Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Daugerdas Gets 15 Year Sentence (6/25/14)

Paul M. Daugerdas, previously convicted of tax crimes, was sentenced to 15 years.  See the DOJ press release here:  Key excerpts from the press release:
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Ronald A. Cimino for the Tax Division of the Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara for the Southern District of New York announced that Paul M. Daugerdas, 63, a tax attorney and certified public accountant, was sentenced today in Manhattan federal court to serve 15 years in prison for orchestrating a massive fraudulent tax shelter scheme in which he and his co-conspirators designed, marketed and implemented fraudulent tax shelters used by wealthy individuals to evade over $1.6 billion in taxes owed to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).  The 20-year scheme, which Daugerdas hatched while working at the Arthur Andersen accounting firm and then continued while a partner at two law firms – Altheimer & Gray and then Jenkens & Gilchrist (J&G) – generated over $7 billion in fraudulent tax losses and yielded approximately $95 million in fees to Daugerdas personally.  
* * * * 
According to the evidence at trial and other documents filed in the case: 
 From 1994 through 2004, Daugerdas, who is a lawyer, a certified public accountant, and the former head of the Chicago office of J&G and its tax practice, participated in a scheme to defraud the IRS by designing, marketing, implementing and defending fraudulent tax shelters. 
 As part of the scheme, Daugerdas and others plotted to defraud the IRS by, among other things, corruptly endeavoring to prevent the IRS from: detecting their clients’ use of these shelters; understanding how the transactions operated to produce the tax results reported by the clients; learning that, rather than serving as legitimate investment transactions, the tax shelters lacked economic substance in that they were designed and marketed as cookie-cutter products intended exclusively to eliminate or reduce large tax liabilities; learning that the clients were not seeking profit-making investment opportunities, but were instead seeking huge tax benefits; and learning that, from the outset, all of the clients intended to complete a pre-planned series of steps that had been designed to lead to the specific tax benefits they sought.  Daugerdas and others created and assisted in creating transactional documents and other materials that falsely and fraudulently described their clients’ motivations for entering into the tax shelters and for taking various steps in order to yield the tax benefits. 
 As part of the scheme, Daugerdas and his co-conspirators also fraudulently backdated some of the tax shelter transactions.  In particular, Daugerdas and his co-defendants learned that certain tax shelter transactions had been implemented incorrectly during the year of the transactions in that they failed to produce the amount or type of tax losses requested by the clients.  Rather than reporting those tax shelter results as they occurred – as required by the Internal Revenue Code – Daugerdas and others engaged in corrupt “correcting” transactions after the close of the pertinent tax years, and then backdated the tax shelter documents to make it appear that the amount and type of tax losses sought by the clients had in fact been generated during the pertinent tax years.  Daugerdas also authored fraudulent tax opinion letters that falsely described when certain aspects of the transactions had actually occurred.  As a result of the fraudulent backdating, Daugerdas and others caused tax shelter clients to file tax returns that falsely and fraudulently claimed tens of millions of dollars of tax losses to which the clients were not entitled.
 As a result of the scheme, Daugerdas and his co-conspirators made millions of dollars in fees and bonuses.  Daugerdas himself made $95 million in profits but used tax shelters to reduce the taxes he paid to less than $8,000; without the shelters, he would have owed over $32 million in taxes.  
 *                      *                      * 
 Daugerdas, of Wilmette, Illinois, was convicted of conspiring to defraud the IRS, to evade taxes, and to commit mail and wire fraud, and of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the internal revenue laws.  He was also convicted of four counts of tax evasion relating to the use of various tax shelters for specified clients, and of mail fraud. 
 In addition to the prison term, Judge Pauley ordered Daugerdas to forfeit $164,737,500 in proceeds of the offenses, which included certain assets that had been seized and frozen at the time Daugerdas was indicted.  The forfeited proceeds include a lakefront home on Lake Geneva in Wisconsin, and over $20 million in various securities and financial accounts.  Judge Pauley also ordered Daugerdas to pay $371,006,397 in restitution to the IRS.  At sentencing, Judge Pauley said that Daugerdas “was at the apex of tax shelter racketeers who tapped into the greed of the super wealthy who did not want to pay taxes.”
 There are some interesting features of the sentencing memoranda submitted by the parties.  If I have time to delve into those issues, I will report on them in later blogs.

It looks like I won't have time to get deeply into the weeds on what is apparently the key issue raised by Daugerdas in the sentencing memoranda.  As best I understand it, on a quick review, based on interviews of two jurors -- interviews authorized by the court -- counsel determined that the jury actually convicted Daugerdas on a limited number of instances and in fact did not convict on the Government's economic substance claims.  Therefore, Daugerdas urged that, in setting the sentence under 18 USC 3553, the Judge should take the more  limited scope into consideration and not sentence based on a theory not accepted by the jury.  Of course, the law is clear that sentencing can consider acquitted conduct to set the sentence within the maximums permitted by the counts of conviction.  The argument, as presented, is more subtle than that.  Judge Pauley apparently did not accept the argument. The sentence will almost certainly be appealed, and therefore we can expect the Second Circuit to speak on the issue.

For those wanting to get more into the weeds on this issue, a good resource is Andrew Velarde,  Daugerdas Sentenced to 15 Years in Prison for Tax Fraud, 2014 TNT 123-1 (6/26/14), which has a more detailed summary and links to the sentencing memoranda.

I have subsequently posted a blog entry on two Government sentencing spreadsheets from the Daugerdas case.  Sentencing Tales Told in Spreadsheets (6/28/14), here.

With the permission of Tax Analysts, I offer readers the following article:  David Cay Johnston, Daugerdas's Crimes Go Beyond Fraudulent Deductions, 2014 TNT 121-1 (6/24/14), here, which I offer here by link with the permission of Tax Analysts.  The article was written prior to sentencing and principally relies on the Government's sentencing submissions which pick apart Daugerdas's submissions for more lenient sentencing.  And, based on the 15 year sentence imposed, Judge Pauley apparently gave more credibility to the Government's submissions than Daugerdas's

Those with access to Tax Analysts publications might want also to check out:  David Cay Johnston, Paul Daugerdas, John Dillinger, and Justice, 2009 TNT 118-11 (6/23/09).

40 comments:

  1. If you look at the streamline transition FAQ 2, it indicates that for the transition rule to apply the person must have "remained in OVDP but not yet completed the OVDP certification process where a Form 906 Closing Agreement has been fully executed by the IRS." I read that into the "remained in OVDP" language. Hence in the webinar I attended a couple of days ago, I asked the IRS person that specific question and was told that the taxpayer could withdraw from OVDP prior to 7/1/14 and proceed only under the new streamlined.

    She did suggest that the withdrawal be by letter mailed before 7/1/14. I am getting a couple of those letters out today.

    Again, the predicate is to be sure about the certification of non-willfulness. If there is doubt about that, the person may be better off remaining in OVDP.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Where do you find authority for the proposition that a person may still benefit from the 5% penalty if they submit a FAQ24 letter by June 30th?

    ReplyDelete
  3. But those taxpayers who submitted the intake letter & haven't submitted the final package, but who didn't have unreported foreign income in the past 3 years don't seem to qualify to participate in the streamlined domestic procedures. This seems to treat people with undisclosed foreign accounts worse that those who had undisclosed foreign accounts that earned income. It makes no sense... The taxpayer w/ undisclosed accounts but no unreported income has to go through OVDP opt-out now (more legal fees) because they can't sign the Certification?

    ReplyDelete
  4. If a taxpayer who wants to try to avail himself of the FAQ52 5% penalty decides to rush his FAQ24 letter over to IRS by 6/30, should he use the old letter and old FAQs (several differences in the procedure under old vs new FAQs)?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Back when I applied for preclearance my lawyer mentioned a situation in which preclearance was not given because one of multiple account holders was under audit for a domestic matter. There are reasons for which preclearance might be denied of which you are not aware (e.g. the IRS already knows about your foreign account) but others of which you can be aware (e.g. you have been informed that you are under audit) so obviously if the latter is the case you know that preclearance would be denied.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It seems that in the mindset of the IRS all three re bad facts: 1) checking no when the real answer was yes, 2) checking yes but not filing the FBAR since FBAR is mentioned where the question is asked or 3) not checking either box (maybe you pretended you didn't see the question?) But whatever you cehecked it is only part of the total picture.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Don't be too happy. You are still certifying that you were non-willful and still have the risk that the IRS may decide otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There are three steps which occur in this sequence: 1) IRS prepares and sends 906 to taxpayer, 2) taxpayer signs and returns it, and 3) IRS signs it. It is only upon the signing in step 3 that the 906 becomes effective.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous,

    That is my understanding as well. Thanks for your response.

    Jack Townsend

    ReplyDelete
  10. MM

    I think so. But perhaps others have more definite responses.

    Jack Townsend

    ReplyDelete
  11. Can anyone point me to a link to the old FAQ24 letter and old attachment? After another read-through of the new FAQs and the transitional FAQs, I am more convinced that taxpayers can use the old procedures and old forms before 7/1, should they choose to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks Jack for posting this. I'm a minnow who happen to have multiple accounts all small though and W2 income was sent. Would you please help clarify few points.
    1) One of my accounts was in HSBC and that's how i became aware in Sept 2010. I've been go forward since 2011. So now if i go into this stream lined program before Aug 4th, do i still get the 5% penalty or irrespective of when i do, it will still be 50% penalty? My highest balance would be close to 100K and that's my net worth. So can pay 5-6 K and be done with this mess but definitely can't pay 50% of my savings.
    2) Earlier it was highest balance at any given day. But now it says year end highest balance. So i guess Dec 31st balance of each account each year should be aggregated.
    3) If I was go forward since 2011, that means i may not need to amend any tax return as 2011, 2012 and 2013 are all correct. I will just need to submit FBARs for 2009 and 2010 ?
    4) How do we get preclearance as the new process says send the amended return and self certification via mail and not electronically.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous 101, I will repeat your questions and try to answer them:

    1) One of my accounts was in HSBC and that's how i became aware in Sept 2010. I've been go forward since 2011. So now if i go into this stream lined program before Aug 4th, do i still get the 5% penalty or irrespective of when i do, it will still be 50% penalty? My highest balance would be close to 100K and that's my net worth. So can pay 5-6 K and be done with this mess but definitely can't pay 50% of my savings.

    JAT Response to #1

    The 50% penalty kicks in only in OVDP. It does not apply in the streamlined program. Keep in mind that the OVDP is designed for willful actors who don't opt out. By definition, the streamlined program is not available to willful actors -- the certification process weeds out the willful actors (except those willfully filing a false certification).

    So, if you are a good candidate -- nonwillful actor -- for streamlined, you do not need to be concerned about the 50% penalty (and even if you were in OVDP, you should be able to transition to streamlined). And, finally, if you are nonwillful, an opt out should get you a better result than 50%.

    By the way, you say HSBC. I assume you mean The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited in India (HSBC India), which is the HSBC affiliate on the 50% list.

    2) Earlier it was highest balance at any given day. But now it says year end highest balance. So i guess Dec 31st balance of each account each year should be aggregated.

    JAT Response to #2

    As I understand the penalty it is the highest at any time during the year, whenever during the year the highest balance existed. You do the conversion based on the year end conversion rates. The instruction says: "Convert foreign currency by using the foreign currency exchange rate at the end of the year regardless of when during the year the highest value was reached."

    JAT Response to #3

    3) If I was go forward since 2011, that means i may not need to amend any tax return as 2011, 2012 and 2013 are all correct. I will just need to submit FBARs for 2009 and 2010 ?

    I don't know the answer to this question. However, if you have been fully compliant since 2011, I don't see why the IRS would object to your filing the 2009 and 2010 FBARs. You should not be treated worse than those who continued noncompliance after 2011. But, I have not addressed the specific question

    JAT Response to #4

    4) How do we get preclearance as the new process says send the amended return and self certification via mail and not electronically.

    I don't think there is preclearance under streamlined. Just get the documents in as soon as possible. And, I am not sure that you would be disqualified if the IRS were to start an audit. An audit is a disqualification under OVDP, but that is to hustle the willful actors into OVDP. If you are a good streamlined candidate, you are not a willful actor and should not get an onerous result on opt out, so why not let you claim streamlined? It is win-win for everyone.

    Jack Townsend

    ReplyDelete

  14. And, I am not sure that you would be disqualified if the IRS were to
    start an audit. An audit is a disqualification under OVDP, but that is
    to hustle the willful actors into OVDP. If you are a good streamlined
    candidate, you are not a willful actor and should not get an onerous
    result on opt out, so why not let you claim streamlined?




    Jack




    Bear in mind that non-willful or accuracy tax or FBAR penalties could also apply in an audit. Joining streamlined after an audit started would allow someone to bypass all accuracy related penalties (possibly even if only onshore issues were involved) AND restrict penalties to only 3 years instead of 6. That would seem to be a huge reason for the IRS to disallow streamlined once audit starts



    About FBAR penalties: for smaller account sizes, even a max of 10K/year could easily be greater than 5%. Particularly if (say) a couple is involved, and each has separate penalties.

    So I think the IRS would definitely disallow streamlined once an audir started.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You say you 'became aware in Sept 2010'. Then you say that you did not submit an FBAR for 2010 (due date June 30th 2011). You also seem to imply that your tax return for 2010 (due April 2011) was not 'correct'.


    I am not sure that your failure to file an FBAR for 2010 could be classified as non-willful in that case.


    I will say (purely my opinion) that I think the IRS will pay more attention to (and be more skeptical of) streamlined procedure submissions from users who have accounts in banks that are in their 50% list

    ReplyDelete
  16. Agreed. Although, if the IRS doesn't except your certification, it may cause you to reconsider opting out.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sorry for my typo. I became aware in Sept 2011 and hence that was the reason i could not file timely FBAR for 2010. Had i known just 3 months before. Even the CPA who assisted to file my 2010 taxes did not provide this information.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thanks Jack. Correction to my question: I became aware in Sept 2011 so could not file timely FBAR for 2010.

    So if i understand your response correctly, even if my account was in HSBC India, if I apply before Aug 4th 2014, I would still get the benefits of streamlined process and 5% penalty would apply?

    As for year end balance or any day highest balance, in the streamlined document, it states, "the highest aggregate balance/value is determined by aggregating the year-end account balances and year-end asset values of all the foreign financial assets subject to the miscellaneous offshore penalty..."; hence the question whether shall we use Dec 31 balance or any day of the year where balance was highest?



    Would I need to amend 2010 tax or just proceed with delinquent FBAR for 2009 and 2010?

    ReplyDelete
  19. "If the IRS has initiated a civil examination for any year, regardless of whether it relates to undisclosed OVDP assets (see FAQ 35), the taxpayer will not be eligible to participate in the OVDP. A taxpayer under criminal investigation by CI is also ineligible. In these circumstances, the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s representative should discuss undisclosed financial accounts and assets with the agent."



    If I had received a notice of proposed assessment for one of my past returns where IRS changed itemized deductions to standard deduction and I paid. There was no penalty, just interest applied. My CPA wanted to contest but i did not want to go through hassles and just paid and cleared. Would this disqualify me?

    ReplyDelete
  20. All: Can anyone point me to a link to the OLD OVDP 2012 FAQs and the OLD voluntary disclosure letter form, attachment, and Foreign Account or Asset Statement? Googling only brings up the up-to-date version of the FAQs... Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  21. The benefit of streamlined is not related to which financial institutions are involved. If you qualify -- that is, you can certify non-willfulness and prove that, if challenged -- it does not matter than HSBC India is involved.

    Now, if you are in OVDP (either 2012 or 2014) and stay in and get the streamlined reduction, I don't think that the 50% kickup applies. It is only if you are in OVDP and subject to the 27 1/2% penalty that the penalty might kick up to 50%. This kick-up is for willful actors.

    I will check out the calculation of the penalty base in the streamlined program. I just had not focused on it being a different measuring date than in the OVDP.

    I'll be back later to respond, but someone may respond before I am able to get to it.

    Also, I have a client demanding my attention and cannot get to the other issue. Hope someone can.

    Jack Townsend

    ReplyDelete
  22. ....... "It is only if you are in OVDP and subject to the 27 1/2% penalty that the penalty might kick up to 50% ".......
    That is incorrect - for 2012 OVDP participants the in lieu penalty will stay @ 27.5% if you decide not to seek streamlined reduction !

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thanks for the clarification UStax. I misspoke.

    Jack Townsend

    ReplyDelete
  24. Seems like it would be best to file intake letter by July 1rst and then enter Streamline procedure. This way you an still fall back on OVDP should you not be allowed the lesser penalty. Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  25. I think that if you are in OVDP on July 1, then you proceed under OVDP and get a potential offshore penalty mitigation to the streamlined 0% or 5%, but the 8 years of amended returns with tax, penalty and interest are required. At least as I read the transition rules, if you are in OVDP on 7/1, you cannot withdraw and proceed only under Streamlined.

    If you clearly qualify for Streamlined, therefore you should not get into OVDP. If you are in the uncertain area on willfulness, perhaps you could get into OVDP, make the certification for the reduced offshore penalty and, if it is denied, continue under OVDP and not opt out.

    Jack Townsend

    ReplyDelete
  26. FAQ 52 examples in the 2011 & 2012 OVDP disclosure programs are extremely difficult circular holes to fit most taxpayer jagged edged, rectangular situations through. Or shall I say, possible, but highly improbable that an OVDP Examiner and his/her technical adviser will give you the 5% treatment. If you feel that you have "willful" nondisclosure characteristics on your originally filed returns, or if you feel that the IRS might assert willfulness on any subsequent examination of your "quiet disclosure" which you are now contemplating doing, then OVDP might be right for you. Barring willfulness, then SFOP might be good, depending on if you are living abroad (because it's no penalties whatsoever). SDOP is good too, assuming you are not knowingly signing the nonwillful certification and you have no willful characteristics of your original filings. However, you might want to talk to a CPA or lawyer well versed in these IRS programs and international tax laws before you venture out on your own. There are just so many moving parts to your or anyone's situation (e.g., like do you have foreign real estate, was it sold during the covered years or before?,OR, are any of your foreign banks publicly disclosed by the IRS as those directly working with DOJ or Treasury as a result of a subpoena?)

    You amending returns and filing FBARS before receiving OVDP pre clearance is actually not going to change anything, and if you get denied entry into OVDP, may actually put you in danger (I.e., be construed as you painting a red bullseye target on your back).

    You just need a good adviser to walk you through.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Agreed. So assuming someone reported their foreign rental property properly on Schedule E of their 1040 return, and used proper alternative depreciation method (40 years) for their property, does this construe it as proper reporting? Most people don't "properly" report their foeign rental property and complete leave off the the rental income. Most people just leave off their foreign rental property from their US returns all together, at least from what I have seen. So the SDOP/SFOP nuanced definition of foreign financial asset for real estate is that for which rental income was not disclosed on the original returns, regardless of whether the foreign rental property was reported on schedule e originally.

    OVDP is pretty clear. All foreign estate held in the covered years is subject to the miscellaneous penalty. Point blank. FAQ 35.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Yes, I agree with this. Besides, the extremely narrowly defined examples within FAQ 52 (the 5% situations) were hardly ever applied (from what a few OVDI examiners have told me). So it goes to say, if you want the 5%, you have to walk over to SDOP/SFOP, but then, the willfulness/nonwillfulness argument of the original returns & missing FBARs of the taxpayer comes into play in exchange for 5%. Same is true for those in OVDP and transitioning to OVDP and who tried hard for the 5% through FAQ 52. I have one client who is like this (tried hard for 5% through FAQ 52, Example 1, for 2 years in the OVDP, but then late last week, got SDOP consideration). So

    ReplyDelete
  29. For SDOP, this is true, but for SFOP, a person just need not have reported income from a foreign financial asset. However, you might have other concerns. You do not state why that taxpayer has not filed for many years, and for what reason he/she did not file. Is there reasonable cause for not having filed? Was there willful intent to not file? The Service does not look kindly upon filers who have not even file a timely return. I remember the Richard Hatch case fondly. For US Citizens & green card holders, the bar, in my opinion, is lower (that's why the IRS's terms & standards for SFOP are superior to SDOP's). For someone who has not filed, no accuracy penalty can be leveled, especially if IRS has not estimated that taxpayer's missing returns, just fyi. Foreign disclosure penalties do come into play with original returns (Section 6038D for 5471 & 3520, 3520-A filers, which have hefty penalties). OVDP is the program which the IRS wanted anyone with missing foreign income & assets to come through, whether returns were originally filed or not. It was thus, the best possible way (at the times they were announced) to avoid multiple statutory penalties, willful assertions from the IRS, and possible criminal prosecution. But with SDOP & SFOP, OVDP is now being viewed as a way to wipe out the willful/nonwillful argument for a particular OVDP participant. You need a good adviser who can sift through what that taxpayer had, the penalties which can crop up in a quiet disclosure, and what if any mitigation can be done through reasonable cause and good faith arguments in light o those penalties in a quiet disclosure situation. Compare that, then, to the miscellaneous penalty in the OVDP and SFOP for that same taxpayer.

    ReplyDelete
  30. MM,


    I am assuming you feel that the snowbird you are referring to, EXACTLY fits the FAQ 52 example under OVDP 2012 program, and that's why you are rushing to get it to the IRS before July 1st. Unless your situaiton EXACTLY matches FAQ 52 examples, it's probably not worth the grief of trying to see if you can get that 5% treatment. Am also assuming you've explored that filing original returns would trigger excessive penalties under various statutory provisions of the Code, and that those penalties do not have reasonable cause or that the legal expenses would be too much to explain reasonable cause and good faith in an examination setting, appeal setting, and in a court setting, if it goes that far. If you've done all that, then I assume it's worth you trying to go for FAQ 52 in the 2012 OVDI.

    ReplyDelete
  31. MM,

    So I think you could Opt Out (barring willful characteristics of your situaiton), but of course I don't know your facts and all the foreign asset & income penalties which could be statutorily applied.


    FAQ 17 of the prior OVDI also has the answer to your question. However, that has been superseded with Section 3 of "Options Available For US Taxpayers with Undisclosed Foreign Assets." Link:: http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Offshore-Voluntary-Disclosure-Program-Frequently-Asked-Questions-and-Answers-2012-Revised

    Sections 3 & 4 of Options Available For US Taxpayers with Undisclosed Foreign Assets."
    http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Delinquent-International-Information-Return-Submission-Procedures



    The second link, is sort of the IRS saying, "Okay, so you can't fit into SDOP or OVDP, so go ahead and do a quiet disclosure, but attach the reasons why this is late, you bonehead, or we're gonna possibly audit you and possibly level lots of penalties on you." In this sort of "quiet" disclosure, you would make reference to the FAQ 17 of OVDP, Sections 3 & 4, and then submit the returns with those missing assets & income.


    I commented on your earlier question below, but I would say go this route, assuming there are NO willful characteristics of your situaiton and once you've looked at all the worse case scenarios of each route. Just my take. Second, tertiary, and multiple other opinions welcome.


    Makes sense?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Jack, in re your discussion that someone currently in OVDP could withdraw prior to July 1, I know at least one person who raised point with OVDP hotline and got response that opt out would mean in eligibility. Any thoughts on best way to get clarity on that point?

    ReplyDelete
  33. I agree, because foreign financial asset has missing income which was not reported, and signatory accounts do not have any income owned by the taxpayer which need to have been reported. See here:

    "A foreign financial asset is also subject to the 5-percent miscellaneous offshore penalty in a given year in the covered tax return period if the asset was properly reported for that year, but gross income in respect of the asset was not reported in that year."



    Bad part is, it could include the value of rental real estate in the penalty base. Ouch.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Expattobe,

    I am assuming you meet faq 52 under 2012 OVDI PERFECTLY. Unless you do, you will NOT get it. You might want to see see sections 3 & 4 of "Options Available For U.S. Taxpayers with Undisclosed Foreign Financial Assets."

    http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Options-Available-For-U-S--Taxpayers-with-Undisclosed-Foreign-Financial-Assets

    ReplyDelete
  35. I asked that question of the Hotline person who said it could be done. I then asked the question of Jennifer Best who was the IRS representative at an ABA webinar. Ms. Best answered the question that it was permissible to withdraw before 7/1/14 and proceed only under the new streamlined program. She suggested that we write a letter prior to 7/1/14 notifying the IRS of the withdrawal and not to expect the complete package.

    If it helps, here is a recording of the Q&A which I just made from the recording on the ABA web site (hope I am not violating the law):

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0SLTNWD-Z3YSnZ1eTNMcm9LMjQ/edit?usp=sharing

    Here is the link to the description of the program:

    http://apps.americanbar.org/cle/programs/nosearch/tgtemo.html

    Best,

    Jack Townsend

    ReplyDelete
  36. I don't think so. If the examination is closed, you could always call the OVDP hotline and ask, or simply attempt for a pre-clearance.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I think this is it.

    http://www.irs.gov/uac/2012-Offshore-Voluntary-Disclosure-Program

    ReplyDelete
  38. Yes, I concur with Jack. Why would anyone enter OVDP first if they intend to go into streamlined (SFOP/SDOP)? You would be hurting yourself if you do that because then you would be bound by the Transition FAQs which say you would need to amend the last 8 years of returns & FBARs.

    ReplyDelete

Please make sure that your comment is relevant to the blog entry. For those regular commenters on the blog who otherwise do not want to identify by name, readers would find it helpful if you would choose a unique anonymous indentifier other than just Anonymous. This will help readers identify other comments from a trusted source, so to speak.