Posts tagged with "IRS"

Complying with the FBAR

Leave a reply

If you have a foreign financial account, the federal Bank Secrecy Act may require you to report the foreign bank and financial account (“FBAR”) yearly to the I.R.S. by filing Form TD F-90-22.1.  The purpose of the FBAR is to help the U.S. government investigate persons who may be using foreign financial accounts for illegal purposes, including counter-terrorism, and to identify unreported income maintained in a foreign financial account.

What constitutes a ‘foreign financial account’?

A financial account includes a savings or checking account, securities or brokerage account, futures or options account, an insurance or annuity policy with a cash value, shares in a mutual fund or similar pooled fund, and other accounts maintained with a financial institution.  A financial account is “foreign” if the institution is physically located outside of the United States.  FBAR is not required for an account maintained with a branch, agency, or other office located in the U.S., even if the financial institution is foreign.  An account is not deemed foreign merely because it may contain holdings or assets of foreign entities, as long as the owner maintains the account with a financial institution located in the United States.

Who qualifies as a ‘U.S. person’?

A “U.S. person” must file an FBAR if (i) the U.S. person had a financial interest in or signature authority over at least one financial account located outside of the United States, and (ii) the aggregate value of all foreign financial accounts exceeded $10,000 at any time during the calendar year to be reported.

For this purpose, a “U.S. person” means a U.S. citizen or a U.S. resident, as well as a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, and trust and estate formed under the laws of the United States or a state thereunder.

Generally, a U.S. person has a “financial interest” in a foreign financial account if she is the record owner or has legal title in the account, whether or not she is the beneficial owner.

Moreover, a U.S. person has a financial interest in a foreign account held by a nominee, if the beneficial owner of the foreign account is a U.S. person.  Also, a U.S. person has a financial interest in a foreign account where a corporation, partnership, or a trust is the record owner or has legal title in the foreign account, if a U.S. person owns more than 50% of the (i) total value of shares or voting stock of a corporation, (ii) partnership’s profits or capital, or (iii) the trust’s assets or income, as applicable.

A person has a “signature authority” if she has the authority to control the disposition of money, funds or other assets held in a financial account by direct communication (whether in writing or otherwise) to the person with whom the financial account is maintained.

Filing an FBAR

Exceptions to the FBAR reporting are found in the FBAR instructions, including participants in retirement plans that hold foreign financial accounts.

On the FBAR form, taxpayers must report their interest in the foreign financial account and identify the foreign country where the account is maintained.

The FBAR is not filed with the tax return and must be received by the IRS on or before June 30 of the following calendar year being reported.  A request for extension for filing the FBAR is not allowed.

Consequences of a Failure to File

A civil penalty not in excess of $10,000 per violation could apply to a failure to file an FBAR.  No penalty will be imposed if there is a reasonable cause for the failure and the balance in the account is properly reported.  Willful failure to file an FBAR may trigger a civil monetary penalty equal to the greater of $100,000 or 50% of the balance in the account at the time of the violation as well as criminal penalties.  Willfulness is generally determined by a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty.

In the past few years, the Tax Division of the U.S. Department of Justice criminally indicted several taxpayers and advisors for activities associated with U.S. persons holding undeclared interests in foreign financial accounts, and many others are targets or subjects of ongoing federal criminal investigations.  In February 2009, UBS, under threat of criminal prosecution from the U.S. Department of Justice, turned over “secret” bank account information related to 280 of their U.S. clients and subsequently agreed to turn over information on many thousand more.

Credit Suisse reportedly started issuing letters to their US clients stating that a request for information on U.S. account holders has been received and that Credit Suisse has been ordered to turn over the information to the Swiss Federal Taxing Administration, which will then turn them over to the IRS, unless the US clients can demonstrate the turnover of information would violate Swiss law, including the U.S.-Swiss Tax Treaty.

IRS Voluntary Disclosure Programs

Taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts can become compliant with the U.S. tax laws by directly participating in the IRS voluntary disclosure program or by merely filing an amended or delinquent returns and FBARs for prior years.  The IRS had issued voluntary disclosure programs in 2009 and 2011 for undeclared interests in foreign financial account.  Under the 2011 program, eligible taxpayer must contact the IRS Criminal Investigation to request participation in the program, must file all original and amended income tax return as applicable, and pay any taxes owed (including interest and penalties).  Under the IRS long-standing voluntary disclosure practice, taxpayers who voluntarily disclosed their foreign bank accounts under the voluntary program are able to avoid potential criminal prosecution.

On January 9, 2012, the IRS reopened the offshore voluntary disclosure program “to help people hiding offshore accounts get current with their taxes.”  The IRS announced that it received over 33,000 voluntary disclosures and collected more than $4.4 billion so far from the two previous voluntary disclosure programs.  Under the 2012 program, a single penalty of 27.5% of the highest aggregate balance in foreign bank accounts during the eight full tax years prior to the disclosure will apply, up from 25% in 2011.  Some taxpayers will be eligible for 5 or 12.5% penalties, same as 2011.

In addition, participants must file an original and amended tax return, pay back taxes and interest for up to eight years, and pay any applicable accuracy-related and/or delinquency penalties as applicable.  Unlike the 2011 program, there is no set deadline for people to apply, and the terms of the program (e.g., penalties may be increased for all or some taxpayers) could change at any time going forward.

Conclusion

Generally under the voluntary disclosure program, taxpayers can reasonably calculate the total cost of resolving all offshore tax issues and avoid potential criminal prosecution.  Taxpayers who do not make voluntary disclosure risk detection by the IRS, substantial penalties (including the civil fraud penalty and foreign information return penalties), and possible criminal prosecution.

Several Different Legal Theories May Allow Creditors To Reach a Debtor’s Assets Held in Trust

Leave a reply
United States v. Evseroff, 00-CV-06029 KAM, 2012 WL 1514860 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2012)

In a case before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the United States government sought to collect delinquent taxes by accessing assets held in a trust established for the benefit of the taxpayer’s children. The current case was remanded to the District Court by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit after the Second Circuit reversed an earlier District Court ruling on the same matter. On remand, the District Court ruled that the government may collect against all assets held by the trust.

Case Background

Between 1978 and 1982, the taxpayer invested in a series of tax shelters that generated deductions that were later disallowed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).  In December 1990, after being audited, the taxpayer received notification that he owed over $227,000 in taxes and penalties.  This amount was later corrected.

In January 1992, the taxpayer received a notice of deficiency indicating that he had accrued more than $700,000 in tax liability.  The taxpayer challenged the IRS calculation of his tax liability in a petition to the United States Tax Court.  In November 1992, the Tax Court entered judgment against the taxpayer in the amount of $209,113 in taxes and penalties, and $560,000 in interest.

In June 1992, the taxpayer established a trust, naming a series of family friend and business associates as the trustees and naming his two sons as the beneficiaries.  That same month, he transferred approximately $220,000 to the trust and in October 1992 he transferred his primary residence, valued at $515,000, to the trust.  The taxpayer received no consideration and there was no evidence the trust assumed the individual taxpayer’s mortgage obligations.

Pursuant to the transfer agreement, the taxpayer was allowed to live in the residence and was responsible for the expenses of the residence, including the mortgage and property taxes.  At the time of the transfer, the mortgage was scheduled to be paid off in five years; however, the transfer agreement did not specify an end date for the taxpayer’s occupancy.

The Trial

At the bench trial held in 2005, the government advanced several theories for recovering assets from the trust, all of which were rejected by the District Court. The government appealed.  In 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the judgment and remanded the case.  In its remand order, the Second Circuit directed the District Court to reconsider its findings with respect to whether the conveyances by the taxpayer to the trust were actually fraudulent, whether the trust held property as the taxpayer’s nominee and whether the trust was the taxpayer’s alter ego.

Fraudulent Conveyance

According to New York law, every conveyance made with “actual intent, as distinguished from intent presumed in law, to hinder, delay or defraud” one’s creditors is fraudulent as to both present and future creditors.  N.Y. Debtor and Creditor Law § 276.  The primary issue is the intent of the debtor in making the conveyance, not the actual financial status of the debtor at the time of the conveyance.  The requisite intent required by this section does not need to be proven by direct evidence; it may be inferred from circumstances surrounding the allegedly fraudulent transfer.

Factors, known as “badges of fraud,” that a court may consider in determining fraudulent intent include: lack or inadequacy of consideration; close relationship between the transferor and the transferee; debtor’s retaining possession, benefit or use of the property; series of transactions after incurring the debt; the transferor’s knowledge of the creditor’s claim and the inability to pay it; the financial condition of the debtor before and after the transfer; and the shifting of assets to a corporation wholly owned by the debtor.  

See Steinberg v. Levine, 6 A.D.3d 620 (N.Y. 2004); In re Kaiser, 722 F.2d 1574, 1582–83 (2d Cir.1983) (citations omitted).  To support a fraudulent conveyance finding, the creditor must have suffered some actual harm; however, actual harm may be found if the debtor depletes or diminishes the value of the assets of the debtor’s estate available to the creditors.  Lippe v. Bairnco Corp., 249 F.Supp.2d 357, 375 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

Tax Liability

The District Court found that the taxpayer was well aware of his tax liabilities and other potential demands on his assets when he transferred his residence and $220,000 to the trust in 1992.  Evidence of the taxpayer’s conduct at the time of the transfers supported the court’s finding that the taxpayer acted with the intention to hinder or delay collection of his assets. The taxpayer retained the benefits of ownership of the residence after it was transferred to the trust for no consideration.

His payments of mortgage and other property-related expenses, in lieu of rent, were the type of payments that would be made by a property owner, not a renter.  Much of the taxpayer’s net worth consisted of cash, which he was continually transferring among bank accounts held by family and close associates, as well as withdrawing to hold in an office safe. These transfers and withdrawals made it difficult for the IRS to locate and value the taxpayer’s assets.

Causing Harm to Creditors

The District Court also found that the transfers of cash and real estate to the trust unambiguously caused the requisite actual harm to his creditors by reducing the assets that the taxpayer had available to satisfy his tax debt and reducing the value of his readily accessible assets well below the amount of his tax debt.  After the transfers, the IRS would have had to collect between fifty and ninety percent of his remaining assets to satisfy his tax debt.

As a result of this analysis, the District Court found that the taxpayer’s intent to evade the IRS collection efforts was substantial and sufficient on its own; therefore, the court concluded that the taxpayer’s transfer of the residence and $220,000 to the trusts was actually fraudulent within the definition of New York law.  The remedy for fraudulent conveyance is that the creditor may collect upon the fraudulently conveyed property.  Therefore, the District Court held that the government may collect against the assets in the trust on this basis.

The Nominee Theory

The nominee theory focuses on the relationship between the taxpayer and the property to determine whether a taxpayer has engaged in a legal fiction, for federal tax purposes, by placing legal title to property in the hands of another while, in actuality, retaining all or some of the benefits of being the property’s true owner. Richards v. United States, 231 B.R. 571, 578 (E.D.Pa.1999).  The overall objective of the nominee analysis is to determine whether the debtor retained the practical benefits of ownership while transferring legal title.  Id. The critical consideration is whether the taxpayer exercised active or substantial control over the property.

Factors examined by the court include: (1) whether inadequate or no consideration was paid by the nominee; (2) whether the property was placed in the nominee’s name in anticipation of a liability while the transferor remains in control of the property; (3) where there is a close relationship between the nominee and the transferor; (4) whether they failed to record the conveyance; (5) whether the transferor retains possession; and (6) whether the transferor continues to enjoy the benefits of the transferred property.  

Giardino v. United States, No. 96–CV–6348T, 1997 WL 1038197, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Oct.29, 1997).  A nominee finding can be made even where there is no intent to defraud creditors or hinder collection efforts.  Where a nominee relationship is found, the government may access only the property held on the taxpayer’s behalf by the nominee and not all the property of the nominee.

The Taxpayer’s Payments

The District Court found that the trust was the taxpayer’s nominee with respect to the residence only, and not with respect to the $220,000. The taxpayer had a close relationship with the trustees and the trust paid no consideration for the transfer of the residence. There was no evidence in the transfer agreement that the trust prevented the taxpayer from benefitting from the use and occupancy of the residence as much as when he held legal title to it.

The District Court found the evidence that the taxpayer made some payments relating to the property to be insufficient evidence to rebut the inference that he was the de facto owner of the property.  The payments that the taxpayer made in exchange for his occupancy were precisely those that an owner would make.  Once the mortgage was paid off, the taxpayer was only responsible for upkeep and expenses for the property; therefore, the trust received no net return from this asset.

The District Court considered that, were the trust acting as the owner of the property, it would have sought market rental rates that would have exceeded the taxpayer’s payments.  Therefore, the District Court found that the trust held the residence as the taxpayer’s nominee and that the government could recover the taxpayer’s debts against the residence under a nominee theory.

The Alter Ego Theory

The alter ego theory differs from the nominee theory because the nominee theory focuses on the taxpayer’s control over and benefit from the actual property, while the alter ego theory emphasizes the taxpayer’s control over the entity that holds the property.  The alter ego doctrine arose from the law of corporations and allows the creditor to disregard the corporate form (also known as “piercing the corporate veil”) by either using an individual owner’s assets to satisfy a corporation’s debts or using the corporation’s assets to satisfy the individual owner’s debts.

Although the New York Court of Appeals has never held that the alter ego theory may be applied to reach assets held in trust, the District Court found no policy reason not to extend the application of veil piercing to trusts.  The policy behind piercing the corporate veil is to prevent a debtor from using the corporate form to unjustly avoid liability, which applies equally to trusts.  Therefore, the District Court held that the alter ego theory could be applied to the trust in the instant case.

Piercing the Corporate Veil

To pierce the corporate veil in New York, a plaintiff must show that “(1) the owner exercised such control that the corporation has become a mere instrumentality of the owner, who is the real actor; (2) the owner used this control to commit a fraud or ‘other wrong’; and (3) the fraud or wrong results in an unjust loss or injury to the plaintiff.” Babitt v. Vebeliunas,332 F.3d 85, 91–92 (2d Cir.2003) (citations omitted); see also Wm. Passalacqua Builders, Inc. v. Resnick Developers S. Inc., 933 F.2d 131, 138 (2d Cir.1991).  With respect to analyzing the taxpayer’s control over the trust, the relevant factors can be drawn by analogy from the corporate context.

In analyzing the alter ego question as it relates to a corporation, courts consider factors such as the absence of formalities, the amount of business discretion displayed by the allegedly dominated corporation, whether the related corporations deal with the dominated corporation at arm’s length and whether the corporation in question had property that was used by other of the corporations as if it were its own. Vebeliunas,332 F.3d  at 91 n.3 (citation omitted).

The District Court’s Findings

The District Court found that the trust was an alter ego of the taxpayer.  The trust formalities were so poorly observed as to give rise to the inference that the trust was not a bona fide independent entity. Between 1992 and 1998, the trust did not record the taxpayer’s payment of expenses for the residence as income and, during this period, the trust did not claim the mortgage interest deduction for the residence.  The individual taxpayer remained as the named beneficiary of the flood and fire insurance policies of the residence.

The accounting work for the trust was performed by a business associate of the taxpayer as a professional courtesy.  The trust tax statements were sent directly to the taxpayer instead of to the trustees. The District Court also found that the manner in which the trust was managed also demonstrate that it was an extension of the taxpayer because there was little evidence that the trustees were actively involved in managing the trust or its assets.

Having trustees play an active role in managing the trust is an important factor in deciding whether to respect the form of a trust because active involvement of trustees would support the separate existence of a trust. Dean v. United States, 987 F.Supp. 1160, 1165 (W.D.Mo.1997).  Finally, the taxpayer demonstrated his domination of the trust by controlling its property to a high degree.

The Court’s Decision

Once the District Court found that the taxpayer controlled the trust, the next steps were to determine whether he used that control to commit a fraud or a wrong against the government, in its capacity as a creditor, and whether that wrong resulted in an unjust loss.  The court found these elements to be plainly satisfied by the facts and its previous findings with respect to actual fraudulent conveyance and the nominee doctrine.

Therefore, the District Court concluded that the existence of the trust as a separate entity was a legal fiction. Under the alter ego theory, the government may collect against all assets held by the trust as if they were held by the taxpayer himself.

Therefore, the District Court held that the government may proceed to collect against all the assets held by the trust that the taxpayer established for benefit of his sons in order to satisfy his delinquent tax liabilities.

Should you have any questions relating to trusts and other personal asset protection issues, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Susan Maya, at SMaya@Mayalaw.com or 203-221-3100, and Attorney Russell Sweeting, at RSweeting@Mayalaw.com or 203-221-3100, in the Maya Murphy office in Westport, Fairfield County, Connecticut.

Trustees May Be Liable in their Own Person and Estate for Failure to Comply with IRS Notices of Levy Issued against Trust Beneficiaries

Leave a reply
United States v. Michel, 08 CV 1313 DRH WDW, 2012 WL 3011124 (E.D.N.Y. July 23, 2012)

In a case before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the United States government commenced an action against a trustee in order to collect unpaid federal taxes owed by the trust beneficiary. The District Court granted the government’s summary judgment motion and found the trustee liable for unpaid federal taxes plus interest.

Case Details

In 1995, the beneficiary’s mother died.  Pursuant to her will, the majority of her estate was left to be held in trust, and administered, managed, invested and reinvested by the trustee as set forth in the will.  The relevant provision of the will directed the trustee to pay her son, the sole beneficiary of the trust, at least $1,000 per month, but not more than 60-percent of the net income of the trust.

The same provision also provided the trustee with sole discretion to pay trust principal to her son as necessary for the comfortable “maintenance, support, health, education and well being” of her son, and his two sons.  In February 1996, the trustee was issued letters of trusteeship for the trust created by the will.

Delinquent Tax Liability

In April 1996, the trustee was informed by his attorney by letter that the son owed the federal government for various taxes totaling $246,579.  The attorney additionally informed the trustee that whatever income was going to the son, regardless of the source, must go first to the creditor.  In June 1996, the trustee was served with an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Notice of Levy and Notice of Federal Tax Lien. The Notice of Levy listed federal income tax liabilities and civil penalties that the son owed to the IRS for tax years 1979 through 1989.

The notice further stated that the levy required the trustee to turn over to the IRS “this person’s property and rights to property (such as money, credits and bank deposits) that you have or which you are already obligated to pay this person.”  In either 2000 or 2001, the trustee was directed by his new attorney to make distributions from the trust to the son because the IRS had been satisfied.

The trustee did not see the paperwork documenting satisfaction of the IRS levy and signed blank checks to permit the attorney to draw on the trust account for the son.  The government then commenced action against the trustee to collect the son’s delinquent tax liability through the judicial enforcement of the IRS levy.

Delinquent Tax Collection

The IRS has two principal tools to collect delinquent taxes.  The first is a lien foreclosure suit, brought pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7403(a).  The other is the issuance of a levy upon all property and rights to property belonging to the delinquent taxpayer, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6331(a).  Where the taxpayer’s property is being held by another, the notice of levy is customarily served upon the custodian of the property pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6332(a).

Serving the notice on the custodian creates a custodial relationship between the person holding the property and the IRS so that the property comes into constructive possession of the government.  If the custodian fails or refuses to surrender the property or rights to property subject to the levy, the custodian becomes liable in his own person and estate to the government in the sum equal to the value of what he failed to surrender.  26 U.S.C. § 6332(d)(1).

Trust Instruments Under New York Law

Pursuant to New York law, the plain language of the trust instrument must be analyzed in order to determine a trust beneficiary’s property rights in trust income or principal.  The Second Circuit has held that a beneficiary has a property interest in trust income when the trust instrument sets out the trustee’s duty to pay income in mandatory terms.  Magavern v. United States, 550 F.2d 797, 801 (2d Cir.1977).  Therefore, when the trustee is required to make a payment of trust income to a beneficiary, even when the amount and timing of the mandatory income distribution are left to the trustee’s discretion, the trust beneficiary has a property right in trust income that is subject to a tax levy.

Beneficiary Property Rights 

In the instant case, because the trustee’s duty pay out a certain amount of trust income was set forth in mandatory terms, the beneficiary had a right to property in the trust income, and the government tax levy could attach to this right.  However, the will did not require the trustee to pay trust principal to the beneficiary.  The terms of the trust left decisions with respect to the trust principal entirely to the trustee’s discretion.  Therefore, the beneficiary had no attachable right to property in the trust principal until the trustee decided to make a distribution of such principal to him.

The District Court concluded that the beneficiary had some property rights to both the trust income and that portion of the trust principal, if any, that was distributed to him.  These rights to property were in the possession of the trustee, and it was undisputed under the facts of the case that the trustee did not surrender any levied property to the IRS in compliance with 26 U.S.C. § 6332(a).  Therefore, the trustee could be liable in his own person and estate to the government under 26 U.S.C. § 6332(d)(1).

Avoiding Personal and Estate Liability 

A custodian of property or rights to property that are subject to an IRS levy has only two defenses to avoid liability in his own person and estate.  The first available defense is that the trustee is neither in possession of nor obligated with respect to the property or rights to property belonging to the delinquent taxpayer.  26 U.S.C. § 6332(a).  The second available defense is that the taxpayer’s property or rights to property at issue are subject to attachment or execution under a judicial process.  Id. 

In the instant case, the first defense was not applicable because, pursuant to the terms of the will, the trustee was both obligated to pay the beneficiary certain amounts of trust income at given intervals and empowered to make discretionary distributions.  The trustee made no suggestion that the second defense was applicable.

The absence of intentional or negligent conduct is not relevant as to whether an enforcement action may be maintained against the custodian; therefore, good faith could not absolve the trustee of liability for his failure to comply with his statutory obligations to surrender property pursuant to a valid IRS Notice of Levy.  Therefore, the District Court found that the trustee could not avoid liability for his actions under either of the two statutorily available defenses.

The Court’s Decision

The District Court determined that the government established as a matter of law that the trustee failed to honor the Notice of Levy served on the trust beneficiary in June 1996 by improperly distributing estate assets to the trust beneficiary after the date of the levy.  However, the court also held that the trustee was liable for less than the judgment amount requested by the government, but the court permitted the government to submit a supplemental briefing as to its entitlement to additional estate money to which the trust beneficiary had a property right.

Should you have any questions relating to trusts or other personal asset protection issues, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Susan Maya, at SMaya@Mayalaw.com or 203-221-3100, and Attorney Russell Sweeting, at RSweeting@Mayalaw.com or 203-221-3100, in the Maya Murphy office in Westport, Fairfield County, Connecticut.

Overseas Tax Shelters Now Complying With IRS

Leave a reply

Some of the world’s most notorious secret account havens have agreed to give information about U.S. tax payers to the Internal Revenue Service.

In a 24-day span ending December 19, eight jurisdictions — the Cayman Islands, Costa Rica, Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Bermuda, Malta and the Netherlands – signed separate agreements with the IRS to help it implement the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), enacted by Congress to uncover offshore tax evasion. Deals with more countries are in the works.

IRS Intergovernmental Agreements

An IRS intergovernmental agreement “obligates the foreign country to require its investment funds and other financial institutions, unless they are exempt, to collect certain information from their U.S. account holders and report it to their country’s tax authority, which will then report the information to the IRS,” explains accountant Jay Bakst, a partner in the financial services practice of EisnerAmper LLP, an advisory and accounting firm in New York.

Institutions in countries that have yet to ink an intergovernmental agreement must enter into an agreement with the IRS to report directly to it or face 30-percent withholding on certain income from U.S. sources.

Reportable data includes the client’s name, address and tax identification number, plus information on account deposits, withdrawals and balances. Reporting begins in 2015, when 2014 account data will be furnished to the IRS.

Considering the Cayman Islands

For advisors and their U.S. clients, the Cayman Islands accord is particularly significant. The British territory’s money and secretive banks, private funds and insurance outfits are popular with affluent Americans, and for some of them the new pact could prove a game changer.

Prior to the Cayman government’s November 29 agreement with the IRS, Cayman banks that didn’t have income from the U.S. — and which were therefore unaffected by FATCA’s withholding on U.S.-source income — had little motivation to comply with the American law.

The same was true for Cayman funds with no U.S. income. But the intergovernmental agreement means an institution will be breaking its own country’s law by failing to report U.S. investors’ information to its government. That is a “strong incentive” to turn over the data regardless of whether withholding would apply, Bakst says.

International Clients

For advisors with international clients, attorney Frank L. Brunetti points out that most IRS intergovernmental agreements are reciprocal. For example, the IRS will be reporting to Costa Rica about its taxpayers in the U.S.

International clients should also be aware that multilateral agreements are expanding, where “multiple countries are sharing in the same exchange-of-information protocol,” says Brunetti. He is a partner at Scarinci Hollenbeck in Lyndhurst, N.J., as well as an academic observer to the United Nations Committee of Experts on Cooperation in International Tax Matters.

“Governments are cooperating with each other because they are looking for revenue, and they’re getting much better at it with the technology and the laws,” Brunetti says. “There are not many places for the international billionaire to hide assets anymore.”

credit: Eric Reiner

2014 Estate & Gift Tax Limits Adjusted For Inflation

Leave a reply

Starting next year, people who have done some estate planning and made the maximum tax-free transfers to their families (and those thinking about doing it) can take another crack at it. Beginning January 1st 2014, the amount folks can pass on during life (and at their death) completely free from federal estate tax will increase by an additional $90,000.

Using the Consumer Price Index data for the most recent month and the preceding 11 months, the tax experts at Research Institute of America calculated and reported increases for 2014 to a number of tax limits including the income where the various marginal tax brackets apply, the standard deduction amounts, the personal exemption amount, and a number of other items. They also calculated adjusted amounts for the various estate tax and gift tax limits that will apply in 2014.

Gift tax limits rise in 2013
2013 tax rules than can save you money
Reducing taxes on IRA payouts

Limits Affecting Tax Free Gifts

Here are a few of the new limits that affect tax free gifts made in 2014:

Unified estate and gift tax exclusion amount. For gifts made and estates of decedents dying in 2014, the exclusion amount will be $5,340,000 (up from $5,250,000 for gifts made and estates of decedents dying in 2013).

This means that in 2014, each person has a credit that can be used to offset the estate tax on a taxable estate of up to $5.34 million of assets. The practical application of this is that individuals can make gifts during life or transfers at death of up to this new higher limit and pay no federal estate tax. Also, new last year is that spouses may combine their unused individual credit amounts and pass on assets free of estate tax on a taxable estate of up to $10.68 million at the death of the second spouse, assuming none of these credits were used during their lifetimes.

Estate Limit Changes

Other estate limits that change in 2014 include:

Generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax exemption. The exemption from GST tax will be $5,340,000 for transfers in 2014 (up from $5,250,000 for transfers in 2013).

Increased annual exclusion for gifts to non-citizen spouses. For gifts made in 2014, the annual exclusion for gifts to non-citizen spouses will be $145,000 (up from $143,000 for 2013).

Foreign earned income exclusion. The foreign earned income exclusion amount increases to $99,200 in 2014 (up from $97,600 in 2013).

Gift tax annual exclusion. For gifts made in 2014, the gift tax annual exclusion will be $14,000 (same as for gifts made in 2013). Generally the amount that can be given to any individual each year that is excluded from the gift tax is $14,000 per person per year. In 2014, this amount is projected to remain at $14,000 per person as the amount that may be gifted annually free from the gift tax. Parents may also use the technique of “gift splitting” or combining gifts to a child, whereby they can each make a gift of $14,000, for a total amount of tax free gifts made of $28,000 to a single person or child each year.

credit-Ray Martin