Signup To Receive CCH Tax News Headlines Via Email

November 18, 2009

Federal Headlines


Voluntary Offshore Account Disclosures Nearly Twice Initial Estimate, Shulman Says

 

More than 14,700 individuals have requested to participate in the IRS's offshore disclosure initiative, Commissioner Douglas H. Shulman said on November 17. The number is almost twice the initial projection of 7,500 participants. Shulman, speaking at a Washington, D.C. news conference, also described the criteria used to select accounts at Swiss banking giant UBS AG for possible disclosure to the IRS under the recent U.S.-Switzerland agreement (TAXDAY, 2009/08/20, I.1).

Disclosure Initiative

 

In exchange for full disclosure of unreported offshore accounts, the IRS offered taxpayers a reduced penalty framework (TAXDAY, 2009/03/27, I.3). The offshore disclosure initiative opened in March and closed on October 15, 2009. "Our efforts have brought thousands of taxpayers back into compliance," Shulman said.

 

Shulman declined to predict how much revenue will be recovered from the initiative. The U.S. Justice Department projected that taxpayers will pay "tens of millions of dollars" to the U.S. Treasury. "The Justice Department is pleased with the extraordinary results," Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden said in a statement.

 

"While the IRS has stated that more than 14,700 persons have come forward under the initiative, we need to keep in mind that some of those persons were not "intentional" tax evaders, but were persons who either inherited a problem created by their ancestors or were immigrants to the U.S. who were not entirely clear on their U.S. tax compliance responsibilities," Daniel Gottfried, attorney, Day Pitney, LLP, Hartford, Conn., told CCH. "This is not to underplay the gravity of the issue for those intentional tax evaders, for whom the program was a lifeline."

UBS Customers

 

The U.S.-Swiss agreement calls for the Swiss Federal Tax Administration (SFTA) to evaluate 4,450 UBS accounts within 360 days of August 31, 2009. The SFTA has created a special task force to review the UBS accounts and determine if they fall within the criteria of the U.S.-Swiss agreement.

 

"I am not going to disclose the exact number. I am satisfied with the progress to date," Shulman said when asked how many UBS accounts held by Americans have been disclosed to the U.S. The Swiss Justice Department reported on November 17 that the SFTA has until the end of November 2009 to issue the first 500 decisions.

 

Although the temporary initiative has ended, taxpayers can still make a voluntary disclosure, James Mastracchio, partner, Caplin Drysdale, Chartered, Washington, D.C., told CCH. "If a taxpayer receives notice from UBS that account information is about to be released, he or she can make a voluntary disclosure to the IRS and avoid criminal prosecution; however, the penalties are different." The reduced penalty framework under the initiative would not be available, Mastracchio explained.

Criteria

 

When the U.S. and Switzerland reached their agreement in August, they kept confidential the criteria used to select UBS accounts for possible disclosure. The Swiss Justice Department of Justice explained that the agreement covers the following persons where there is a reasonable suspicion of tax fraud or the like:

 

(1) U.S.-domiciled clients of UBS who directly held and beneficially owned undisclosed (non-W-9) custody accounts and banking deposit accounts in excess of one million Swiss francs (approximately US $990,000) at any point in time between 2001 and 2008; and

 

(2) U.S. persons (irrespective of their domicile) who beneficially owned offshore company accounts established or maintained between 2001 and 2008.

 

The monetary threshold is lower in certain cases, the Swiss Justice Department reported. If the conduct involves, for example, a scheme of lies or submitting incorrect or false documents that might result in the concealment of assets and the underreporting of income, the threshold includes holders of accounts containing assets of 250,000 Swiss francs. Additionally, accounts that generated revenues of more than 100,000 Swiss francs on average per year for a period of at least three years, and where these revenues were not reported to the IRS, may be subject to disclosure.

 

UBS account holders can appeal release of their information to the Swiss courts, Mastracchio explained. However, U.S. law would require them to notify the U.S. Justice Department of their appeal to the Swiss courts.

Global Reach

 

The Service's investigation into global tax evasion is not limited to Switzerland, Shulman emphasized. "We will be looking at (foreign) banks with a large number of U.S. clients." The IRS is still in the early stages of a multiyear-effort to put a "serious dent in offshore tax evasion," Shulman added.

 

"From a global perspective, the result is that countries like Switzerland, which have been dependent on the banking industry, are going to need to reinvent themselves to keep their educated and sophisticated workforce in place," Gottfried said. As Shulman was discussing the offshore voluntary disclosure initiative, news of a Liechtenstein tax reform proposal was released, Gottfried noted. "The proposal is designed to encourage additional businesses to locate in Liechtenstein and to support other financial service activities, aside from just banking."

 

By George L. Yaksick, Jr., CCH News Staff

Annex to U.S.-Switzerland Agreement --Criteria for Granting Assistance Pursuant to the Treaty Request

DOJ Press Release: Justice Department and IRS Announce Results of UBS Settlement and Unprecedented Response in Voluntary Tax Disclosure Program

Swiss Press Release: UBS Treaty Process on Track, Annex to Agreement Now Published

 

IRS, DOL Officials Discuss Requirements for Qualified Domestic Relations Orders

 

Officials from the IRS and the Department of Labor (DOL) on November 17 discussed the requirements for drafting, planning and administering qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) for qualified retirement plans. The officials participated in a webcast sponsored by the American Law Institute and the American Bar Association (ALI-ABA). Pamela Perdue, an attorney with Summers Compton Wells PC in St. Louis, moderated the discussion.

 

Perdue explained that a QDRO is an order issued by a state court to assign benefits, such as alimony, child support or property rights, to a spouse, former spouse, child or other dependent ("alternate payee" (AP)), from an employee's interest in a qualified pension plan. Generally, there are two types of orders: the separate interest QDRO, which divides the plan participant's underlying account, and the shared payment QDRO, which divides the payment of the participant's benefit, Perdue said.

 

Susan Rees, a pension law specialist with the DOL's Employee Benefits Security Administration, indicated that a QDRO must identify the plan participant, the AP, the relevant plan(s), the amount of benefits to be provided and the period to which the order applies. She pointed out that the DOL has issued a handbook with information on QDROs.

 

A QDRO cannot order a plan to provide a form of benefit that is not otherwise available under the plan, Rees noted. For example, if the plan does not provide an early retirement benefit, a QDRO cannot require this benefit for an AP. However, if the order awards a separate interest to the AP, the AP can choose a benefit available under the plan that is different from the benefit selected by the plan participant, Rees said.

 

The order cannot require the plan to provide increased benefits on an actuarial basis, and cannot require the payment of benefits to an AP if the benefits have been allocated to another AP under a previous QDRO, according to Perdue. An order cannot require a plan to change the payout method after the employee has retired and begun to receive payments, Rees added.

 

Lauson Green a senior technician review with the IRS Chief Counsel's Tax Exempt and Government Entities (TE/GE) Division, said that an order can be rejected because of complexity. For example, a plan that determines benefits based on payments at the beginning or end of the month cannot be required to calculate benefits owed to an AP using a mid-month payment.

 

A plan can also reject an order that is unclear if the plan reasonably determines that it cannot understand the order, Green said. Rees suggested that the plan ask the two parties to resolve the ambiguity, rather than force the matter into court. Rees also noted that Title I of ERISA provides an exculpatory clause for fiduciaries that make mistakes.

 

An "other dependent" of a participant can be an AP. While the DOL has not defined the term, it can include a common law spouse, a disabled relative, or a parent living in the home, Rees said. A plan can reject an order requiring payments to the former spouse's lawyer as payments to an improper AP, Perdue indicated. Child support payments to a state agency might be permissible if the agency is acting in loco parentis, Rees noted.

 

It is not clear whether a child who is an AP can remain an AP after becoming an adult. Rees said that the DOL has not addressed the issue, but it may be permissible to continue payments to the child. Perdue indicated that she would not have an adult child be an AP.

 

Diane Bloom, an attorney with the IRS's Employee Plans Division (TE/GE), also participated in the program.

 

By Brant Goldwyn, CCH News Staff


 

State Headlines


South Carolina --Corporate Income Tax: Ruling Explaining Computation of Single Sales Factor Phase-In Methodology Issued

 

The South Carolina Department of Revenue has issued a revenue ruling that illustrates the single sales factor methodology used by the department for corporate income tax purposes and license fee purposes. The ruling includes an appendix with examples for a corporate taxpayer filing a 2009 SC 1120 form.

 

South Carolina is phasing in a single sales factor apportionment method, for taxable years beginning in 2007 through 2010, for taxpayers whose principal business in South Carolina is manufacturing or any form of collecting, buying, assembling, or processing goods and materials within the state, or selling, distributing, or dealing in tangible personal property in the state.

 

Subscribers may view the ruling.

 

Revenue Ruling 09-15, South Carolina Department of Revenue, November 2009

 


Copyright © 2009, CCH INCORPORATED. All rights reserved.