FINCEN ISSUES GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING ORDERS CONCERNING ALL CASH DEALS FOR REAL ESTATE ACQUISITIONS IN NEW YORK CITY AND MIAMI.

Download Detailed Client Alert PDF

On January 13, 2016, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued Geographic Targeting Orders (“GTOs”) that temporarily require certain US title insurance companies to identify the natural persons behind companies used in “all cash” deals for high­ end residential real estate in Manhattan and Miami­Dade County, Florida.[1]

[1]          See https://www.fincen.gov/news_room/nr/html/20160113.html (last accessed February 16, 2016). 

IMPORTANT DEADLINE – BE-10 BENCHMARK SURVEY OF US DIRECT INVESTMENT ABROAD

Download Detailed Client Alert PDF

This is a reminder to our clients and friends that the BE-10 Benchmark Survey of US Direct Investment Abroad needs to be filed by June 30, 2015 for new filers. This survey is made once every five years and the survey calculates data from US direct investment abroad. It is now required to be completed whether or not the BEA has contacted you to complete the survey. It applies not only to businesses but also to individuals provided that there is a reporting obligation. A reporting obligation exists if a US person that had a direct or indirect ownership or control of at least 10 percent of the voting stock of an incorporated foreign business enterprise or an equivalent interest in an unincorporated foreign business enterprise at any time during its 2014 fiscal year. Penalties may be applied if you were required to file but you failed to do so. You may request an additional two-month extension by June 30, 2015. We have provided a FAQ on this form below to assist you in determining whether you have a filing obligation and, if not already filed, on how you may request an extension to file. 

While BE-10 applies to US individual residents and US companies, a similar Benchmark Survey, BE- 13, may require certain foreign persons investing in the US to file similar reports. 

IMPORTANT US TAX AND INFORMATION REPORTING DEADLINES

Download detailed Client Alert PDF

This is a reminder to our clients and friends that there are two important deadlines for US tax and information reporting purposes that are coming soon. 

First, US tax residents that are individuals and who live abroad have until June 15, 2015 to file their US tax return (Form 1040) or an extension. Attached to Form 1040 must include Form 8938, “Statement of Special Foreign Financial Assets,” if you have a financial interest in “Specified Foreign Financial Assets” and you meet certain asset valuation thresholds. This requirement came into law as part of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act of 2010 (“FATCA”). Temporary regulations were issued in late 2011 and finalized in late 2014. Also, nonresident aliens may also have file a US income tax return (Form 1040NR) if they had US source income or were engaged in a US trade or business in 2014. The deadline is also June 15, 2015, unless you received wages subject to US income tax withholding. In that case, the deadline was April 15, 2015. As today is June 15, 2015, you should file an extension if you have not already done so or cannot file your US income tax return by the deadline. This extension will give you four extra months of time to file your US income tax return. Extensions are filed on Form 4868 “Application for Automatic Extension of Time To File US Individual Income Tax Return” and can be e-filed. 

Second, US tax residents must also file Form 114, “Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts,” by June 30, 2015. 

Our Client Alert discusses these reporting obligations in more detail. 

 

InFBARFATCAInternational TaxOVDPTagsFBARForm 8938International TaxOVDP

IRS ANNOUNCES MAJOR CHANGES TO AMNESTY PROGRAMS

By Armin Gray, Benjamin Tolub*

The IRS announced major changes to its amnesty programs last month. These changes can be broken into two parts: changes to the 2012 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (“O.V.D.P.”), which can be to referred to as the 2012 Modified O.V.D.P. or the 2014 O.V.D.P., and changes to the streamlined procedures (“Streamlined Procedures”). As the requirements for the latter are relaxed, the requirements for the former are tightened.

The changes in the amnesty programs reflect the new IRS approach for addressing taxpayers with offshore tax issues. The new approach provides one path for willful taxpayers, with steeper penalties but certainty, and another path for taxpayers who believe their conduct was non-willful, with reduced penalties but uncertainty to the extent their conduct is subsequently proven willful.

Changes to O.V.D.P.

The major changes to the 2012 O.V.D.P. include the following:

1.              Changes to Preclearance Process

Under the 2012 O.V.D.P., all that was required was to submit a preclearance request was a fax to the IRS O.V.D.P. department that contained the taxpayer’s name, social security number, date of birth, address, and if the taxpayer was represented by an authorized party, an executed power of attorney (P.O.A.).

The 2014 O.V.D.P. made changes to this procedure effective for O.V.D.P. submissions made on or after July 1, 2014. Revised 2014 O.V.D.P. F.A.Q. # 23 which provides guidance on preclearance requests, now states as follows:

(a) Applicant identifying information including complete names, dates of birth (if applicable), tax identification numbers, addresses, and telephone numbers.

(b) Identifying information of all financial institutions at which undisclosed OVDP assets (see FAQ 35) were held. Identifying information for financial institutions includes complete names (including all DBAs and pseudonyms), addresses, and telephone numbers.

(c) Identifying information of all foreign and domestic entities (e.g., corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, trusts, foundations) through which the undisclosed OVDP assets (see FAQ 35) were held by the taxpayer seeking to participate in the OVDP; this does not include any entities traded on a public stock exchange. Information must be provided for both current and dissolved entities. Identifying information for entities includes complete names (including all DBAs and pseudonyms), employer identification numbers (if applicable), addresses, and the jurisdiction in which the entities were organized.

(d) Executed power of attorney forms (if represented).

2.              Penalty May Be Increased to 50%

The offshore penalty will be increased from 27.5% to 50% if, prior to the taxpayer’s pre-clearance submission, it becomes public that the financial institution or another party facilitating the taxpayer’s offshore arrangement is under investigation by the IRS or the D.O.J.

This is reflected in 2014 O.V.D.P. F.A.Q. #7.2, which states:

Beginning on August 4, 2014, any taxpayer who has an undisclosed foreign financial account will be subject to a 50-percent 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.

Foreign banks already under investigation include:

UBS AG;
Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Fides, and Clariden Leu Ltd.;
Wegelin & Co.;
Liechtensteinische Landesbank AG;
Zurcher Kantonalbank;
Swisspartners Investment Network AG, swisspartners Wealth Management AG, swisspartners Insurance Company SPC Ltd., and swisspartners Versicherung AG;
CIBC FirstCaribbean International Bank Limited, its predecessors, subsidiaries, and affiliates;
Stanford International Bank, Ltd., Stanford Group Company, and Stanford Trust Company, Ltd.;
The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited in India (HSBC India); and
The Bank of N.T. Butterfield & Son Limited (also known as Butterfield Bank and Bank of Butterfield), its predecessors, subsidiaries, and affiliates.[1]

3.              Elimination of Existing Reduced Penalty Structure

The reduced penalty structure under former F.A.Q. #52 and #53 have been eliminated. Former F.A.Q. #52 allowed for a 5% penalty in the case of certain inherited accounts, certain taxpayers who were unaware that they were U.S. citizens, and certain non-U.S. residents who made a good faith showing that the taxpayer complied with their resident country’s tax reporting and payment obligations, and who had $10,000 or less U.S. source income for each year. The available path forward for taxpayers who believe their conduct was non-willful is now exclusively through the new Streamlined Procedures.

4.              Account Statements

Former F.A.Q. #25 required submission of account statements at the time of the full submission package only if the account exceeded $500,000 in any year of the disclosure period. In such event, the taxpayer was required to keep records available upon request. F.A.Q. #25 has been modified to require taxpayers to submit account statements regardless of account balance at the time of the full submission package. It also now provides that voluminous documents not requiring original signatures may be submitted on CD or DVD.

5.              Other Notable Revisions

Other notable revisions include the following:

F.A.Q. #33 reaffirms with no uncertain terms the IRS’s position of tax non-compliance. It now states that “[e]ven one dollar of unreported gross income from an O.V.D.P. asset will bring it into the offshore penalty base.”
F.A.Q. #35.1 is added and states that the offshore penalty will be applied to the taxpayer’s interest in the underlying O.V.D.P. assets without regard to valuation discounts.

6.              Effective Date

The 2014 F.A.Q.s are effective for all new submissions made on or after July 1, 2014.[2]

7.              Consideration Under New Rules

A taxpayer who made an O.V.D.P. submission prior to July 1, 2014 the taxpayer’s case considered under the new guidelines. In this scenario, the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s authorized representative must communicate the request in writing to the examiner assigned to the case and, if no examiner has been assigned, to a specified address.

8.              Transitional Relief

For taxpayers who already had submitted their intake letter and attachments prior to July 1, 2014, to the extent the taxpayer is eligible for one of the streamlined programs, the taxpayer may apply for a reduced penalty in lieu of the 27.5% O.V.D.P. penalty. However, all other terms of the O.V.D.P., including the disclosure period and tax, interest, and other penalties, will continue to apply.

Applying for the reduced penalty entails signing a certification signed under penalty of perjury. This certification must explain that the taxpayer did not act wilfully with respect to all foreign activities/assets, must specifically describe the reasons for the failure to report all income, pay all tax, and submit all required information returns, including F.B.A.R.s, and, if the taxpayer relied on a professional advisor, must include the name, address, and telephone number of the advisor and a summary of the advice.

Relief is not automatic. Before transitional treatment is given, the IRS must agree that the taxpayer is eligible for transitional treatment and must agree that the available information is consistent with the taxpayer’s certification of non-willful conduct.

Changes to Streamlined Procedures

The Streamlined Procedures were substantially modified. This program is designed for non-willful taxpayers and is divided into two groups: those living in the U.S. (“Domestic Streamlined Program”) and those residing offshore (“Foreign Streamlined Program”). No IRS streamlined questionnaire is now required, although many tax practitioners have made their own questionnaires in order to assist in the process. The taxpayer will have to certify that their conduct was non-willful under the appropriate IRS form. Further, the $1,500 threshold has also been eliminated. Each program is described in more detail below.

1.              Non-Willful Conduct

Willfulness is the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty, may include “willful blindness” or the reckless disregard of known statutory duties. Non-willful conduct includes conduct that is due to negligence, inadvertence, mistake or conduct that is the result of a good faith misunderstanding of the requirements of the law. The determination of whether the taxpayer’s conduct was willful or non-willful may be established by inference and circumstantial evidence.

The IRM lists four examples in the context of the failure to file an F.B.A.R. These examples are reproduced below:

Example 1. A person admits knowledge of, and fails to answer, a question concerning signature authority over foreign bank accounts on Schedule B of his income tax return. When asked, the person does not provide a reasonable explanation for failing to answer the Schedule B question and for failing to file the F.B.A.R. The example concludes that a determination that the violation was willful likely would be appropriate in this case.
Example 2. A person files the F.B.A.R., but omits one of three foreign bank accounts. The person had closed the omitted account at the time of filing the F.B.A.R. The person explains that the omission was due to unintentional oversight. During the examination, the person provides all information requested with respect to the omitted account. The information provided does not disclose anything suspicious about the account, and the person reported all income associated with the account on his tax return. The example concludes that the willfulness penalty should not apply absent other evidence that may indicate willfulness.
Example 3. A person filed the F.B.A.R. in earlier years but failed to file the F.B.A.R. in subsequent years when required to do so. When asked, the person does not provide a reasonable explanation for failing to file the F.B.A.R. In addition, the person may have failed to report income associated with foreign bank accounts for the years that F.B.A.R.’s were not filed. The example concludes that a determination that the violation was willful likely would be appropriate in this case.
Example 4. A person received a warning letter informing him of the F.B.A.R. filing requirement, but the person continues to fail to file the F.B.A.R. in subsequent years. When asked, the person does not provide a reasonable explanation for failing to file the F.B.A.R. In addition, the person may have failed to report income associated with the foreign bank accounts. The example concludes that a determination that the violation was willful likely would be appropriate in this case.

2.           Foreign Streamlined Program

In order to qualify for the Foreign Streamlined Program, the taxpayer must, in general, meet the following eligibility requirements:

a.              The taxpayer must have failed to report the income from a foreign financial asset and pay tax as required by U.S. law, and may have failed to file an F.B.A.R.;

b.              The failure to report income, pay tax, and submit required information returns was due to non-willful conduct;

c.              The taxpayer must meet the following non-residency requirement. The non-residency requirement will vary depending on the status of the individual.

 i.                  U.S. Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents: Individual U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, or estates of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, meet the applicable non-residency requirement if, in any one or more of the most recent three years for which the U.S. tax return due date (or properly applied for extended due date) has passed, the individual did not have a U.S. abode and the individual was physically outside the United States for at least 330 full days.

ii.                  Non-U.S. citizens and Other Residents:  Individuals who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, or estates of individuals who were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, meet the applicable non-residency requirement if, in any one or more of the last three years for which the U.S. tax return due date (or properly applied for extended due date) has passed, the individual did not meet the substantial presence test (i.e., the 183-day test) under the U.S. tax residency rules.

If the taxpayer is eligible, the taxpayer must:

a.              File delinquent or amended tax returns, together with required information returns, for the last three years for which the U.S. tax return due date (or properly applied for extended due date) has passed;

b.              File any delinquent F.B.A.R.’s for each of the most recent six years for which the F.B.A.R. due date has passed;

c.               Remit the full amount of tax and interest due in connection with these filings; and

d.              Sign a written statement declaring under penalties of perjury that the taxpayer is eligible for the program, is now compliant with the F.B.A.R. filing obligations, and that the past non-compliance was due to non-willful conduct.

If the taxpayer is eligible and fulfills the other requirements of the program, the taxpayer will not be subject to the following:

a.              Failure-to-file penalties;

b.               Failure-to-pay penalties;

c.        Accuracy-related penalties;

d.       Information return penalties; and

e.       F.B.A.R. penalties.

3.           Domestic Streamlined Program

In order to qualify for the Domestic Streamlined Program, the taxpayer must, in general, meet the following eligibility requirements:

a.              The taxpayer must not meet the non-residency requirements described above (for joint filers, one or both of the spouses must fail to meet the applicable non-residency requirement);

b.              The taxpayer must have filed a U.S. tax return (if required) for every year out of the most recent three-year period for which the U.S. tax return due date (or properly applied for extended due date) has passed;

c.              The taxpayer must have failed to report gross income from a foreign financial asset and pay tax as required by U.S. law and may have failed to file an F.B.A.R. and/or one or more international information returns with respect to the foreign financial asset; and

d.              The taxpayer’s failure was due to non-willful conduct.

If the taxpayer is eligible, the taxpayer must:

a.              File amended U.S. tax returns for every year out of the three-year period for which the U.S. tax return due date (or properly applied for extended due date) has passed, including required information returns;

b.              File delinquent F.B.A.R.s for the most recent past six years for which the due date has passed;

c.              Pay a 5% penalty on the highest aggregate balance/value of the foreign financial assets during the years in the applicable tax return and F.B.A.R. period. For these purposes, the 5% miscellaneous offshore penalty applies to foreign financial assets in the following set of circumstances:

 i.                  Ifthe asset should have been, but was not, reported on an F.B.A.R. in a given year;

ii.                  Ifthe asset should have been, but was not, reported on Form 8938 in a given year; and

iii.                  If the asset was properly reported for a given year, but gross income in respect of the asset was not reported in that year.

d.              Submit a signed written statement declaring under penalties of perjury that the taxpayer is eligible for the program, is now compliant with the taxpayer’s F.B.A.R. filing obligations, that the past non-compliance was due to non-willful conduct, and that the 5% miscellaneous offshore penalty is accurate.

If the taxpayer is eligible and fulfills the other requirements of the program, the taxpayer will not be subject to the following:

a.              Accuracy-related penalties;

b.       Information return penalties;

c.       F.B.A.R. penalties.

4.           Disqualifications

It should be noted that if the IRS has initiated a civil examination of a taxpayer’s returns for any taxable year, regardless of whether the examination relates to undisclosed foreign financial assets, the taxpayer will not be eligible to use the Streamlined Procedures. However, the guidelines note that taxpayers under examination should consult with their agent.

5.           General Treatment Under These Programs

The guidelines note that tax returns submitted under these procedures will be processed like any other return submitted to the IRS. Accordingly, receipt of the returns will not be acknowledged by the IRS and the streamlined filing process will not culminate in the signing of a closing agreement.

6.           Caution

The guidelines state that returns submitted under these procedures will not be subject to IRS audit automatically. However, the IRS warns that:

a.              Submission under these procedures disqualifies the taxpayer from participating in the O.V.D.P. at a later date;

b.              Returns may be selected for audit;

c.              Returns may also be subject to independent verification procedures and may be checked against third-party information received from banks, financial advisors, and other sources; and

d.              Returns submitted under these procedures may be subject to IRS examination, additional civil penalties, and even criminal liability, if appropriate. Therefore, if willfulness is proven after submission, the taxpayer receives no penalty protection. In other words, the taxpayer may be subject to the 50% F.B.A.R. penalty (per violation) and possible criminal penalties.

The guidelines to the new procedures encourage taxpayers who are concerned that their failures were due to willful conduct to participate in the O.V.D.P. The guidelines also encourage taxpayers to consult with competent tax professionals to assess which program they should enter into before making a decision.

Conclusion

The objective of the changes in the amnesty program is to bring taxpayers that have offshore tax issues back into the system as fully compliant. The prior complaint was the O.V.D.P. was too harsh for non-willful taxpayers. Therefore, certain taxpayers made so-called quiet disclosures, corrected their mistakes only on a go-forward basis, or have refrained from doing anything. Based on these recent changes, taxpayers have no excuse for not correcting known errors.

We expect that the IRS will be harsh on offshore tax compliance issues to the extent the taxpayer refrains from correcting known mistakes. We further expect the IRS to make examples of those who willfully avoided taxes but have entered into the revised Streamlined Procedures in order to receive a reduced penalty that they were not entitled to. The changes in the amnesty programs further reflect the policy shift to use tax professionals as gatekeepers in order to determine which program the taxpayer should enter into. This saves the IRS resources by putting the burden, and the costs, on the taxpayer and the taxpayer’s trusted advisor.

As these programs may close, taxpayers are well-advised to take advantage of these programs sooner than later. Taxpayers living offshore whose conduct was non-willful may be entitled to a path forward as simple as filing late returns without penalties. Taxpayers living onshore may be entitled to a substantially reduced penalty even in the case of non-willful violations that lack reasonable cause. Many tax practitioners believe that the amnesty programs may close when automatic information reporting begins under F.A.T.C.A., which may be as early as March of next year for the 2014 calendar year. Therefore, prompt attention is recommended.

___________________

[1]           A current list can be found at the following link: http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/International-Businesses/Foreign-Financial-Institutions-or-Facilitators.

[2]           2014 O.V.D.P. F.A.Q. #1.2.

* The following article was published in Insights, by Ruchelman P.L.L.C.  Insights was originally designed, created, and edited by Armin Gray. Kyu Kim of Kyu & A LLC, a design company, substantially assisted in its design as well. Co-authors originally included Fanny Karaman, a team member supervised by Armin Gray, but Armin Gray and Benjamin Tolub were the principal contributing authors. We thank them for their support. 

CREDIT SUISSE PLEADS GUILTY TO ASSISTING IN TAX EVASION BY U.S. TAXPAYERS

By Armin Gray*

Credit Suisse AG pleaded guilty to conspiracy to aid and assist U.S. taxpayers with the filing of false income tax returns and other documents. Credit Suisse admitted to operating an illegal cross-border banking business that knowingly and willfully aided and assisted thousands of U.S. clients in opening and maintaining undeclared financial accounts and concealing their offshore assets and income from the IRS, thus evading U.S. taxes. The bank has agreed to pay $2.6 billion to the U.S. government, which will be divided among several agencies. 

Although the agreement does not require that Credit Suisse provide names of its U.S. clients who had undisclosed accounts with the bank, which was required under the plea agreement made by UBS in 2009, Credit Suisse agreed to:

  • Promptly disclose all evidence and information described in Section II.D.I. and II.D.2 of the U.S-Swiss bank voluntary disclosure program, which includes making a complete disclosure of its cross-border activities and providing all information (including the debits and credits on a monthly basis) with respect to its U.S. accounts other than the name of the individual; 
  • Provide testimony or information for admission into evidence of documents or physical evidence of any criminal or other proceeding as requested; 
  • Provide all necessary information for the U.S. to draft treaty requests to seek account records and other account information; 
  • Close accounts of account holders who fail to come into compliance with U.S. reporting obligations; 
  • Implement procedures to ensure compliance with U.S. laws including those under F.A.T.C.A. and relevant tax treaties in all its current and future dealing with U.S. customers.
  • As such, those with undeclared Credit Suisse accounts should promptly seek the advise of a competent professional. 

___________________

* The following article was published in Insights, by Ruchelman P.L.L.C.  Insights was originally designed, created, and edited by Armin Gray. Kyu Kim of Kyu & A LLC, a design company, substantially assisted in its design as well. Co-authors originally included Fanny Karaman and Cheryl Magat. We thank them for their support.

IRS ANNOUNCES MAJOR CHANGES TO OVDP AND STREAMLINED PROCEDURES

By Armin Gray*

After more than two weeks of speculation,  on June 18, 2014, the IRS announced major changes to its current offshore voluntary disclosure programs earlier today. The programs affected are the 2012 Streamlined Filing Compliance Procedures for Non-Resident, Non-Filer U.S. Taxpayers (the “Streamlined Procedures”) and the 2012 OVDP.

In general, as will be discussed in more detail below, the changes to the programs relax the rules for non-willful filers and at the same time potentially increase penalties for willful non-compliance.  

  • The changes to the OVDP, as announced today, include the following:
  • Additional information will be required from taxpayers applying to the program;
  • The existing reduced penalty percentage for non-willful taxpayers will be eliminated;
  • All account statements, as well as payment of the offshore penalty, must be submitted at the time of the OVDP application; 
  • Taxpayers will be able to submit important amounts of records electronically; and
  • The offshore penalty will be increased from 27.5% to 50% if, prior to the taxpayer’s pre-clearance submission, it becomes public that a financial institution where the taxpayer holds an account or another party facilitating the taxpayer’s offshore arrangement is under investigation by the IRS or the Department of Justice. 

The changes to the Streamlined Procedures include the following:

  • The availability of the program is extended to certain U.S. taxpayers residing in the U.S.;
  • The requirement that the taxpayer have $1,500 or less of unpaid tax per year is eliminated;
  • The Streamlined risk questionnaire is eliminated; and
  • The taxpayer is now required to certify that previous failures to comply were due to non-willful conduct.

All penalties will be waived for eligible U.S. taxpayers living outside the United States. Eligible taxpayers living in the U.S. will only incur a 5% miscellaneous offshore penalty on the foreign financial assets that gave rise to the tax compliance issue.

It should be noted that taxpayers who, prior to July 1, 2014, submitted their intake letter and attachments, can benefit from the expanded Streamlined Filing Compliance Procedures if they are eligible for this program.

At first glance, the changes appear to officialize the prior avenue of silent disclosures that were made by many U.S. persons residing in the U.S. and abroad who believed the OVDP penalties were too harsh by providing an official path forward to come into compliance on a penalty free or penalty limited basis. 

The open question is how the IRS will treat silent disclosure filers currently under audit as a result of being discovered.

We will follow up shortly on the specifics, but you may review the details of the changes at www.irs.gov. 

CREDIT SUISSE PLEADS GUILTY TO ASSISTING IN TAX EVASION BY U.S. TAXPAYERS

Credit Suisse AG pleaded guilty to conspiracy to aid and assist U.S. taxpayers with the filing of false income tax returns and other documents. Credit Suisse admitted to operating an illegal cross-border banking business that knowingly and willfully aided and assisted thousands of U.S. clients in opening and maintaining undeclared financial accounts and concealing their offshore assets and income from the IRS, thus evading U.S. taxes. The bank has agreed to pay $2.6 billion to the U.S. government, which will be divided among several agencies. 

Although the agreement does not require that Credit Suisse provide names of its U.S. clients who had undisclosed accounts with the bank, which was required under the plea agreement made by UBS in 2009, Credit Suisse agreed to:
•    Promptly disclose all evidence and information described in Section II.D.I. and II.D.2 of the U.S-Swiss bank voluntary disclosure program, which includes making a complete disclosure of its cross-border activities and providing all information (including the debits and credits on a monthly basis) with respect to its U.S. accounts other than the name of the individual; 
•    Provide testimony or information for admission into evidence of documents or physical evidence of any criminal or other proceeding as requested; 
•    Provide all necessary information for the U.S. to draft treaty requests to seek account records and other account information; 
•    Close accounts of account holders who fail to come into compliance with U.S. reporting obligations; 
•    Implement procedures to ensure compliance with U.S. laws including those under F.A.T.C.A. and relevant tax treaties in all its current and future dealing with U.S. customers.
As such, those with undeclared Credit Suisse accounts should promptly seek the advise of a competent professional. 

ISRAEL'S BANK LEUMI AIMS TO AVOID GUILTY PLEA IN SETTLING U.S. TAX PROBE

Bank Leumi Le-Israel Ltd. recently said it is in advanced talks to settle a U.S. investigation into whether it helped Americans evade taxes in a deal that may not include a guilty plea. Israel's second-largest bank said it has set aside 950 million shekels ($275 million) to resolve the problem. Leumi would be the first Israeli bank to settle a tax probe with the Department of Justice. U.S. persons who have deposited funds with the bank may find that their income from those deposits may be disclosed to the U.S. once a final agreement is reached. 

Thus, Leumi joins the list of banks which the U.S. Department of Justice has been pursuing with respect to offshore tax evasion.  In 2009, UBS AG, the largest Swiss bank, avoided prosecution by paying $780 million and handing over the names of 4,700 U.S. account holders. As noted above, a guilty plea was just secured from Credit Suisse Group AG's main bank subsidiary, along with a $2.6 billion penalty. The Department of Justice has expanded its enforcement actions to banks outside of Switzerland in recognition of the fact that non-Swiss banks and other financial institutions have also played an active role in aiding U.S. persons in avoiding U.S. taxes. The Leumi case is evidence of one such situation, but it will not be the last with efforts expanding in Israel, India, and elsewhere around the world. 

Where there is a deadlock, the buy/sell arrangement is probably the best solution. It allows one of the partners to continue the business, does not force the partners to continue the business notwithstanding the disagreement, and provides the departing partner with a fair value for his ownership interest.

It is also important for any exit provision to take into account other aspects of the business. For example, in the Haley case, the parties were 50/50 owners of the limited liability company and co-guarantors of the company’s debt. The exit provision was silent as to the treatment of the debt if the buy/sell procedure was initiated. The court used this as another reason to bypass the exit provision and judicially dissolve the company.

In summary, whenever one is entering into a business venture consideration should be given to how to break a deadlock. If exit mechanisms are clearly worded and take into account all aspects of the parties’ business, resorting, or being subject to, judicial dissolution with all its inherent costs and uncertainties can be avoided.

___________________

* The following article was published in Insights, by Ruchelman P.L.L.C.  Insights was originally designed, created, and edited by Armin Gray. Kyu Kim of Kyu & A LLC, a design company, substantially assisted in its design as well. Co-authors originally included Fanny Karaman and Cheryl Magat. We thank them for their support.