William Byrnes' Tax, Wealth, and Risk Intelligence

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

Posts Tagged ‘OVDP’

What’s WIth the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program’s “Non-Willful” Narratives?

Posted by William Byrnes on January 26, 2015

International Financial Law Prof Blog

the IRS’s 2015 versions of the two streamlined procedures OVDP forms (Form 14653 and Form 14654) require taxpayers to “provide a “narrative statement of facts” explaining their failure to disclose their offshore assets, or the agency …. read about it on International Financial Law Prof Blog


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

new Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) announced with carrot of reduced penalties or stick of 50% penalty

Posted by William Byrnes on June 18, 2014

As an update to my article – https://profwilliambyrnes.com/2014/06/11/why-is-the-irs-softening-the-offshore-voluntary-compliance-program/  – the IRS today formally announced the new, softer approach.

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen disclosed that the 2009, 2011, and ongoing 2012 OVDPs have generated more than 45,000 disclosures and the collection of about $6.5 billion in taxes, interest and penalties.  The substantial majority of this collection is FBAR penalty (see my previous articles on the OVDP and FBAR within this blog),

Commissioner Koskinen stated that in 2012 the IRS added the streamlined filing compliance procedures for a limited group of U.S. taxpayers living abroad who were not aware that they were out of compliance.  The streamlined process allows this group to catch up on their U.S. filing requirements without paying steep penalties.

He then announced two sets of actions:

“First, we’re expanding the streamlined procedures to cover a much broader group of U.S. taxpayers we believe are out there who have failed to disclose their foreign accounts but who aren’t willfully evading their tax obligations. To encourage these taxpayers to come forward, we’re expanding the eligibility criteria, eliminating a cap on the amount of tax owed to qualify for the program, and doing away with a questionnaire that applicants were required to complete.”

“Second, we will be reshaping the terms for taxpayers to participate in the OVDP. This is designed to cover those whose failure to comply with reporting requirements is considered willful in nature, and who therefore don’t qualify for the streamlined procedures. These changes will help focus this program on people seeking certainty and relief from criminal prosecution. From now on, people who want to participate in this program will have to provide more information than in the past, submit all account statements at the time they apply for the program, and in some cases pay more in penalties than they would have done had they entered this program earlier.”

Thus, in the first case, the IRS is removing the $1,500 cap for tax owed to be able to enter the non willful OVDP, and eliminating the submission of the extensive questionnaire.

But in the second case, the penalty will be increased from 27.5% to 50% if the bank that holds (held) the taxpayer’s account has come under investigation by the IRS before the taxpayer receives the IRS OVDP clearance letter.  The questionnaire will be expanded.

The formal new Streamlined Procedures program has been published as a set of FAQs with relevant links.   The 2012 program is as per the below.  An analysis of the new 2014 program will be published on this blog June 26, 2014.

50% Penalty

Beginning on August 4, 2014 (see Q&A 7.2), any taxpayer who has an undisclosed foreign financial account will be subject to a 50% miscellaneous offshore penalty if, at the time of submitting the preclearance letter to IRS Criminal Investigation, an event has already occurred that constitutes a public disclosure that either

(a) the foreign financial institution where the account is held, or another facilitator who assisted in establishing or maintaining the taxpayer’s offshore arrangement, is or has been under investigation by the IRS or the Department of Justice in connection with accounts that are beneficially owned by a U.S. person;

(b) the foreign financial institution or other facilitator is cooperating with the IRS or the Department of Justice in connection with accounts that are beneficially owned by a U.S. person or

(c) the foreign financial institution or other facilitator has been identified in a court- approved issuance of a summons seeking information about U.S. taxpayers who may hold financial accounts (a “John Doe summons”) at the foreign financial institution or have accounts established or maintained by the facilitator.

Examples of a public disclosure include, without limitation:  a public filing in a judicial proceeding by any party or judicial officer; or public disclosure by the Department of Justice regarding a Deferred Prosecution Agreement or Non-Prosecution Agreement with a financial institution or other facilitator.   A list of foreign financial institutions or facilitators meeting this criteria is available.

Description of the Streamlined Procedure

This streamlined procedure is designed for taxpayers that present a low compliance risk. All submissions will be reviewed, but, as discussed below, the intensity of review will vary according to the level of compliance risk presented by the submission. For those taxpayers presenting low compliance risk, the review will be expedited and the IRS will not assert penalties or pursue follow-up actions.  Submissions that present higher compliance risk are not eligible for the streamlined processing procedures and will be subject to a more thorough review and possibly a full examination, which in some cases may include more than three years, in a manner similar to opting out of the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program.

Taxpayers utilizing this procedure will be required to file delinquent tax returns, with appropriate related information returns (e.g. Form 3520 or 5471), for the past three years and to file delinquent FBARs for the past six years. Payment for the tax and interest, if applicable, must be remitted along with delinquent tax returns. For a summary of information about federal income tax return and FBAR filing requirements and potential penalties, see IRS Fact Sheet FS-2011-13. (December 2011).

In addition, retroactive relief for failure to timely elect income deferral on certain retirement and savings plans where deferral is permitted by relevant treaty is available through this process. The proper deferral elections with respect to such arrangements must be made with the submission. See instructions below.


This procedure is available for non-resident U.S. taxpayers who have resided outside of the U.S. since January 1, 2009, and who have not filed a U.S. tax return during the same period. These taxpayers must present a low level of compliance risk as described below

Amended returns submitted through this program will be treated as high risk returns and subject to examination, except for those filed for the sole purpose of submitting late-filed Forms 8891 to seek relief for failure to timely elect deferral of income from certain retirement or savings plans where deferral is permitted by relevant treaty. It should be noted that this relief is also available under the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program.  See below for the information required to be submitted with such requests. (If you need to file an amended return to correct previously reported or unreported income, deductions, credits, tax etc, you should not use this streamlined procedure. Depending on your circumstances, you may want to consider participating in the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program.)

All tax returns submitted under this procedure must have a valid Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN). For U.S. citizens, a TIN is a Social Security Number (SSN). For individuals that are not eligible for an SSN, an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) is a valid TIN. Tax returns filed without a valid SSN or ITIN will not be processed. For those who are ineligible for an SSN, but who do not have an ITIN, a submission may be made through this program if accompanied by a complete ITIN application. For information on obtaining an SSN, see http://www.ssa.gov. For information on obtaining an ITIN, see the ITIN page.

Compliance Risk Determination

The IRS will determine the level of compliance risk presented by the submission based on information provided on the returns filed and based on additional information provided in response to a Questionnaire required as part of the submission. Low risk will be predicated on simple returns with little or no U.S. tax due. Absent any high risk factors, if the submitted returns and application show less than $1,500 in tax due in each of the years, they will be treated as low risk and processed in a streamlined manner.

The risk level may rise if any of the following are present:

  • If any of the returns submitted through this program claim a refund;
  • If there is material economic activity in the United States;
  • If the taxpayer has not declared all of his/her income in his/her country of residence;
  • If the taxpayer is under audit or investigation by the IRS;
  • If FBAR penalties have been previously assessed against the taxpayer or if the taxpayer has previously received an FBAR warning letter;
  • If the taxpayer has a financial interest or authority over a financial account(s) located outside his/her country of residence;
  • If the taxpayer has a financial interest in an entity or entities located outside his/her country of residence;
  • If there is U.S. source income; or
  • If there are indications of sophisticated tax planning or avoidance.

For additional information about what information will be requested to evaluate risk, please see the Questionnaire.

Instructions for Using This Procedure

Taxpayers wishing to use these streamlined procedures must:

1. Submit complete and accurate delinquent tax returns, with appropriate related information returns, for the last three years for which a U.S. tax return is due.

  • Please note that all delinquent information returns being filed under this procedure should be sent to the address below with the rest of the submission.

2. Include at the top of the first page of each tax return “Streamlined” to indicate that the returns are being submitted under this procedure. This is very important to ensure that your returns get processed through these procedures.

3. Submit payment of all tax due and owing as reflected on the returns and statutory interest due and owing.

  • For returns determined to be high risk, failure to file and failure to pay penalties may be imposed in accordance with U.S. federal tax laws and FBAR penalties may be imposed in accordance with U.S. law. Reasonable cause statements may be requested during review or examination of the returns determined to be high risk. For a summary of information about federal income tax return and FBAR filing requirements and potential penalties, see IRS Fact Sheet FS-2011-13(December 2011).

4. Submit copies of filed FBARs for the last six years for which an FBAR is due. (You should file delinquent FBARs according to the FBAR instructions and include a statement explaining that the FBARs are being filed as part of the Streamlined Filing Compliance Procedures for Non-Resident, Non-Filer U.S. Taxpayers. Through June 30, 2013, you may file electronically (http://bsaefiling.fincen.treas.gov) or by sending paper forms to Department of Treasury, Post Office Box 32621, Detroit, MI 48232-0621. After June 30, 2013, you must file electronically (http://bsaefiling.fincen.treas.gov.)) If you are unable to file electronically, you may contact FinCEN’s Regulatory Helpline at 1-800-949-2732 or (if calling from outside the United States) 1-703-905-3975 to determine possible alternatives for timely reporting.

NOTE: Taxpayers filing FBARs electronically do not currently have the technological ability to include a statement explaining that the FBARs are being filed as part of the Streamlined Filing Compliance Procedures for Non-Resident, Non-Filer U.S. Taxpayers. Until such time that they have the ability, it is not necessary to include the statement. (July 18, 2013)

5. Submit a complete, accurate and signed Questionnaire.

6. If the taxpayer must apply for an ITIN in order to file delinquent returns under this procedure, the application and other documents required for applying for an ITIN must be attached to the the required forms, information and documentation required under this streamlined procedure. See the ITIN page for more.

7. Any taxpayer seeking relief for failure to timely elect deferral of income from certain retirement or savings plans where deferral is permitted by relevant treaty will be required to submit:

  • a statement requesting an extension of time to make an election to defer income tax and identifying the pertinent treaty provision;
  • for relevant Canadian plans, a Form 8891 for each tax year and each plan and a description of the type of plan covered by the submission; and
  • a dated statement signed by the taxpayer under penalties of perjury describing:
    • the events that led to the failure to make the election,
    • the events that led to the discovery of the failure, and
    • if the taxpayer relied on a professional advisor, the nature of the advisor’s engagement and responsibilities.

8. This program has been established for non-resident non-filers. Generally, amended returns will not be accepted in this program. The only amended returns accepted through this program are those being filed for the sole purpose of submitting late-filed Forms 8891 to seek relief for failure to timely elect deferral of income from certain retirement or savings plans where deferral is permitted by relevant treaty. Non-resident taxpayers who have previously filed returns but wish to request deferral provisions will be required to submit:

  • an amended return reflecting no adjustments to income deductions, or credits; and
  • all documents required in item 7 above.

9. The documents listed above must be sent to:

Internal Revenue Service
3651 South I-H 35
Stop 6063 AUSC
Attn: Streamlined
Austin, TX 78741

Other Considerations

Taxpayers who are concerned about the risk of criminal prosecution should be advised that this new procedure does not provide protection from criminal prosecution if the IRS and Department of Justice determine that the taxpayer’s particular circumstances warrant such prosecution. Taxpayers concerned about criminal prosecution because of their particular circumstances should be aware of and consult their legal advisers about the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP), announced on Jan. 9, 2012, which offers another means by which taxpayers with undisclosed offshore accounts may become compliant. For additional information go to the OVDP page. It should be noted, however, that once a taxpayer makes a submission under the new procedure described in this document, OVDP is no longer available. It should also be noted that taxpayers who are ineligible to use OVDP are also ineligible to participate in this procedure.

Posted in Compliance, FATCA | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

Why Is The IRS Softening the Offshore Voluntary Compliance Program ?

Posted by William Byrnes on June 11, 2014

On June 3, 2014 the IRS Commissioner John A. Koskinen stated before The U.S. Council For International Business-OECD International Tax Conference:

“Now while the 2012 OVDP and its predecessors have operated successfully, we are currently considering making further program modifications to accomplish even more. We are considering whether our voluntary programs have been too focused on those willfully evading their tax obligations and are not accommodating enough to others who don’t necessarily need protection from criminal prosecution because their compliance failures have been of the non-willful variety. For example, we are well aware that there are many U.S. citizens who have resided abroad for many years, perhaps even the vast majority of their lives. We have been considering whether these individuals should have an opportunity to come into compliance that doesn’t involve the type of penalties that are appropriate for U.S.-resident taxpayers who were willfully hiding their investments overseas. We are also aware that there may be U.S.-resident taxpayers with unreported offshore accounts whose prior non-compliance clearly did not constitute willful tax evasion but who, to date, have not had a clear way of coming into compliance that doesn’t involve the threat of substantial penalties.

 We are close to completing our deliberations on these respects and expect that we will soon put forward modifications to the programs currently in place. … We believe that re-striking this balance between enforcement and voluntary compliance is particularly important at this point in time, given that we are nearing July 1, the effective date of FATCA. …”

Amount Recovered Thus Far from Non-Compliant Taxpayers 

According to the GAO Reports and the Senate Subcommittee report, the 2008, 2011, and the ongoing 2012 offshore voluntary disclosure initiative (OVDI) have led to 43,000 taxpayers paying back taxes, interest and penalties totaling $6 billion to date, with more expected.

However, the vast majority of this recovered $6 billion is not tax revenue but instead results from the FBAR penalties (anti money laundering financial reporting form sent by June 30 to FINCEN, separate from the 1040 tax filing to the IRS sent by April 15) assessed for not reporting a foreign account.  The Taxpayer Advocatefound that for noncompliant taxpayers with small accounts, the FBAR and tax penalties reached nearly 600% of the actual tax due!  The median offshore penalty was about 381% of the additional tax assessed for taxpayers with median-sized account balances.

From the IRS OVDP FAQ:

“For example, assume the taxpayer has the following amounts in a foreign account over the period covered by his voluntary disclosure. It is assumed for purposes of the example that the $1,000,000 was in the account before 2003 and was not unreported income in 2003.


Year Amount on Deposit Interest Income Account Balance
2003 $1,000,000 $50,000 $1,050,000
2004   $50,000 $1,100,000
2005   $50,000 $1,150,000
2006   $50,000 $1,200,000
2007   $50,000 $1,250,000
2008   $50,000 $1,300,000
2009   $50,000 $1,350,000
2010   $50,000 $1,400,000

(NOTE: This example does not provide for compounded interest, and assumes the taxpayer is in the 35-percent tax bracket, does not have an investment in a Passive Foreign Investment Company (PFIC), files a return but does not include the foreign account or the interest income on the return, and the maximum applicable penalties are imposed.)

If the taxpayers in the above example come forward and their voluntary disclosure is accepted by the IRS, they face this potential scenario:

They would pay $518,000 plus interest. This includes:

  • Tax of $140,000 (8 years at $17,500) plus interest,
  • An accuracy-related penalty of $28,000 (i.e., $140,000 x 20%), and
  • An additional penalty, in lieu of the FBAR and other potential penalties that may apply, of $385,000 (i.e., $1,400,000 x 27.5%).

If the taxpayers didn’t come forward, when the IRS discovered their offshore activities, they would face up to $4,543,000 in tax, accuracy-related penalty, and FBAR penalty.”

The IRS example to enter the OVDP has 75% of the OVDP collection amount from the FBAR penalty.  The FBAR penalty is 2.75 larger than the tax due.  But not entering leads to owing an amount four times the account value.

Thus, judged by the amount of tax funds recovered, the OVDP has substantially underperformed to date.  But by leveraging a taxpayer’s lack of compliance with the non-tax FBAR, the OVDP and IRS civil prosecutions appear to meet performance goals of raising revenue and obtaining overall tax compliance for US persons with foreign accounts and/or residing abroad.  Or do they?

Have These Initiatives Increased Taxpayer Compliance?

The Taxpayer Advocate, replying on State Department statistics, cited that 7.6 million U.S. citizens reside abroad and many more U.S. residents have FBAR filing requirements, yet the IRS received only 807,040 FBAR submissions as recently as 2012.  The Taxpayer Advocate noted that in Mexico alone, more than one million U.S. citizens reside, and many Mexican citizens reside in the U.S. (and thus are required to file a FBAR for any Mexican accounts of $10,000 or greater).  Moreover, Non-Resident Aliens (NRAs) must file a FBAR as well.  Thus, all the initiatives to date have produced a compliance rate below 10% compliance.  Sounds more like the War on Drugs rather than a drive to increase tax compliance.

This is not to say that obtaining a highly level of compliance with the tax law, like compliance with the drug laws and DUI laws, is not a public good in itself – such tax compliance is a public good that the public has chosen, via Congress (and its investigatory hearings), for resource allocation. But like the War on Drugs, there are many potential strategies to bring about compliance.  The ones used to date just haven’t worked very well, and caused more problems (the War on Drugs has led to one of the highest rates of imprisonment of the world, that some have called a scorched earth policy against young male minorities in particular).

Have These Initiatives Met the Tax Collection Goals?

The Subcommittee Report states: “Offshore tax evasion has been an issue of concern … because lost tax revenues contribute to the U.S. annual deficit, which today exceeds $500 billion. Collecting unpaid taxes is one way to reduce the deficit without raising taxes.”

The Senate Subcommittee reported that: “According to the IRS, the current estimated annual U.S. tax gap is $450 billion, which represents the total amount of U.S. taxes owed but not paid on time, despite an overall tax compliance rate among American taxpayers of 83 percent. Contributing to that annual tax gap are offshore tax schemes responsible for lost tax revenues totaling an estimated $150 billion each year.”

To justify the reporting of the number of $150 billion a year of lost tax revenue due to “offshore tax schemes”, the Senate Report primarily cites its own investigatory reports and third party articles that refer to transfer pricing issues.  While transfer pricing regulations have been under scrutiny, at least by the Democrats, in the Senate, it is certainly not commonly held by those same Democrats that transfer pricing is illegal or constitutes an “offshore scheme”.

It is proven beyond a doubt by the UBS, Credit Suisse, and other similar investigations, validated by the OVDI disclosures, that some Americans are noncompliant, and that some of those noncompliant Americans would owe tax if disclosing foreign income on their tax returns.  There is also no doubt that the total number of noncompliant Americans between 2008 and 2013 was more than the 43,000 who were brought in from the wilderness.

There is also no doubt that the tax that would have been collected from these noncompliant taxpayers had they been compliant during their time in the wilderness is in fact, relative to the reported figure of $150 billion lost annually, miniscule (somewhere probably between $300 million and $500 million a year for lost tax (recalling the majority of the $6 billion collected representing FBAR penalties, tax penalties, and interest).  To date, of the $150 billion referred to as lost a year to offshore schemes, only approximately .003% (a third of one percent) has been collected – and that assuming the higher number of $500 million a year.  Not a good result by any measure.  And not going to dent the annual $450B – $500B deficit (not including unfunded liabilities).

Are More Than 90% of Taxpayers with Foreign Accounts Tax Evaders?

The Taxpayer Advocate, relying on State Department statistics, cited that 7.6 million U.S. citizens reside abroad.  Most are required to file a FBAR.  The Taxpayer Advocate noted that in Mexico alone, more than one million U.S. citizens reside, and many Mexican citizens reside in the U.S. (and thus are required to file a FBAR for any Mexican accounts of $10,000 or greater).

Many more U.S. residents have FBAR filing requirements because of having signatory, control, or ownership of an overseas account.  The Department of Homeland Security reported in Population Estimates (July 2013) that an estimated 13.3 million LPRs lived in the United States as of January 1, 2012, some of who will have FBAR filing requirements.

For 2011, approximately four million individual returns included foreign source income and 450,000 included the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion.  Yet the IRS received only 807,040 FBAR submissions as recently as 2012.

Based on these numbers, more than 90% of taxpayers with foreign accounts are NOT compliant with the FBAR filing requirement.  Add it up: 7.6 million Americans abroad, 13.3 LPRs in the USA, at least 1 million NRAs in the US, and some number of American citizens in the US with foreign accounts.  Must equal at least 10 million taxpayers that should be filing the FBAR.   The IRS has stated that a substantial number of US taxpayers living abroad do not file tax returns at all.

The IRS reports that 87% of American residing taxpayers are tax compliant.  So the remaining 13% … statistically speaking, being an American residing in America and having a foreign account is indicative of tax evasion, especially if FBAR is considered a “tax” compliance obligation (which it is not).

Based on these numbers, being an American living in a foreign country is a leading cause of criminality.  What the statistics do not tell is which comes first: criminality or foreign activity?  A person tends toward criminality and thus opens a foreign account or moves to a foreign country?  Or the act of moving abroad to a foreign country leads to criminality?  Absurd questions?      

Is the FBAR form necessary?  Why has it not been combined with the 1040?  Why not with the new 8938?  Questions to ponder in another article.

Posted in Compliance, FATCA | Tagged: , , , , | 8 Comments »

Former Credit Suisse Banker Pleads Guilty

Posted by William Byrnes on May 2, 2014

Former Credit Suisse Banker Pleads Guilty

Josef Dörig, 72, plead guilty on April 30 to conspiring to defraud the IRS in connection with his work as the owner of Dorig Partner AG, a trust company in Switzerland.

In a statement of facts filed with the plea agreement, Dörig admitted that between 1997 and 2011, while owning and operating a trust company, he engaged in a wide-ranging conspiracy to aid and assist U.S. customers in evading their income taxes by concealing assets and income in secret bank accounts held in the names of sham entities at Credit Suisse.  In 1997, the Credit Suisse subsidiary spun off these sham entities into a trust company, Dorig Partner AG, owned and operated by Dorig, the Justice Department said.

Sentencing is set for Aug. 8th and Dörig faces a statutory maximum sentence of five years in prison.

Credit Suisse Agrees to Pay $196 Million and Admits Wrongdoing in Providing Unregistered Services to U.S. Clients

In the February 21, 2014 Press Release by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) “Credit Suisse Agrees to Pay $196 Million and Admits Wrongdoing in Providing Unregistered Services to U.S. Clients“, Credit Suisse agreed to pay $196 million and admit wrongdoing to settle the SEC’s charges.  According to the SEC’s order instituting settled administrative proceedings, Credit Suisse provided cross-border securities services to thousands of U.S. clients and collected fees totaling approximately $82 million without adhering to the registration provisions of the federal securities laws.  Credit Suisse relationship managers traveled to the U.S. to solicit clients, provide investment advice, and induce securities transactions.  These relationship managers were not registered to provide brokerage or advisory services, nor were they affiliated with a registered entity.  The relationship managers also communicated with clients in the U.S. through overseas e-mails and phone calls.

Credit Suisse Hearing 

The seven hour hearing of the US Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on tax evasion associated with unreported bank accounts of Americans held about Credit Suisse in February 2014 provides a good background to understand the Justice Department indictment and guilty plea.  Below I paraphrase and excerpt the most intriguing statements of the hearing.

Based upon its two-year investigation, the Subcommittee reported that Credit Suisse opened Swiss accounts for over 22,000 U.S. customers with assets that, at their peak, totaled roughly $10 billion to $12 billion.  The Subcommittee stated that the vast majority of these accounts were hidden from U.S. authorities and that U.S. law enforcement officials have been slow to collect the unpaid taxes or hold accountable the tax evaders and bank involved.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the subcommittee chairman said “The Credit Suisse case study shows how a Swiss bank aided and abetted U.S. tax evasion, not only from behind a veil of secrecy in Switzerland, but also on U.S. soil by sending Swiss bankers here to open hidden accounts. In response, the Department of Justice has failed to use the U.S. legal tools that won the UBS case and has instead used treaty requests for U.S. client names, relying on Swiss courts with predictably poor results. It’s time to ramp up the collection of taxes due from tax evaders on the billions of dollars hidden offshore.”

“For too long, international financial institutions like Credit Suisse have profited from their offshore tax haven schemes while depriving the U.S. economy of billions of dollars in tax revenues by facilitating U.S. tax evasion,” said Senator John McCain, ranking member of the subcommittee. “As federal regulators begin to crack down on these banks’ illicit practices, it is imperative that they use every legal tool at their disposal to hold these banks fully accountable for willfully deceiving the U.S. government and seek penalties that will deter similar misconduct in the future.”

Amount Recovered Thus Far from Non-Compliant Taxpayers 

According to the GAO Reports and the Subcommittee report, the 2008, 2011, and the ongoing 2012 offshore voluntary disclosure initiative (OVDI) have led to 43,000 taxpayers paying back taxes, interest and penalties totaling $6 billion to date, with more expected.  However, the vast majority of this recovered money is not tax revenue but instead results from the FBAR penalties assessed for not reporting a foreign account.  The Taxpayer Advocate found that for noncompliant taxpayers with small accounts, the FBAR and tax penalties reached nearly 600% of the actual tax due!  The median offshore penalty was about381% of the additional tax assessed for taxpayers with median-sized account balances.

Have These Efforts Substantially Increased Taxpayer Compliance?

The Taxpayer Advocate, replying on State Department statistics,  cited that 7.6 million U.S. citizens reside abroad and many more U.S. residents have FBAR filing requirements, yet the IRS received only 807,040 FBAR submissions as recently as 2012.  The Taxpayer Advocate noted that in Mexico alone, more than one million U.S. citizens reside, and many Mexican citizens reside in the U.S. (and thus are required to file a FBAR for any Mexican accounts of $10,000 or greater).

Thus, at a current rate well below 10% compliance (because nonresident aliens in the US must file a FBAR on their non-US accounts of $10,000 and over), it appears that all the additional enforcement is producing similar results of the War on Drugs.  This is not to say that obtaining a highly level of compliance with the tax law , like compliance with the drug laws and DUI laws, is not a public good in itself – it indeed is a public good that the public has chosen, via Congress (and its investigatory hearings), for resource allocation. But like the War on Drugs, there are many potential strategies to bring about compliance, about which pundits such as law enforcement officials, social libertarians, the medical profession, and all their paid lobbyists, debate.

Credit Suisse Statement to Subcommittee:

Credit Suisse is a global financial services company with operations in more than 50 countries and over 45,000 employees including approximately 9,000 U.S. employees in 19 U.S. locations. In the United States, Credit Suisse is a Financial Holding Company regulated by the Federal Reserve. The Bank has a New York branch, which is supervised by the New York Department of Financial Services, and we have three regulated U.S. broker/dealer subsidiaries. Our primary U.S. broker/dealer has been designated a Systemically Important Financial Institution under the Dodd-Frank law. We have a substantial business presence here in the United States.

Credit Suisse Exit of U.S. Relationships

Following our decision to prohibit former U.S. clients of UBS from transferring their assets to Credit Suisse, in August 2008, Credit Suisse promptly turned to addressing issues highlighted by the UBS situation. In October 2008, Credit Suisse decided to allow relationships with non-U.S. entities that had U.S. beneficial owners only if they demonstrated U.S. tax compliance. We hired a leading Swiss law firm to review the tax status of U.S. clients that wanted to remain. By the end of the first year of review, all but 135 relationships with assets over $10,000 had been reviewed and resolved.

In April 2009, we extended our review to U.S. resident clients. Credit Suisse transferred virtually all U.S. resident accounts to one of the Bank’s U.S.-registered affiliates, or terminated the relationships. Credit Suisse simply shut down those client relationships that were unwilling to move or that did not meet the $1 million requirement for transfer to the Bank’s U.S.-regulated affiliates. By the end of the first full year of review, 2010, we had reviewed and resolved more than 85% of U.S.-resident relationships with assets over $10,000.

To ensure that the review was comprehensive, we also manually searched for accounts that, although not identified in our systems as U.S.-linked, could possibly have some U.S. connection – for example, a U.S. phone number or address in the paper client file, or a notation of a U.S. birthplace on a foreign passport. Credit Suisse also reviewed the private banking activities of its subsidiaries, including Clariden Leu, which was a nearly wholly owned Credit Suisse subsidiary between 2007 and 2012. Clariden Leu’s review and exit projects paralleled the projects at Credit Suisse.

Credit Suisse also engaged one of the Big Four accounting firms to conduct its own review to assess whether the Bank had effectively identified the account relationships with U.S. links. This firm carefully analyzed the Bank’s efforts – with an intense line-by-line analysis of account information – and concluded to an extremely high level of confidence that Credit Suisse had identified the complete population of U.S. account relationships. The results of this substantial effort have been presented to the Subcommittee staff.

Subcommittee “Undeclared Accounts” Methodologies Unreliable

Credit Suisse repeatedly discussed with the Subcommittee staff the fact that it is impossible for us to know the tax status of assets previously held by U.S. clients if those clients did not disclose that information to the Bank. Unfortunately, the Subcommittee has chosen to speculate based on a number of “methodologies,” each of which is problematic and generates results that are, at best, unreliable. The Subcommittee’s need to reference three conflicting “methodologies” is an implicit recognition that accurate estimates of unreported U.S. client assets previously held at Credit Suisse cannot be made based on the actual information available to the Bank and to the Subcommittee.

8,300 Accounts under $10,000 FBAR Reporting Requirement

In any event, the Subcommittee assumes that every U.S. client account held abroad was undeclared. As discussed below, that is a demonstrably inappropriate assumption. Moreover, U.S. Treasury Department regulations required U.S. citizens to report foreign accounts only if the balance exceeded $10,000 at some point during the year. While the Subcommittee staff has mentioned 22,000 accounts, more than 8,300 had balances below $10,000 as of December 31, 2008.

6,400 Accounts for US Expats Residing in Switzerland

Troublingly, these estimates also lump in categories of accounts where there is every reason to believe that the client had a valid reason for holding a Swiss account. For example, the Subcommittee’s estimates of “undeclared” accounts include approximately 6,400 accounts held by all U.S. expats who would ordinarily have a need for some form of local banking services outside of the U.S. Again, it should not be ignored that most expats resided in Switzerland, and therefore had a particularly valid reason for maintaining a bank near their homes.

Finally, each of the three “methodologies” that the Subcommittee staff has raised is problematic for different reasons:

First Methodology No Factual Basis

The first method wrongly suggests that the number of accounts closed during the Bank’s

“Exit Projects” may be a proxy for “undeclared” accounts. The Bank’s “Exit Projects” revealed that U.S. clients left the Bank for various reasons. For example, Credit Suisse decided to simply shut down around 11,000 U.S. resident accounts when the Bank decided to stop having Swiss-based private bankers service U.S. residents and because those clients’ balances did not meet the $1 million requirement for transfer to the U.S. regulated affiliates. Those clients never had the opportunity to demonstrate tax compliance because their accounts were simply terminated. There is no basis factually to assume that all of these clients were not tax compliant.

Second Methodology Unsupported

The second method, the “UBS method,” is simply unsupported. This method proposes to estimate accounts by considering all accounts without Forms W-9 to be “undeclared” U.S. accounts. The absence of a Form W-9 alone in no way supports an inference that a client failed to report the account to the IRS, or that the Bank was aware that the client failed to do so. The Qualified Intermediary Agreement with the IRS required the preparation of a Form W-9 only if the client maintained U.S. securities. If the client did not maintain U.S. securities, a Form W-9 was not required. These are the IRS’s rules. Because this method does not consider whether the client maintained U.S. securities, it is inaccurate to assume that the account was maintained to evade U.S. taxes.

Third Methodology Inconclusive

Nor is the third method conclusive. The so-called “DOJ Estimate” recounts a figure of $4 billion stated in an indictment of certain Bank relationship managers. Because the grand jury’s proceedings are secret, neither we nor the Subcommittee have any basis to assess the grand jury’s methodologies.

Credit Suisse Assets Under Management

As to Assets under Management (AuM), it should be noted that our exit projects established that an approximate amount of $5 billion of AuM was reviewed and verified for tax compliance over the years. This number includes AuM transferred to our U.S.-registered entities or closed after tax compliance was established. In addition, approximately $2.25 billion AuM lost its U.S. nexus over the years. Finally, of the accounts that were closed over the years we simply have no basis to assume that all of them were undeclared.

It was discussed between the Senators and the representatives of Credit Suisse that the actual amount of AUM compared to Credit Suisse’s AuM was miniscule, and that such AuM contributed less than 1% to Credit Suisse’s profits.  However, Senator John McCain, the minority ranking member, told the Credit Suisse representatives that, while small in the context of the bank, amounts of billions and the profits made therefrom, are large amounts to a American taxpayer if made aware of such conduct.  While listening to the Senator’s assessment (and agreeing), I wondered why in contrast hundreds of billions of annual deficits up to nearly a trillion deficit, and 15, 17, perhaps 20 trillion of national debt don’t seem to phase the same taxpayer referred to?

Internal Investigation

Nor did we turn a blind eye to the past. On the contrary, we invested enormous efforts to achieve as much clarity as possible about whether, and to what extent, Credit Suisse employees had violated U.S. laws or helped clients do so. Credit Suisse asked external counsel to investigate any instances of past improper conduct fully. That investigation was broad and deep.

The U.S. law firm King & Spalding and the Swiss law firm Schellenberg Wittmer led the investigation, with help from a major accounting firm. The investigation reviewed all aspects of the Bank’s Swiss-based private banking business with U.S. customers. It involved more than 100 interviews of Credit Suisse and Clariden Leu personnel, from line-level private bankers to senior leaders of the Bank. The investigation reviewed the conduct of bankers across the Swiss private bank who had a number of U.S. clients or traveled to the United States.

The investigation identified evidence of violations of Bank policy centered on a small group of Swiss-based private bankers. That conduct centered on a group of private bankers within a desk of 15 to 20 private bankers at any given time who were focused on larger accounts of U.S. residents. Most of the improper activity was focused on some private bankers who traveled to the United States once or twice a year; otherwise, the investigation found only scattered evidence of improper conduct.

The investigation did not find any evidence that senior executives of Credit Suisse knew these bankers were apparently helping U.S. customers hide income and assets. To the contrary, the evidence showed that some Swiss-based private bankers went to great lengths to disguise their bad conduct from Credit Suisse executive management.

Cooperation with U.S. Authorities

Credit Suisse has consistently cooperated with the investigations led by the Department of Justice, the SEC, and this Subcommittee, going to the greatest extent permissible by Swiss law to provide information to investigating U.S. authorities.

Since early 2011, Credit Suisse has produced hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, including translations of foreign-language documents. Our representatives have met with the Department of Justice to help them understand the information we provided and to describe the findings of our internal investigation and the Bank’s various compliance efforts.

Credit Suisse has also provided briefings to officials from the U.S. government, including the SEC and this Subcommittee. That includes more than 100 hours briefing the Subcommittee staff on details of the private banking business and the internal investigation and thousands more hours answering written questions from Subcommittee staff. Specifically, Credit Suisse produced over 580,000 pages of documents, provided 11 detailed briefings to the Subcommittee staff in all-day, or multi-day, sessions, provided 12 substantive written submissions, and made 17 witnesses available from both the United States and Switzerland, including the Bank’s General Counsel, co-heads of the Private Bank and Wealth Management Division, and the CEO.

Report Offshore Tax Evasion: The Effort to Collect Unpaid Taxes on Billions in Hidden Offshore Accounts

The 175-page bipartisan staff report released Tuesday February 25 outlines how Credit Suisse engaged in similar conduct from at least 2001 to 2008, sending Swiss bankers into the United States to recruit U.S. customers, opening Swiss accounts that were not disclosed to U.S. authorities, including accounts opened in the name of offshore shell entities, and servicing Swiss accounts here in the United States without leaving a paper trail.  For the complete analysis of the reportm see https://profwilliambyrnes.com/2014/02/26/senate-subcommittee-hearing-and-report-on-offshore-tax-evasion/


106 Swiss Banks Seek Non-Prosecution from US Justice Department for Past Tax Evasion by Clients

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 February 14th provided a list of 49 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-five for category 2.  106 was 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).

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, 2013 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.

Which of Four Categories To File for Non-Prosecution Under?

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.

Independence of Qualified Attorney or Accountant Examiner

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.”

LexisNexis FATCA Compliance Manual

book cover

The LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance comprises 34 Chapters by 50 contributors 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.

If you are interested in discussing the Master or Doctorate degree in the areas of financial services or international taxation, please contact me https://profwilliambyrnes.com/online-tax-degree/

Posted in Compliance, FATCA, Financial Crimes | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

%d bloggers like this: