tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.comments2023-10-24T08:00:53.865-05:00Federal Tax CrimesJack Townsendhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14469823736335455874noreply@blogger.comBlogger11418125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-41279617997326708072022-05-31T14:50:50.187-05:002022-05-31T14:50:50.187-05:00Asendegnos_ka Jessica Ortiz Crack
lilerymusAsendegnos_ka Jessica Ortiz <a href="https://wakelet.com/@coaroslape239" rel="nofollow">Crack</a><br /> lilerymusAsendegnos_kahttps://wakelet.com/@vingderpamar188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-10995404194043725312022-05-19T05:37:00.331-05:002022-05-19T05:37:00.331-05:00irinFper-mi-1989 Rebecca Martinez http://www.satna...irinFper-mi-1989 Rebecca Martinez <a href="http://www.satnamlife.co/profile/vanisseeparnele/profile" rel="nofollow">http://www.satnamlife.co/profile/vanisseeparnele/profile</a><br /> tiocuwepenirinFper-mi-1989https://www.emityba.lt/profile/Foto-Memek-Jembut-Lebatjpg/profilenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-48716221722854172362021-12-29T07:31:55.497-06:002021-12-29T07:31:55.497-06:00Thankk youThankk youMia Wellshttps://www.miawells.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-88335550587766792222015-07-24T12:18:14.596-05:002015-07-24T12:18:14.596-05:00gottaloveUStax1,
I understand. One additional c...gottaloveUStax1,<br /><br /><br />I understand. One additional consideration. If the taxpayer checked the foreign account question yes, he probably was income tax compliant with respect to the account even though he may not have read or understood the instructions about the need to file the FBAR. If the taxpayer is U.S. tax compliant, there will be no FBAR penalty even if he or she did not file. The IRS will just not reach the willfulness issue or the nonwillfulness for that matter.<br /><br /><br />Jack TownsendJack Townsendhttp://www.tjtaxlaw.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-1613919474630124542015-07-24T11:33:26.685-05:002015-07-24T11:33:26.685-05:00It is a not uncommon situation among expats (since...It is a not uncommon situation among expats (since they almost always have a foreign account), many of whom answered the question on the tax form without ever researching the underlying rule as to what else was required. In particular, in the years before 2009, most people living abroad (including many tax preparers working with Americans) had never heard of FBARs.gottaloveUStax1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-3026949089640643492015-07-24T09:29:04.604-05:002015-07-24T09:29:04.604-05:00Darn,
You ask a good question. Like much of life...Darn,<br /><br />You ask a good question. Like much of life's events, different constructions can be put on them. A yes answer would be consistent with willfulness and might be consistent with confusion which is not willfulness (unless the yes answer would indicate willful blindness which some court might equate to willfulness). <br /><br />I would argue that the yes without the FBAR establishes (1) the taxpayer was honest in answering the question and (2) the taxpayer neglected to follow through the implications of the answer (maybe did not even read that part). Then I would marshal the facts that support the taxpayer's nonwillfulness.<br /><br />Still, thanks for asking that question. I had not heard it before.<br /><br />Jack TownsendJack Townsendhttp://www.tjtaxlaw.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-73413812985126964442015-07-22T21:58:41.111-05:002015-07-22T21:58:41.111-05:00I see a lot of talk about answering "no"...I see a lot of talk about answering "no"... but what if the TP answered "yes"? I.e., is that proof of non-willfulness, as you are telling the government "hey, I have an offshore account in XYZ bank, not hiding anything"? Or it actually makes you more willful as then, likely, you should know about the FBAR...?Darnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-78981031935302313312015-07-22T14:18:12.224-05:002015-07-22T14:18:12.224-05:00I think that for the fruit of the poisoned tree no...I think that for the fruit of the poisoned tree notion to prevent its use in US courts, the US criminal investigators (or the US government, if you will) would have to be involved in the illegal activity.<br /><br />For example, assume that one criminal X steals information on another criminal Y, in a local sense that is a theft (even if there is local law doctrines that might preclude prosecution on notions such as joint malfeasors, etc.). But, focusing on US law, if criminal X is not an "agent" of the US government, the US government can use the stolen information that criminal X gives the US government about criminal Y.<br /><br />Jack TownsendJack Townsendhttp://www.tjtaxlaw.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-22600278290248331022015-07-22T14:13:37.288-05:002015-07-22T14:13:37.288-05:00I will try to do a blog entry on that by the weeke...I will try to do a blog entry on that by the weekend. In the alternative, if you wanted to draft a blog entry that meets my standards for this blog, I could post it as a guest blog either attributed you by name or as an anonymous guest blog entry.<br /><br />Jack TownsendJack Townsendhttp://www.tjtaxlaw.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-68458525694666231382015-07-22T14:12:21.316-05:002015-07-22T14:12:21.316-05:00I am not aware of any consideration, but I think t...I am not aware of any consideration, but I think the sucessor in the consolidation would succeed to the liabilities and potential liabilities of the acquired company (bank) and thus would have to join as category 2 and pay the formula penalty. But that is extrapolating from US consolidation principles.<br /><br />If anyone else can respond based on Swiss law and its intersection with US law., please do so.<br /><br />Jack TownsenndJack Townsendhttp://www.tjtaxlaw.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-56872064322529420732015-07-22T11:30:39.693-05:002015-07-22T11:30:39.693-05:00Over the past ten years, there has been considerab...Over the past ten years, there has been considerable consolidation of Swiss banks. I wonder how whether there is any consideration given in determining bank penalties, if a bnak simply acquired another bank which had undeclared US clients (as opposed to the acquiring bank opening such accounts.)Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-39759934246722700972015-07-22T11:28:40.360-05:002015-07-22T11:28:40.360-05:00Jack, would it be possible for you to have a blog ...Jack, would it be possible for you to have a blog entry on the latest TAS report rleased July 2015? I would like to comment on it. And thanks for the explanation of treaty requets vs. John Doe summons.Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-27712589053512112282015-07-21T11:51:25.305-05:002015-07-21T11:51:25.305-05:00Unless I've missed something, and I confess to...Unless I've missed something, and I confess to having read nothing but this blog, the opinion seems a little off base. Defendant pled guilty to all 5 indicted counts of tax perjury. Ultimately, the district court and in a little more diffuse manner the Circuit Court said it was reasonable vary upward to "deter tax evasion [especially by people entrusted with government funds]". All things being equal, aren't the Guidelines generally considered sufficient to deter tax evasion and thought to provide sentencing consistency?<br /><br />To me, it seems the District Court and Circuit Court have at least created some sort of "enhancement" akin to position of trust for persons "entrusted with government funds". Defendant well may NOT have occupied such a "fiduciary-like" position, as we know there is generally no breach of trust in most criminal tax cases. And aren't all taxpayers really "entrusted with government funds" after they don't pay what is due and owing? So I do not think the upward variance on the grounds of the defendant being a federal employee is appropriate, and really appears to be a judicially created "substitute" for a breach of trust enhancement (or maybe just subterfuge for not "accepting responsibility", which is necessarily different than "cooperation").<br /><br />Another option would have been if the USA had argued relevant conduct: The source of the unreported income was illegally obtained federal funds through fraud or embezzlement. Given the preponderance burden at sentencing and very limited application of any "rules of evidence", that would have seemed a relatively simple course. Maybe that was argued? But if it was not, and there really was no "position of trust", I don't see a valid basis for the upward variance.<br /><br />So based upon the blog, it seems the district court just varied upward because he should have been "trusted" more, without any requirement of a showing of a breach of trust or relevant conduct that the judge suspected, but couldn't find.ChiTownTaxAttorneynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-58385612082308781512015-07-19T04:13:12.740-05:002015-07-19T04:13:12.740-05:00The case of United States v. Chabot is another exa...The case of United States v. Chabot is another example of where the rights of the individual are trumped by the rights of the state. The rights of the individual are continually being eroded. <br />But the obvious question(to me) is why doesn't the government simply do a treaty request. They know the bank and the name of the account holder. That approach seems faster and easier than going through a bunch of appeals. The IRS/DOJ are continuously reminding us that they have done or will do many treaty requests to find any remaining undeclared accounts.<br />Does Jack or anybody else know why the information hasn't been obtained by a treaty request?Andre Weissnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-41528425028674267822015-07-18T06:56:50.585-05:002015-07-18T06:56:50.585-05:00That's my reading (assuming, of course, that t...That's my reading (assuming, of course, that the individual is not a <br />covered expatriate under the net worth test or by reason of a failure to<br /> certify tax compliance for the applicable five-year period).Michael J. Millernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-58069175992911245962015-07-17T16:31:15.948-05:002015-07-17T16:31:15.948-05:00Swiss Bank
Accounts.---- July. 2015.
Is your moni...Swiss Bank<br />Accounts.---- July. 2015.<br /><br />Is your monies safe<br />in these accounts ---- definitely NOT.<br /><br />Would you get your<br />money back if every body decided to withdraw all their accounts –<br />NO WAY.<br /><br />Economic Experts<br />say that there would only enough money to repay 50% of their clients.<br /><br />Are you going to be<br />in the 50% --- that loose your money.-- Get it out NOW.<br /><br />2012 -- - June.<br />-- Published in Anglo INFO .Geneva.--- USA Trust Fund Investors were<br />sent false and fraudulent documents by Pictet Bank.Switzerland. in<br />order to collect large fees. ( Like MADOFF) ---Even after the SEC in<br />the USA uncovered the fraud Pictet continued to charge fees and drain<br />whatever was left in these accounts. Estimated that $90,000,000<br />million lost in this Pictet Ponzi scheme.<br /><br />2012 - - - July.<br />-- De – Spiegel. -- states – Pictet Bank uses a letterbox<br />company in <br /><br />Panama<br />and a tax loophole involving investments in London to gain<br /><br />German<br />millionaires as clients. <br /><br /> <br /><br />2012<br />- - - August ---- German Opposition Leader accuses Swiss Banks of<br />"organised crime." <br /><br />April 2015. ----<br />Inner City Press.---- United Nations Joint Staff Pension Funds.<br /><br />Pension<br />Fund.--$53 Billion.----- The spokesman FARHAN HAQ would not answer<br />whether Investment chairman – IVAN PICTET had to quit ---- after<br />allegations made by some staff. ---- “ once a crook always<br />a crook” – so there.<br /><br />All<br />the fines that crooked Swiss banks have incurred in the last few<br />years exceeds £75.Billion. <br /><br />It<br />is also calculated that the secrecy " agreements" with<br />regards to tax evation by their clients will cost the banks another<br />£450 Billion.( paid out of your monies.)<br /><br />The<br />banks are panicking --- the are quickly restructuring their banks<br />---- from partnerships --<br /><br />to<br />" LIMITED COMPANIES." ----- this will probably mean that<br />in the future --- they could <br /><br />pay<br />you only 10% of your monies " if you are one of the lucky ones"<br />---- and it be legal.jack loachnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-80619008417833533442015-07-17T12:23:40.108-05:002015-07-17T12:23:40.108-05:00I found the answer to one of my questions. The so...I found the answer to one of my questions. The source of the info is "The information is updated on an ongoing basis and subject to change. Sources of information are the Swiss National Bank, Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority - FINMA, press releases from financial institutions and media coverage."Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-49994225421342064962015-07-17T11:36:54.153-05:002015-07-17T11:36:54.153-05:00TAS Objectives for 2016 report, normally release i...TAS Objectives for 2016 report, normally release in June, has just been released. I haven't read it yet. http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/reports/fy-2016-objectives-report-to-congressAnonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-3851793689018879312015-07-17T11:21:26.940-05:002015-07-17T11:21:26.940-05:00Thanks, Andre.
Does anyone know the source for t...Thanks, Andre. <br />Does anyone know the source for this information? Public announcements by the banks? FOIA or similar release from the Swiss government? The fact that numberof US accounts and total value thereof is listed, makes me think thatthere may be an official source.<br /><br />Also, I noticed that some settlement agreements (maybe all) say that the bank will cooperate with DOJ in preparing a John Doe request (or treaty request; I think these are synonymous.) I'm not clear on why such a request would have to be different for each bank, or why such a request could not be made for ALL banks, regardless of their category. If a person has accounts with similar balances and activities in bank X and bank Y, does it make a difference what bank it's in?Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-67355788938695954492015-07-17T05:11:38.209-05:002015-07-17T05:11:38.209-05:00following your Finance ► Realestate blog We are v...following your Finance ► Realestate blog We are very happy please follow us on :-Here <a href="http://hudsonvalleyrealestateguide.com/community/mamaroneck/" rel="nofollow">homes for sale in mamaroneck ny</a> in adding prices we completely can do to tired the accidental of home-based charge rise, altogether on the rudimentary <a href="http://hudsonvalleyrealestateguide.com/community/larchmont/" rel="nofollow">homes for sale in larchmont ny</a> lateral of all eras alteration to <a href="http://hudsonvalleyrealestateguide.com/community/rye/" rel="nofollow">homes for sale in rye ny</a> trek in the search. In attending are portentous in totaling to good adventure uninterruptedly in the technique to become <a href="http://hudsonvalleyrealestateguide.com/community/brewster/" rel="nofollow">brewster real estate</a> accomplished or else confirmed.fedelroachnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-32507059882283475182015-07-17T03:38:25.555-05:002015-07-17T03:38:25.555-05:00Thanks Jack.
So the first question is whether the ...Thanks Jack.<br />So the first question is whether the FBAR penalty survives death which, I believe, you are researching. Please let us know what your research reveals when you have time to look into it.<br />AndreAndre Weissnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-35500752345978453052015-07-16T18:26:37.824-05:002015-07-16T18:26:37.824-05:00Thanks Michael. So it is the income tax liability ...Thanks Michael. So it is the income tax liability after offsetting the foreign tax credits. Just to be clear, so a person who makes, say $1 million overseas, pays tax at 30% or $300k to the foreign govt and has a minimal liability to the US govt based on exemptions etc would not be covered under 877A since the net liability to the US govt after offsetting the $300k to the foreign govt would be less than the $157k threshold as specified. <br /><br />Is this correct?Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-64869168048497010832015-07-16T14:54:57.774-05:002015-07-16T14:54:57.774-05:00Yes, under section 877A, the term "net income...Yes, under section 877A, the term "net income tax" has the definition <br />prescribed in section 38(c)(1). Section 38(c)(1) refers to the sum of <br />the regular tax liability and the AMT, "reduced by the credits allowable<br /> under subparts A and B of this part ..." This includes section 27, <br />which allows a credit for taxes to the extent provided in section 901.Michael J. Millernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-20533447466435159462015-07-16T11:41:32.815-05:002015-07-16T11:41:32.815-05:00Andre
1. If the FBAR penalty does not survive de...Andre<br /><br />1. If the FBAR penalty does not survive death, the logically the assets going to the heir would not be tainted.<br /><br />2. But, if the FBAR penalty survives death, then I would think that one of various transferee-type liabilities might apply. I am familiar with how these work in the case of tax liabiilties, but not in the case of FBAR liabilities. There is a Federal Debt Collection Practices Act that, I believe, permits remedies similar to state fraudulent conveyance acts. But, rather than speculate about its application (and I certainly don't have time to research the issue now), I would just speculate that the IRS might be able to "follow the money."<br /><br />Jack TownsendJack Townsendhttp://www.tjtaxlaw.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-70572478135785674092015-07-16T07:27:16.540-05:002015-07-16T07:27:16.540-05:00I think the answer is that it is the actual tax du...I think the answer is that it is the actual tax due and/or paid. I cannot, however, recall exactly where I read that, but I imagine is was either this blog: http://hodgen.com/blog/ or http://tax-expatriation.com/, both of which I find quite helpful for some technical aspects of taxation of expats. The author of the first often responds to questions in comments so may be worth posting the question there.gottaloveUStax1noreply@blogger.com