Former UBS Client Sentenced for Stashing $7.1 Million in Swiss Accounts

Bloomberg reports that Richard Werdiger, 64, is one of 36 Americans charged since 2007 in a U.S. crackdown on offshore tax evasion, and his was the longest prison term by a day. Werdiger, who pleaded guilty in March in federal court in New York, paid a civil penalty of $3.84 million and was fined $50,000 yesterday at his sentencing.

A New York diamond merchant, who is a former client of the Swiss banking giant UBS AG has, been sentenced to a year and a day in prison for hiding more than $7.1 million in Swiss bank accounts and evading more than $400,000 in U.S. taxes, prosecutors announced Nov. 9 (United States v. Werdiger, S.D.N.Y., No. 10-CR-325, sentencing 11/9/11).

The penalty was part of his plea agreement when he admitted in March to a single count of conspiring to defraud IRS and five counts of filing false tax returns. His prison term was just over half of the lower end of a range of 24 months to 30 months recommended in the plea agreement.

Public Anger and Shareholder Unease Threaten Tax Havens' Tranquility

The Economist recently reported that - Under intense international pressure to lift banking secrecy, the first and biggest of the world’s “tax havens”—places that charge low or no taxes to foreigners—is ceding some ground. In a deal signed on October 6th, Switzerland agreed to tax money held in its banks by British residents (it had already done a similar deal with Germany). These customers face a levy of up to 34% as well as, from 2013, a withholding tax.

That could bring the British treasury around £5 billion ($7.8 billion). But Nicholas Shaxson, author of “Treasure Islands”, a book on offshore finance (and a former contributor to this paper), calls it a “Swiss tax swizz”: the country will in effect pay a fat fee to avoid revealing clients’ names. That undermines efforts at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a Paris-based club of mostly rich countries, to set international standards on tax evasion.

Global Financial Integrity, a campaigning group, says poor countries “lose” more than $1 trillion a year to tax havens, around ten times the aid they receive. Two-thirds of this is tax evasion and avoidance, the group says, the rest transfers by criminals and the corrupt. Another outfit of fiscal inquisitors, the Tax Justice Network (TJN), cites research by the Bank for International Settlements, the Boston Consulting Group and McKinsey to calculate that global offshore deposits amount to at least $9 trillion, some $2 trillion more than the total held at home by American banks. ActionAid, a charity, published research this week showing that the companies in the FTSE 100 index had 8,492 offshore subsidiaries.

Campaigners also want to see more countries agree to the automatic exchange of tax information on non-residents. Bilateral tax treaties normally require such exchanges only on request. This works if the government seeking information knows precisely what it is looking for and if the host government can obtain it. As this issue has moved up policymakers’ agendas, some havens have voluntarily become more co-operative. The Isle of Man, for instance, now automatically swaps information (though Jersey refuses to follow suit for fear of losing “competitive advantage”).

Overall, however, resistance to change remains strong, not least in big Western financial centre's such as Wall Street and in the City of London, which see the flexibility offered by tax havens as an essential part of their business model. Public discontent may be filling the campaigners’ sails, but political support for reforms is still patchy. France, which holds the presidency of the Group of 20 (a club of the world’s biggest economies) wants to discuss tax havens at next month’s meeting in Cannes. But other countries are less keen, and more urgent items crowd the agenda.

Swiss Order Credit Suisse to Disclose U.S. Account Information

The Swiss government has ordered Credit Suisse, the country’s second-largest bank, to hand over information on undeclared bank accounts held by U.S. taxpayers, a move that represents the latest escalation of U.S. efforts to tear down Switzerland’s previously impenetrable wall of banking secrecy.

Credit Suisse AG, Switzerland's second-largest bank, has begun notifying certain U.S. clients suspected of offshore tax evasion that it intends to turn over their names to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, with the help of Swiss tax authorities.

The bank has been asked by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service to provide the requested information in line with an existing 1996 bilateral tax treaty between Switzerland and the United States, a Credit Suisse spokesman confirmed Nov. 8.

Credit Suisse mailed letters Nov. 2 to certain U.S. clients notifying them that the bank has been ordered to deliver information to the Swiss authorities, the spokesman said. The clients have also been told they must provide the Swiss authorities the name of a person authorized in Switzerland to receive legal documents and orders on their behalf.

The move by Credit Suisse to disclose American client names and account information is the latest twist in a showdown between Switzerland and the United States over the battered tradition of Swiss bank secrecy.

U.S. authorities, who suspect tens of thousands of wealthy Americans of evading billions of dollars in taxes through Swiss private banks in recent years, are conducting a widening criminal investigation into scores of Swiss banks, including Credit Suisse.

It is unclear how many American clients of Credit Suisse hold private banking accounts that have gone undeclared to U.S. tax authorities.

For more information go to Reuters.

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.

Switzerland, Liechtenstein Among 11 ‘Tax Havens'

President Nicolas Sarkozy Nov. 4 named 11 jurisdictions that he said the world's leading economies consider “tax havens,” because they have failed to adequately adopt or implement legal systems to allow tax information exchange and transparency.

Countries Identified as Havens.

In his final press conference in which he described summit outcomes, Sarkozy said that, in a report to the G-20, the Global Forum on Transparency and Information Exchange for Tax Purposes, fingered:

• Antigua
• Barbados
• Botswana
• Brunei
• Panama
• the Seychelles
• Trinidad and Tobago
• Uruguay and
• Vanuatu

as lacking legal systems that allow exchange of information for tax purposes.

He said the reports name two more, Liechtenstein and Switzerland, that he said have failed to adequately implement information exchange mechanisms that they have recently adopted.

“Countries that remain tax havens with banking secrecy will have to answer to the international committee,” Sarkozy warned.

OECD Comment.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which hosts the Global Forum, cautioned that the 11 countries Sarkozy named, which are all forum members, have committed to make changes to improve their information exchange.

Another BLACK LIST? 

Stay Tuned!

No Swiss payment offer over U.S. tax probe

ZURICH, Nov 4 (Reuters) - Switzerland has not offered a financial settlement to end a U.S. tax investigation into a number of Swiss banks but remains willing to hand over bank client names as part of any deal, a government spokesman said on Friday.
Basler Kantonalbank , Credit Suisse and Julius Baer are among 11 Swiss banks under investigation in connection with allegations they helped Americans dodge taxes.

Mario Tuor, a spokesman for the Swiss department responsible for international financial affairs, reiterated Switzerland's stance that client names could be transferred under existing double-taxation treaties.

While Switzerland has expressed an interest in sealing a deal for the whole banking sector, Tuor would not comment on a report that the government had offered a deal for the country's more than 300 banks.

"I assume that we will find a solution by the end of the year," she told the weekly Bilanz, adding Switzerland would continue to refuse any so-called 'fishing expeditions', or broad requests for bank client data with little evidence.

But parliament should deal with a government proposal to allow U.S. authorities to request help finding names of suspected tax dodgers based on defined behavioural patterns in its December session, she told Bilanz.

Credit Suisse said earlier this week it had taken a provision of 295 million Swiss francs ($334 million) for settling the U.S. investigation, suggesting a deal might be near. It said the final settlement might exceed the current provision.

Asked whether Credit Suisse would have to hand over more client details than the 4,450 UBS had to provide, Widmer-Schlumpf said Switzerland would only deliver more bank data when its courts had denied any client appeals.

Opting Out Of IRS Voluntary Disclosure?

OVCI #2 was announced February 8, 2011, to allow taxpayers to come clean with foreign accounts and get into compliance with the IRS. The program runs through August 31, 2011, but in some cases can be extended until November 29, 2011.
Some find the system inflexible and fear they may be paying more than necessary given their facts.

There’s been discussion of “opting out” of the program to take your chances in audit, but it’s a topic fraught with fear. Now, however, there is guidance about opting out of the program that makes much of it transparent.

Program Basics. Under the OVDI, taxpayers are subject to a penalty of 25 percent of the highest aggregate account balance on their undisclosed account(s) between 2003 and 2010. If the value was less than $75,000 at all times during those years, the penalty is only 12.5 percent. See FAQ 53. Moreover, in limited inheritance situations, a penalty of only 5 percent may be imposed. See FAQ 52.

These account balance penalties are in lieu of all other penalties that may apply, including FBAR and offshore-related information return penalties. Plus, participants are required to pay taxes and interest on any monies (such as interest income on foreign accounts) they previously failed to report. Finally, they must pay an accuracy-related penalty equal to 20 percent of the underpayment of tax, plus interest.
Opting Out. Opting out of the program can make sense for some, though it involves taking your chances with an IRS examination. The IRS has published a separate guide detailing the rules and procedures for opting out. The IRS illustrates pros and cons of opting out with examples.  See FAQ 51.
Here are some of the rules.

1.     Program Status Report. Before you can opt out, the IRS sends a letter reporting on the status of your disclosure and what you still must submit. If you’ve given enough data, the IRS will calculate what you would owe under the OVDI. You should provide any missing items within 30 days.

2.     Written Warning. The IRS sends another letter explaining that opting out must be in writing and is irrevocable. You have 20 days thereafter to opt out in writing.

3.     Taxpayer Submission. Within 20 days, the taxpayer opts out in writing and makes a written case what penalties should apply and why.

4.     IRS Summary. The IRS employee who has been handling your case summarizes it, agreeing or disagreeing with your view of penalties, and listing how extensive an audit he or she recommends.

5.     Central Committee. A Committee of IRS Managers reviews the summary and decides how extensive an audit to conduct. The IRS says “the taxpayer is not to be punished (or rewarded) for opting out.” The Committee also decides whether to assign your case for a normal civil audit or to assign it for a Criminal exam.

6.     Interview? Some audits will include taxpayer interviews.

Bottom Line? The opt out procedure is helpful but still a bit daunting.

If you are considering it, make sure you get some solid advice from an experienced tax lawyer about the nature of your facts. See FAQ 51.