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.

Two Brothers, An Offshore Trust And An Ignored CPA

Here is the cast of characters for today’s discussion:

Brian             orthopedic surgeon and idiot tax savant

Mark             Brian’s brother and idiot business manager

Michael         long-suffering CPA

Lynn              the “other” CPA

All right, maybe I am showing some bias.

Let us continue.

The two brothers attend a seminar about using domestic and offshore trusts to delay taxes until the monies were brought back into the United States. In the meanwhile, one could tap into the money by using a credit card.

Sure. Sounds legit.

The brothers return and are excited about this new tax technique. They ask Michael’s advice. Michael tells them that the seminar promoter was “a person to avoid” and to consult an independent tax attorney. 

Brian blew off Michael. Brian signed up for the offshore trust. He may have received a toaster with his new account.

Michael – who does the accounting - sees a $15,000 check to the promoter. He writes Brian:

I am writing to you because I am concerned for you and the risks you may inadvertently be taking.

It seems to me that the promoters are relying on an elaborate chain of complex entities to conceal taxable income. I am especially suspicious when I learned that they will provide you with a VISA card to access the money.

I am asking that you consider the worst case scenario in which the IRS takes the position that you are committing tax evasion. They have the power to assess huge penalties and interest, to prosecute you, to ruin your career, and seize your property. Is the risk worth it?”

Michael talks with Mark. He believes that the brothers have finally listened to his advice.

Meanwhile, the brothers did not listen to anything. They set up a series of interlocking companies and hired Lynn to prepare taxes for those companies. Lynn is associated with the promoters of this tax scheme.

• In year one the brothers transfer $107,388 offshore and deduct it as management fees 
• In year two they transfer and deduct $199,000 
• In year three they transfer and deduct $175,000

The IRS swoops in on the trust promoters. They take Lynn’s computer. Lynn calls Mark, explains all that, and recommends that they see a tax attorney. Maybe they should amend the tax returns.  Mark, after his many minutes of tax education, training and experience, told Lynn that he was not amending anything.

It gets better.

The promoter contacts the brothers and says that they have a NEW AND IMPROVED program that will be bulletproof against the IRS. The brothers sign on immediately.

The brothers receive their sign soon thereafter. 

• In year four they transfer and deduct $650,000

Michael is preparing this tax return. He calls Mark and asks about the “management fee.” Michael has Mark write him a letter that all was on the up-and-up.

• In year five they transfer and deduct $460,000

Michael is not preparing this tax return. He has had enough, and he has a career to protect. He wants a letter from an attorney that the transactions are above board.

Mark fires Michael.

And, in another surprise, daytime was followed by darkness.

A year later, Michael (the hero of our story) sends the brothers a press release about the “dirty dozen tax scams.” Sure enough, theirs is on the list. There is still time to send back the sign.

• In year six they transfer and deduct $180,000

In addition, Brian taps the offshore account for $270,000 for the purchase of a new home.

A couple of years later Michael receives a subpoena from the IRS for records pertaining to Brian and his company. This is when all that communication back-and-forth with Mark and Brian may have taken its toll, as Brian was virtually giving the IRS a roadmap.

The brothers, perhaps whiffing that they may have missed a key lecture in their vast tax education, decided to amend Brian's personal returns, adding most of the so-called management fees back to his income. Brian sends a big check to the government.

This case goes to Court. This is not a regular tax case. No sir, this is a fraud case. Someone is going to jail.

There was an eleven-day trial. The brothers were found guilty on all counts.

There was something interesting in here during interrogatories. The IRS never discussed the amended returns when they were presenting their fraud case. The brothers objected, but the Court sustained the government. The brothers introduced the amended returns when it was their turn.

The brothers had a point. The government was not out ALL the money, because Brian had paid a chunk of it with the amended returns. Why then did the Court sustain the government? Here is the Court:

As an initial matter, we note that the amended returns were submitted years after the false returns had been filed and months after[Michael] warned [the brothers] that their records had been subpoenaed. We have previously said that ‘there is no doubt that self-serving exculpatory acts performed substantially after a defendant’s wrongdoing is discovered are of minimal probative value as to his state of mind at the time of the alleged crime.”

Wow. There were no brownie points with this Court for doing the right thing.

By the way, Brian got 22 months at Club Fed and his brother got 14 .

But they got to keep the sign.

Apple Is Borrowing Money Because Of Taxes

Apple is borrowing money.

What beggars disbelief is that Apple has over $140 billion in cash on its balance sheet. Why would it borrow money? It has to do with U.S. international taxation.

The U.S. has a “worldwide” tax system. This means that an American is taxed on worldwide income, irrespective of whether the American lives in the United States. This creates tremendous inefficiencies when an American expatriates – that is, move overseas with no immediate intention of returning. It is more common than you may first think. I for example have family who have expatriated. They have married and have children of their own. It is more likely that I will play in the NFL than they will return to the U.S.

Apply that “worldwide” idea to business taxation and you begin to understand the problem. Take a company with plants, workforces, storefronts and offices around the world – a company like Apple. Tell Apple that it has to pay U.S. tax on monies generated in Australia, South Africa or Japan, and you are motivating Apple to seriously reconsider its reason for being a U.S.–based company.

There are exceptions in the tax code, both delaying and accelerating the general tax treatment discussed above.  Apple has gotten itself caught in one. It has been able to move profits away from the U.S., but it now faces problems returning them to the U.S. Consider also that Apple is facing pressure to share its cash hoard with shareholders. How does it get that overseas cash into the U.S. to pay dividends?

It borrows. A company that is probably on sounder financial footing than the U.S. government is borrowing money because of U.S. taxation.

Brilliant policy there, Washington.

We may return to this topic in a future blog. For now, here is the Reuters video:

New Plan for U.S. Expats to Comply With The IRS

There is good tax news for many U.S. expats and dual citizens. Beginning September 1^st, the IRS is starting a new program allowing many expats to catch-up on late tax returns and late FBARs without penalties.

This new program is different from the “Offshore Voluntary Disclosure” programs of the last few years. For one thing, this program is more geared to an average expat. Secondly, and more important to the target audience of the OVD programs, this program does not offer protection from criminal prosecution. That is likely a nonissue to an average expat who has been living and working in a foreign country for several years and has not been trying to hide income or assets from the U.S.

Under this new program, an expat will file 3 years of income tax returns and 6 years of FBARs. This is much better than the 8 years of income tax returns and 8 years of FBARs for OVD program participants.

All returns filed under this program will be reviewed by the IRS, but the IRS will divide the returns into two categories:

Low Risk – These will be simple tax returns, defined as expats living and working in foreign countries, paying foreign taxes, having a limited number of investments and owing U.S. tax of less than $1,500 for each year. Low risk taxpayers will get a pass – they will pay taxes and interest but no penalties.

NOTE: When you consider that the expat will receive a foreign tax credit for taxes paid the resident country, it is very possible that there will be NO U.S. tax.

 Higher Risk – These will be more complicated returns with higher incomes, significant economic activity in the U.S., or returns otherwise evidencing sophisticated tax planning. These returns will not qualify for the program and (likely) will be audited by the IRS. This is NOT the way to go if there is any concern about criminal prosecution. However, it MAY BE the way to go if concern over criminal prosecution is minimal. Why? The wildcard is the penalties. Under OVDP a 27.5% penalty is (virtually) automatic. Under this new program the IRS may waive penalties if one presents reasonable cause for noncompliance.

NOTE: This is one of the biggest complaints about the OVD program and its predecessors: the concept of “reasonable cause” does not apply. The IRS consequently will not mitigate OVD penalties. This may have made sense for multimillionaires at UBS, but it does not make sense for many of the expats swept-up by an outsized IRS dragnet.

The IRS has also announced that the new program will allow resolution of certain tax issues with foreign retirement plans. The IRS got itself into a trap by not recognizing certain foreign plans as the equivalent of a U.S. IRA. This created nasty tax problems, since contributions to such plans would not be deductible (under U.S. tax law) and earnings in such plans would not be tax-deferred (under U.S. tax law). You had the bizarre result of a Canadian IRA that was taxable in the U.S.

QUESTION: If your tax preparer had told you that this was the tax result of your Canadian RSSP, would you have believed him/her? Would you have questioned their competency? Sadly, they would have been right.

Taxpayer Advocate Issues Directive to IRS Commissioner

I am starting to like Nina Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate.

I have been negative on the IRS program called the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDI).  This was the government reaction to the UBS and offshore bank account scandals. That however was tax fraud committed by the extraordinarily wealthy.  My background has been the Foreign Service and expat community, primarily because my wife is the daughter of a (retired) Foreign Service officer. These are rather ordinary folk who just happen to live overseas.

Tax advisors who work this area know that the IRS pulled a bait-and-switch a year ago - on March, 2011 - with taxpayers trying to comply with the freshly-resurrected foreign reporting requirements.  The FBAR has, for example, been out there since at least the early 70s, but at no time did Treasury want to confiscate 50% or more of your highest account balance for not filing a one-page form. The IRS was waist-deep with 2009 OVDI and had previously encouraged taxpayers to enter the program with lures of reduced penalties for non-willful violations.

EXAMPLE:  You have expatriated to Costa Rica. You have next-to-no ties in the United States and pay little attention to tax developments here. You have even learned to like soccer (but why?). The requirement to file an FBAR comes as quite the surprise to you. You first thought it absurd that such reporting would apply to the most ordinary of taxpayers. Surely that is for rich people only. You have to qualify as non-willful, right?

Then last March the IRS trotted-out a memo directive that it would not consider non-willfulness, reasonable cause, or the mitigation guidelines in applying the offshore penalty. Let me phrase that a different way: the IRS instructed its examiners to assume that the violation was willful unless the taxpayer could prove that it was not. Would you further believe that, at first, the memo was kept secret?

Huh? Are you kidding? O.J. Simpson received more “benefit of the doubt” than the IRS was willing to provide.

Then in August Nina Olson issued a Taxpayer Advocate Directive ordering IRS division commissioners to revoke this position and direct examiners to live up to their own promises to thousands of affected taxpayers.  The IRS division commissioners blew her off.

What?

Tax Analysts now reports that the main IRS commissioner – Douglas Shulman – has no intention of responding to Nina Olson on this matter. To aggravate the matter, there is a statutory requirement that the IRS commissioner respond to the Taxpayer Advocate within 90 days.  Do laws mean nothing to this crowd?

Is this a specialized tax area? Yes. Does it have greater import? I believe it does. It does because the tax attorney and tax CPA community – people such as me – pay attention, and this behavior diminishes confidence in the IRS and any trust in its word. The consequences are subtle, injurious and lasting. And for what purpose? To extract a penalty from someone whose only crime was not paying attention to increasingly obscure and inane U.S. tax law?