Taking Tax Advice From Friends

 

I received a text message one night this past week.

I was researching living trusts on the internet. It sounds like it might work for my situation.

I had two immediate reactions:

First, excellent. I am a fan of doing your own research and understanding what an expert is recommending.

Second - and maybe more important – use the expert.

The problem with DIY tax research is that you may not know what you do not know. Granted, in many cases it might not matter as much (hey, can I deduct the mileage for my gig income?), but in other cases it might matter a lot.

Let’s talk about the Horowitz case from 2019.

Peter Horowitz was an anesthesiologist. Susan Horowitz was a PhD working as a public health analyst for the U.S. Department of Health of Human Services.

In 1984 they moved to Saudi Arabia. They lived mostly on Susan’s income while banking most of Peter’s salary.

They used U.S.-based accountants, so they knew to (and filed) federal taxes on their Saudi earnings.

One thing about a bank account in Saudi Arabia: it does not pay interest. After a couple of years, the Horowitzes got tired of that and opened a Swiss bank account. They were also concerned about untangling the Saudi account when the Saudi gig played out.

Makes sense.

The Horowitzes did not tell the U.S accountants about the Swiss account. This meant that they did not report the interest income nor did they report the existence of the foreign account to the Treasury or IRS.

Why?

Their friends in Saudi Arabia told them that they did not have to pay U.S. tax on interest earned on the Swiss account.

In 2001 they moved back to the U.S. That Swiss account had grown to $1.6 million. Peter called the bank every year or two to keep an eye on the account.

COMMENT:  I would too.

Fast forward to 2008, the year that UBS got in trouble with the (non)reporting on Swiss bank accounts. UBS notified the Horowitzes that they would be closing the account. Peter traveled to Switzerland and moved the funds to another bank. Susan travelled the next year to add her name to that account.

Peter opened a “numbered” account, which meant that a number rather than a name identified the account. He also requested the new bank to not send correspondence (termed “hold mail” - something the IRS did not like).

Why?

The bank explained:

… these services allowed U.S. citizens to eliminate the paper trail associated with undeclared assets and income they held … in Switzerland.”

This is going downhill.

In 2009 Peter started reading about IRS enforcement on foreign bank accounts. He and Susan decided to consult a tax attorney.

The Swiss account was now worth nearly $2 million.

They learned that they were supposed to – all along – have been reporting that account.

 In 2010 they closed the Swiss account, repatriated the funds and applied for a voluntary Treasury disclosure program.

Good idea.

They filed amended returns for the interest income, as well as filing FBARs disclosing the existence of the foreign account.

The interest income was not inconsequential: they sent the IRS more than $100 grand in back taxes.

Got it. It was going to hurt, so they might as well rip the band-aid.

In 2012 they opted out of the voluntary disclosure program (OVDP).

COMMENT:  The default ODVP penalty was 27.5%. I suspect - but do not know for certain - that they were hoping for a better penalty result during the audit process. Considering the Swiss account had neared $2 million, the penalty alone would have been around a half-million dollars.

In 2014 the IRS sent notices. The Horowitzes, their accountants and the IRS conferred but failed to reach an agreement.

The penalties now became an issue. The base FBAR penalty is $10 grand per instance. The IRS however saw the Horowitzes behavior as willful, meaning they wanted enhanced penalties. To muddy the waters further, the law had changed. What used to be a maximum $100 grand penalty was now the greater of $100 grand or 50% of the account.

COMMENT: You may also know the FBAR by its current name: FinCEN Form 114.

The Horowitzes protested. Their behavior was not willful, and - even if it was - the old penalty (maxed at $100 grand) should apply.

The Court was short on the willfulness issue.

The court acknowledged that the couple ‘insis[ed] that neither of them had actual knowledge on the FBAR requirement.’ But, relying on United States v. Williams …., it reasoned that willfulness in the civil context ‘covered not only knowing violations… but reckless ones as well’.”

In particular, the court pointed to the fact that the tax returns signed by the Horowitzes ‘included a question of whether they had foreign bank accounts, followed by a cross-reference’ to the FBAR filing requirement. It also found significant that, by their own account, the Horowitzes had ‘discussed their tax liabilities for their foreign accounts with their friends’ but failed to ‘have the same conversation with the accountants they entrusted with their taxes for years’.”

The Horowitzes appealed.

They argued that they messed up, but that mistake was not willful. The enhanced penalties should not apply.

The IRS countered: “willfulness” in this context includes recklessness, which standard was met by:    

The Horowitzes never asking their tax preparer whether they had to report the Swiss bank accounts,

The Horowitzes asking their friends about international tax matters demonstrated their awareness of potential issues,

The Horowitzes knew to report their Saudi earnings and U.S.-based interest income from domestic banks, and

The Horowitzes signed their tax returns without reviewing them with any care.

Here is the Court:

… their only explanation for not disclosing foreign interest income related to some unspecified conversations they had with friends in Saudi Arabia in the late 1980s. Yet, if the question of whether they had to pay taxes on foreign interest income was significant enough to discuss with their friends, they were reckless in failing to discuss the same question with their accountant at any point over the next 20 years.”

Taking all of these circumstances together, the record indisputably establishes not only that the Horowitzes ‘clearly ought to have known’ that they were failing to satisfy their obligation to disclose their Swiss accounts, but also that they were in a ‘position to find out for certain very easily’.”

How much are we talking about across the years?

Including interest and penalties, it was close to $1 million.

Our case this time was Horowitz v US, No. 19-1280 (4^th Cir. 2020)

Is Zwerner's 200% Penalty Excessive?

Let me ask you a hypothetical question.

Say you made a million dollars in 2013. Even in a worst-case, salt-the-fields scenario, what would be the most the government could take from you in taxes? 

I am thinking a million dollars. 

His facts are not attractive. There is a saying that “bad facts make bad law.” We have both in this case. 

His name is Carl Zwerner, is 86 years old and lives in the Miami area. For years 2004 through 2007, Zwerner maintained an account at ABN AMRO Bank in Switzerland. It is not (yet) illegal for an American to have a foreign bank account, but it is illegal not to report it. 

Somewhere in 2008 he had a change of heart. He filed a delinquent FBAR and amended his 2007 tax return to include the earnings from the account. In 2009 he decided to come clean on years 2004, 2005 and 2006 also.

There was a twist: Zwerner did not hold the bank account in his own name. The account was in the name of the “Bond Foundation” for a while, then in the name the “Livella Foundation.” At all times, though, Zwerner had control and was the beneficial owner of the funds. Those account names were just speed bumps.

Then he does the unbelievable. In a letter dated August 2010, he admitted to the IRS that he was aware that he should have reported both the existence of the account and the earnings from it.

Why, Carl, oh why?

The IRS, in yet another example of why people hate the IRS, decided that he “willfully” evaded his taxes, used regular gasoline in a high-octane-only car and failed to hold the door for an elderly woman at the grocery store. The IRS determined that the balances at the Swiss account were as follows over the years:

           

2004	$1,447,000
2005	$1,490,000
2006	$1,545,000
2007	$1,691,000

This did not take Sherlock-type powers by the IRS, by the way, as Zwerner had already reported the account.

The IRS then remembered that the penalty for willful failure to file an FBAR is 50% of the highest balance for each year.

NOTE: Did you pick-up on what the fifth-amendment-pleading crowd has done here? Two years worth of penalties and the account is depleted – essentially seized by the government. 

Well, Zwerner was facing 4 years. His penalty was almost $3.5 million, whereas his account had never exceeded $1.7 million.

Good thing he voluntarily filed amended returns! What would they have done to him had he not come clean? 

In the area of foreign accounts, Treasury and the IRS have decided that we are all guilty, and that the only way to salvation is through their disclosure program du jour. The fact that these programs may not be a fit for many (or most, in my opinion) is beside the point. Many tax practitioners, me included, have represented clients with foreign non-reporting issues. My clients have been “ordinary” – an expat who started a business in Scotland, another who had no idea what an “FBAR” was, much less that she had to file tax returns even though she had lived out of the U.S. for two decades. These are not tax desperados, and to lump them in with IRS programs designed to avoid criminal prosecution is bonkers.

And there is the rub. The IRS took Zwerner’s letter as an admission of “willfulness,” meaning that he is charged with tax fraud. This is a criminal charge, and Zwerner should have entered the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program if he wanted protection from criminal charges. The IRS would say this is not the same as my Aberdeen restaurateur. I in turn would ask the IRS: why don’t you have a program for people like my restaurateur? Do you think I enjoyed that phone call with an expat who is afraid to return to the United States to visit her mother? Why are you terrorizing ordinary people? We could probably put all the people with significant money hidden overseas into one hotel conference room. Why is it that attorneys and tax CPAs in 50 states have horror stories to tell? There cannot be that many overseas-money-hiding uber-wealthies to go around.

Zwerner amended his returns. He did not enter the disclosure program. The IRS calls this a “quiet disclosure,” and they do not like it. They assessed 200% penalties.

What choice did the IRS leave him? He filed a lawsuit against the government.  He has an interesting argument, as the Eighth Amendment prohibits “excessive fines.” 

What do you think? Is a penalty of more than 100% an “excessive fine?”

There is precedent. There is a 1998 case where someone tried to take $357 thousand overseas and got caught with the money in his luggage. The U.S. sought forfeiture of the entire amount. The Supreme Court ruled against the government, stating that forfeiture of all the money was “grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense.” The Supreme Court ordered him to pay $20,000 instead.

We’ll be paying attention to Zwerner’s case as it goes through the courts.