Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Panama Papers has become a new buzz phrase. Information contained in the Panama Papers ' the unprecedented leak of 11.5 million internal documents from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca ' illustrates the dangers of noncompliance for U.S. taxpayers and for citizens of other countries with whom the U.S. has exchange of information agreements.
So why should all of this journalistic reporting carry the name of a country that has worked very hard to promote its transparency when it is well known that you don't have to go to Panama to create a shell company? It can be done right here at home in the United States.
In many jurisdictions, including the U.S., it is legal to create and be a beneficial owner of the assets of an offshore entity or offshore trust. In the U.S., using structures to evade taxes and hide reportable assets and income is illegal. The Internal Revenue Service pointed to offshore tax avoidance once again in 2016 in its dirty dozen tax scams. (See, “IRS Wraps Up the 'Dirty Dozen' List of Tax Scams for 2016.”)
Offshore Accounts
The IRS understands that there are legitimate reasons to maintain offshore accounts and business structures. Nonetheless, the IRS expects U.S. taxpayers to comply with the U.S. reporting and taxpaying requirements. Noncompliance can lead to U.S. criminal prosecution.
When discussing offshore tax avoidance on the dirty dozen list, the IRS states: “The recent string of successful enforcement actions against offshore tax cheats and the financial organizations that help them shows that it's a bad bet to hide money and income offshore. Taxpayers are best served by coming in voluntarily and getting caught up on their tax-filing responsibilities. The IRS offers the offshore voluntary disclosure program to enable people to catch up on their filing and tax obligations.”
The IRS continues to pursue cases all over the world regardless of whether a U.S. taxpayer banks overseas and chooses a bank with no offices on U.S. soil. And let's not forget the automatic Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) reporting that began in 2015. Having offshore structures and offshore accounts will not go unnoticed by the IRS.
Whether or not the Panama Papers leak was a cyberattack may no longer matter. The amount of information and exposure leaked is already changing things. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), tax authorities around the world will explore possibilities of cooperation and information-sharing, identifying tax compliance risks and agreeing on collaborative action in light of Panama Papers disclosures. See, “Tax Administrations Ready to Act on 'Panama Papers,'” OECD.
Time to Comply
At this point, it is best for noncompliant U.S. taxpayers to become compliant, and U.S. taxpayers that are out of compliance still have an opportunity to act. They can comply with the U.S. tax system and regularize their U.S. tax obligations.
After all, there are currently plenty of red lights and hurdles in place that regulate the new world that we live in, such as:
Finally, given that the tax world is interconnected and globalized and countries will exchange financial information about each other's taxpayers, it is best to not be a victim of your own making. Seek professional tax advice.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.