tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post9059227868674245446..comments2023-10-24T08:00:53.865-05:00Comments on Federal Tax Crimes: 4 More Swiss Banks Obtain NPAs Under DOJ Program (5/28/15)Jack Townsendhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14469823736335455874noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-1633883474882844792015-06-01T11:57:49.133-05:002015-06-01T11:57:49.133-05:00Someone who started reporting foreign accounts sev...Someone who started reporting foreign accounts several years ago (or who closed them) may only have one year open under the FBAR SOL (After 6/30/2015, years 2009-2014 are still open under the six year SOL.) The worst case scenario would be a 50% willful penalty, which would be the same as the 50% FBAR penalty for those with accounts at the named banks. So one possible course of action would be OVDI and opt out (opt out result cannot be worse than the in-program 50%, and would likely save money because some tax years would be outside SOL) or even QD or doing nothing (continuing the go-forward that started years ago. Such options would be more attractive to those with relatively good facts or accounts less likely to fall under the John Doe Treaty Assistance request.)RCDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-51969152819818250962015-05-29T02:28:00.211-05:002015-05-29T02:28:00.211-05:00It may be that rather than letting a less or non-c...It may be that rather than letting a less or non-culpable bank transition to category 3, they are keeping them in category 2 with a small(in some cases insignificant) fine. Is it preferable from a banks point of view to have an NPA rather than a category 3 letter? Scobag paid $9,090 for their NPA. Of course, they did have other legal and compliance costs.<br />A few days ago, Jack posted a comment with a link to an article where someone from the IRS said they had issued 7 John Doe Summons. Now exactly 7 private banks have obtained their NPA agreement. Maybe that is just a coincidence?<br />I'm not sure why the hold mail is such a big deal. I hold my mail on all bank statements. I can just get them online if I want which is more convenient for many reasons. What is the threat of mailing a bank statement to the US? Does the IRS read your mail? There may be other reasons why you don't want statements mailed to your house. Maybe you don't want your wife or cleaning person to see what you are worth.<br />If the facts of the case with these 4 banks is typical of the remaining cases, then I don't think anybody is going to be impressed. The amount of the fines is trending down as are the number of accounts. Will the total of all the category 2 fines even cover the DOJ/IRS's costs to administer the program? Wouldn't their time be better spent fighting fraudulent tax returns, ID theft or earned income tax credit fraud? Given the fact that over 100,000 returns were recently hacked, you would think that would be the greater threat to the US tax system. I don't think there is anywhere near 100,000 US related accounts in Switzerland. Plus the 100,000 hacked returns is just the tip of the iceberg.Andre Weissnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-24334646411203424012015-05-28T16:55:42.930-05:002015-05-28T16:55:42.930-05:00These are all small potatoes in the lines of accou...These are all small potatoes in the lines of accounts, but I suspect will be the average cases for most of the Category 2. Meaning, it is going to become clear to the US DOJ that UBS was the biggest (obviously) and these smaller banks simply did not have much in the lines of US clientele. Under 20 accounts per bank or less is going to be interesting to watch play out.<br /><br />Of further note:<br /><br />MediBank - Closed all US accounts in 2009:<br /><br />15. In 2009, the Management Board, with participation of the then-Chairman of the<br />Board, decided to terminate all U.S. account relationships in response to the issues at UBS. <br />Starting in 2009, the Management Board requested that the Relationship Manager brought to<br />MediBank from UBS close his U.S. accounts. <br /><br />Société Générale Private Banking - Closed all accounts for US domiciled persons/entities/UBOs starting 2008.<br /><br />19. Following implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2012, SGPB-Lugano decided to<br />cease providing financial services to U.S. residents, companies registered in the United <br />States, or non-U.S. "domiciliary" companies when at least one beneficial owner was a<br />U.S. person domiciled in the United States. Any person who established a permanent <br />address in the United States could no longer remain a client ofthe Bank. In 2012, the<br />Bank issued a directive (the "2012 directive") concerning its cross-border activities. <br />The 2012 directive generally required that all services be rendered in compliance with<br />local laws and regulations. Additionally, in 2012, the Bank reinforced the 2008 policy <br />and established a new policy prohibiting the provision of financial services to U.S.<br />residents, companies registered in the United States, or non-Ll.S, "domiciliary" <br />companies having a U.S. resident as at least one beneficial owner. At the direction of<br />SGPB-Suisse, the Bank began to close pre-existing accounts that fell into one of those <br />categories. (snip)<br /><br /><br />20. The Bank closed 101 U.S. Related Accounts with a total of assets under management<br />of $95,680,588 since August 1, 2008.Jin SEOnoreply@blogger.com