August 10, 2010
Tougher Tax Law For Overseas Assets
(Dow Jones) A new U.S. law that is part of a crackdown on tax havens means that wealthy clients will be hit with stricter filing requirements next tax season.
New rules will result in duplicate reporting for some taxpayers and steep penalties for those who fail to comply. The law makes it more difficult to hide assets overseas, partly by taxing foreign banks that don't share information about U.S. account holders.
READ MORE:
Tougher Tax Law For Overseas Assets
The link above illustrates the need for proper tax counsel and full reporting when dealing with any offshore assets.
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act of 2009 (Rangel-Baucus Bill)
The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act of 2009 (Rangel-Baucus Bill)
Recent Offshore Tax Haven Legislation
Since 2007, numerous attempts have been made at passing targeted tax haven legislation. Although none of these initiatives has progressed in any meaningful way thus far, under the Obama Administration there is a much higher likelihood that this type of legislation will be promoted.
SEE THE WHOLE STORY HERE
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0bab19ec-e537-4822-bf77-f67d6ebf0dcd&utm_source=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Lexology%20subscriber%20daily%20feed&utm_content=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed%202010-01-29&utm_term=
Recent Offshore Tax Haven Legislation
Since 2007, numerous attempts have been made at passing targeted tax haven legislation. Although none of these initiatives has progressed in any meaningful way thus far, under the Obama Administration there is a much higher likelihood that this type of legislation will be promoted.
SEE THE WHOLE STORY HERE
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0bab19ec-e537-4822-bf77-f67d6ebf0dcd&utm_source=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Lexology%20subscriber%20daily%20feed&utm_content=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed%202010-01-29&utm_term=
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Life insurance proceeds received by limited partnership not included in gross estate of insured limited partner
In Private Letter Rulings 200947006 & 200948001, the IRS considered whether a series of transactions among a partnership, corporations and trusts which altered the ownership and beneficiary designations of two life insurance policies required inclusion of the policies in the insured's estate.
See the Whole Article here: http://tinyurl.com/y865vlp
See the Whole Article here: http://tinyurl.com/y865vlp
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
OWN A BUSINESS? SEE THIS GREAT END OF YEAR TAX STRATEGY
YEAR END DEDUCTION OR TAX ON RETAINED EARNINGS?
GUEST COLUMN By Ira L. Barnett, LUTCF
OK. We’re coming to the end of the year and my C-corporation made more money than projected (surprise, surprise in this economy) and has a decision to make: take a tax hit to Retained Earnings or find a deduction to offset some of the profits.
The Federal government, anticipating the Baby Boomer’s need for extended healthcare services, as they age, and wanting to deflect high utilization of Medicaid, created HIPAA (OK, this isn’t the only reason).
HIPAA (The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) affects how Long Term Care insurance (LTCi) premiums and benefits are taxed, but, in this context, the primary concern is deductibility of the premiums.
Hey, wait a minute, we’re Baby Boomers. Spouse and I are getting older and we can expect, as that happens, that one (or both) of us will develop a condition that doesn’t allow us to do the things we used to do as easily as we used to do them. In fact, we may need, on occasion, someone to give us a hand.
Since we’re a C-corporation, we have kind of a ‘Trifecta’:
1. I can deduct, as a business deduction, 100% of the cost of LTC insurance for myself
AND for Spouse.
2. The premiums paid are not includible as income on my/our personal tax return.
3. Benefits paid aren’t taxable, at time of claim.
Oh, by the way, I do NOT have to cover any other employee. I can pick and choose, and if I only want to cover myself and Spouse - it’s OK.
But, if we do cover another employee, we can give them a very reduced benefit plan (compared to ours), and maybe, get some accommodations on the premiums charged and/or the underwriting rules applied to all of us. Wow, this is getting better and better.
In fact, I need to call my brother-in-law. His firm is an LLC taxed as a corporation and he’s eligible also. Oh yeah, Cousin Lou has that not-for-profit, and he’s can do this too.
Guess the next step is to sit down (and quickly) with my accountant and attorney, and that LTC insurance specialist that was calling, and have a conversation (wonder why my financial planner didn’t bring this up?).
Ira L. Barnett, LUTCF has been in the financial services industry since 1980. He is consulting with CFP®’s, CPA’s, attorneys and stock brokers to help them integrate Long Term Care insurance into
their practices, not as an insurance product, but, as a risk management strategy,.
Ira’s practice is centered in Orange County, California and he can be contacted via e-mail at iraleeb@aol.com or by telephone at either (847) 361-0030 or (714) 983-7901.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To comply with U.S. Treasury Department and IRS regulations, we are required to advise you that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this e-mail, including attachments to this e-mail, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code
GUEST COLUMN By Ira L. Barnett, LUTCF
OK. We’re coming to the end of the year and my C-corporation made more money than projected (surprise, surprise in this economy) and has a decision to make: take a tax hit to Retained Earnings or find a deduction to offset some of the profits.
The Federal government, anticipating the Baby Boomer’s need for extended healthcare services, as they age, and wanting to deflect high utilization of Medicaid, created HIPAA (OK, this isn’t the only reason).
HIPAA (The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) affects how Long Term Care insurance (LTCi) premiums and benefits are taxed, but, in this context, the primary concern is deductibility of the premiums.
Hey, wait a minute, we’re Baby Boomers. Spouse and I are getting older and we can expect, as that happens, that one (or both) of us will develop a condition that doesn’t allow us to do the things we used to do as easily as we used to do them. In fact, we may need, on occasion, someone to give us a hand.
Since we’re a C-corporation, we have kind of a ‘Trifecta’:
1. I can deduct, as a business deduction, 100% of the cost of LTC insurance for myself
AND for Spouse.
2. The premiums paid are not includible as income on my/our personal tax return.
3. Benefits paid aren’t taxable, at time of claim.
Oh, by the way, I do NOT have to cover any other employee. I can pick and choose, and if I only want to cover myself and Spouse - it’s OK.
But, if we do cover another employee, we can give them a very reduced benefit plan (compared to ours), and maybe, get some accommodations on the premiums charged and/or the underwriting rules applied to all of us. Wow, this is getting better and better.
In fact, I need to call my brother-in-law. His firm is an LLC taxed as a corporation and he’s eligible also. Oh yeah, Cousin Lou has that not-for-profit, and he’s can do this too.
Guess the next step is to sit down (and quickly) with my accountant and attorney, and that LTC insurance specialist that was calling, and have a conversation (wonder why my financial planner didn’t bring this up?).
Ira L. Barnett, LUTCF has been in the financial services industry since 1980. He is consulting with CFP®’s, CPA’s, attorneys and stock brokers to help them integrate Long Term Care insurance into
their practices, not as an insurance product, but, as a risk management strategy,.
Ira’s practice is centered in Orange County, California and he can be contacted via e-mail at iraleeb@aol.com or by telephone at either (847) 361-0030 or (714) 983-7901.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To comply with U.S. Treasury Department and IRS regulations, we are required to advise you that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this e-mail, including attachments to this e-mail, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code
Saturday, September 12, 2009
MOST COMMON ABUSIVE TAX SCHEMES - WHAT THE IRS SAYS
I continually warn clients and advisors that there are good and bad methods, tools and practitioners in every business including Asset Protection. The worst plans I see combine abusive tax plans with supposed Asset Protection benefits. These plans typically involve IBCs, Nevada Trusts, and Domestic Asset Protection Trusts in some combination. Generally speaking these are the WORST tools to use for a variety of reasons. We use offshore tools effectively and legally everyday for Asset Protection and other issues. The tools we use are explicitly TAX NEUTRAL because we don't want our clients relying on these tools for protection and estate preservation and fighting the IRS at the same time, a common fatal flaw that is spawned by greed and promises of tax savings that top professionals will never make. Below is what the IRS has to say in their own words.
Yours, Ike
Tax evasion using foreign jurisdictions is accomplished using many different methods. Some can be as simple as taking unreported cash receipts and personally traveling to a tax haven country and depositing the cash into a bank account. Others are more elaborate involving numerous domestic and foreign trusts, partnerships, nominees, etc. The following schemes are not all-inclusive, but just a sample of abusive tax schemes.
Abusive Foreign Trust Schemes: The foreign trust schemes usually start off as a series of domestic trusts layered upon one another. This set up is used to give the appearance that the taxpayer has turned his/her business and assets over to a trust and is no longer in control of the business or its assets. Once transferred to the domestic trust, the income and expenses are passed to one or more foreign trusts, typically in tax haven countries.
As an example, a taxpayer's business is split into two trusts. One trust would be the business trust that is in charge of the daily operations. The other trust is an equipment trust formed to hold the business's equipment that is leased back to the business trust at inflated rates to nullify any income reported on the business trust tax return (Form 1041). Next the income from the equipment trust is distributed to foreign trust-one, again, which nullifies any tax due on the equipment trust tax return. Foreign trust-one then distributes all or most of its income to foreign trust-two. Since all of foreign trust-two's income is foreign based there is no filing requirement.
Once the assets are in foreign trust-two, a bank account is opened either under the trust name or an International Business Corporation (IBC). The trust documentation and business records of this scheme all make it appear that the taxpayer is no longer in control of his/her business or its assets. The reality is that nothing ever changed. The taxpayer still exercises full control over his/her business and assets. There can be many different variations to the scheme.
International Business Corporations (IBC): The taxpayer establishes an IBC with the exact name as that of his/her business. The IBC also has a bank account in the foreign country. As the taxpayer receives checks from customers, he sends them to the bank in the foreign country. The foreign bank then uses its correspondent account in to process the checks so that it never would appear to the customer, upon reviewing the canceled check that the payment was sent offshore. Once the checks clear, the taxpayer's IBC account is credited for the check payments. Here the taxpayer has, again, transferred the unreported income offshore to a tax haven jurisdiction.
False Billing Schemes: A taxpayer sets up an International Business Corporation (IBC) in a tax haven country with a nominee as the owner (usually the promoter). A bank account is then opened under the IBC. On the bank's records the taxpayer would be listed as a signatory on the account. The promoter then issues invoices to the taxpayer's business for goods allegedly purchased by the taxpayer. The taxpayer then sends payment to the IBC that gets deposited into the joint account held by the IBC and taxpayer. The taxpayer takes a business deduction for the payment to the IBC thereby reducing his/her taxable income and has safely placed the unreported income into the foreign bank account.
Original Link:http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement/article/0,,id=105822,00.html
Yours, Ike
Tax evasion using foreign jurisdictions is accomplished using many different methods. Some can be as simple as taking unreported cash receipts and personally traveling to a tax haven country and depositing the cash into a bank account. Others are more elaborate involving numerous domestic and foreign trusts, partnerships, nominees, etc. The following schemes are not all-inclusive, but just a sample of abusive tax schemes.
Abusive Foreign Trust Schemes: The foreign trust schemes usually start off as a series of domestic trusts layered upon one another. This set up is used to give the appearance that the taxpayer has turned his/her business and assets over to a trust and is no longer in control of the business or its assets. Once transferred to the domestic trust, the income and expenses are passed to one or more foreign trusts, typically in tax haven countries.
As an example, a taxpayer's business is split into two trusts. One trust would be the business trust that is in charge of the daily operations. The other trust is an equipment trust formed to hold the business's equipment that is leased back to the business trust at inflated rates to nullify any income reported on the business trust tax return (Form 1041). Next the income from the equipment trust is distributed to foreign trust-one, again, which nullifies any tax due on the equipment trust tax return. Foreign trust-one then distributes all or most of its income to foreign trust-two. Since all of foreign trust-two's income is foreign based there is no filing requirement.
Once the assets are in foreign trust-two, a bank account is opened either under the trust name or an International Business Corporation (IBC). The trust documentation and business records of this scheme all make it appear that the taxpayer is no longer in control of his/her business or its assets. The reality is that nothing ever changed. The taxpayer still exercises full control over his/her business and assets. There can be many different variations to the scheme.
International Business Corporations (IBC): The taxpayer establishes an IBC with the exact name as that of his/her business. The IBC also has a bank account in the foreign country. As the taxpayer receives checks from customers, he sends them to the bank in the foreign country. The foreign bank then uses its correspondent account in to process the checks so that it never would appear to the customer, upon reviewing the canceled check that the payment was sent offshore. Once the checks clear, the taxpayer's IBC account is credited for the check payments. Here the taxpayer has, again, transferred the unreported income offshore to a tax haven jurisdiction.
False Billing Schemes: A taxpayer sets up an International Business Corporation (IBC) in a tax haven country with a nominee as the owner (usually the promoter). A bank account is then opened under the IBC. On the bank's records the taxpayer would be listed as a signatory on the account. The promoter then issues invoices to the taxpayer's business for goods allegedly purchased by the taxpayer. The taxpayer then sends payment to the IBC that gets deposited into the joint account held by the IBC and taxpayer. The taxpayer takes a business deduction for the payment to the IBC thereby reducing his/her taxable income and has safely placed the unreported income into the foreign bank account.
Original Link:http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement/article/0,,id=105822,00.html
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
THE ROLE OF "SECRECY" IN ASSET PROTECTION
The Excerpts and Links below emphasize yet another reason that the
best Asset Protection plans are:
1. Tax Neutral;
2. Involve paying and reporting taxable income from all sources;
3. Are drafted by a professional with experience in such issues;
4. AND DON'T RELY ON SECRECY
I tell our clients this:
Secrecy is hiding something and “hoping” no one finds it. Hope is not a plan as we have learned since the last election. Secrecy based plans rely purely on that hope of secrecy and your willingness to perjure yourself before the courts.
Have a real plan that is tax neutral and which you CAN disclose without fear.
The Cost Of Secrecy
By Barbara T. Kaplan
On February 18, something happened that should be taken as a wake-up call by investors with secret foreign bank accounts: UBS AG signed a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice that resulted in the names and private Swiss account records of 300 U.S. taxpayers being released to the IRS. A second agreement announced this month is expected to result in UBS turning over thousands of more names.
SEE THE WHOLE STORY HERE: http://tinyurl.com/lt8kc3
STORY #2
U.S., Swiss nail deal on secret bank accounts The Swiss and U.S. governments announced a deal Wednesday to settle American demands for the identities of suspected tax dodgers, despite Switzerland's vaunted bank secrecy.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32386100/ns/business-world_business/from/ET
STORY#3
Days of Secret Swiss Bank Accounts May Be Numbered
http://www.cnbc.com/id/32389493
best Asset Protection plans are:
1. Tax Neutral;
2. Involve paying and reporting taxable income from all sources;
3. Are drafted by a professional with experience in such issues;
4. AND DON'T RELY ON SECRECY
I tell our clients this:
Secrecy is hiding something and “hoping” no one finds it. Hope is not a plan as we have learned since the last election. Secrecy based plans rely purely on that hope of secrecy and your willingness to perjure yourself before the courts.
Have a real plan that is tax neutral and which you CAN disclose without fear.
The Cost Of Secrecy
By Barbara T. Kaplan
On February 18, something happened that should be taken as a wake-up call by investors with secret foreign bank accounts: UBS AG signed a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice that resulted in the names and private Swiss account records of 300 U.S. taxpayers being released to the IRS. A second agreement announced this month is expected to result in UBS turning over thousands of more names.
SEE THE WHOLE STORY HERE: http://tinyurl.com/lt8kc3
STORY #2
U.S., Swiss nail deal on secret bank accounts The Swiss and U.S. governments announced a deal Wednesday to settle American demands for the identities of suspected tax dodgers, despite Switzerland's vaunted bank secrecy.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32386100/ns/business-world_business/from/ET
STORY#3
Days of Secret Swiss Bank Accounts May Be Numbered
http://www.cnbc.com/id/32389493
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)