The U.S. government’s crackdown on offshore tax evasion has placed the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) in the spotlight. Many U.S. taxpayers with foreign accounts may not fully understand their obligation to disclose these accounts, and even fewer realize the severe penalties that come with failing to comply. For U.S. citizens, residents, and entities with foreign financial accounts, the stakes are high.

Understanding FBAR requirements and the line between non-willful and willful violations, including recklessness, can mean the difference between a reasonable penalty or a financial disaster. A key case illustrating this legal battlefield is Bedrosian v. United States, a cautionary tale for those who might be unaware—or choose to remain unaware—of their filing obligations.

FBAR Reporting Requirements And Penalties: An Overview

U.S. citizens, residents, and certain entities are required to file an FBAR if the aggregate value of their foreign accounts exceeds $10,000 at any point during the calendar year. This requirement applies even if the accounts don’t generate taxable income. The FBAR is filed annually with FinCEN, separate from tax returns.

Penalties for failing to comply are steep:

• Non-Willful Violations: Penalties for non-willful violations are generally capped at $10,000 per violation unless the taxpayer can show reasonable cause.
• Willful Violations: For willful violations, penalties can be far more significant, often up to 50% of the account balance or $100,000, whichever is greater. In some cases, criminal charges can also be brought.

The difference between willful and non-willful violations is central to determining penalties, and recent court cases and IRS guidance have clarified that recklessness can meet the standard for willful conduct.

Bedrosian Case: Recklessness Redefined

In Bedrosian v. United States, the issue of recklessness in the context of FBAR penalties took center stage. Arthur Bedrosian, a successful businessman from Pennsylvania, had held foreign accounts with UBS in Switzerland. Despite being aware of his FBAR obligations, he failed to report one of his accounts in 2007. The IRS imposed a $975,789 penalty, citing willful failure to file.

Initially, the district court sided with Bedrosian, ruling that his actions were non-willful, and reduced the penalty to $10,000. However, on appeal, the 3rd Circuit Court found that the district court had applied an incorrect standard of willfulness, specifically underestimating the role of recklessness in FBAR violations. The 3rd Circuit clarified that recklessness can indeed qualify as willfulness, and remanded the case for further review. Upon reconsideration, the district court determined that Bedrosian’s failure to report the account demonstrated at least reckless disregard, and the original penalty was reinstated.

Key Case On Recklessness: McBride And FBAR Penalties

A landmark case discussing recklessness in FBAR violations is United States v. McBride. In this case, the taxpayer, Michael McBride, failed to file an FBAR for his offshore accounts. The court found that McBride acted with reckless disregard of the filing requirements, even though he claimed ignorance. The court emphasized that recklessness could be inferred from a taxpayer’s knowledge of the law and his failure to comply with it, even if there wasn’t a clear intent to break the law.

The McBride decision underscored that a taxpayer doesn’t need to knowingly violate FBAR obligations to be penalized severely. Acting recklessly—such as choosing not to learn the rules or ignoring clear indications that filing is required—can be sufficient to trigger the harshest penalties.

IRS’s Approach To Determining Willfulness: The Role Of Evidence

The IRS takes a broad approach when assessing whether an FBAR violation was willful or reckless. In doing so, the agency looks at various forms of evidence to determine whether a taxpayer’s failure to file was due to deliberate intent, recklessness, or negligence. Key factors include:

• Prior Filings And Disclosures: The IRS may review past tax returns and FBAR filings to assess whether the taxpayer has consistently disclosed foreign accounts. A pattern of non-disclosure could suggest willfulness.
• Foreign Bank Communications: Correspondence between the taxpayer and their foreign bank can provide clues about willfulness. For instance, if the bank warned the taxpayer about FBAR requirements, and they still failed to comply, this could indicate recklessness.
• Education and Background Of The Taxpayer: The IRS will also take into account the taxpayer’s background and sophistication. For instance, someone with a high level of financial literacy, such as a business owner or an individual working in finance, is more likely to be held to a higher standard of knowledge regarding their obligations. In Bedrosian, for example, his years of financial dealings and awareness of offshore accounts contributed to the court’s determination of recklessness.
• Taxpayer Behavior: Deliberate concealment, such as moving funds to different jurisdictions or closing accounts after learning of an investigation, can be viewed as willful.

The Internal Revenue Manual also provides guidelines for IRS examiners to follow when assessing willfulness. The IRS is particularly focused on patterns of behavior that demonstrate a conscious choice to disregard the law.

What Does This Mean For Taxpayers?

Taxpayers who hold foreign accounts must be aware of the serious consequences of failing to comply with FBAR requirements. The distinction between willful and non-willful violations is often determined by the taxpayer’s behavior and the totality of the circumstances, not just their direct knowledge of the law. The IRS will scrutinize the individual’s past filings, communications, and behavior to determine whether their failure to file was reckless or deliberate.

As seen in McBride and Bedrosian, recklessness doesn’t require overt intent to evade the law. Simply failing to act on information, or ignoring a known legal duty, can lead to penalties amounting to 50% of the account balance. The IRS’s focus on recklessness means that taxpayers cannot afford to be passive about their foreign accounts. They must actively ensure compliance or risk facing substantial financial penalties.

Conclusion

With the growing focus on offshore tax evasion, the U.S. government has ramped up its enforcement of FBAR penalties. The Bedrosian and McBride cases highlight the importance of understanding the broad definition of willfulness, which includes reckless conduct. Taxpayers who fail to disclose foreign accounts may face severe penalties, even if they claim ignorance. Staying informed and seeking expert advice is critical for anyone with international financial interests.

Declaring Foreign Business Interests

Navigating the U.S. tax code can feel like tiptoeing through a minefield, especially when you throw in international dealings. 

If you’re a U.S. person or corporation with foreign business interests, two forms in particular—Forms 5471 and 5472—might already haunt your dreams. 

Dubbed the “Terrible Twosome” by some beleaguered taxpayers, these forms come with stringent filing requirements and draconian penalties for non-compliance. 

Here’s why you should never forget to file these forms, what the consequences of forgetting are, and some recent developments that might surprise you.

What Are Forms 5471 And 5472?

Form 5471 is essentially an information return that must be filed by certain U.S. citizens and residents who are officers, directors, or shareholders in certain foreign corporations. 

The form requires detailed disclosure about the foreign corporation’s income, assets, and shareholders.

Form 5472 on the other hand, is used by U.S. corporations that are at least 25% foreign-owned, or by foreign corporations engaged in a U.S. trade or business. 

This form requires disclosure of reportable transactions between the reporting corporation and related foreign parties.

While both forms may seem like just another piece of paperwork, failure to file them—or filing them incorrectly—can lead to massive penalties.

The Fines:

Staggering and Unforgiving The IRS takes non-compliance with Forms 5471 and 5472 very seriously, with penalties that could make even the most seasoned tax veteran wince. 

For Form 5471 the penalty starts at $10,000 per year per foreign corporation. 

If the taxpayer fails to correct the omission within 90 days of being notified by the IRS, additional penalties of $10,000 accrue every 30 days, up to a maximum of $50,000. 

Form 5472 penalties are even harsher, starting at $25,000 for each accounting period the form is not filed. 

After the IRS sends a notice of failure, an additional $25,000 penalty kicks in for each subsequent 30-day period of non-compliance, with no cap on the penalties. 

These penalties apply whether the non-compliance was willful or due to an innocent mistake, although options for relief exist in cases of non-willful conduct. 

However, this relief is often difficult to obtain and requires demonstrating reasonable cause for the failure. 

No Statute Of Limitations? Yes, You Read That Right

One of the most terrifying aspects of failing to file these forms is that it can leave your entire tax return open to scrutiny indefinitely. 

Normally, the IRS has three years from the date you file your return to audit it. 

However, if you fail to file Forms 5471 or 5472, that statute of limitations does not apply. The IRS could theoretically go back and audit that return 10, 15, or 20 years later. 

Recent Developments: A Small Ray of Hope?

A recent Tax Court case, Farhy v. Commissioner, had thrown a wrench into the IRS’s penalty regime. 

In April 2023, the court ruled that the IRS did not have the statutory authority to assess penalties under Section 6038(b) for failing to file Form 5471. 

The IRS had been enforcing these penalties for years, but the court found that there was no legal basis for these assessments.

However this Tax Court Ruling was subsequently overturned by the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit on  3 May 2024.

Conclusion: Don’t Tempt Fate

If you have foreign business interests and think you might need to file Form 5471 or 5472, the best advice is simple: file them. 

Even if the forms are a headache and the rules seem complex, the potential costs of non-compliance—financial and otherwise—are simply too high to ignore. 

And as the Farhy case shows, while there may be occasional victories against the IRS, they are the exception rather than the rule. 

So, stay vigilant, keep those forms in mind, and avoid becoming another cautionary tale in the annals of tax non-compliance. 

The “Terrible Twosome” might be formidable, but with careful attention and professional guidance, they don’t have to be your undoing.

For many people the United States is a major investment jurisdiction.

Whether that investment is made into stocks, bonds, managed funds, real estate or shares in US private companies – the size and scale of the US market is often irresistible for international investors.

One of the downsides of investing directly into the US can be that non-residents of the United States who own U.S. assets can be subject to U.S. estate tax.

This can significantly impact their estate planning strategies by imposing a significant cost on their estate.

This article discusses the exposure of non-residents to U.S. estate tax, the benefits of estate tax treaties, the relevance of international wealth in estate tax calculations, and the formalities required to transfer U.S. assets to beneficiaries. 

U.S. Estate Tax for Non-Residents

Non-residents of the U.S. are subject to estate tax on their U.S. situs assets, which include real estate, tangible personal property located in the U.S., and certain intangible assets such as stocks of U.S. corporations. 

The tax rates range from 18% to 40%.

Importantly the exemption amount is significantly lower for non-residents than for U.S. citizens and residents, currently only $60,000.

Estate Tax Treaties

The U.S. has estate tax treaties with several countries, including Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, South Africa, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. 

These treaties can provide several benefits, including:

Unified Credit

Some treaties allow non-residents to use the unified credit available to U.S. citizens, which can significantly reduce the estate tax liability. 

Exclusions And Deductions:

Treaties may provide for exclusions of certain types of property or deductions for debts, taxes, and expenses.

Relief From Double Taxation:

Treaties can prevent double taxation by providing rules for the allocation of taxing rights between the U.S. and the treaty country.

Relevance Of International Wealth

For non-residents, the U.S. estate tax is generally limited to U.S. situs assets.  

However, the international wealth of foreigners can still be relevant in certain situations.

For example, under some treaties, the U.S. may consider the decedent’s worldwide assets to determine the allowable unified credit or to apply pro-rata deductions. 

Example Calculation (Singapore Resident: No Estate Tax Treaty With US)

The non-resident owns a $1,000,000 U.S. property and has no debts or other deductions: 

1. Gross Estate: $1,000,000 (U.S. property) 

2. Exemption Amount: $60,000 

3. Taxable Estate: $940,000 

Using the U.S. estate tax rates, the estate tax liability would be calculated based on the progressive rates. 

For simplicity, assume the effective tax rate is around 34% for this taxable estate size: 

Estate Tax Due: $940,000 x 34% = $319,600

This is major cost on a deceased estate and something that can be planned for ahead of time.

They key point here is to be aware of strategies to minimize or eliminate US estate tax.

Example Calculation (Australian Resident: Estate Tax Treaty With US)

The U.S.- Australia Estate Tax Treaty can provide relief and reduce the tax liability. 

Consider an Australian resident who owns a $1,000,000 U.S. property and has $5,000,000 in worldwide assets. 

The unified credit for U.S. citizens in 2024 is $13,000,000. 

1. Gross Estate: $1,000,000 (U.S. property) 

2. Worldwide Estate: $6,000,000 

The proration of the unified credit is calculated as follows: 

Prorated Unified Credit = U.S. Situs Assets/Worldwide Assets  X Unified Credit

Prorated Unified Credit = 1,000,000/6,000,000 x 13,000,000 = 2,166,66 

The effective exemption amount is $2,166,667. 

 3. Taxable Estate: 

Since the U.S. situs assets ($1,000,000) are less than the prorated unified credit ($2,166,667), the taxable estate is reduced to zero. 

 4. Estate Tax Due: 

 With a taxable estate of zero, the estate tax liability is also zero.

Formalities For Transferring U.S. Assets

For those beneficiaries of deceased estates that have to deal with the transfer of U.S. assets from a deceased resident to a beneficiary, the following steps are required:  

1. Obtain A Transfer Certificate: 

The IRS requires a Transfer Certificate (Form 5173) to release the U.S. assets. 

This certificate ensures that all applicable estate taxes have been paid or secured. 

2. File Form 706-NA: 

The executor must file Form 706-NA, U.S. Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return, to report the U.S. situs assets and calculate the estate tax due. 

3. Pay Estate Tax: 

Any estate tax due must be paid. 

In the above examples, in Singapore the estate tax due is $319,600. Whereas in the case of the Australian estate no tax is due. 

4. Submit Documentation: 

Provide the IRS with necessary documentation, including the death certificate, will or trust documents, and appraisals of the U.S. assets. 

 5. Transfer of Title: 

Once the Transfer Certificate is obtained, the executor can proceed with the transfer of title of the U.S. assets to the beneficiaries as per the deceased’s will or trust documents. 

Conclusion

Other strategies exist to manage this exposure, including the formation of trusts in certain US states to hold assets.

The key point here is to plan the way you hold your U.S. assets as early as you can.

Indeed, those people who are non-residents of the U.S. holding US assets from countries that do not have an Estate Tax Treaty with the U.S. have the most severe exposure.

Please contact us to discuss any concerns or questions you might have with respect to holding US assets.

The United States tax code presents a labyrinth of rules and regulations, particularly for U.S. residents with investments in foreign corporations. These complexities are magnified when dealing with Controlled Foreign Corporations (CFCs) and the associated immediate taxation of foreign earnings under Subpart F or the Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) regime. This article delves into Section 962 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), explaining its significance and utility for U.S. tax residents in managing their foreign investments more effectively.

The Challenge: Immediate Taxation of Foreign Earnings

For U.S. tax residents with investments in foreign corporations, including those held through pass-through entities such as partnerships and S corporations, immediate taxation of foreign earnings is a significant challenge. This taxation arises annually under the Subpart F or GILTI regimes, compelling taxpayers to include foreign income in their U.S. taxable income, often leading to double taxation without relief mechanisms available to corporate taxpayers.

Corporate vs. Individual Taxpayer Treatment

The tax burden disparity between corporate and individual taxpayers under the GILTI regime is stark. U.S. corporations benefit from a reduced federal income tax rate of 21 percent, a Section 250 deduction that allows them to deduct up to 50 percent of GILTI, and the ability to claim up to 80 percent of foreign taxes paid as a foreign tax credit. This combination of benefits significantly mitigates the impact of GILTI on corporate taxpayers.

Conversely, U.S. resident individuals are generally taxed at a federal income tax rate of up to 37 percent on GILTI, without access to the Section 250 deduction or foreign tax credits for GILTI. This discrepancy creates a substantial tax burden for individual taxpayers, necessitating a strategy to level the playing field. This is where Section 962 of the IRC comes into play.

How Section 962 Election Works

A Section 962 election allows U.S. individuals to elect to be taxed on their GILTI and Subpart F income at corporate tax rates. When an individual makes this election, they are effectively treated as if they own their CFC through a hypothetical domestic corporation. This election provides several advantages:

1. Corporate Tax Rate: The taxpayer is subject to the 21 percent corporate tax rate instead of the higher individual rates.
2. Section 250 Deduction: The taxpayer can avail the Section 250 deduction, reducing GILTI by 50 percent.
3. Foreign Tax Credit: The taxpayer can claim an indirect foreign tax credit for taxes paid on the CFC’s net income in the foreign country, up to 80 percent of the foreign taxes paid.

Practical Example Of Section 962 Election

Consider a U.S. individual who wholly owns a CFC in Germany with net tested income of $1,000 for GILTI purposes, having paid $150 in foreign taxes. Without a Section 962 election, the individual faces a 37 percent tax rate on GILTI, resulting in $370 of U.S. tax, without any foreign tax credit or Section 250 deduction.

However, with a Section 962 election:

• The income is taxed at the corporate rate of 21 percent.
• The individual can deduct 50 percent of the GILTI under Section 250, reducing the taxable income to $500.
• Adding back the $150 foreign tax paid (gross-up), the taxable income becomes $650.
• Applying the 21 percent corporate tax rate results in $136.50 of U.S. tax.
• After claiming 80 percent of the $150 foreign tax as a credit ($120), the U.S. tax liability is reduced to $16.50.

Future Distributions And Tax Implications

The tax advantages of a Section 962 election extend to future distributions. In the example above, when the taxpayer eventually receives a distribution of $1,000 from the CFC, it will be taxed at the qualified dividend rate of 20 percent plus the 3.8 percent Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT), resulting in $238 of U.S. tax. Without the election, distributions would typically be subject to ordinary income tax rates, leading to higher tax liabilities.

When To Make A Section 962 Election

Despite its benefits, a Section 962 election is not always advantageous. Some scenarios where the election might not be beneficial include:

1. Same-Year Repatriation: If the CFC’s earnings are repatriated in the same year, the benefits of the election may be negated.
2. State Tax Considerations: Not all states follow the federal tax treatment. States like California do not tax Subpart F or GILTI until a distribution is made, meaning the Section 250 deduction and foreign tax credits may not be available for state tax purposes.
3. Future Tax Increases: Future distributions from previously taxed earnings under a Section 962 election might be taxed at higher rates, potentially offsetting the initial benefits.

Conclusion

Section 962 of the IRC offers a powerful tool for U.S. tax residents with investments in foreign corporations to manage their tax liabilities more effectively. By allowing individuals to be taxed at corporate rates and claim deductions and credits typically available only to corporations, this election can significantly reduce the tax burden associated with GILTI and Subpart F income. However, the decision to make a Section 962 election should be based on a careful analysis of individual circumstances and potential future implications. Consulting with a tax professional is essential to navigate the complexities and determine the best tax strategy.