to eligible organizations are tax-deductible. Exempt Organization Select Check, a searchable online database available on IRS.gov, lists most organizations that are eligible to receive deductible contributions. In addition, churches, synagogues, temples, mosques and government agencies are eligible to receive deductible donations, even if they are not listed in the database.
  • For individuals, only taxpayers who itemize their deductions on Form 1040 Schedule A can claim deductions for charitable contributions. This deduction is not available to individuals who choose the standard deduction, including anyone who files a short form (Form 1040A or 1040EZ). A taxpayer will have a tax savings only if the total itemized deductions (mortgage interest, charitable contributions, state and local taxes, etc.) exceed the standard deduction. Use the 2013 Form 1040 Schedule A to determine whether itemizing is better than claiming the standard deduction.
  • For all donations of property, including clothing and household items, get from the charity, if possible, a receipt that includes the name of the charity, date of the contribution, and a reasonably-detailed description of the donated property. If a donation is left at a charity’s unattended drop site, keep a written record of the donation that includes this information, as well as the fair market value of the property at the time of the donation and the method used to determine that value. Additional rules apply for a contribution of $250 or more.
  • The deduction for a car, boat or airplane donated to charity is usually limited to the gross proceeds from its sale. This rule applies if the claimed value is more than $500. Form 1098-C or a similar statement, must be provided to the donor by the organization and attached to the donor’s tax return.
  • If the amount of a taxpayer’s deduction for all noncash contributions is over $500, a properly-completed Form 8283 must be submitted with the tax return.
  • And, as always it’s important to keep good records and receipts.

IRS YouTube Videos:

See Publication 526, Charitable Contributions.

See Online mini-course, Can I Deduct My Charitable Contributions?

 

Posted in Compliance, Tax Exempt Orgs, Taxation | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

for research of ‘Home Mortgage Cramdown in Bankruptcy’ – Richard Gendler awarded title of “Doctor of Law”

Posted by William Byrnes on December 11, 2013


After a successful dissertation defense on October 22, 2013, Thomas Jefferson School of Law awarded the degree of Doctor of Science of Law, called a “J.S.D.” degree, to Dr. Richard S. Gendler. The J.S.D. is a research-based doctoral degree, the most advanced law degree in the United States. It requires three to five years of legal research and writing on a unique issue of law that makes a substantial and novel contribution to a field of study. The J.S.D. degree is equivalent to a Ph.D. in law, which first requires the completion of the Bachelor, J.D., and LL.M. degrees. …

Associate Dean William Byrnes added, “Dr. Richard Gendler has undertaken ground-breaking empirical research for his Ph.D. of all Chapter 13 cases that were filed in the Southern District of Florida from 2009. Dr. Gendler scrutinized the effectiveness of cure of mortgages on homeowners’ principal residences relative to the use of lien stripping in Chapter 13 plans, both for underwater and non-underwater mortgages. ….”  

The dissertation topic was “Home Mortgage Cramdown in Bankruptcy.”  The dissertation provided an extensive study into the interplay between the recent home mortgage crisis and U.S. Bankruptcy Law.  Read about Dr. Richard Gendler’s research and findings about cramdown and bankruptcy at http://www.tjsl.edu/news-media/2013/10956

 

Posted in Compliance, Wealth Management | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Health Insurance Providers Fee (or Tax or Penalty, call it what you will) – IRS guidance issued yesterday…

Posted by William Byrnes on November 27, 2013


and it has finally come to pass time … the new health care penalty, tax, fee – whatever it is, to be calculated for businesses.   Perhaps not the best timing considering the rocky roll out.  On the other hand, better to get the bad news 11 months before the next election, when it can be forgotten by the time mail in ballots are sent out.

Notice 2013-76 provides guidance on the health insurance providers fee related to (1) the time and manner for submitting Form 8963, “Report of Health Insurance Provider Information,” (2) the time and manner for notifying covered entities of their preliminary fee calculation, (3) the time and manner for submitting a corrected Form 8963 for the error correction process, and (4) the time for notifying covered entities of their final fee calculation.

For each fee year, the IRS will make a preliminary fee calculation for each covered entity and will notify each covered entity.  The notification will include (1) the covered entity’s allocated fee; (2) the covered entity’s net premiums written for health insurance of United States health risks; (3) the covered entity’s net premiums written for health insurance of United States health risks taken into account after application of § 57.4(a)(4); (4) the aggregate net premiums written for health insurance of United States health risks taken into
account for all covered entities; and (5) instructions for how to submit a corrected Form 8963 to correct any errors through the error correction process.

The information reported on each Form 8963 will be open for public inspection.  This aspect will be very interesting as various groups pull and then post business’ 8963s.

Posted in Compliance | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

U.S. Tightens Scrutiny of Small Businesses Skirting Obamacare Mandate

Posted by William Byrnes on November 6, 2013


The Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandate that will require employers with more than 50 full-time employees to provide health coverage for those employees or pay a penalty that can reach $3,000 per employee has many small business clients scrambling to plan for years ahead.  Because independent contractors are not counted toward the 50-employee limit, some small business clients may be tempted to reclassify common law employees as independent contractors to avoid the mandate.

Read Professor William Byrnes and Robert Bloink’s analysis of the issues, challenges, pitfalls and solutions for addressing a business’ future in a world of Obama Care at > Think Advisor <

 

Posted in Compliance, Tax Policy | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

What Advisors Need to Know About the New Reverse Mortgage Rules

Posted by William Byrnes on November 4, 2013


With the U.S. population aging and more boomers turning to reverse mortgages to fund their retirement, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has announced major changes to its Home Equity Conversion Mortgage program.

The changes, most of which became effective on Sept. 30, are designed to prevent borrowers from tapping into the entire value locked into their homes.  Specifically, new limits have been placed on the amount that borrowers can take out during the first year.

Read Professor William Byrnes and Robert Bloink’s analysis of this issue by clicking to our Think Advisor’s article > ThinkAdvisor <

Posted in Compliance, Retirement Planning, Wealth Management | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Overlooked Obamacare Silver Lining: Savings for Small Businesses

Posted by William Byrnes on October 2, 2013


Your small business clients know that the health insurance exchanges set up under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are coming—and soon—but they may not realize that they create significant benefits for employers in the form of dramatic cost savings above and beyond the current rules governing deductibility of premiums and eligibility for certain tax credits.

Beginning Nov. 1, small business clients will be eligible to sign up online for a specially created Small Business Health Options Program (the SHOP exchange), but clients are unlikely to have realized that the rules of the game have changed with the advent of SHOP.

Read William Byrnes and Robert Bloink’s analysis at Think Advisor

Posted in Compliance, Insurance | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

FATCA Registration Portal Finally Opens

Posted by William Byrnes on August 21, 2013


Update for subscribers of LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance[1]

FATCA requires that FFIs, through a responsible officer (a.k.a. “FATCA compliance officer”), make regular certifications to the IRS via the FATCA Portal, as well as annually disclose taxpayer and account information for U.S. persons, unless an intergovernmental agreement allows for indirect reporting to the IRS via a foreign government.   On Monday, August 19 the IRS opened its new online FATCA registration system for financial institutions that need to register for compliance with the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.[2]  This critical FATCA milestone was supposed to open July 15; however only on July 12 the IRS issued a postponement, as well as a push back of all corresponding impacted milestones and deadlines.

The full text of this article is available on the LexisNexis FATCA http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/tax-law/b/fatcacentral/archive/2013/08/21/the-race-to-register-with-the-irs-online-fatca-system-has-begun.aspx

Posted in Compliance, FATCA, Taxation | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

SEC comments muddy the waters in fiduciary standard debate

Posted by William Byrnes on July 29, 2013


The debate over the fiduciary standard that will become applicable to many financial professionals may be coming to a head as the looming deadline for comments on SEC proposals has motivated some advisors to express disapproval over a perceived weakening of the potential standard. Because a heightened fiduciary standard could increase advisors’ compliance costs, while simultaneously increasing consumer confidence in the quality of their advice, it is critical that advisors know the rules of the game.

Recent indications that the SEC may deviate from its previously expressed intent to expand the traditional standard applicable to investment advisors, however, represent a curveball for advisors who are not currently subject to a strict fiduciary standard; the outcome once again seems up for grabs.

Today’s bifurcated approach to fiduciary regulation

read the full analysis at LifeHealthPro – http://www.lifehealthpro.com/2013/07/01/sec-comments-muddy-the-waters-in-fiduciary-standar

 

Posted in Compliance, Wealth Management | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance release …

Posted by William Byrnes on May 3, 2013


Over 400 pages of compliance analysis !! now available with the 20% discount code link in this flier –> LN Guide to FATCA_flier.

The LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance was designed in consultation, via numerous interviews and meetings, with government officials, NGO staff, large financial institution compliance officers, investment fund compliance officers, and trust companies,  in consultation with contributors who are leading industry experts. The contributors hail from several countries and an offshore financial center and include attorneys, accountants, information technology engineers, and risk managers from large, medium and small firms and from large financial institutions.  A sample chapter from the 25 is available on LexisNexis: http://www.lexisnexis.com/store/images/samples/9780769853734.pdf

book coverContributing FATCA Expert Practitioners

Kyria Ali, FCCA is a member of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (“ACCA”) of Baker Tilly (BVI) Limited.

Michael Alliston, Esq. is a solicitor in the London office of Herbert Smith Freehills LLP.

Ariene d’Arc Diniz e Amaral, Adv.  is a Brazilian tax attorney of Rolim, Viotti & Leite Campos Advogados.

Maarten de Bruin, Esq. is a partner of Stibbe Simont. 

Jean-Paul van den Berg, Esq.  is a tax partner of Stibbe Simont.

Amanda Castellano, Esq. spent three years as an auditor with the Internal Revenue Service.

Luzius Cavelti, Esq. is an associate at Tappolet & Partner in Zurich.

Bruno Da Silva, LL.M.  works at Loyens & Loeff, European Direct Tax Law team and is a tax treaty adviser for the Macau special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China.

Prof. J. Richard Duke, Esq. is an attorney admitted in Alabama and Florida specializing over forty years in income and estate tax planning and compliance, as well as asset protection, for high net wealth families.  He served as Counsel to the Ludwig von Mises Institute for Austrian Economics 1983-1989.

Dr. Jan Dyckmans, Esq. is a German attorney at Flick Gocke Schaumburg in Frankfurt am Main.

Arne Hansen is a legal trainee of the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court of Hamburg), Germany.

Mark Heroux, J.D. is a Principal in the Tax Services Group at Baker Tilly who began his career in 1986 with the IRS Office of Chief Counsel.

Rob. H. Holt, Esq. is a practicing attorney of thirty years licensed in New York and Texas representing real estate investment companies.

Richard Kando, CPA (New York) is a Director at Navigant Consulting and served as a Special Agent with the IRS Criminal Investigation Division where he received the U.S. Department of Justice – Tax Division Assistant Attorney General’s Special Contribution Award.

Denis Kleinfeld, Esq., CPA. is a renown tax author over four decades specializing in international tax planning of high net wealth families.  He is Of Counsel to Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph, PL, in Miami, Florida and was employed as an attorney with the Internal Revenue Service in the Estate and Gift Tax Division.

Richard L. Knickerbocker, Esq.  is the senior partner in the Los Angeles office of the Knickerbocker Law Group and the former City Attorney of the City of Santa Monica.

Saloi Abou-Jaoude’ Knickerbocker Saloi Abou-Jaoude’ Knickerbocker is a Legal Administrator in the Los Angeles office of the Knickerbocker Law Group concentrated on shari’a finance.

Jeffrey Locke, Esq.  is Director at Navigant Consulting.

Josh Lom works at Herbert Smith Freehills LLP.

Prof. Stephen Polak is a Tax Professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law’s International Tax & Financial Services Graduate Program where he lectures on Financial Products, Tax Procedure and Financial Crimes. As a U.S. Senior Internal Revenue Agent, Financial Products and Transaction Examiner he examined exotic financial products of large multi-national corporations. Currently, Prof. Polak is assigned to U.S. Internal Revenue Service’s three year National Research Program’s as a Federal State and Local Government Specialist where he examines states, cities, municipalities, and other governmental entities.

Dr. Maji C. Rhee is a professor of Waseda University located in Tokyo.

Jean Richard, Esq.  a Canadian attorney, previously worked for the Quebec Tax Department, as a Senior Tax Manager with a large international accounting firm and as a Tax & Estate consultant for a pre-eminent Canadian insurance company.  He is currently the Vice President and Sr. Wealth Management Consultant of the BMO Financial Group.

Michael J. Rinaldi, II, CPA. is a renown international tax accountant and author, responsible for the largest independent audit firm in Washington, D.C.

Edgardo Santiago-Torres, Esq., CPA, is also a Certified Public Accountant and a Chartered Global Management Accountant, pursuant to the AICPA and CIMA rules and regulations, admitted by the Puerto Rico Board of Accountancy to practice Public Accounting in Puerto Rico, and an attorney.

Hope M. Shoulders, Esq. is a licensed attorney in the State of New Jersey whom has previously worked for General Motors, National Transportation Safety Board and the Department of Commerce.

Jason Simpson, CAMS is the Director of the Miami office for Global Atlantic Partners, overseeing all operations in Florida, the Caribbean and most of Latin America. He has worked previously as a bank compliance employee at various large and mid-sized financial institutions over the past ten years.  He has been a key component in the removal of Cease and Desist Orders as well as other written regulatory agreements within a number of Domestic and International Banks, and designed complete AML units for domestic as well as international banks with over three million clients.

Dr. Alberto Gil Soriano, Esq.  worked at the European Commission’s Anti-Fraud Office in Brussels, and most recently at the Legal Department of the International Monetary Fund’s Financial Integrity Group in Washington, D.C. He currently works at the Fiscal Department of Uría Menéndez Abogados, S.L.P in Barcelona (Spain).

Lily L. Tse, CPA. is a partner of Rinaldi & Associates (Washington, D.C.).

Dr. Oliver Untersander, Esq. is partner at Tappolet & Partner in Zurich.

Mauricio Cano del Valle, Esq. is a Mexican attorney who previously worked for the Mexican Ministry of Finance (Secretaría de Hacienda) and Deloitte and Touche Mexico.  He was Managing Director of the Amicorp Group Mexico City and San Diego offices, and now has his own law firm. 

John Walker, Esq. is an accomplished attorney with a software engineering and architecture background.

Bruce Zagaris, Esq. is a partner at the Washington, D.C. law firm Berliner, Corcoran & Rowe, LLP. 

Prof. William Byrnes was a Senior Manager then Associate Director at Coopers & Lybrand, before joining academia wherein he became a renowned author of 38 book and compendium volumes, 93 book & treatise chapters and supplements, and 800+ articles.  He is Associate Dean of Thomas Jefferson School of Law’s International Taxation & Financial Services Program.

Dr. Robert J. Munro is the author of 35 published books is a Senior Research Fellow and Director of Research for North America of CIDOEC at Jesus College, Cambridge University, and head of the anti money laundering studies of Thomas Jefferson School of Law’s International Taxation & Financial Services Program.

Posted in Compliance, Estate Tax, Financial Crimes, information exchange, Money Laundering, OECD, Reporting, Tax Policy, Taxation, Wealth Management | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance

Posted by William Byrnes on March 1, 2013


The LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance was designed in consultation, via numerous interviews and meetings, with government officials, NGO staff, large financial institution compliance officers, investment fund compliance officers, and trust companies, from North and South America, Europe, South Africa, and Asia, and in consultation with contributors who are leading industry experts. The contributors hail from several countries and an offshore financial center and include attorneys, accountants, information technology engineers, and risk managers from large, medium and small firms and from large financial institutions. Thus, the challenges of the FATCA Compliance Officer are approached from several perspectives and contextual backgrounds.

This edition will provide the financial enterprise’s FATCA compliance officer the tools for developing a best practices compliance strategy, starting with determining what information is needed for planning the meetings with outside FATCA experts.

This 330 page Guide contains three chapters written specifically to guide a financial institution’s lead FATCA compliance officer in designing a plan of internal action within the enterprise and interaction with outside FATCA advisors with a view of best leveraging available resources and budget [see Chapters 2, 3, and 4].

This Guide includes a practical outline of the information that should be requested by, and provided to, FATCA advisors who will be working with the enterprise, and a guide to the work flow and decision processes.

Click here to pre-order the LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance!  Remember that only US customers can buy on the US Lexis store.

Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Practical Considerations for Developing a FATCA Compliance Program
Chapter 3 FATCA Compliance and Integration of Information Technology
Chapter 4 Financial Institution Account Remediation
Chapter 5 FBAR & 8938 FATCA Reporting
Chapter 6 Determining U.S. Ownership Under FATCA
Chapter 7 Foreign Financial Institutions
Chapter 8 Non-Financial Foreign Entities
Chapter 9 FACTA and the Insurance Industry
Chapter 10 Withholding and Qualified Intermediary Reporting
Chapter 11 Withholding and FATCA
Chapter 12 ”Withholdable” Payments
Chapter 13 Determining and Documenting the Payee
Chapter 14 Framework of Intergovernmental Agreements
Chapter 15 Analysis of Current Intergovernmental Agreements
Chapter 16 UK-U.S. Intergovernmental Agreement and Its Implementation
Chapter 17 Mexico-U.S. Intergovernmental Agreement and Its Implementation
Chapter 18 Japan-U.S. Intergovernmental Agreement and Its Implementation
Chapter 19 Switzerland-U.S. Intergovernmental Agreement and Its Implementation
Chapter 20 Exchange of Tax Information and the Impact of FATCA for Germany
Chapter 21 Exchange of Tax Information and the Impact of FATCA for The Netherlands
Chapter 22 Exchange of Tax Information and the Impact of FATCA for Canada
Chapter 23 Exchange of Tax Information and the Impact of FATCA for The British
Virgin Islands
Chapter 24 European Union Cross Border Information Reporting
Chapter 25 The OECD, TRACE Program, FATCA and Beyond
Index

Posted in Compliance, information exchange, OECD, Reporting, Tax Policy, Taxation | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Treasury & IRS Issue Final FATCA Regulations

Posted by William Byrnes on January 21, 2013


Treasury Advances Efforts to Secure International Participation, Streamline Compliance, and Prepare for Implementation of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (January 17, 2013 U.S. Treasury Department of Public Affairs)

The U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on January 17, 2013 issued comprehensive final regulations implementing the information reporting and withholding tax provisions commonly known as the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). Enacted by Congress in 2010, these provisions target non-compliance by U.S. taxpayers using foreign accounts. The issuance of the final regulations marks a key step in establishing a common intergovernmental approach to combating tax evasion.

These regulations provide additional certainty for financial institutions and government counterparts by finalizing the step-by-step process for U.S. account identification, information reporting, and withholding requirements for foreign financial institutions (FFIs), other foreign entities, and U.S. withholding agents.

The final regulations issued today:
 Build on intergovernmental agreements that foster international cooperation. The Treasury Department has collaborated with foreign governments to develop and sign intergovernmental agreements that facilitate the effective and efficient implementation of FATCA by eliminating legal barriers to participation, reducing administrative burdens, and ensuring the participation of all nonexempt financial institutions in a partner jurisdiction. In order to reduce administrative burdens for financial institutions with operations in multiple jurisdictions, the final regulations coordinate the obligations for financial institutions under the regulations and the intergovernmental agreements.

 Phase in the timelines for due diligence, reporting and withholding and align them with the intergovernmental agreements. The final regulations phase in over an extended transition period to provide sufficient time for financial institutions to develop necessary systems. In addition, to avoid confusion and unnecessary duplicative procedures, the final regulations align the regulatory timelines with the timelines prescribed in the intergovernmental agreements.

 Expand and clarify the scope of payments not subject to withholding. To limit market disruption, reduce administrative burdens, and establish certainty, the final regulations provide relief from withholding with respect to certain grandfathered obligations and certain payments made by nonfinancial entities.

 Refine and clarify the treatment of investment entities. To better align the obligations under FATCA with the risks posed by certain entities, the final regulations:

(1) expand and clarify the treatment of certain categories of low-risk institutions, such as governmental entities and retirement funds;

(2) provide that certain investment entities may be subject to being reported on by the FFIs with which they hold accounts rather than being required to register as FFIs and report to the IRS; and

(3) clarify the types of passive investment entities that must be identified and reported by financial institutions.

 Clarify the compliance and verification obligations of FFIs. The final regulations provide more streamlined registration and compliance procedures for groups of financial institutions, including commonly managed investment funds, and provide additional detail regarding FFIs’ obligations to verify their compliance under FATCA.

Progress on International Coordination, Including Model Intergovernmental Agreements

Since the proposed regulations were published on February 15, 2012, Treasury has collaborated with foreign governments to develop two alternative model intergovernmental agreements that facilitate the effective and efficient implementation of FATCA. These models serve as the basis for concluding bilateral agreements with interested jurisdictions and help implement the law in a manner that removes domestic legal impediments to compliance, secures wide-spread participation by every non-exempt financial institution in the partner jurisdiction, fulfills FATCA’s policy objectives, and further reduces burdens on FFIs located in partner jurisdictions. Seven countries have already signed or initialed these agreements.

Today, Treasury announced for the first time that Norway has joined the United Kingdom, Mexico, Denmark, Ireland, Switzerland, and Spain as countries that have signed or initialed model agreements. Treasury is engaged with more than 50 countries and jurisdictions to curtail offshore tax evasion, and more signed agreements are expected to follow in the near future.

Additional Background on the Model Agreements
On July 26, 2012, Treasury published its first model intergovernmental agreement (Model 1 IGA). Instead of reporting to the IRS directly, FFIs in jurisdictions that have signed Model 1 IGAs report the information about U.S. accounts required by FACTA to their respective governments who then exchange this information with the IRS.  Treasury also developed a second model intergovernmental agreement (Model 2 IGA) published on November 14, 2012. A partner jurisdiction signing an agreement based on the Model 2 IGA agrees to direct its FFIs to register with the IRS and report the information about U.S. accounts required by FATCA directly to the IRS.

These agreements do not offer an exemption from FATCA for any jurisdiction but instead offer a framework for information sharing pursuant to existing bilateral income tax treaties. Under both models, all financial institutions in a partner jurisdiction that are not otherwise excepted or exempt must report the information about U.S. accounts required by FATCA. Therefore, the IRS receives the same quality and quantity of
information about U.S. accounts from FFIs in jurisdictions with IGAs as it receives from FFIs applying the final regulations elsewhere, but these agreements help streamline reporting and remove legal impediments to
compliance.

Background on FATCA

FATCA was enacted in 2010 by Congress as part of the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act. FATCA requires FFIs to report to the IRS information about financial accounts held by U.S. taxpayers,
or by foreign entities in which U.S. taxpayers hold a substantial ownership interest. In order to avoid withholding under FATCA, a participating FFI will have to enter into an agreement with the IRS to:

 Identify U.S. accounts,
 Report certain information to the IRS regarding U.S. accounts, and
 Withhold a 30 percent tax on certain U.S.-connected payments to non-participating FFIs and account holders who are unwilling to provide the required information.

Registration will take place through an online system. FFIs that do not register and enter into an agreement with the IRS will be subject to withholding on certain types of payments relating to U.S. investments.

Posted in Compliance, Financial Crimes, Money Laundering, Reporting, Tax Policy | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Money Laundering, Asset Forfeiture and Recovery … New LexisNexis Matthew Bender Title

Posted by William Byrnes on June 27, 2012


LexisNexis Matthew Bender has launched a online-only international title: Money Laundering, Asset Forfeiture and Recovery, and Compliance – A Global Guide.

Written by two California law professors (Professors William Byrnes & Robert Munro, Thomas Jefferson School of Law),

English: Logo of Group of working out of finan...

English: Logo of Group of working out of financial measures of struggle against money-laundering (FATF) Русский: Логотип Группы разработки финансовых мер борьбы с отмыванием денег (ФАТФ) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Each nation has its own chapter with sections covering:

  • Anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing;
  • Criminal and civil forfeiture;
  • Compliance & risk; and
  • International cooperation.

The remaining nations of the world will be covered in quarterly updates scheduled to go live in 2012 and 2013.

Because the new product spans so many practice areas, it appears on seven area-of-law pages (Accounting, Banking, Criminal, Foreign Law, International Law, International Trade, and Taxation), plus Lexis Tax Center. Just look under “Search Analysis, Law Reviews & Journals”.

This title is also available as an ebook.

Link to the Book’s Introduction: 1 Money Laundering, Asset Forfeiture and Compliance INTRODUCTION

Posted in Compliance | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

LexisNexis® Tax Law Community Podcast: The Authors of “Money Laundering, Asset Forfeiture and Recovery, and Compliance–A Global Guide”

Posted by William Byrnes on November 21, 2011


click here for PodCast LexisNexis® Tax Law Community Podcast: The Authors of “Money Laundering, Asset Forfeiture and Recovery, and Compliance–A Global Guide”.

Posted in Compliance, Courses, Money Laundering | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Posted by William Byrnes on November 10, 2011


Receive free chapter from new LexisNexis Anti-Money Laundering Electronic Book

http://www.lexisnexis.com/connectthedots

Register now to access Money Laundering, Asset Forfeiture and Recovery, and Compliance: A Global Guide complimentary chapter in PDF!

 Order before November 30, 2011 and save 20%!*


				

				
			
Posted in Compliance, Money Laundering | Tagged: , , , ,  |    Leave a Comment »

		


			

			

			
New Proposed Rules for Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers


			
Posted by William Byrnes on May 3, 2011


				

					

The SEC recently considered a proposal that would prohibit incentive-based compensation practices that may encourage inappropriate risk.


The proposal arises from Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires the SEC along with six other financial regulators to jointly adopt regulations or guidelines governing the incentive-based compensation arrangements of certain financial institutions. These institutions include broker-dealers and investment advisers with $1 billion or more of assets.


In particular, the Dodd-Frank Act calls upon the regulators to do two things:  Read the analysis at AdvisorFYI

				

				
			
Posted in Compliance, Wealth Management | Tagged: , , , , , , ,  |    Leave a Comment »

		


			

			
Beware Private Placements: Lessons From MedCap, Provident and DBSI


			
Posted by William Byrnes on April 26, 2011


				

					

FINRA and the SEC are actively examining private placements and the firms that sell them. If the regulators believe that something is amiss, they won’t hesitate to impose severe fines on everyone involved in the sale.


FINRA has issued sanctions against two firms and seven individual principals of those firms.  FINRA accuses them of causing significant investor losses by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation before offering the private placements for sale to investors.


Read this two-page article by linking to AdvisorOne – a National Underwriters Summit Business open-access original content wealth management news portal.

				

				
			
Posted in Compliance, Wealth Management | Tagged: , , , , , , ,  |    Leave a Comment »

		


			

			
SEC Says “Not so Fast” to Advisor Social Media marketing


			
Posted by William Byrnes on April 11, 2011


				

					

Social media marketing is quickly becoming many industries’ go-to medium for low-cost, high-yield advertising, but the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) may be saying “no so fast” to investment advisors.  But the SEC isn’t just asking for general information about advisors’ use of social media. Advisors are also being asked to provide a copy of “communications” made by the advisor on social media sites, including the text of postings, tweets and other messages sent by the firm.  Read this complete analysis of the impact at AdvisorFX (sign up for a free trial subscription with full access to all of the planning libraries and client presentations if you are not already a subscriber).


For previous coverage of SEC initiatives and rulemaking in Advisor’s Journal, see SEC Waffles in Study on Improving RIA Oversight (CC 11-24), Advisors Hit with Another Round of SEC Reporting Rules (CC 11-30) & SEC Approves FINRA Suitability and Know-Your-Customer Rules (CC 11-17).


For marketing tips, see the “Soft Skills” segment of Advanced Markets AdvisorFX: The 7 Deadly Sins of Chief Marketing Officers, To the Moon, Alice!—How to Market Even Though People Are Fed Up with Marketing, & Marketing to the Millennials.


 

				

				
			
Posted in Compliance | Tagged: , , , ,  |    Leave a Comment »

		


			

			
IRS Kicks Off New Offshore Amnesty Program


			
Posted by William Byrnes on April 6, 2011


				

					

Taxpayers with assets hidden in offshore accounts will get a second chance to voluntarily declare their assets to the IRS in return for reduced penalties under the new Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative (“OVDI”).


This newest offshore amnesty program offers a reduced, 25% penalty which will be calculated based on the highest aggregate amount in the taxpayer’s offshore account between 2003 and 2010.   In addition to penalties, program participants will be required to pay eight years of back taxes plus interest, accuracy related penalties, and delinquency penalties.  Read this complete analysis of the impact at AdvisorFX (sign up for a free trial subscription with full access to all of the planning libraries and client presentations if you are not already a subscriber).


For previous coverage of offshore issues in Advisor’s Journal, see IRS Planning New Voluntary Disclosure Program for Offshore Assets (CC 10-118), Offshore’s Limited Shelf Life (CC 10-47) & IRS Proposed FATCA Guidance Expands Offshore Compliance Initiatives (CC 10-52)


 

				

				
			
Posted in Compliance, Tax Policy | Tagged: , , , , , , ,  |    Leave a Comment »

		


			

			
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report


			
Posted by William Byrnes on April 5, 2011


				

					

Why is this Topic Important to Wealth Managers? This topic discusses the evaluation report of the financial crisis issued by a Congressionally appointed body. The report presents discussion of events and causes leading up to the ordeal, as well as indications and factors which presented its forthcoming. The discussion is aimed to allow wealth managers to intelligently discuss some causes of the financial crisis with clients and colleagues.


There was a new report issued earlier this year by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which was created to “examine the causes of the current financial and economic crisis in the United States.” [1] In this report, the Commission presents to the President, the Congress, and the general public the results of its examination and its conclusions as to the causes of the crisis.


The Commission was established as part of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act passed by Congress and signed by the President in May 2009. [2] The independent panel was selected by Congress and composed of private citizens with experience in areas such as housing, economics, insurance, market regulation, banking, and consumer protection.


The report is intended to provide a historical accounting of what brought our financial system and economy to a precipice and to help policy makers and the public better understand how this calamity came to be.


Below are some of the findings issued in the report:  Read the analysis at AdvisorFYI


 

				

				
			
Posted in Compliance | Tagged: , , , , , , ,  |    Leave a Comment »

		


			

			
New York Insurance and Banking: United at Last


			
Posted by William Byrnes on April 3, 2011


				

					

Why is this Topic Important to Wealth Managers? This topic discusses the new regulatory agency that will have an effect on most life insurance companies doing business in New York.  Because the new regulatory agency will oversee insurance and banking, it is likely that changes in the insurance compliance law are just around the corner.  After the financial crisis of 2008, it appears New York is taking action to prevent future disruptions in the market.  Wealth managers should be aware of the new agency as changes to insurance regulation and compliance are sure to result from the creation of this organization.


New York State is in the process of creating a new Department of Financial Regulation (DFR) which is designed to harnesses the regulatory powers and expertise of the Banking and Insurance Departments, as well as the Consumer Protection Board, by combining the functions of each, to make the State’s oversight of financial services responsive to the 21st century needs of the industry and its consumers.


This new State agency, created pursuant to legislation submitted as part of the 2011-2012 State Executive Budget, consolidates the functions, operations and staff of the Banking and Insurance Departments, along with related segments of the Consumer Protection Board, into a single State agency.


Consolidation of these agencies and activities within a single agency platform is intended to afford the State the ability to unify the State’s regulation of financial services and to more rapidly and capably respond to changing market practices and consumer preferences, thereby ensuring the industry’s continued integrity while shielding consumers from abuses.


In addition to enhancing and refining the State’s regulatory oversight of the industry, the consolidation will provide the State with the opportunity to reduce overall spending with the use of shared services.


The Superintendent of the Department of Financial Regulation will be appointed by the Governor, with the consent of the Senate. The Department’s main offices will be located in Albany and New York City.


The Department’s main responsibilities will be carried out through two major programs: regulation and consumer protection.  Read the analysis at AdvisorFYI


 

				

				
			
Posted in Compliance, Insurance | Tagged: , , , , , , ,  |    Leave a Comment »

		


			

			
Offshore Swiss Bank Indictments Follow Voluntary Disclosure Program


			
Posted by William Byrnes on April 1, 2011


				

					

Why is this Topic Important to Wealth Managers? This topic discusses the potential consequences of not playing by the rules; it is important to constantly keep in mind the balance between providing the most efficient and effective services to clients and crossing the line into illegal territory. Clients may not realize the harsh penalties associated with offshore activity, and although when performed by expert planners under the proper circumstances, that some offshore transactions may be legal and beneficial, it is the job of informed wealth managers to keep clients abreast of information that is useful in making long-term financial decisions.


Four bankers at an international bank incorporated and with its headquarters in Zurich, Switzerland, with offices worldwide, including New York City and Miami, were indicted by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia and charged with conspiring with other Swiss bankers to defraud the United States, the Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced Wednesday.


According to the indictment, the international bank’s managers and bankers engaged in illegal cross-border banking that was designed to assist U.S. customers evade their income taxes by opening and maintaining secret bank accounts at the bank and other Swiss banks. As of the fall of 2008, the international bank maintained thousands of secret accounts for customers in the United States with as much as $3 billion in total assets under management in those accounts.


The Justice Department announced the scheme dates back to 1953 and involved two generations of U.S. tax evaders including U.S. customers who inherited secret accounts at the international bank.


The indictment asserts that four foreign individuals, members of senior management, bankers and others assisted U.S. taxpayers in evading their U.S. taxes through the use of secret bank accounts in Switzerland.


According to the indictment, the defendants and their co-conspirators solicited U.S. customers to open secret accounts because Swiss bank secrecy would permit them to conceal from the IRS their ownership of accounts at the bank and other Swiss banks. It is further alleged that they provided unlicensed and unregistered banking services and investment advice to customers in the United States in person while on travel to here, including at the international bank’s representative office in New York City and by mailings, e-mail and telephone calls to and from the United States.


Read the analysis at AdvisorFYI


 

				

				
			
Posted in Compliance, Money Laundering | Tagged: , , , , , , ,  |    2 Comments »

		


			

			
SEC Unprepared to Implement the Fiduciary Standard for Broker-Dealers


			
Posted by William Byrnes on March 28, 2011


				

					

Broker-dealers will be subject to a fiduciary standard of care no earlier than the second half of 2012, predicts Richard Ketchum, Chairman and CEO of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”).  Mr. Ketchum’s remarks come a week after SEC chairman Mary Schapiro said that the SEC has “a lot of work to do” before putting “pen to paper” and writing the fiduciary standard rules.


Causes of the delay were hinted at by a pair of reports issued by the SEC last month, one of which concluded that broker-dealers and registered investment advisers (“RIA”) should be subject to the same fiduciary standard of care. The other report provided recommendations for improving the examination of investment advisors, concluding that a Self-Regulatory Organization (“SRO”) should be appointed to conduct examinations of investment advisors. An SRO is a private organization that is granted some regulatory authority over a particular industry. SROs are typically funded by member user fees.  Read this complete analysis of the impact at AdvisorFX (sign up for a free trial subscription with full access to all of the planning libraries and client presentations if you are not already a subscriber).


For previous coverage of the fiduciary standard in Advisor’s Journal, see SEC Fiduciary Standard Study Answers Few Questions (CC 11-25), Study Finds that Universal Fiduciary Standard Will Hurt Investors (CC 10-97) and What You Don’t Know Yet Might Hurt You: A Broker’s Duties under the Financial Reform Act (CC 10 40)


Your questions and comments are always welcome. Please post them below or call the Panel of Experts.


 

				

				
			
Posted in Compliance | Tagged: , , , , , , ,  |    Leave a Comment »

		


			

			
Firms Selling Private Placements Face Increased Scrutiny


			
Posted by William Byrnes on March 25, 2011


				

					

Firms Selling Private Placements Face Increased Scrutiny


If you’re selling Reg D private placements or non-traded REITs, the proverbial Huns are on the hill. These illiquid, private investments are the top two items on FINRA’s (“Financial Regulatory Authority Inc.”) list of enforcement priorities.  FINRA is particularly interested in whether firms selling the investments are complying with “suitability, supervision and advertising rules,” and is also looking at cases of fraud and the unregistered sale of the securities.


Medical Capital Holdings Inc. and Provident Royalties, LLC.—both of which offerings brought in hundreds of millions of dollars through private placements sold by broker-dealers—were given as examples of private placements done wrong. Both were charged with fraud in 2009. At least 12 broker-dealers who sold Provident Royalties to their customers are now defunct as a result of the millions of dollars in arbitration claims and lawsuits related to the offering.  Read this complete analysis of the impact at AdvisorFX (sign up for a free trial subscription with full access to all of the planning libraries and client presentations if you are not already a subscriber).


For previous coverage of FINRA regulatory action in Advisor’s Journal, see Broker Bonus Arbitration Bottleneck Forces FINRA to Reconsider Arbitrator Qualification Standards (CC 11-08), SEC Approves FINRA Suitability and Know-Your-Customer Rules (CC 11-17), and New FINRA Rule Restricts Brokers’ Outside Business Activities (CC 10-110).


For in-depth analysis of the taxation of REITs, see Advisor’s Main Library: D—REITs and Limited Partnerships.

				

				
			
Posted in Compliance |    Leave a Comment »

		


			

			
Advisors Hit with Another Round of SEC Reporting Rules


			
Posted by William Byrnes on March 21, 2011


				

					

Do small- to medium-sized advisors represent a threat to the systemic integrity of the worldwide financial system? Probably not, but you’d think so based on the flood of advisor regulations flowing out of Washington.


The Dodd-Frank compliance maze expanded again last week as the SEC commissioners voted unanimously to release proposed reporting requirements that will complicate the compliance landscape for many advisors. Although affected advisors are not among the largest advisors overseen by the SEC, they are nevertheless categorized by the Commission as large enough to represent a systemic threat warranting increased SEC attention.


And while the SEC has assured affected advisors that their proprietary trading strategies won’t become part of the public record, recent events like the Wikileaks private banking releases should spook advisors.  Read this complete analysis of the impact at AdvisorFX (sign up for a free trial subscription with full access to all of the planning libraries and client presentations if you are not already a subscriber).


For previous coverage of recent SEC rulemaking activity in Advisor’s Journal, see SEC’s Plain English Requirement Equals Expensive Client Disclosures(CC 10-44) and SEC Approves FINRA Suitability and Know-Your-Customer Rules (CC 11-17).


 

				

				
			
Posted in Compliance | Tagged: , , , , , , ,  |    Leave a Comment »

		


			

			
Merrill Lynch Busted by SEC for Tailgating Client Trades


			
Posted by William Byrnes on March 16, 2011


				

					

Merrill Lynch has agreed to pay a $10 million penalty to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to settle charges that Merrill used information about customer trades to trade on its own behalf—in violation of its customers’ confidences.


According to the SEC, Merrill Lynch operated a proprietary trading desk—its “Equity Strategy Desk” (ESD)—from 2003 to 2005. The desk traded solely on the firm’s account and did not have any responsibility for customer orders.


The SEC says that, although Merrill represented to customers that their trading information would be kept on a need-to-know basis, the ESD had access to and used institutional customers’ information when executing trades on Merrill’s behalf.


The activity that resulted in the SEC investigation is known as “tailgating”—related to the illegal act of “front running.” Front running is the practice of executing proprietary trades using information about pending customer trades to the broker’s advantage. Tailgating is similar to front running, except that the broker executes its own trade after executing the related customer trades.


Read the full analysis at AdvisorFX – sign up for a no obligation free subscription to all the services including AUS, ASRS, the Journal, Presentation Aids, Soft Skills. amongst others.


 

				

				
			
Posted in Compliance, Wealth Management | Tagged: , , , , , , ,  |    1 Comment »

		


			

			
SEC Waffles in Study on Improving RIA Oversight


			
Posted by William Byrnes on March 11, 2011


				

					

The SEC has finally released its Dodd-Frank mandated study on enhancing registered investment adviser (RIA) examinations, but the study is more a tale of SEC budgetary distress than a concrete plan to improve examinations. Although the study hints at the regulatory framework that is likely to emerge for RIAs in the coming months, it doesn’t conclude with a definitive solution to the problem. Although the study does not conclude with a specific plan for improving adviser examinations, the scope of the RIA examination problem and the funding problems revealed make it clear that change is coming for RIAs—change likely to be paid for by increased user fees.


Read this complete analysis of the impact at AdvisorFX (sign up for a free trial subscription with full access to all of the planning libraries and client presentations if you are not already a subscriber).


 

				

				
			
Posted in Compliance | Tagged: , , , , , , ,  |    Leave a Comment »

		


			

			
SEC Approves FINRA Suitability and Know-Your-Customer Rules


			
Posted by William Byrnes on February 26, 2011


				

					

The SEC recently approved FINRA proposed rules—FINRA Rules 2090 and 2011—that amend and consolidate know-your-customer and suitability obligations for broker-dealers and their authorized representatives.  The new rules are based on, and replace in-part, similar NYSE and NASD rules. According to FINRA, the amended know-your-customer and suitability rules are intended to protect investors by “promoting fair dealing with customers and ethical sales practices.”


The new rules are effective as of October 7, 2011.  For previous coverage of the suitability standard and the debate over the proposed fiduciary standard in Advisor’s Journal, see What You Don’t Know Yet Might Hurt You: A Broker’s Duties under the Financial Reform Act (CC 10-40) and Study Finds that Universal Fiduciary Standard Will Hurt Investors (CC 10-97).


Under the know-your-customer rule, firms are required to use reasonable diligence respecting the opening and maintenance of every account and to know essential facts about every customer. “Essential facts” are facts required to …. Read this complete analysis of the impact at AdvisorFX (sign up for a free trial subscription with full access to all of the planning libraries and client presentations if you are not already a subscriber).


 

				

				
			
Posted in Compliance | Tagged: , , , , , , ,  |    Leave a Comment »

		


			

			
Broker Bonus Arbitration Bottleneck Forces FINRA to Reconsider Arbitrator Qualification Standards


			
Posted by William Byrnes on February 7, 2011


				

					

Brokerages are increasingly looking to claw back signing bonuses from bonus  baby brokers who leave for another firm. Signing bonuses at the big  broker-dealers saw a big jump in 2008, just as the economy took a dive. Signing  bonuses of up to $3 million were being offered to brokers who generated $1  million in commissions and fees in the prior year. And a few bonuses paid at  Wall Street firms were reported to have been as high as $10 million. But because  many of the bonuses were based on the prior year’s inflated numbers, brokerage  firms ended up paying too much for too little performance during an economic  slowdown.


Now a bottleneck is developing in arbitration cases dealing with brokers’  signing bonuses, forcing FINRA to reduce the qualifications for persons serving  as arbitrators in order to expand its rolls and push the cases through the  system. About 1,100 bonus cases have been filed by brokerages as of December 12,  compared to just 415 cases in 2008. About 17 percent of 2010 FINRA arbitration  cases were bonus-related cases.  Read this complete analysis of the impact at AdvisorFX (sign up for a free trial subscription with full  access to all of the planning libraries and client presentations if you are not  already a subscriber).


For previous coverage of broker and securities arbitration in Advisor’s  Journal, see FINRA Proposes Eliminating Industry Insiders from Arbitration Panels  (CC 10-80) and Mandatory Securities Arbitration Clauses on the Chopping Block (CC  10-48).

				

				
			
Posted in Compliance | Tagged: , , , , , , ,  |    Leave a Comment »

		


			

			
FINRA Positions Itself to Oversee Advisers


			
Posted by William Byrnes on December 8, 2010


				

					



NASD executive office on K Street in downtown ...
Image via Wikipedia




Buzz about the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) taking responsibility for regulation of investment advisers has been circulating for a couple of years now—but the talk is suddenly sounding less like gossip and a lot more like a plan. Last week, FINRA’s chief executive, Richard Ketchum, sent a letter to the SEC touting the benefits of appointing a self-regulatory organization (SRO) to oversee advisors. Although Ketchum’s letter does not directly ask the SEC to cede some of its regulatory authority over advisers to FINRA, hints abound.


The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, passed earlier this year, mandates an SEC study of its investment advisor examinations and whether delegation of advisor regulation to an SRO would improve examinations.  Read this complete article at AdvisorFX (sign up for a free trial subscription with full access to all of the planning libraries and client presentations if you are not already a subscriber).


For previous coverage of FINRA in Advisor’s Journal, see FINRA Proposes Eliminating Industry Insiders from Arbitration Panels (CC 10-80).


We invite your questions and comments by posting them below, or by calling the Panel of Experts.

				

				
			
Posted in Compliance, Wealth Management | Tagged: , , , , , , ,  |    Leave a Comment »

		


			

			
Domestic and International Reporting Compliance


			
Posted by William Byrnes on November 26, 2010


				

					



Seal of the United States Financial Crimes Enf...
Image via Wikipedia




This week’s blogticles discussed compliance reporting generally regarding foreign transactions and activities.  Today, we will continue to explore some of the common reporting requirements that are filed based on domestic and international activity.


Suspicious Activity Reports


Congress has enacted legislation to the affect that the Secretary of the Treasury requires financial institutions to report any suspicious transaction relevant to “a possible violation of law or regulation.” [1] The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) maintains theses “reports in a central database and makes the information available electronically to state and federal law enforcement and regulatory agencies to assist in combating financial crime.” [2]


Currency Transaction Reports


Under Federal Statute the Department of the Treasury requires “banks, securities broker-dealers, money services businesses, casinos, and other financial institutions”, to file a “report for each transaction involving the payment, receipt, or transfer of U.S. coins or currency (or other monetary instruments as Treasury may prescribe)” in excess of $10,000. [3]


Report of International Transportation of Currency or Monetary Instruments


Read the entire article at AdvisorFYI.

				

				
			
Posted in Compliance, Reporting | Tagged: , , , , , , ,  |    Leave a Comment »

		


			

			
FATCA Act: Foreign Trusts


			
Posted by William Byrnes on November 25, 2010


				

					



President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform
Image via Wikipedia




Use of Foreign Trust Property and Deemed Distributions


The new FATCA law expands 26 U.S.C. § 643(i) to provide that any use of trust property by a U.S. grantor or U.S. beneficiary, or any U.S. person related to a U.S. grantor or U.S. beneficiary, is treated as a distribution equal to the fair market value of the use of the property. [1]


“Thus, the rent free use of real estate, yacht, art work or other personal property (wherever located including the United States) or an interest-free or below-market loan of cash or uncompensated use of marketable securities will trigger a distribution equal to the FMV for the use of such property to the extent of distributable net income”. [2]


However, if the trust is paid the fair market value, within a reasonable period of time, for the use of property or the market rate of interest on a loan by the trust, the new law does not create a deemed distribution. [3] Read the entire article at AdvisorFYI.

				

				
			
Posted in Compliance, Reporting | Tagged: , , , , , , ,  |    Leave a Comment »

		


	
	

		
« Previous Entries

		
Next Entries »

	


	






 











	

		

	

	

	

	
	


	
	
						
		
		







	
	

		

			%d bloggers like this: