Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Reverse like Kind Exchange Approved where Two Related Parties Used the Same Swap Facilitator

In PLR 201242003, the IRS permitted tax deferral under Section 1031 even though the Exchange Accommodation Titleholder entered into Qualified Exchange Accommodation Arrangements with more than one entity, including entities related to the taxpayer, who both had a bona fide intent to utilize a reverse exchange format to defer capital gain taxes.
 
PLR 20122003 notes that Rev. Proc. 2000-37 does not prohibit an Exchange Accommodation Titleholder (EAT) from functioning as an such to more than one taxpayer under multiple Qualified Exchange Accommodation Arrangements (QEAA) for the same parked exchange property.
 
Under Code Sec. 1031, gain or loss isn't recognized currently on the exchange of property held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment for property of like kind that will be held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment. The replacement property must be identified within 45 days after the date that the property given up in the exchange is relinquished. Additionally, the taxpayer must actually receive the replacement property no later than (a) 180 days after the date that the property given up in the exchange is relinquished, or (b) the due date (with regard to extensions) for the taxpayer's return for the year in which the relinquished property is given up, whichever is earlier. (Code Sec. 1031(a)(3))

When a two-way (or direct) exchange of like-kind property isn't possible, the solution often is a multiparty deferred exchange. In a regular deferred exchange, Seller gives up his property first. Often, however, the replacement property must be received first, before Seller has transferred his property. In this situation, the transaction is structured as a reverse multiparty like-kind exchange.

In Rev Proc 2000-37, 2000-2 CB 308, IRS said it wouldn't challenge the qualification of property as either replacement or relinquished property, or the treatment of the exchange accommodation titleholder as the beneficial owner of either type of property, if the property is held in a “qualified exchange accommodation arrangement.”

Property is held in a QEAA if all the following requirements are met:

  1. Qualified indicia of ownership (QIO) of the property are held by the EAT from the date of acquisition by the EAT until the property is transferred to the taxpayer as replacement property or to someone other than the taxpayer or a disqualified person as relinquished property. Among other conditions, the EAT can't be the taxpayer or a disqualified person under Reg. § 1.1031(k)-1(k)). QIO means legal title, other indicia of ownership treated as beneficial ownership of the property under applicable principles of commercial law (e.g., a contract for deed), or interests in an entity that is disregarded as an entity separate from its owner for tax purposes (e.g., a single member limited liability company) and that holds either legal title to the property or such other indicia of ownership.
  2. When the QIO of the property is transferred to the EAT, it is the taxpayer's bona fide intent that the property represent either replacement property or relinquished property in an exchange intended to qualify for Code Sec. 1031 treatment.
  3. No later than five business days after QIO of the property are transferred to the EAT, the taxpayer and the EAT enter into a written QEAA providing that: (a) the EAT is holding the property for the benefit of the taxpayer to facilitate an exchange under Code Sec. 1031 and Rev Proc 2000-37; (b) both parties agree to report the acquisition, holding, and disposition of the property as provided in Rev Proc 2000-37; and (c) the EAT will be treated as the beneficial owner of the property for all federal income tax purposes. Both parties must report the federal income tax attributes of the property on their federal returns in a manner consistent with this agreement.
  4. No later than 45 days after the transfer of QIO of the replacement property to the EAT, the relinquished property is properly identified in a way consistent with the identification requirements in Reg. § 1.1031(k)-1(c). The taxpayer may properly identify alternative and multiple properties under the rules of Reg. § 1.1031(k)-1(c)(4).
  5. No later than 180 days after the transfer of QIO of the property to the EAT, (a) the property is transferred (either directly or indirectly) through a qualified intermediary (as defined in Reg. § 1.1031(k)-1(g)(4)) to the taxpayer as replacement property; or (b) the property is transferred to a person who is not the taxpayer or a disqualified person as relinquished property.
  6. The combined time period that the relinquished property and the replacement property are held in a QEAA does not exceed 180 days.

The PLR concludes that may enter into QEAAs with more than one entity, including persons related to Taxpayer, each of which has a bona fide intent to acquire the same property as the replacement property for their respective exchanges. Rev Proc 2000-37 , does not prohibit an accommodation party from serving as an EAT to multiple taxpayers under multiple and simultaneous QEAAs for the same parked property. The fact that Related Party's QEAA failed because Taxpayer timely acquired Property under its QEAA using the same EAT does not invalidate Taxpayer's QEAA.
 
Have a Tax Question?  Contact the Tax Lawyers at Marini & Associates, P.A. for a FREE Tax Consultation at www.TaxAid.us or www.TaxLaw.ms or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243).
 
 

 

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Russian Banks Soon Subject to U.S. Monitoring.



Russia's presidential executive office has been reviewing the U.S. anti-money laundering act known as FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act). Presidential economic advisor Elvira Nabiullina spearheaded a meeting with Finance Ministry, Foreign Ministry, Central Bank, Federal Financial Markets Service, Tax Service and National Payment Council officials, issuing instructions to prepare final proposals within the next two weeks on Russia's negotiating position regarding accession to FATCA, which is expected to come into effect on January 1, 2013. 

Fearing that Russian banks might sustain financial or goodwill damage, the National Payment Council addressed a letter to Russia's Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in June 2012 and requested that he begin developing the FATCA compliance mechanism for Russia. At the meeting initiated by Nabiullina, which came in response to the letter, the council came up with five options for Russia's participation in FATCA.

The first option envisages an intergovernmental agreement between Russia and the United States, under which Russian banks will enter into separate agreements with the IRS and disclose information on U.S. taxpayers directly but in a manner prescribed by national laws. This model has been adopted in Switzerland and Japan. According to National Payment Council President Andrei Yemelin, in view of the tight timeframe, this is the best option, though it is fraught with the risk of violating bank privacy laws.

The second possible model also rests on an intergovernmental agreement that would, unlike the previous option, lay the groundwork for centralized disclosure (this model has been implemented in France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands). If the model is adopted, banks will be required to submit all relevant information about U.S. taxpayers to the national regulator, which will then pass it on to the IRS. In return, the United States pledges to disclose to its partner nations information about accounts opened with U.S. financial organizations by their relevant taxpaying residents. 

The third option, strictly in line with U.S. law, also suggests direct agreements between Russian banks and the IRS, but is even harder on the banks. Aside from reporting to the U.S. tax authorities, the banks would be under obligation to deduct a 30-percent tax from or even close the accounts of those refusing to cooperate with the IRS. Yemelin noted that such a scenario, alongside the danger of breaching bank privacy laws, involves potentially problematic direct debit withdrawals for the benefit of a foreign government.

According to Yemelin, to implement any of the three options, additional national laws must be adopted. The procedure must also be mapped out by October 1, 2012, to followed by an intergovernmental agreement with the U.S. that must be entered into by January 1, 2013. In addition, banks need to be advised promptly of the particular compliance mechanism selected, to prevent them from entering into individual agreements with the IRS.

Any Russian federal law regulating FATCA compliance must be based on an intergovernmental agreement with the United States that is in line with the double tax treaty, Yemelin explained. Meanwhile, the government has not yet selected an exact scenario. Although the process of developing a FATCA participation mechanism has been launched, it is proceeding slowly.

"The most favorable and comfortable scenario for Russia would be to combine options", said Konstantin Trapaidze, Chairman of the Bar Association Vash Yuridichesky Poverenny. "First, we have to go with the model used by Switzerland and Japan ‒ individual agreements ‒ and work by this scheme until an intergovernmental agreement between Russia and the United States is reached on centralized transfer of information. Otherwise, the given initiative, which is so far feeble and unauthorized, will take on an unbalanced character, damaging Russian banks most of all," Trapaidze said. Meanwhile, the banks will have to bear the brunt of the accession anyway, head of financial monitoring at SMP Bank Inga Tumasyeva said: "Either way, the banks will incur material costs involved in implementing the changes. They have no choice, though, since they will otherwise become outcasts: compliance with FATCA has been virtually accepted by the global community."

If you have Unreported Income from Russian Banks or
other Foreign Banks, contact the Tax Lawyers of
Marini & Associates, P.A. for a FREE Tax Consultation at www.TaxAid.us orwww.TaxLaw.ms or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243).





Source:


 

Another Whistleblower Award - IRS Pays $38 Million!


The Internal Revenue Service has awarded an anonymous whistleblower $38 million for information leading to the recovery of between $127 million and $254 million in corporate taxes, according to the whistleblower's attorney. 


The payment is believed to be the second-largest whistleblower award under a program created by Congress that took effect in 2007.

The program awards between 15% and 30% of the taxes recovered by the IRS.

See our previous posts concerning IRS Whistle Blower Awards:

  1. IRS awash in whistleblowers after $104M payout!
  2. Attention All Whistle Blowers, The IRS Needs $$$!
  3. Tax Cheats May Claim IRS Whistleblower Rewards?
  4. Bradley Birkenfeld awarded $104 million (13% ) as UBS tax case whistleblower

The whistleblower's attorney, Scott Knott of Ferraro Law Firm in Washington, declined to name the whistleblower or the firm involved, although he said the corporation is among the top 500 public firms in the country. He released a redacted copy of the IRS's award notice verifying that the whistleblower received $38,037,899.

In July, IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman said publicly that the IRS was trying to determine claims in 10 whistleblower cases that were nearly complete.

Mr. Knott praised the IRS for its handling of the claim. "Both the existence and the name of the whistleblower remained completely confidential throughout this process, proving the IRS can reward corporate whistleblowers" without revealing their identity, he said.

Experts say this means the whistleblower likely was employed through much or all of the four years it took the IRS to process the claim.

Mr. Knott declined to discuss the issue involved in the claim, but did say it was more akin to aggressive corporate tax planning than outright fraud. He added that the claim was originally filed in early 2008, which means it was more quickly resolved than many cases.

Most tax-whistleblower cases take between 5 - 7 years to be resolved, in part because whistleblowers aren't paid until after the IRS is paid and the taxpayer's time to appeal has expired.

If you want to be a Wistle Blower or are Victum of a Wistle Blower, contact the Tax Lawyers at Marini & Associates, P.A. for a FREE Tax Consultation at www.TaxAid.us or www.TaxLaw.ms or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243).



Source:

WSJ



 

Friday, October 26, 2012

New Timelines for FATCA

We originally Posted on October 25, 2012 - FATCA Timelines for Due Diligence & Other Requirements - Ann 2012-42, which discusses IRS Announcement 2012-42. The announcement presents new timelines for due diligence, withholding and documentation requirements as well as guidance on gross proceeds and grandfathered obligations.

The following are the key timeline changes announced and a graphic charting of the changes:
















The announcement also includes a table to summarize the timing of certain due diligence requirements for withholding agents and financial institutions..

 
US Tax Rule Got you Wandering what to do?Contact the Tax Lawyers at:
Marini & Associates, P.A.
for a FREE Tax Consultation
www.TaxAid.us or www.TaxLaw.ms or
Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243).








Source:
BNA

Deloitte
 
 

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

FATCA Timelines for Due Diligence & Other Requirements - Ann 2012-42.


The Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department issued guidance Oct. 24, which provides certain timelines for withholding agents and foreign financial institutions to complete due diligence required under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).

Announcement 2012-42 comes in response to a flurry of comments about FATCA proposed rules (REG-121647-10) issued in February and designed to tackle tax evasion.

Comments identified practical issues in implementing the chapter 4 rules within the proposed time frames and also requested that obligations that may give rise to foreign passthrough payments be treated as grandfathered obligations under certain conditions, among other concerns, IRS said.

IRS recognized these issues and provided guidance concerning certain grandfathered obligations and withholding on gross proceeds in Announcement 2012-42.

This announcement outlines:
 
(i) certain timelines for withholding agents and foreign financial institutions (FFIs) to complete due diligence and other requirements and
 
(ii) certain additional guidance concerning gross proceeds withholding and the status of certain instruments as grandfathered obligations under sections 1471 through 1474 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code).
 
The Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intend to incorporate the rules described in this announcement in final regulations under sections 1471 through 1474.

The announcement also includes a table to summarize the timing of certain due diligence requirements for withholding agents and financial institutions.

Announcement 2012-42 publishes Nov. 19 in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2012-47.


US Tax Rule Got you Wandering what to do? ... Contact the Tax Lawyers at Marini & Associates, P.A. for a FREE Tax Consultation at www.TaxAid.us or www.TaxLaw.ms or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243).

 
 
Source:

BNA


Tuesday, October 23, 2012

So Much For Moving Your Swiss Account to Singapore.


Singapore plans to classify tax evasion and abetting tax evasion as money-laundering predicate offences so that the powers used to investigate and prosecute money laundering will be available to seize the proceeds of tax crimes.

Foreign jurisdictions may also make requests for legal assistance to pursue tax evaders and their proceeds. The proposals are out for consultation until 9 December and will become law in July 2013.

If you have Unreported Income from Switzerland, Singapore or Other Foreign Banks, contact the Tax Lawyers at Marini & Associates, P.A. for a FREE Tax Consultation at www.TaxAid.us orwww.TaxLaw.ms or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243).





Source:

Asian Investor

Singapore Business Times

Monetary Authority of Singapore






 

Law Firm That Issued Opinion on "Abusive Tax Shelter," may be Subject to RICO.


The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Sept. 19 reinstated racketeering and misrepresentation claims against a law firm that allegedly provided incomplete and misleading opinion letters about the tax consequences of a welfare benefit plan ultimately found to be an abusive tax shelter (Ouwinga v. Benistar 419 Plan Services Inc., 6th Cir., No. 10-2531, 9/19/12).
The complaint plausibly alleged civil claims against the firm under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act--which authorizes treble damage awards to victorious plaintiffs, the court decided in an opinion by Judge Jane B. Stranch. It also found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged the plaintiffs' reliance on the opinion letters as needed for them to pursue their misrepresentation claim.

Stephen Ouwinga and others filed a class action against various parties in connection with the nationwide marketing and selling of the Benistar 419 Plan, a purported tax-deductible welfare benefit plan.

The plaintiffs allege that the lawyers created opinion letters falsely promoting an investment scheme as a tax-saving device. Two of the defendants are Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP and attorney John H. Reid III. The plaintiffs assert that their decisions about the plan were partly based on a legal opinion that Reid issued in 1998, which was included in the marketing materials for the plan, and three opinions that Reid issued in 2003.

The plaintiffs terminated the plan in 2006. The IRS ultimately disallowed deductions related to the plan, which it held to be an “abusive tax shelter,” and assessed taxes, interest, and penalties.

The complaint alleges racketeering claims based on mail and wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. §1962(c), which makes it unlawful to conduct or participate in the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, and a RICO conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 1962(d)). It also alleges the tort of misrepresentation against all the defendants, along with an assortment of other state law claims against various defendants besides Edwards Angell and Reid.

The trial court dismissed the entire complaint. It found that the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead certain elements of a valid RICO claim, and that various disclosures and disclaimers doomed the plaintiffs' state law claims.

Construing the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the court determined that it stated viable RICO and misrepresentation claims against Edwards Angell and Reid.

Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count.

In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect treble damages.

Under the law, the meaning of racketeering activity is set out at 18 U.S.C. § 1961. As currently amended it includes:
  • Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act);
  • Any act of bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery, racketeering, gambling, money laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, and several other offenses covered under the Federal criminal code (Title 18);
  • Embezzlement of union funds;
  • Bankruptcy fraud or securities fraud;
  • Drug trafficking; long-term and elaborate drug networks can also be prosecuted using the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute;
  • Criminal copyright infringement;
  • Money laundering and related offenses;
  • Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliens in illegally entering the country (if the action was for financial gain);
  • Acts of terrorism. 
Regarding the RICO claims against Edwards Angell and Reid, the district court viewed the complaint as alleging that they merely rendered traditional legal services and did not participate in any affairs beyond the operation of their own business.

The appeals court didn't see it that way. The complaint alleged that the lawyer defendants carried out the directions of the Benistar entities by providing allegedly incomplete and misleading legal opinions, all the while knowing that contributions to the plan were not likely to be allowed as deductions, the court said.

Although the lawyer defendants provided the opinion letters to their client Benistar, the court said, the plaintiffs alleged the lawyers knew the purpose of the plan was to falsely represent tax benefits, knew of IRS warnings that these types of plans would not qualify for deductions, and created their opinion letters for the purpose of falsely promoting the plan as a tax-saving device to potential investors.

The complaint plausibly alleged that the lawyer defendants participated in the enterprise's affairs and not merely their own, the court concluded.

It also found that the complaint adequately alleged a pattern of racketeering activity sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. The similarity of the opinion issued in 1998 and those issued in 2003 can plausibly indicate, the court said, that the lawyer defendants participated in the fraudulent enterprise over that entire period.

Have a Tax Problem?  Contact the Tax Lawyers at Marini & Associates, P.A. for a FREE Tax Consultation at www.TaxAid.us or www.TaxLaw.ms or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243).


Source:

BNA