Los Angeles : 310-556-3007
Miller Law - A Professional Corporation

Los Angeles Tax Law Blog

Failure to Maintain Business Records Can Lead to Prosecution

A recent appellate court case out of New York (U.S. vs. Marinello) affirmed the conviction for tax evasion of a taxpayer for failing to maintain business records and timely file income tax returns. The facts of the case are as follows:

Failure to Maintain Business Records Can Lead to Prosecution

A recent appellate court case out of New York (U.S. vs. Marinello) affirmed the conviction for tax evasion of a taxpayer for failing to maintain business records and timely file income tax returns. The facts of the case are as follows:

Reasonable Cause: When can you rely on a tax professional to avoid penalties ?

When can a taxpayer rely on the advice of a tax professional is fundamental to establishing "reasonable cause" for failure to timely file tax returns.  The U.S. Supreme Court stated the standard for what constitutes reasonable reliance on a tax professional and what is a non-delegable duty in United States v. Boyle. 

Banking Through Shell Companies Just Got Harder

For many U.S. and non-U.S. persons access to the U.S. banking system is key to preservation of the wealth or operation of their business. Anyone looking for banking security and liquidity will maintain an account in a U.S. bank, including, terrorists, drug dealers, arms traffickers, and money launderers.  An agency of the U.S Treasury,the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, "FinCEN"  is seeking to severely limit access to the U.S. banking system for such persons.

Use of Shell Companies To Shield Identity Further Limited

On July 27, 2016 the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, (FinCEN) of the Department of the Treasury issued expanded Geographic Targeting Orders (GTO) that will:
"temporarily require U.S. title insurance companies to identify the natural persons behind shell companies used to pay "all cash" for high-end residential real estate in six major metropolitan areas" The areas now cover are:
"the GTOs announced today include the following major U.S. geographic areas: (1) all boroughs of New York City; (2) Miami-Dade County and the two counties immediately north (Broward and Palm Beach); (3) Los Angeles County, California; (4) three counties comprising part of the San Francisco area (San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties); (5) San Diego County, California; and (6) the county that includes San Antonio, Texas (Bexar County)." The purposes of the GTO's is to assist law enforcement in tracking "the transactions covered by the GTOs (i.e., all-cash luxury purchases of residential property by a legal entity) which are highly vulnerable to abuse for money laundering. " There is a legitimate concern about money laundering through the use of "shell" companies, also referred to as single purpose vehicles (SPV's) when used to buy real property and open financial account using substantial sums of cash. Example of the problem the GTO seeks to address. Taxpayer forms an offshore shell in a tax haven jurisdiction, ( a country with a zero tax rate on out of country income). The shell is then funded often with unreported funds for U.S. tax purposes. The offshore company then forms a U.S SPV to acquire U.S. assets, such as real property. Often a "Nominee" officer and director is used to apply for an employer identification number for the SPV. The SPV is then funded with funds from the offshore company and then the SPV completes the asset purchase. With the GTO title insurance companies will be required to obtain the identities of the ultimate beneficial owners of the offshore company. This means that if a U.S. person (individual or company) is the ultimate beneficial interest holder that name must be disclosed. The expectation is that the identities of tax cheats and money launderers will be discovered as the process is implemented. When the GTO's are added to the "know Your Customer" requirements of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) the IRS may have found a way of catching those U.S. taxpayers who still have undisclosed foreign financial accounts and are trying to us those fund in the U.S. The Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program of 2014 is still open. However, some taxpayers will just not come forward, and for them, prosecution remains a true reality along with huge civil penalties

Is Age A Defense to Failure to File Returns?

Two  recent cases illustrate why age alone is no defense to failure to file returns criminal and civil penalties.  The first case is a Tax Court Case in which the the taxpayer was assessed late iflingand late payment penalties.  The taxpyaer argued that his age and coplexity of the tax code were the reasons he did not file and pay timely.  The court responded:

Streamline Procedure Risks: Are you really Non-willful?

According to reports in Tax Analysts there have been 54, 000 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure  (OVDP) participants 30,000 Streamline Procedure filings.  The Streamline Procedure filings are now the subject of intense Department of Justice (DOJ) and IRS review.  The DOJ and IRS ar looking for taxpayers who made improper use of the Streamline Procedures. 

What are the Tax Consequences of BREXIT for U.S. Taxpayers?

Recently, The Harvard Law School Forum on Croporate Governance and Finance published a note titled "The Legal Consequence of Brexit, authored by Simon Witty.  We have restated the transactional tax commentary here.  We have added our thoughts on the tax reporting, "information exchange agreements" and federal tax reporting requirements under the heading Compliance.  


  • The EU has influenced many areas of the UK's tax system. In some cases, this has been through EU legislation which applies directly in the UK; in other cases, EU rules have been adopted through UK legislation (for example, the UK's VAT legislation is based on principles which apply across the EU); and, in still other cases, decisions of the European Court of Justice have either influenced the development of UK tax rules, or have prevented the UK's tax authority from enforcing aspects of the UK's domestic tax code. This complicated backdrop means that the tax impact of Brexit will be varied and difficult to predict.
    • Areas to watch include the following:
      • Direct tax: although the UK has an extensive double tax treaty network, not all treaties provide for zero withholding tax on interest and royalty payments. Accordingly, corporate groups should consider the extent to which existing structures rely on EU rules such as the Parent-Subsidiary Directive or the Interest and Royalties Directive to secure tax efficient payment flows. Similarly, corporate groups proposing to undertake cross border reorganisations would need to consider the extent to which existing cross-EU border merger tax reliefs will survive intact. It should also be borne in mind that, even if Brexit occurs, the UK is likely to continue vigorously supporting the OECD's BEPS initiative such that there may well be considerable constraints and complexities associated with locating businesses outside the UK.
      • VAT: although VAT is an EU-wide tax regime, it seems inconceivable that VAT will be abolished. However, it is likely that, over time, there will be a divergence between UK VAT rules and EU VAT rules, including as to input VAT recovery on supplies made to non-UK customers. Additionally, UK companies may lose the administrative benefit of the "one stop shop" for businesses operating in Europe.
      • Customs duty: if the UK left the customs union, exports to and imports from EU countries may become subject to tariffs or other import duties (as well as additional compliance requirements).
      • Transfer taxes: it seems that the UK would, at least in principle, be able to (re)impose the 1.5% stamp duty/stamp duty reserve tax charge in respect of UK shares issued or transferred into a clearance or depositary receipt system. Accordingly, the position for UK-headed corporate groups seeking to list on the NYSE or Nasdaq may become less certain".
  • Compliance:
    • Information Exchange .  Current Information Exchange Agreements, including those mandated under Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, "FATCA" should remain unchanged.  That means that the agreement to provide financial account information about U.S. taxpayers with financial accounts in the United Kingdom, (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland will stay in effect regardless of the ultimate decision on Brexit.  That means that the IRS and Department of Justice, where appropriate, will receive annual reports about U.S. taxpayers with accounts in the U.K. which will provide a basis for enforcment actions against  those U.S. taxpayers who do not otherwise comply with U.S. reporting laws.
    • Reporting:  The Intenal Revenue Code and the Bank Secrecy Act have specific reporting laws and Regulations that require U.S. taxpaeyrs to report foreign finanicial accounts, such as bank accounts and foregin financial assets, such as intersts in foreign privately held corporations, partnerships, foundations and trusts.  These rules and regulations remain unchanged by Brexit.
    • Enforcement:  The IRS and Department of Justice will continue to enforce the reporting laws and Regulaiions and in some cases prosecute non-complaint  taxpayers.  The penalty regime for failure to file informaiton returns, including FBARs is not affected by Brexit.
  • Voluntary Disclosure:  Brexit should have no affect on the longevity of the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) or other voluntary disclosure programs.  The decision to seek the protection of the OVDP must be made on individual facts and circumstances, none of which are likely to involve Brexit.

Conclusion:  Brexit is not certain. The Parliament must first elect a new Prime Minster who must then ask Parliament to authorize an Article 50 Notice of Withdrawal, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon.  Failure to issue such a notice means no change in the U.K.relatinship with the E.U. 

Millar Law A Professional Corporation


1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 650 | Los Angeles, CA 90067 | Phone: 310-556-3007 | Fax: 310-556-3094 | Los Angeles Law Office Map

Review Us

Back To Top