Tax Problem Attorney Blog

Failure to Pay Payroll Taxes Leads to Criminal Tax Charges

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 06:00:00 -0800

Last month, while most people were preparing their Christmas lists, Louis Alba, a New York contractor, plead guilty to criminal tax charges of failing to pay over to IRS employment taxes withheld from employee wages in the amount of almost $780,000 over approximately six years. Failure to pay over payroll taxes is considered a felony under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 7202. It is punishable by up to five years in jail, and a fine of up to $250,000.

In the current economic environment business owners who are strapped for cash sometimes decide to "borrow" from the IRS by not paying the payroll taxes. The theory is that if cash is tight, and the vendors aren't paid there will be no more merchandise to sell, and therefore the business will go under quickly. The same with the landlord; don't pay the rent, and one can expect an eviction notice in short order. The IRS on the other hand moves slowly, and the temptation is to believe that if you have another 6 months or so business will turn around, and the IRS can be paid back.

Unfortunately in many cases that doesn't happen. The IRS doesn't look on this as borrowing; it views the failure to pay payroll taxes as stealing. Even if criminal tax charges are not brought, so-called responsible officers who fail to pay over corporate payroll taxes can be held personally liable under IRC Section 6671. More and more, however, the IRS is bringing criminal tax fraud charges. For the record persons convicted of tax crimes still must pay the taxes. It's not one or the other.

Swiss Bank Clariden Leu to Turn in Its U.S. Clients

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 05:59:32 -0800

In a little noticed development, Switzerland's oldest private bank Clariden Leu has informed some of its U.S. clients that it has been ordered to turn over their names, and offshore bank account information to the IRS. Clariden Leu posted a notice on its website dated Nov. 29, 2011 to that effect. This is bad news for U.S. offshore account owners who have not previously made a voluntary disclosure to the IRS. Such individuals run the risk of the IRS filing criminal tax fraud charges against them, or criminal charges related to willful FBAR violations. Alternatively, only civil tax fraud or other penalties may be involved, but the FBAR penalties alone could far exceed the balances in the offshore accounts.

The notice refers to a U.S. treaty request apparently covering U.S. beneficial owners of beneficial accounts at Credit Suisse AG, Neue Aargauer Bank AG, and Clariden Leu. Also in November Credit Suisse announced that it is in the process of integrating Clariden Leu's operations into Credit Suisse. The treaty request appears to be limited to U.S. account holders who hold their accounts through "domiciliary companies."

The notice also points out that although the account holders have appeal rights to the SFTA (Swiss Federal Tax Authority) attempts to block the turnover of information to the IRS may require compliance with 18 USC Section 3506. That section provides that:

"...any national or resident of the United States who submits, or causes to be submitted, a pleading or other document to a court or other authority in a foreign country in opposition to an official request for evidence of an offense shall serve such pleading or other document on the Attorney General at the time such pleading or other document is submitted."

The notice correctly observes that anyone in this situation should consult with a qualified attorney concerning any obligations under Section 3506.

Obviously serving the Attorney General would defeat the whole purpose of filing an appeal with the SFTA since the owner of the account would then become known to the IRS. Interestingly 18 USC section 3506 does not on its face appear to provide any sanctions for failure to obey its terms. However, at least one federal prosecutor has publicly stated that he would seek to charge anyone violating 18 USC section 3506 with obstruction of justice.

California State Board of Equalization (BOE) Continues Offensive Against Medical Marijuana Dispensaries

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:00:00 -0800

The California State Board of Equalization (BOE or SBE) announced almost one year ago that medical marijuana dispensaries are not exempt from collecting and paying California sales tax. The announcement resulted from a hearing before the BOE involving Berkeley Patients Group. In that case the BOE decided that medical marijuana was not exempt from sales tax as a medicine. The decision was not surprising in light of a previous notice issued by the BOE that medical marijuana dispensaries were not exempt from collecting and paying sales tax.

Fast forward one year later. Our tax attorneys are fielding inquiries from a number of medical marijuana dispensaries who are undergoing sales tax audits by the BOE. The M.O. of the BOE seems to be to stand at a discrete location outside of the clinic, and count the number of people coming in the door per hour. The Board then compares that to the clinic's records of the number of patients, and if there is any discrepancy it calculates the value of an average "sale," multiplies that by the number of alleged unrecorded patients per day, and projects that amount over a (generally) three year audit period.

Of course this projection by the SBE is rarely accurate, and fails to take into account a number of reasons that the dispensary's records don't match. For example, discrepancies can exist because:

1. Not everyone who comes into the clinic is a member, or actually fills his prescription
2. The number of patients entering the clinic on the particular day that the BOE is counting may be higher than average because the clinic was having a good day
3. The BOE may be using an inaccurate sale price which results in an overstatement of receipts.

There are many other reasons why the BOE estimates can be inaccurate. Luckily there are many avenues for appeal of a BOE determination. However, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and proper tax representation during the initial sales tax audit may prevent problems from arising. Information on sales tax audits and sales tax appeals in general is available on our website, click here to view. Managers of medical marijuana cooperatives and collectives should also be aware that if the BOE determines that sales tax is due and the dispensary fails to pay they could be personally liable pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 6829.

Innocent Spouse Relief Gets A Bit Easier in IRS Notice IR 2012-8

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:30:00 -0800

In IRS Notice IR 2012-3 the IRS announced that innocent spouse defenses pursuant to IRC Section 6015(f) will become a little easier. Generally there are three different kinds of innocent spouse defenses, each with its own rules and exceptions. IRS Notice 2012-8, which somewhat confusingly was announced in IRS Notice IR 2012-3, sets out a proposed new Revenue Procedure which will supersede Revenue Procedure (Rev. Proc.) 2003-61. IRS Notice 20012-8 addresses the criteria used in making innocent spouse relief determinations under the equitable relief criteria of Internal Revenue Code Section 6015(f). The IRS Notice covers several topics. It provides for certain streamlined determinations; it creates new guidance on the potential impact of economic hardship, and the weight to be accorded to certain facts in determining equitable innocent spouse relief. Importantly it also expands how the IRS takes into account abuse and financial control by the nonrequesting spouse in deciding whether to grant equitable relief.

The IRS is inviting comments on the forthcoming proposed Revenue Procedure. The comments must be submitted by February 21, 2012.

One important change is that under Rev. Procedure 2003-61, which previously provided guidelines for equitable innocent spouse determinations, lack of economic hardship was treated as a factor which weighed against granting equitable innocent spouse relief. Now if economic hardship exists that is still a factor which weighs in favor of granting innocent spouse relief. However, the lack of economic hardship will no longer be counted against a requesting spouse. Instead it will be treated as neutral.

Another significant change is that the proposed revenue procedure provides that abuse or lack of financial control may mitigate other factors that might weigh against granting equitable relief under IRC Section 6015(f). For example, even though a requesting innocent spouse has knowledge or reason to know of omitted income on a tax return if the nonrequesting spouse abused the requesting spouse or maintained control over the household finances by restricting the requesting spouse's access to financial information, and, therefore, because of the abuse or financial control the requesting spouse was not able to challenge the treatment of any items on the joint return for fear of the nonrequesting spouse's retaliation, then that abuse or financial control will result in this factor weighing in favor of relief even if the requesting spouse had knowledge or reason to know of the items giving rise to the understatement or deficiency.

In the end, however, the granting of innocent spouse relief is based upon all of the facts and circumstances. Only by discussing your case with a knowledgeable tax litigation attorney can you determine if you are likely to prevail.

More Swiss Banks to Turn Over Offshore Bank Account Information to IRS?

Fri, 23 Dec 2011 06:00:00 -0800

According to press reports Credit Suisse, Basler Kantonalbank, Julius Baer, HSBC Switzerland and seven other Swiss banks are poised to turnover data related to U.S. persons suspected of tax evasion or Foreign Bank Account Reporting (FBAR) violations. The story was published on December 18th in SonntagsZeitung, a Swiss newspaper. Supposedly the banks had until Dec. 20th to accept the offer, and that three of the banks have been given until Dec. 31st to turn over the information. Those Swiss banks who accept the deal would be assured immunity from criminal prosecution, and would pay a fine. According to "one insider" the banks are unlikely to turn down the deal.

Since there has been no confirmation from either the Swiss banks or the IRS it is unclear whether the story is true. The deadlines don't seem realistic, however. In the view of our tax attorneys it would be unlikely that the Swiss banks could comply with turning over documents that quickly, and there would have to be notification of the clients, and an opportunity to appeal if past experience with the UBS settlement is any guide.

Still it is a reminder that in all likelihood that at least the larger Swiss banks will be turning over the names of their U.S. account holders to the IRS sometime in the not too distant future. Those U.S. persons who still have undisclosed Swiss bank accounts, or for that matter any offshore financial accounts would do well to consider whether to make a voluntary disclosure before the choice is made for them.

Felony Criminal Tax Charges Filed Against New York CPA for Non-Payment of Trust Fund Taxes

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:00:00 -0800

The IRS has filed felony criminal tax charges pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 7202 for willful failure to collect, truthfully account for and pay over trust fund taxes. This is yet another in a series of criminal tax charges being brought against responsible officers who haven't paid over corporate trust fund taxes. In most situations the IRS proceeds against responsible officers who willfully fail to pay corporate trust fund taxes, by assessing the tax directly against the individual under Internal Revenue Code Section 6672. This is generally referred to as the trust fund recovery penalty. Sometimes the IRS goes further and brings criminal tax charges.

In this case the defendant is a New York CPA who, according to the information filed in U.S. District Court, failed to pay payroll taxes to the IRS for three years running. Our tax lawyers found this case interesting because the amount of unpaid trust fund taxes was not terribly large. The total the IRS alleged as unpaid was approximately $108,000, fairly small potatoes, as payroll tax cases tend to go.

I thought it was important to blog about this case because clients sometimes assume that the relatively small size of their tax problem will insulate them against criminal tax liability. While that is generally accurate, as this case illustrates, not always.

Felony Criminal Tax Prosecution Goes Forward

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 06:00:00 -0800

United States v. Quinn (D. KS 2011) is one of several recent felony tax prosecutions, not for tax evasion, but for violation of Internal Revenue Code Section 7202. IRC Section 7202 makes it a felony to willfully fail to collect, account for, or pay over any tax due. In this case Ms. Quinn failed to pay payroll taxes for 7 quarters between 2003 and 2005. She finally got around to paying them in 2010, apparently after the IRS had filed criminal tax charges against her. Ms. Quinn challenged the finding that she failed to pay employment and individual tax and argued that since she had subsequently paid the tax due the charges should be dismissed.

The court wrote in its opinion that a person has failed to pay taxes if they have not paid the amount due as of the due date, regardless of whether the taxpayer has subsequently paid. In Ms. Quinn's case, she had recently paid the amounts due but this was not sufficient for the court to find her not guilty.

This does not mean that late payment of taxes will never prevent a criminal tax prosecution, and those who have not paid their taxes should seriously consider taking care of a tax problem before it turns into a criminal tax problem. Had Ms. Quinn gotten around to making full payment, or indeed even made good faith installment payments much earlier there is a chance that the case would never have gotten as far as it did.

IRS Fact Sheet 2011-13 (FS -2011-13) Much Less FBAR Relief Than Reported

Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:40:00 -0800

IRS Fact Sheet 2011-13 (FS -2011-13) has been heavily touted (mostly in the Canadian Press) as providing FBAR (Foreign Bank Account Report) relief for dual U.S. citizens abroad. However, in the view of our tax attorneys it simply reiterates existing law. As readers of the Tax Problem Attorney Blog are aware, U.S. persons with offshore bank accounts with a balance of greater than $10,000 are required to file a Foreign Bank Account Report (aka FBAR) with the Internal Revenue Service annually. Penalties for failure to file the FBAR can be draconian. In addition U.S. citizens living in foreign countries are required to file U.S. tax returns reporting their worldwide income. Penalties for failure to file a tax return may also be imposed.

FS-2011-13 states that no penalties will be imposed for failure to file a tax return or failure to pay tax if no tax is owed. Well big deal! If you don't owe taxes then there is no failure to pay penalty. Since both the failure to pay tax penalty, and the failure to file penalty are based upon a percentage of the taxes owed this is not a concession by the IRS. FS-2011-13 does not state that if no taxes are owed no FBAR penalty will be applied!

Instead FS-2011-13 points out that if "reasonable cause" is determined to exist by the IRS then there will be no penalty. Again this is no change from the IRS' current position. The devil is of course is in the details. The IRS lists various factors that might go into to the determination. Here we quote:

Factors that might weigh in favor of a determination that an FBAR violation was due to reasonable cause include reliance upon the advice of a professional tax advisor who was informed of the existence of the foreign financial account, that the unreported account was established for a legitimate purpose and there were no indications of efforts taken to intentionally conceal the reporting of income or assets, and that there was no tax deficiency (or there was a tax deficiency but the amount was de minimis) related to the unreported foreign account. There may be factors in addition to those listed that weigh in favor of a determination that a violation was due to reasonable cause. No single factor is determinative.

Factors that might weigh against a determination that an FBAR violation was due to reasonable cause include whether the taxpayer's background and education indicate that he should have known of the FBAR reporting requirements, whether there was a tax deficiency related to the unreported foreign account, and whether the taxpayer failed to disclose the existence of the account to the person preparing his tax return. As with factors that might weigh in favor of a determination that an FBAR violation was due to reasonable cause, there may be other factors that weigh against a determination that a violation was due to reasonable cause. No single factor is determinative.

Let's break this down a bit. In virtually all cases the tax preparer was not informed of the existence of the offshore bank account. As to a small tax deficiency, in the context of the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP), the IRS routinely took the position that even a zero tax deficiency did not mean it would impose no penalty. If the IRS is changing its tune that is good news, but what does it mean for those persons who signed binding closing agreements with the IRS because they were threatened with penalties in excess of the balance in the account?

Example 4 is interesting. Here it is:

Taxpayer is a United States citizen who lives and works in Country B as a computer programmer. Taxpayer has checking and savings accounts with a bank that is located in the city where he lives. The aggregate balance of the checking and savings accounts is $50,000 during the tax year. Taxpayer complied with Country B's tax laws and properly reported all his income on Country B tax returns. Taxpayer failed to file federal income tax returns and failed to file FBARs to report his financial interest in the checking and savings accounts. After reading recent press and thus learning of his federal income tax return and FBAR reporting obligations, Taxpayer filed delinquent FBARs, reporting both foreign accounts, and attached statements to the FBARs explaining that he was previously unaware of his obligation to report the accounts on an FBAR. Taxpayer also filed federal income tax returns properly reporting all income and no tax was due. The IRS will determine whether the FBAR violation was due to reasonable cause based on all the facts and circumstances. Taxpayer had a legitimate purpose for maintaining the foreign accounts, there were no indications of efforts taken to intentionally conceal the reporting of income or assets, and no tax was due. Taxpayer's explanation for why he failed to timely file an FBAR appears reasonable in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. Since the IRS determined that the FBAR violation was due to reasonable cause, no FBAR penalty will be asserted.

First this Taxpayer has no tax liability. This will not generally be the case unless the foreign jurisdiction tax rates are higher than the U.S., or the Taxpayer has no income for which the foreign earned income exclusion is not available. Also this Taxpayer had a relatively small account balance. What about the more successful taxpayer who had $200,000 or $1,000,000 in his account? This Taxpayer had his accounts in the "same city" as the city where he lived. What about the UK citizen who has an account in the Isle of Mann to legally avoid income tax in the UK? Will she fare as well, or will that be seen by the IRS as an indication of intent to conceal the existence of the account? What about the occupation of computer programmer? What if the Taxpayer were an attorney, but not a tax attorney? Will that person be assumed to have an education and background so that he "should have known" about the FBAR filing requirements?

Only time will tell, but the point is that news reports stating that the IRS is providing FBAR relief for dual citizens is premature.

Tax Problem Attorney Blog Named to Top 20 Tax Law Blogs List

Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:22:00 -0800

Brager Tax Law Group appreciates all the votes that came in for our Tax Problem Attorney Blog and is proud to announce that Tax Problem Attorney Blog has been named one of the top 20 Tax Law Blogs by LexisNexis.

The voting isn't over, though. Brager Tax Law Group is asking for your vote once again in the selection of the Top Tax Law Blog of the year. You will need to be registered in order to vote. If you haven't previously registered, follow this link to create a new registration or use your sign in credentials from your favorite social media site. Registration is free and does not result in sales contacts.

Then follow this link to VOTE and check the box Tax Problem Attorney Blog.

Voting ends on November 28, 2011 so be sure to Vote!!!

We appreciate your support.

Swiss Bank Account Holders of Exposure for Tax Fraud and Failure to File FBARs Is Greater Than Ever

Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:54:28 -0800

Until recently even some well-informed tax attorneys assumed that short of disclosure under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) in 2013, the IRS would have a difficult time getting information from Swiss banks without litigation. As a result some owners of Swiss financial accounts assumed that they could avoid disclosure to the IRS by closing their offshore account prior to 2013. While there are various treaties which require Swiss banks to turn over account information with regard to individuals who have committed tax fraud or tax evasion, in the past this has been interpreted as requiring the IRS to provide among other things the name of the taxpayer it was investigating. Apparently not any more!

In what appears to be the final nail in the coffin of alleged Swiss Bank secrecy, a committee of the upper house of the Swiss Parliament recommended that the upper house approve a proposed addendum to the June 2010 ratification resolution on the 2009 protocol to "clarify" that so called nameless, behavioral-pattern based requests are allowed under the 1996 double taxation treaty with the U.S.

In a related development on November 16th the Swiss Federal Council approved an amendment to the ordinance implementing the Swiss-U.S. double taxation treaty to provide notice to U.S. clients of Swiss banks who are the subject of so-called behavioral-pattern based administrative assistance requests from the U.S. Notice will be provided by publishing the U.S. administrative request in the Federal Gazette. Unfortunately the Federal Gazette is not published in English, and the Swiss Federal Tax Authority (SFTA) has been tasked with the job of alerting the U.S. media.

So what are the requirements of a nameless behavioral-pattern based request?

1. It must indicate why the requested information is necessary and relevant;
2. It must give a detailed description of the alleged behavioral pattern;
3. It must explain why it can be assumed that the person fitting the alleged behavioral pattern has not fulfilled his legal obligation; and
4. It must show a credible act of active, fraudulent behavior by the bank, or its employees.

It is not difficult to see the IRS putting together a number of these requests to find the names of previously unknown taxpayers, and it may well explain the recent announcement by Credit Suisse (we wrote about this tax problem here) that it has been required by the SFTA to turn over the names of some of its clients to the IRS.

Swiss Bank Account Information To Be Turned Over by Credit Suisse

Fri, 11 Nov 2011 06:00:00 -0800

The Swiss Federal Tax Authority (SFTA) has ordered Credit Suisse to submit offshore bank account information in response to an IRS request for assistance, according to a New York Times article. Credit Suisse has notified some of its offshore account holders by letter about the order. Apparently the order is not directly related to the IRS negotiations going on with approximately 11 Swiss banks to turnover the names of all of their U.S. clients. Instead, it appears from the New York Times article that these requests relate to individuals who the IRS already has reason to believe have foreign bank accounts. If that is the case then it may be too late for these individuals to file a voluntary disclosure with the IRS to attempt to escape criminal penalties. Still in some cases a late voluntary disclosure is better than no disclosure. Without a detailed examination of all of the facts and circumstances there is no way of advising someone as to the best path to take.

Although account holders may appeal the SFTA decision, the act of doing so requires that they notify the U.S. government that an appeal has been filed. Failure to do so could result in separate penalties. Sort of a catch twenty two.

The SFTA order to Credit Suisse highlights the noose that the IRS is attempting to tighten around the neck of offshore account holders who failed to file their Foreign Bank Account Reports (FBAR) on TDF 90-22.1. The civil penalty for willfully failing to file the FBAR can be up to 50% of the account balance so even if no jail time ensues it is still a very expensive proposition.

Tax Problem Attorney Blog Nominated for Top 20 Tax Law Blogs of 2011

Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:02:25 -0800

Each year, LexisNexis honors a select group of blogs that set the online standard for a given industry. I'm honored that my blog is one of the nominated candidates for the Top 20 Tax Law Blogs of 2011, featured on the LexisNexis Tax law Community.

Each comment is counted as a vote toward my blog, so I invite your comments to support my nomination. To submit a comment, visitors need to log on to their free LexisNexis Communities account. If you haven't previously registered, you can do so for free by following this link.

Click here and you will be led to the announcement post on LexisNexis Tax Law Blog Nominees. The comment box is at the very bottom of the blog nomination page. You will only need to fill in your name and type in Tax Problem Attorney Blog with your comments in the comment box.The comment period for nominations ends on November 18, 2011.

Thank you for your support!

California Man Convicted of Tax Evasion Based in Part on a False Offer in Compromise (OIC)

Thu, 10 Nov 2011 06:00:00 -0800

William H. Nurick, age 76, was convicted of tax evasion based on evidence he evaded a tax liability for one year of $157,000. In 2000 Nurick filed an amended 1995 income tax return admitting a $106,542 tax liability. He then attempted to conceal his offshore financial assets from the IRS by transferring $133,000 from an offshore bank account to a third party's offshore bank account, and then "borrowing" the funds back from the same party, and having that person file a trust deed against his real estate with the apparent purpose of making it appear that it had no equity. He then proceeded to file a false Form 433 with the IRS in support of an offer in compromise (OIC) which among other things failed to list his vehicle, or his offshore Costa Rican bank account with a balance of $200,000.

The IRS financial statement also underreported his income. The case is interesting for several reasons. One there is a perception that the IRS does not prosecute seniors. It does. There is also a belief that if you file an accurate tax return that's the end of it. Not necessarily. There is a separate tax crime known as the evasion of payment. It too is a felony. Nurick faces up to 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Tax Attorneys , CPAs, IRS Officials Speaking at UCLA Tax Controversy Institute on Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2011

Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:12:14 -0800

The UCLA Tax Controversy Institute is the preeminent conference in the United States dedicated to tax controversy and tax litigation. This year it will be held on Tuesday, Oct. 25th beginning at 8:30 AM. This year IRS speakers include:

• Sandra Brown, Chief, Tax Division, United States Attorney's Office (C.D. Cal.)
• Deborah Butler, Associate Chief Counsel, Procedure and Administration, IRS, Washington, D.C.
• Faris Fink, Commissioner, Small Business / Self-Employed Division, IRS, Washington, D.C.
• Victor Song, Chief, Criminal Investigation, IRS, Washington, D.C.
• Chris Wagner, Chief, National Office of Appeals, IRS, Washington, D.C.

Dennis Brager of Brager Tax Law Group, A PC will be one of the many private practitioners including tax lawyers, CPAs, and Enrolled Agents who will be sharing the platform with IRS officials. Dennis will be speaking on the following panel:

E-Filers Beware

Ongoing examinations of E-Filers are intended to ensure that they are in compliance with all of the E-filing rules. In the event the tax practitioner is determined by the IRS agent to be in non-compliance, the IRS may sanction the tax practitioner which sanctions can run from a written reprimand to suspension to even expulsion.

This panel will discuss the IRS audits of E-Filers, the process of imposing sanctions and what steps practitioners should take to minimize sanctions and avoid them in the future.

For registration information click here.

Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C. is also a sponsor of this year's UCLA Tax Controversy Institute, and Dennis Brager is a member of the planning committee.

Swiss Banks to Turn Over Possible Tax Evaders to IRS

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:46:43 -0800

According to a report in the Swiss newspaper Tages-Anzeiger the Swiss are poised to send the names of thousands of potential tax evaders who have Swiss Bank accounts over to the IRS, and/or the Department of Justice. The data files are, according to the unconfirmed report, due to begin coming over later in October. The report goes on to speculate that the banks on the list include Credit Suisse, Julius Bär, Zürich Cantonal Bank, Basel Cantonal Bank and Wegelin. These names shouldn't come as any great surprise because it appears that the IRS has been actively investigating them for some time.

Whether or not the report turns out to be true is unknown. However, if it is, it leaves very little time for U.S. persons who have offshore bank accounts at these Swiss banks to make a voluntary disclosure to avoid a criminal tax prosecution for FBAR violations, tax fraud, or other crimes.

U.S. persons who have offshore financial accounts are required to file report to the IRS on Form TD F 90-22.1, Report of Foreign Bank Account (FBAR) on an annual basis. Failure to do so can result in jail time, or ruinous civil penalties.