New US E Business Visa Route for Frustrated Central American, Chineese, Indian & Venezuelan Investors

Citizenship applications for the Caribbean island of Grenada have boomed in the last three years.

Reports have emerged that Grenada’s citizenship by investment program, introduced in 2014, is being used to fast-track US E2 visa applications.

Grenada is the only Caribbean country with a fast-track citizenship program, which signed a Commerce and Navigation Treaty with the USA. As a result, Grenada’s citizens are eligible for the US E2 non-immigrant visa. This means Grenadians can secure and US E2 visa with a substantial investment in a US-based business and employing some US citizen or US resident staff.

The rise in Grenadian citizenship applications is partly attributed to the ever-increasing backlog of immigration applications in the US. Citizens of China, El Salvador, Guatemala & India in particular are facing severe delays, with some facing a 10-year wait.

Grenada should also work for Venezuelan nationals and nationals of other Central and South American Countries not on the E2 Treaty Investor or E1 Treaty Trader country List.

As a result, wealthy foreign investors are applying for citizenship in Grenada and then filing an application for an E2 visa for the US.  The E2 visa category is a non-immigrant visa category which can continue to be extended as long as the business continues in the US.  This may be preferable for some wealthy investors who wish to avoid the possible tax consequences of a green card.

The Grenada citizenship program as a route to gaining an E2 visa may be worth considering for some. However, it requires  a significant investment:

The Grenada citizenship program may also be worth considering for nationals of Countries not on the E2 Treaty Investor or E1 Treaty Trader country List. It should be noted that Grenada is on the E2 Treaty Investor list.  Not on the E1 Treaty Trader list.  In most cases this probably does not make much difference.

Requirements for Grenada Citizenship 

According to a report published by Forbes, a minimum investment of $200,000 (US) will secure Grenadian citizenship within 12 weeks. Once citizenship is obtained an investor, along with his or her family, can submit an application for an E2 visa in the US. The Forbes report claims that an investor’s entire family could be in the US within 8 weeks.

Overall, obtaining Grenadian citizenship and then applying for a US E2 visa could take less than six months. Once in the US, an investor can acquire an Employment Authorization Document for a spouse, enabling them to work anywhere in the country.

Investors can also send their children to US schools, qualifying for in-state tuition rates and they can travel back and forth freely to their country of origin to take care of business operations back home.

Aside from meeting the requirements for citizenship in Grenada, applying for a US E2 visa would involve incorporating a US company, establishing an office with a legitimate phone number and possibly a website. An investor would need to register with the Inland Revenue Service (IRS), open a bank account and deposit a large sum of money (>$100,000).

Additionally, a viable business plan will be required to establish a company in the US, potentially via a franchise purchase. Meanwhile, any investor would need to speak a basic level of English and have managerial or executive experience, or at the very least, have an idea of how to run their business.

With the possibility of having to wait 10 years and with President Trump ‘attacking’ the H1B and L1 visas, those who can afford to are opting for citizenship in Grenada followed by an application for an E2 visa.

So far, the E2 Treaty Investor visa has not made it on to Trump’s radar.

Not Qualify for an E Visa?

 

 

Need to Quickly Acquire Citizenship in Grenada?
 

 

Contact the Lawyers at 

Marini& Associates, P.A.  

 

 

for a FREE Tax Consultation

at: www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com or

Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243

 



All That You Wanted to Know About Form 706NA - Part I

On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 we posted Issues Concerning Filing a Form 706NA? where we discussed that deceased nonresidents who were not American citizens are subject to U.S. estate taxation with respect to their U.S.-situated assets. We also discussed that Many foreigners owning property or assets in the United States are in violation of 706-NA filing requirements because of a number of misunderstandings. The basic rule is pretty clear-if a foreign decedent has assets in the United States with a gross value in excess of $60,000, the estate is supposed to file a tax return with the Internal Revenue Service. 

Now our Estate Tax Attorney, Robert S. Blumenfeld, Esq. is supplementing this posting with a discussion regarding Form 706 NA in a 3 part series, which we have titled All That You Wanted to Know About Form 706NA. PART 1: 

In the area of estate tax compliance, many of us have prepared Form 706’s, the estate tax return for US citizens and domiciliaries.  To be sure, this form is quite voluminous and can take a while to fill out but there are very few mysteries beyond schedule E; what percentage of an asset might be includable in an estate, the value of an annuity, what debts and expenses are deductible, the calculation of the marital deduction, and the generation-skipping tax computation. 

The Form 706NA, however, preparation of the tax return for the estate of the nonresident alien owning property in the United States, can present a more daunting task.

Form 706NA is deceptively simple- two pages- how difficult could it be to prepare? For 32 years as a senior attorney at the IRS, our Estate Tax Attorney Robert S. Blumenfeld audited these tax returns, and he can tell you that they are more fraught with more potential mystery than the Sphinx. 

Let's look at line 1 where it requests  the decedent's name. Many foreign decedents come from countries where people have hyphenated names, especially the spouses. So is the correct name Maria Smith or Maria Smith- Gonzalez? It is often best to go back to the country where the decedent lived and use the name which drops the post hyphenated portion. Most of the tax returns that he has seen or prepared, are based it on this concept.

The next box asked for the decedent’s tax identification number. Virtually all American citizens born in the United States are assigned SS#’s at birth so there is no problem. In the case of a nonresident alien (N/A), there is no tax identification number so we enter “N/A-nonresident alien” inbox two. 

This creates the second problem. If the estate has to pay any transfer tax, when the return is filed, there is no module (TIN or SS#) into which the IRS can place the payments. Ergo, the IRS has a fund called “unpostables” where money paid to the IRS lacks an identification number with which to associate it. Therefore, if you file a Form 706NA which shows tax, be certain to keep a copy of the front of the check and photostat the endorsement after the check is negotiated. This is the least difficult way to associate the payment with the tax return. Absent keeping these two identification benchmarks, it could take many months for the IRS to agree that the payment in the unpostable module should be associated with a particular estate.

Decedent’s domicile and citizenship are very critical. The United States currently has circa 20 estate/gift tax treaties with foreign countries, many of which are in Europe. 

A non-resident alien from a non-treaty country receives an estate tax exemption (unified credit) of $13,000 which basically means that the first $60,000 is not taxed. The unified credit for treaty based countries can reach a figure of $5.5 million free of tax. In addition to this, in each instance where one represents a nonresident alien decedent, it is critical to find out whether this is a country which has such a treaty with the United States. 

Next, it is critical to determine the citizenship and domicile of the decedent. When one peruses the individual treaties, one will note that some treaties are based on domicile, others on citizenship.  A German citizen domiciled in say Mexico would not be able to utilize the German treaty because that particular treaty is predicated on domicile. A Mexican citizen however, domiciled in Germany, could enjoy the full benefit of the US/German treaty. Ergo, a German living in Mexico would have a $60,000 exemption from tax while a Mexican domiciled in Germany would have a $5.5 million exemption.

Have a US Estate Tax Problem?


Estate Tax Problems Require

an Experienced Estate Tax Attorney

 

 

Contact the Tax Lawyers at

Marini & Associates, P.A.

 

 for a FREE Tax Consultation Contact US at

www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com

or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243).

Robert S. Blumenfeld  - 

 Estate Tax Counsel

Mr. Blumenfeld concentrates his practice in the areas of International Tax and Estate Planning, Probate Law, and Representation of Resident and Non-Resident Aliens before the IRS.

Prior to joining Marini & Associates, P.A., he spent 32 years as the Senior Attorney with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Office of Deputy Commissioner, International.

While with the IRS, he examined approximately 2,000 Estate Tax Returns and litigated various international and tax issues associated with these returns.As a result of his experience, he has extensive knowledge of the issues associated with and the preparation of U.S. Estate Tax Returns for Resident and Non-Resident Aliens, Gift Tax Returns, Form 706QDT and Qualified Domestic Trusts.

  

 

50% Owner Liable for Trust Fund Penalty Despite Not Having Primary Responsibility For Taxes.

A district court has determined on summary judgment that a 50% owner of a member-managed company, who was required to sign off on all significant decisions and actions relating to the company, was liable for the trust fund recovery penalty under Code Sec. 6672.

The court found that his role in the company established that he was a responsible person, regardless of whether the other owner had primary responsibility for the company's taxes; and he was found to have acted willfully where he knew (or should have known) that the taxes were unpaid but continued to pay other creditors instead.

U.S. v.Commander, (DC NJ 4/3/2017) 119 AFTR 2d ¶2017-620

 Have a Tax Problem?

 

   

Contact the Tax Lawyers at

Marini & Associates, P.A.

 

 for a FREE Tax Consultation Contact US at

www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com

or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243).

 

Ireland Disagrees with EU's Decission That it Needs To Collect €13 Billion in Tax From Apple

On October 18, 2013 we posted Ireland to Close Highly Criticized Loophole, but Create an Even Bigger One where we discussed that Ireland said it planned to shut down a much-criticized tax arrangement used by Apple Inc to shelter over $40 billion from taxation, but will leave open an even bigger loophole that means the computer giant is unlikely to pay any more tax. The highly criticized arrangement has become known in the tax avoidance industry as the "double Irish". this arrangement has been used by Google, Microsoft & Apple, just to name a few. 

 

Now according to Law360, Ireland’s new finance minister rejected demands from the European Union’s competition watchdog to collect €13 billion ($15.3 billion) in back taxes from Apple Inc., saying in an interview published August 16, 2017 that the technology giant did not receive any special tax benefits compared to other businesses.

Paschal Donohoe, who has been serving as Ireland’s minister for finance and public expenditure and reform, told the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine that he disagrees with the European Commission’s August 2016 ruling, which concluded that Apple had entered into a sweetheart tax deal with the Irish government to “substantially and artificially” lower its taxes.

Donohoe said that Ireland is Not Blocking the Global Fight Against TaxEvasion, but there is only so much

the EU can Achieve on its Own in this area.

 

 

“We are not the Global Tax Collector for Everyone Else,”

he said.

Both Ireland and Apple have appealed the commission’s decision, which found that two tax rulings Ireland had issued to Apple in 1991 and 2007, allowing the software giant to allocate almost all of its sales profits to “head offices” that existed only on paper, were in violation of the EU’s state aid rules.

Under the EU's unique state aid system, national tax authorities are barred from giving benefits to some companies that are not available to others, and member states cannot treat multinational companies more favorably than standalone companies.

The commission said that the allocation of profits to head offices, with no employees or physical locations, allowed Apple’s effective corporate tax rate to go down from 1 percent in 2003 to 0.005 percent in 2014 on the profits of the Irish-incorporated subsidiary Apple Sales International.
 

The commission’s investigations into Apple’s tax arrangements, as well as those of Starbucks Corp., had previously drawn the ire of the Obama administration, which complained that the commission appeared to be unfairly targeting U.S. businesses and that American taxpayers may end up having to foot the bill for foreign tax credits that the companies may be able to claim following a retroactive imposition of taxes.

A U.S. government has filed an application to intervene in Apple’s suit so that it can have its say on the retroactive application of state aid rules to the company.

Need Tax Efficient Tax Planning?

 

Contact the Tax Lawyers at 

Marini & Associates, P.A.  

 

 

for a FREE Tax Consultation

at: www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com or

Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243

Issues Concerning Filing a Form 706NA?

On September 23, 2015, we posted "Some Nonresidents with U.S. Assets Must File Estate Tax Returns" where we discussed that deceased nonresidents who were not American citizens are subject to U.S. estate taxation with respect to their U.S.-situated assets.

 

Many foreigners owning property or assets in the United States are in violation of 706-NA filing requirements because of a number of misunderstandings. The basic rule is pretty clear-if a foreign decedent has assets in the United States with a gross value in excess of $60,000, the estate is supposed to file a tax return with the Internal Revenue Service. 

Many people think of numerous reasons not to file. The main one relates to mortgages or liens against the US property. Assume that a property in Florida is worth $150,000 and there is a $100,000 mortgage held by Bank of X. The owner of the property dies. Is a 706-NA required? Yes-you are not permitted to net the mortgage against the fair market value of the property. The only way you can do this is if the person who owns the property is a German domiciliary in which case the value can be netted on the tax return. This is a peculiarity of the German- United States estate tax convention. Cyst The deceased German domiciliary must still file the tax return because the gross value of the property, the criteria for filing a tax return, is still met. 

 

Other people look to tax treaties to avoid filing the tax returns even when the assets exceed $60,000. What most people do not realize is that in order to take advantage of a tax treaty, one needs to file a federal estate tax return and include a form 8833 with the return explaining the application of the treaty to this particular estate. If you fail to file the 706-NA, you would still technically owe tax on any US situs asset with a gross value in excess of $60,000.

 

Let's make it very simple for everyone- if you represent a foreign client with assets in the United States  with a gross value exceeding $60,000, you are required to file a federal estate tax.

Without the filing of the tax return, you are unable to take advantage of deductions, credits, and treaties benefits which might aid you in reducing the gross federal tax to a point of zero. Additionally, I might add, your client's estate is not in compliance with federal estate tax laws if no 706-NA is filed

 Have a US Estate Tax Problem?

 

Estate Tax Problems Require

an Experienced Estate Tax Attorney

 

 

Contact the Tax Lawyers at

Marini & Associates, P.A.

 

 for a FREE Tax Consultation Contact US at

www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com

or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243).

Robert S. Blumenfeld  - 

 Estate Tax Counsel

Mr. Blumenfeld concentrates his practice in the areas of International Tax and Estate Planning, Probate Law, and Representation of Resident and Non-Resident Aliens before the IRS.

Prior to joining Marini & Associates, P.A., he spent 32 years as the Senior Attorney with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Office of Deputy Commissioner, International.

While with the IRS, he examined approximately 2,000 Estate Tax Returns and litigated various international and tax issues associated with these returns.As a result of his experience, he has extensive knowledge of the issues associated with and the preparation of U.S. Estate Tax Returns for Resident and Non-Resident Aliens, Gift Tax Returns, Form 706QDT and Qualified Domestic Trusts.

 

How Does CRS & FATCA Affect US Taxpayers?

On May 26, 2017 we posted Last Chance To Come Clean ... Automatic Exchange of Information Reporting Is Imminent! where we discussed that CRS participating jurisdictions began to exchange information in 2017 and returns where required to be submitted by May 31, 2017, including Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories.

We also provided a List of countries who have agreed to share information.  Financial institutions, for example, banks, building societies, insurance companies, investment companies, will provide information on non-UK residents with financial accounts and investments in the UK to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC). HMRC will share this information with the relevant countries. Information for financial institutions.

Hovever, the U.S. has not signed on to CRS, so the US does not receive information pursuant to CRS! 
 

Instead, the U.S. receives information pursuant to the IGAs executed under FATCA, another form of automatic exchange of information.   

Under FATCA, foreign jurisdictions generally report:

1. Name,
2. Address,
3. Taxpayer identification number (TIN),
4. Account number,
5. Account balance or value,
6. Gross amounts paid to the account in the year and
7. Total gross proceeds paid or credited to the account. 

Under CRS, the signatories receive similar information, as well as, date and place of birth of the individual account holders. 

For entity accounts where one or more controlling persons are reportable persons, CRS require the institution to report the:

1. Name,
2. Address,
3. Country(s) of residence, and
4. TIN of the entity.

as well as the: 

1. Name,
2. Address,
3. Country(s) of residence,
4. TIN and
5. The date and place of birth of each reportable person. 

FATCA is Just One Source of Information for the U.S. !

Other options include:

1. Specific requests for information (requests pursuant to tax treaties, TIEAs, MLATs, etc.),
2. Simultaneous exchanges,
3. Spontaneous exchanges, and
4. Informal exchanges, etc.

So what is the impact of CRS on US Taxpayer's Foreign Investments?

1. Unless and until the US signs on to the OCED CRS reporting regime, the is no automatic reporting of information to the IRS from treaty partners who have received information from 3^rd countries pursuant to CRS .
2. The US will get its automatic information solely from FATCA and IGAs with each individual country and
3. During actual tax audits or criminal prosecutions , the IRS can use specific requests for information (requests pursuant to tax treaties, TIEAs, MLATs, etc.), simultaneous exchanges, spontaneous exchanges, informal exchanges, etc.

Deciding which tool to use often depends on the nature of the IRS investigation and the particular facts and circumstances of the case.  For example, MLATs are generally used to gather and exchange information in Criminal Investigations.

So while things have changed a lot in the past several years (FATCA, CRS, BEPS, etc.), unless and until the US signs on to CRS, which currently appears unlikely, it will have to look exclusively to FATCA and their IGAs with each separate country, which should be more than sufficient, to obtain information regarding foreign holdings of US taxpayers.

Despite the fact that the US does not participate in CRS and that US companies are not in scope of CRS, US companies and their subsidiaries, certainly the ones that are based in or have accounts or investments in countries which participate in CRS, will have to be classified and documented for CRS purpose. So CRS does impact US companies who have subsidiaries or branches in tax favorable countries.

US companies should reevaluate their current structures to determine whether they will be able to defend their royalty stripped out to Luxembourg from others CRS member nations, their interest, strip out to Ireland from other CRS member nations and other tax favorable payments from CRS member nations , which were prior to CRS, unknown by the country where the payments were being made and deducted.

 

Since there is no CRS equivalent of W-9/W-8-Ben-E documentation, US companies will have to deal with a variety of forms in various foreign languages and processes to make their subsidiaries CRS compliant. 

Whether the US will ever join CRS is doubtful but what is certain is that promoting tax transparency and new international standards is a global priority and finding ‘somewhere to hide’ is becoming increasingly difficult for those who continue to try to outwit the authorities! 

Need FATCA or CRS Help?

 

 

  Want to Know if the OVDP Program is Right for You?

 

 

Contact the Tax Lawyers at 

Marini& Associates, P.A.  

 

 

for a FREE Tax Consultation

at: www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com or

Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disregarded Entities Are Not Always Disregarded

Under the check the box rules, entities owned by one person can often be disregarded for federal tax purposes. Such entities are referred to as "disregarded entities." 

As time has progressed since the passage of the check the box rules, the IRS has created more and more exceptions to the disregarded treatment. The following is a summary of the principal exceptions, but is not intended to be exhaustive. If any readers think we have missed anything major, please feel free to comment to this posting.

1. Status is modified if the single owner of the entity is a bank. Treas. Regs. Section 301.7701-2(c)(2) (iii). 
2. Status is modified for certain tax liabilities. Treas. Regs. Section 301.7701-2(c)(2)(iii). These include: (1) federal tax liabilities of the entity with respect to any taxable period for which the entity was not disregarded; (2) federal tax liabilities of any other entity for which the entity is liable; and (3) refunds or credits of federal tax. 
3. Disregarded status ignored or modified for taxes imposed under Subtitle - Employment Taxes and Collection of Income Tax (Chapters 21, 22, 23, 23A 24, and 25 of the Code) and taxes imposed under Subtitle A including Chapter 2 - Tax on SelffEmployment Income. Treas. Regs. Section 301.7701-2(c) (2) (iv) (A). 
4. Status is modified for certain excise taxes, as described in Treas.Regs. Section 301.7701-2(c)(2J(v). Although liability for excise taxes isn't dependent on an entity's classification, an entity's classification is relevant for certain tax administration purposes, such as determining the proper location for filing a notice of federal tax lien and the place for hand-carrying a return under Code Section 6091
5. Conduit financing proposed regulations will treat a disregarded entity as separate from its single member. Code Section 7701 (I).
6. Special rules will apply in hybrid situations. Hybrid situations are circumstances where an entity is not disregarded in one jurisdiction but is disregarded in another.
7.  Final regulations (TD 9796) that treat domestic disregarded entities wholly owned, directly or indirectly, by foreign persons  as domestic corporations solely for purposes of making them subject to the reporting requirements under Internal Revenue Code, Section 6038A that apply to 25% foreign-owned domestic corporations.

 

Have a Tax Problem?  

 



 

Contact the Tax Lawyers at

Marini & Associates, P.A.

 for a FREE Tax Consultation Contact US at

www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com

or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243).

 

 

 

CPA Advice May Not Constitute Reasonable Cause to Stop FBAR Penalties

Taxpayers have been able to rely on advice from their accountants and CPAs to meet the complicated tax filing imposed by the U.S. Tax Code. But a case currently pending in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims suggests that CPA advice may not be enough to stop the IRS from assessing FBAR penalties for non-willful reporting violations.

A current case in the United States Court of Federal Claims, Jarnagin v United States, Docket No. 15-1534-T, shows what can happen when an unsuspecting taxpayer fails to file FBAR forms after providing all the requisite information regarding the foreign account to their accountant/CPA.

The Jarnagin were a married couple. Mr. Jarnagin owns and operates a farm and ranch in British Columbia. He became a Canadian Citizen in 1989 and spent a significant portion of each year in the country. Because of his business there, the Jarnagins maintained bank accounts with the Canadian bank CIBC, which had balances of $4 million on December 31, 2006, $3,500,000 in 2007, and $3,860,000 in 2008. Mr. Jarnagin employed a Canadian accounting firm to handle all his Canadian tax preparation.

Mrs. Jarnagin is a real estate broker and property owner in Oklahoma. She relied heavily on her bookkeeper, Misty Fairchild. Every year, Fairchild would turn over the couple’s financial statements, including the CIBC accounts and their balances to Mrs. Jarnagin’s CPA. During the years that Ms. Fairchild represented the Jarnagins, she went back to school to become an accountant, and eventually a CPA. Mrs. Jarnagin eventually transferred her business to Fairchild and her brother Kyle Zybach, who was also a licensed CPA.

However, neither Zybach nor Fairchild were aware of the Jarnagins’ FBAR reporting requirements, until 2010 when Zybach attended continuing education to maintain his CPA license. Even though the Jarnagin’s financial statements had included the foreign bank account, and their tax returns had disclosed the interest, no FBARs were ever filed. In addition, Schedule B, which asks whether the taxpayer has control over foreign accounts was incorrectly marked “No.”

In 2011, the IRS conducted an audit of the Jarnagins’ 2008 & 2009 tax returns. The audit revealed two wire transfers from the CIBC account. While the tax amounts were confirmed by the audit, the transfers triggered an investigation into the couple’s FBAR violations. Because of the audit, the couple were advised not to participate in a voluntary disclosure program or file the missing FBAR forms. The IRS issued non-willful FBAR penalties against both Mr. & Mrs. Jarnagin for four years totaling $80,000.00.

The non-willful FBAR penalties may not be levied if the taxpayer properly reported the “amount of the transaction or the balance of the account” and had “reasonable cause” for failing to file the FBAR on time.

The Jarnagins argued that they did have reasonable cause: the advice (or lack thereof) of their CPA. This argument is based on three tests described in Neonatology Assocs., P.A. v Commissioner, for reasonable cause:

1. The taxpayer hired a competent professional adviser with sufficient expertise to justify reliance
2. The taxpayer gave that adviser accurate and complete information, and
3. The taxpayer relied in good faith on the adviser’s judgment.

The Jarnagins claim that by providing complete financial statements to their licensed CPAs every year, which included the CIBC account, and relying on those professionals to complete their tax returns, they meet the Neonatology requirements.

The IRS however takes the position that a CPA’s advice isn’t automatically enough to raise a reasonable cause defense. The IRS’s lawyers point to several facts to argue the Jarnagins were willfully negligent in their tax reporting duties:

• Zybach and Fairchild had no experience with foreign accounts
• The Jarnagins didn’t inquire into their CPAs’ experience before hiring them
• The Jarnagins didn’t specifically ask about FBAR reporting requirements or how the international accounts would affect their tax returns
• The Jarnagins did not carefully review the tax returns before signing them.

The IRS argues that other cases provide that a taxpayer is assumed to have read and understood their tax return when they sign it, citing his authority non-FBAR cases, which stand for the proposition that hiring a CPA does not absolve a taxpayer for misstatements or errors in their tax returns.

It remains to be seen if these same arguments hold true for FBAR reporting requirements.Weather the court will distinguish FBAR penalties from the IRS cited case law remains to be seen. If the government wins its claim, it could impose strict liability on taxpayers who don’t even know they have done anything wrong.

Have an FBAR Problem?

 

 

 

 

Want to Know if the OVDP Program

is Right for You?

 

Contact the Tax Lawyers at 

Marini& Associates, P.A.  

 

 

for a FREE Tax Consultation

at: www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com or

Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243