Podcasts about foreign bank

This Day in Legal History: Mississippi BurningOn November 21, 1964, a federal grand jury convened in Meridian, Mississippi, and indicted 19 men in connection with the murders of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner—three civil rights workers abducted and killed by the Ku Klux Klan during Freedom Summer. The brutal killings had shocked the nation, but Mississippi officials refused to pursue murder charges, prompting the federal government to step in. Lacking jurisdiction over homicide, federal prosecutors turned to a rarely used provision of the Reconstruction-era Civil Rights Act of 1870, charging the defendants with conspiracy to violate the victims' civil rights.This legal maneuver led to United States v. Price (1967), a pivotal Supreme Court case that affirmed the federal government's authority to prosecute state actors and private citizens working in concert to deprive others of constitutional rights. The Court unanimously held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment could be enforced through criminal prosecution when state officials or their proxies engaged in unlawful conduct.At trial, seven of the defendants, including a deputy sheriff, were convicted—though none received more than ten years in prison. Several of the most notorious perpetrators, including Edgar Ray Killen, evaded justice for decades. Still, the case marked one of the first successful federal efforts to hold white supremacists accountable for racial violence in the Jim Crow South.The Mississippi Burning case revealed both the limits of federal power—since murder charges were off-limits—and its emerging role as a necessary backstop when local justice systems failed. It signaled a new willingness by the Department of Justice to engage in civil rights enforcement, even in the face of deep local hostility. The grand jury's action on this day helped set legal and moral precedent for future federal interventions in civil rights cases.Google is making a final argument in federal court to avoid a forced breakup of its advertising technology business, as the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) wraps up its antitrust case. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema already ruled in April that Google maintains two illegal monopolies in the ad tech space. Now the court is weighing remedies, with the DOJ and several states pushing for the sale of Google's AdX exchange, a key platform where digital ads are auctioned in real time.During an 11-day trial that began in September, the DOJ argued that only a forced divestiture would effectively curb Google's anticompetitive conduct. In response, Google contended that breaking up its ad business would be technically disruptive and harmful to customers. The company also emphasized that it would comply with less drastic remedies.The trial represents one of the most serious legal threats to Google's ad empire to date. While Google has largely avoided major penalties in previous antitrust actions, this case—and others still pending against Meta, Amazon, and Apple—could mark a turning point in federal enforcement against Big Tech.Google has pledged to appeal any adverse ruling, including Judge Brinkema's earlier decision and a separate finding in Washington that declared Google's dominance in online search and advertising unlawful. In that case, Google was not forced to sell its Chrome browser but was ordered to share more data with competitors.The outcome of this trial could have lasting implications for the structure of the digital ad industry and the future of antitrust enforcement in the tech sector.Google aims to dodge breakup of ad business as antitrust trial wraps | ReutersAs the federal government considers limiting state regulation of artificial intelligence, many U.S. states are moving in the opposite direction—introducing legislation to curb algorithmic pricing practices that may be inflating costs for consumers. These laws target the growing use of software that sets prices based on personal data, such as location, browsing history, and past purchases. Critics argue this enables businesses to charge consumers what they're perceived to be willing to pay, not a fair market rate.Former FTC Chair Lina Khan, now advising New York City's incoming administration, is helping shape efforts to leverage state authority to combat such practices. Laws already passed in New York and California prohibit algorithmic collusion in rental markets, and 19 other states are considering similar bills to restrict price-setting based on competitor data.The issue has attracted bipartisan concern. Utah Republican Tyler Clancy plans to introduce legislation aimed at giving consumers more control over the data companies collect and use to personalize prices. Advocacy groups like Consumer Reports warn that AI-driven pricing risks exacerbating inequality, allowing companies to charge different prices based on who they think the buyer is—effectively punishing certain groups of consumers.Meanwhile, President Trump is reportedly considering an executive order that would block state-level AI rules, escalating the tension between federal deregulation efforts and state-led consumer protection initiatives.US states take aim at data-driven pricing to ease consumer pain | ReutersIn a landmark decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court has become the first high court in the U.S. to ban prosecutors from introducing expert testimony that shaking alone can cause the internal injuries typically attributed to Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). The 6–1 ruling came in two separate child abuse cases involving fathers accused of harming their infant sons. The court held that the state failed to show sufficient scientific consensus across relevant fields, particularly from biomechanical engineering, to justify presenting SBS as a reliable diagnosis in the absence of external trauma.While SBS has long been used to explain serious injuries like brain swelling and internal bleeding in infants—forming the basis for thousands of abuse prosecutions—the court emphasized that scientific evidence must be broadly accepted and reliable, not speculative or limited to select disciplines. Pediatricians and neurologists largely support the SBS diagnosis, but the court noted that the foundational research stemmed from a 1968 whiplash study, and the biomechanics field has not confirmed that shaking alone, without head impact, can produce the injuries.One of the defendants, Darryl Nieves, had his case dismissed, while the other, Michael Cifelli, remains charged but plans to seek dismissal based on the ruling. The decision opens the door for challenges in past SBS convictions and may limit future prosecutions relying solely on SBS testimony.Justice Fabiana Pierre-Louis wrote that the door isn't permanently closed—if future research can establish consensus, such testimony may be admitted. But for now, the ruling significantly raises the bar for the use of SBS in court. Justice Rachel Wainer Apter dissented, warning that the majority gave too much weight to a single scientific field over others.New Jersey high court first in US to ban Shaken Baby Syndrome testimony | ReutersA piece I wrote for Forbes this week examined how Foreign Bank and Financial Account (FBAR) reporting enforcement has evolved into a penalty system wildly out of sync with the actual harm caused. I opened with the United States v. Saydam decision, where a dual citizen was hit with a $437,000 civil penalty for failing to file FBAR forms—even though the government's tax loss was only about $29,000. There was no fraud, no evasion, and no criminal behavior, yet the punishment looked like something reserved for offshore tax schemers. I argued that this case shows how FBAR has drifted far from its original purpose under the Bank Secrecy Act, which was aimed at serious financial crime, not routine reporting lapses.In the article, I explained how the concept of “willfulness” has morphed into something elastic enough to include recklessness or even simple inattention, giving the IRS license to impose penalties of up to 50% of an account's highest balance per year. That structure means the punishment often bears no relation to any underlying tax obligation. Saydam's case illustrates this perfectly—the government simply took his highest‑balance year, sliced it in half, spread it across the years he didn't file, and ended up with a crushing figure.I also emphasized that the people being hit hardest aren't drug traffickers or money‑launderers; they're ordinary taxpayers with overseas ties—dual citizens, immigrants, retirees—whose “wrongdoing” is usually limited to missing a form. The court's acknowledgment that FBAR penalties are indeed “fines” under the Eighth Amendment should have prompted a stronger proportionality analysis, but instead it set a very forgiving standard for the government, effectively blessing massive penalties for paperwork lapses.In my view, when penalties exceed the actual tax loss by a factor of fifteen, we're no longer talking about a compliance tool—we're talking about a punitive revenue mechanism. The system now incentivizes extracting large sums from people who pose no threat to the tax base. Saydam didn't hide money or lie about his income; he just didn't file a disclosure. Yet he now faces nearly half a million dollars in liability. As I wrote, if this is the precedent, FBAR has stopped being a transparency measure and has become a blunt instrument aimed at immigrant taxpayers.The Rise And Proliferation Of Excessive FBAR PenaltiesThis week's closing theme is by Henry Purcell.This week's closing theme comes from Purcell, the brilliant English Baroque composer often called “the Orpheus Britannicus” for the beauty and depth of his music. Born in 1659 and active during the late 17th century, Purcell's work bridged the gap between Renaissance polyphony and the emerging Baroque style, blending French elegance, Italian expressiveness, and a distinctly English sensibility. Though he died young at just 36, his influence on British music would echo for centuries.While his “Ode to Saint Cecilia”—written for the patron saint of music—is his most direct connection to November 22, the official feast day of Saint Cecilia, Purcell's music is appropriate listening for this week. His compositions often graced the St. Cecilia Day festivals held annually in London, celebrating music itself as a divine art.The Overture in G minor, which closes our episode today, is not among his ceremonial odes but showcases many of his signature strengths: tight contrapuntal writing, a dark, dignified mood, and striking harmonic shifts that feel centuries ahead of their time. The overture begins with a slow, solemn introduction before launching into a more vigorous section, where rhythmic vitality meets melodic restraint.It's a concise, powerful piece that reflects Purcell's talent for writing music that is both emotionally direct and structurally refined. Though originally composed for a larger suite or theatrical context, it stands on its own as a miniature masterwork. As the week draws to a close and Saint Cecilia's Day approaches, Purcell's music reminds us that even in constraint—of time, of scale, of form—there can be grandeur.And with that, enjoy Purcell's Overture in G minor! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

To understand the nitty-gritties of the IT Returns process and the mistakes tax-payers must avoid Moneycontrol's Preeti Kulkarni spoke to Mousami, Nagarsenkar, Partner, Deloitte India. Here are the key takeaways:

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Bittner v United States. In this case, the court considered this issue: Is a “violation” under the Bank Secrecy Act the failure to file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (no matter the number of foreign accounts), or is there a separate violation for each individual account that was not properly reported? The case was decided on February 28, 2023. The court held that The Bank Secrecy Act's $10,000 maximum penalty for the nonwillful failure to file a compliant report accrues on a per-report, not a per-account, basis. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the 5-4 majority opinion holding that Bittner was subject to a fine only for each report he failed to file, not for each account he failed to report over that five-year period. The plain language of Section 5321 addresses the legal duty to file reports, not of individual accounts or their number. The penalty the statute prescribes for nonwillful violations must therefore be based on the number of reports, not on the number of accounts. In contrast, for willful violations, the statute expressly considers a penalty on a per-account basis. The government's guidance as to these provisions, as well as the drafting history, further support this understanding. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined, arguing that “the most natural reading of the statute establishes that each failure to report a qualifying foreign account constitutes a separate reporting violation.” The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

Listen in as we discuss intricacies of FBAR (Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts), Form 8938 (Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets), and PFIC (Passive Foreign Investment Company) reporting requirements.Navigating the complexities of international tax compliance can be challenging, especially when it comes to reporting foreign financial assets and investments. Whether you are an individual taxpayer, a tax professional, or a financial advisor, understanding these reporting obligations is crucial to ensure compliance with the IRS regulations and avoid potential penalties.CPAs Varshika Gupta and Rajesh Ghimire, along with our Client Services Manager, Arianna Gonzalez, MBA, covered an overview of FBAR, Form 8938, and PFIC reporting requirements; reporting thresholds and filing deadlines; strategies for managing PFIC investments and minimizing tax implications; and many more. Listen In!

A trial date has been set in the Trump prosecution for classified documents and Trump's team celebrates. Judge Aileen Cannon orders trial to be held in May 2024 and we review the latest.Georgia Prosecutor Fani Willis marches forward with her prosecution against Donald Trump and police prepare for indictments. Georgia Governor Brian Kemp weighs in as charges are expected as soon as August.Congress warns the Department of Justice to comply with their request for interviews with 11 officials involved in the Biden Crime family investigation. Senator Ted Cruz weighs in, explaining what he believes to be a cover-up in action by the DOJ.The House Judiciary Committee releases new evidence that reveals the FBI knew the truth about the Hunter Biden Laptop when interfacing with Twitter and other social media companies during the 2020 election. Congress demands answers and Rep. Byron Donalds weighs in.Rep. James Comer reacts to the testimony of the IRS Whistleblowers, confirming the investigation is just getting started. Senator Ted Cruz launches a new podcast studio while Mike and Joe Brezinski complain about Republicans. Will the Republicans have the stones to impeach Joe Biden? We ask Andy Biggs.

In today's episode, Andy & DJ discuss a federal judge to decide whether Joe Biden's administration violated the First Amendment by censoring users on social media, Hunter Biden's account set up with a corrupt foreign bank that was shut down for breaking money laundering rules, and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken saying that the U.S. doesn't support Taiwan breaking away from China.

The DOJ's now-ended China initiative sees one of its most high-profile sentences yet. A former Harvard scientist is headed for house arrest after six felony counts for hiding his ties to a Chinese university. He worked with the institute through Beijing's infamous Thousand Talents program, later admitting aspirations for a Nobel prize. ⭕️ Watch in-depth videos based on Truth & Tradition at Epoch TV

Harvard Prof. Sentenced to House Arrest, Fines for Hiding China Ties, Foreign Bank AccountRapper Found Guilty of Helping China Influence U.S.Chinese Nationals Smuggled into the U.S.; Mother, Son Risked Lives to Cross Southern BorderRecord High Number of Chinese People Crossing U.S. Southern Border, Mainly Young MenChina Formally Arrests Taiwan ActivistExposed: Whistleblower Secretly Convicted in ChinaWoman Chants 'Down with the CCP' at TiananmenBeijing May Have Issues Dealing with AI: ExpertsChina's Role in N. Korea's Rising Nuclear Arms: Fisher

Harvard Professor Sentenced to House Arrest and Fines for Hiding China Ties, Foreign Bank Account

Audio of  Bittner v. United States (Feb 28, 2023) Dissenting Opinion U.S. persons with foreign bank accounts are required to file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, commonly known as an FBAR. Alexandru Bittner, a dual citizen of the U.S. and Romania, failed to report his interests in his foreign bank accounts on annual FBAR forms, as required by the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (BSA). So, the United States government fined him 10,000 for each unreported account each year from 2007 to 2011 - for a grand total of $2.72 million. You might say Mr. Bittner was FUBAR over his FBARS at this point. Of course, Bittner challenged the fines. The district court held that a $10,000 maximum penalty attaches to each failure to file an annual FBAR, not to each account to be reported on the FBAR, so it reduced Bittner's fines to $50,000 total.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that each account he failed to report indeed counted as separate reporting violation. In this case, the Court was asked… Is a “violation” under the Bank Secrecy Act the failure to file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (no matter the number of foreign accounts), or is there a separate violation for each individual account that was not properly reported?  The Court sided with Bittner in a surprising 5-4 split. Today I'll be reading Justice Barrett's dissenting opinion, in which she is joined by an unlikely collection of colleagues.   Music by Epidemic Sound  

Audio of Part 2 of Bittner v. United States (Feb 28, 2023) Majority Opinion U.S. persons with foreign bank accounts are required to file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, commonly known as an FBAR. Alexandru Bittner, a dual citizen of the U.S. and Romania, failed to report his interests in his foreign bank accounts on annual FBAR forms, as required by the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (BSA). So, the United States government fined him 10,000 for each unreported account each year from 2007 to 2011 - for a grand total of $2.72 million. You might say Mr. Bittner was FUBAR over his FBARS at this point. Of course, Bittner challenged the fines. The district court held that a $10,000 maximum penalty attaches to each failure to file an annual FBAR, not to each account to be reported on the FBAR, so it reduced Bittner's fines to $50,000 total.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that each account he failed to report indeed counted as separate reporting violation. In this case, the Court was asked… Is a “violation” under the Bank Secrecy Act the failure to file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (no matter the number of foreign accounts), or is there a separate violation for each individual account that was not properly reported?   Music by Epidemic Sound

Audio of Bittner v. United States (Feb 28, 2023) Majority Opinion   U.S. persons with foreign bank accounts are required to file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, commonly known as an FBAR. Alexandru Bittner, a dual citizen of the U.S. and Romania, failed to report his interests in his foreign bank accounts on annual FBAR forms, as required by the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (BSA). So, the United States government fined him 10,000 for each unreported account each year from 2007 to 2011 - for a grand total of $2.72 million. You might say Mr. Bittner was FUBAR over his FBARS at this point. Of course, Bittner challenged the fines. The district court held that a $10,000 maximum penalty attaches to each failure to file an annual FBAR, not to each account to be reported on the FBAR, so it reduced Bittner's fines to $50,000 total.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that each account he failed to report indeed counted as separate reporting violation. In this case, the Court was asked… Is a “violation” under the Bank Secrecy Act the failure to file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (no matter the number of foreign accounts), or is there a separate violation for each individual account that was not properly reported?   Music by Epidemic Sound  

Wednesday March 1, 2023 – Back in January we did a story about The Supreme Court refusing to hear a case of excessive fines for inadvertently failing to file a timely bank disclosure form called the FBAR (Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts). Justice Gorsuch issued a rare dissenting opinion in that case. And now it makes sense. On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court limited the IRS's ability to impose penalties when taxpayers unintentionally make errors in reporting foreign accounts. The majority opinion was written by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch. He reasoned that the relevant legal duty is to file reports, not individual accounts. The case concerned Alexandru Bittner, an immigrant and dual citizen who failed to disclose his foreign accounts while living overseas. Lawyers argued that the FBAR should only carry a fine of $50,000, or $10,000 per year. Not the nearly $3 million penalty initially imposed by the IRS, based on the number of accounts. Justice Amy Coney Barrett disagreed and wrote a dissent arguing that the FBAR is an annual form requiring separate penalties for each account not reported. The ruling is important news for taxpayers who worry about FBAR penalties and adds clarity to the IRS's authority when it comes to FBAR violations. With this ruling, SCOTUS has ensured that taxpayers will not be unfairly penalized by the IRS for unintentional FBAR mistakes. That's a win for everyone. Thank you SCOTUS! God bless America! Now, how can we go back to the Toch case and correct that wrong? Attorney Steven A. Leahy analyses this recent Supreme Court decision on Today's Tax Talk. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/feb/28/supreme-court-sides-immigrant-challenging-irs-pena/ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1195_h3ci.pdf https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/793168156 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-177_d0fi.pdf --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/steven-leahy1/message

Audio of new opinion related to orders: Toth v. United States (Jan 23, 2023) Justice Gorsuch Dissenting from Denial of Certiorari.

Ugh, are we talking about Elon AGAIN? Well, yeah, but he's running so spectacularly wild, it reminds us of the joke about a horse wreaking havoc in a hospital. There's no protocol, so I guess we're all just watching. Blue checks backfired again with the fake Eli Lilly account Tweeting "Insulin is free," shining a big light on two things: That the pay-to-be-verified-on-Twitter plan is trash and, most importantly, that price gouging insulin to the tune of 1,200 percent is ethically barren. Next on deck is a big nasty: The Wall Street Journal reports that a U.S. taxpayer is facing a fine of $2.72 million for failing to submit a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts--also known as FBAR. The stinger? The taxpayer in question didn't even OWE any taxes on those assets; this is literally just a penalty. Good luck, fella. Meanwhile, pay transparency laws are going into effect in NYC to help narrow the income gap across gender and ethnic lines. All together now: Equal work, equal pay! A solid win for decreasing income disparity. We also cover a crypto update, echoes of Enron at FTXA, and Meta/Facebook is about to lay off 10,000 employees. Links A Host of Tech Companies Announce Hiring Freezes and Job Cuts The Truth About Tech Layoffs What Amazon, Google and other top companies are paying in NYC The IRS and the Eighth Amendment Exclusive: At least $1 billion of client funds missing at FTXA Twitter employee who's 8 months pregnant says she was locked out of her company laptop the night before mass layoffs were due to be announced Facebook Parent Meta Is Preparing to Notify Employees of Large-Scale Layoffs This Week What Amazon, Google and other top companies are paying in NYC 4 million NYC workers will now see how much jobs pay before they apply—here's what to know Michael Lewis Already Selling Movie Rights for Book on FTX's Meltdown Fake Eli Lilly Twitter Account Claims Insulin Is Free, Stock Falls 4.37% Crypto.com Withdrawals Rise After CEO Admits Transaction Problem   Want to know more about working with BrooklynFI, contact us here​

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether a “violation” under the Bank Secrecy Act is the failure to file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (no matter the number of foreign accounts), or whether there is a separate violation for each individual account that was not properly reported.

A case in which the Court held that a “violation” under the Bank Secrecy Act is the failure to file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (no matter the number of foreign accounts), notwithstanding the number of individual accounts that were not properly reported.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a “violation” under the Bank Secrecy Act is the failure to file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (no matter the number of foreign accounts), or whether there is a separate violation for each individual account that was not properly reported.

Understand the Foreign Bank and Financial Account Report, FBAR, issues under review by the Supreme Court in Bittner v. United States. ACTEC filed an amicus brief in August and SCOTUS is scheduled to hear arguments on November 2. The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, ACTEC, is a professional society of peer-elected trust and estate lawyers in the United States and around the globe. This series offers professionals best practice advice, insights and commentary on subjects that affect the profession and clients. Learn more in this podcast.  

On today episode of the podcast, I wrap up my Digital Nomad Tax Series with Part III, which covers the Foreign Tax Credit, banking, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), and the Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts report (FBARs). Disclaimer: I am not your attorney. The rules outlined below apply differently to everyone based on each individuals' facts and circumstances. This is not legal advice. For more information on the Foreign Tax Credit, click here. To read more about banking, FATCA, and FBARs, click here. This podcast series is based on my five part Digital Nomad blog series, which you can read starting here.

In this episode of Adam Talks, IRA Financial's Adam Bergman Esq. discusses the IRS rules, specifically FBAR, when you own foreign assets in your IRA.

#EverydayMoneyMatters

In this legal thought episode, the attorney gives us a general overview of the legal source of these legal rules obligating certain individuals to disclose their foreign bank, financial accounts, and other offshore asset holdings. If you enjoy this podcast, make sure to stay tuned for more episodes from the taxation, litigation and immigration Law Firm of Coleman Jackson, P.C. Be sure to subscribe, leave a comment, and rate our Legal Thoughts podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcast. Visit the taxation, litigation and immigration law firm of Coleman Jackson, P.C. online at www.cjacksonlaw.com

In this episode we will answer the questions our clients ask us about FBAR. You will find the answers to the following questions: ➡ How can I avoid FBAR penalties? ➡ What is the due date for FinCEN Form 114 FBAR? ➡ Is Form 114 extended FBAR? ➡ What is the difference between Form 114 FBAR and Form 8938 FATCA? ➡ Talk About Delinquent FBAR and FATCA Join our exclusive group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/403837013106840 Or Mail us: support@fascpaconsultants.com Website: https://fascpaconsultants.com/ Check the video version Click for more Info

In this video we will answer the questions our clients ask us about FBAR. You will find the answers to the following questions: ➡ What is an FBAR? ➡ Who needs to file an FBAR? ➡ Do I need to file FBAR if less than 10000? ➡ What happens if you don't file FBAR? ➡ Do we need to file FBAR every year? ➡ Do I need to report life insurance on FBAR? ➡ Can I file FBAR myself? Join our exclusive group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/403837013106840 Or Mail us: support@fascpaconsultants.com Website: https://fascpaconsultants.com/ Check the video version Click for more Info

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) does not treat money held in a foreign account the same as money that is held on a domestic account. Out of fear of being unable to take revenue from foreign accounts, the IRS has taken steps to discourage foreign account use. This is a huge area of serious concern for any U.S. individuals with assets in foreign institutions. One example of such tactics occurred in 2014 when the IRS mandated all U.S. taxpayers holding offshore accounts in excess of $10,000 to file a new Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) Form 114 by June 30 or else be subject to a penalty of up to 50% of their assets. Due to this increased aggressiveness from the IRS and the Department of Justice (DOJ), most foreign banks, especially in Switzerland and the United Kingdom, do not want deposits from U.S. citizens. Very few foreign banks have the type of compliance department necessary to handle the complex U.S. regulations and heightened scrutiny. For this reason, many foreign banks do not devote too much time and energy to courting U.S. clients. U.S. individuals interested in opening foreign bank accounts must consider these challenges and clear up credit concerns and any possible risk flags. Decreasing as many risks as possible on an individual level can help skeptical foreign banks overlook the risk of being an American subject to IRS taxation. Check the video version Click for more Info

There are two types of FBAR violations for non-reporting offshore accounts: willful and non-willful and the IRS imposes very different penalties for each one. To put this into perspective: 1. A willfulness penalty is the greater of $100,000 OR 50% of the balance in the foreign account at the time of the violation. 2. A non-willful violation leads to a maximum penalty of $10,000. What Am I Supposed to Do During an FBAR IRS Audit? First off, the IRS is sending a clear message to the public. They are taking FBAR violations as serious and they will be using the case law as a tool during examinations. Taxpayers who might want to convince the IRS revenue agent that their failure to report a foreign bank account was unwillful will face these judgments above head on. 1. The IRS agents will be fully cognizant of these court cases. 2. The IRS agents will rely on these judgments to support their position Put differently, deniability in the form of ignorance of the FBAR obligation or insisting that you did not read or comprehend the tax return properly will in all probability not bring relief to anyone pinned in this position. The key to turning these kinds of cases around is a clear understanding of what willfulness means in legal terms coupled with a clear understanding of what the government must produce to meet the required burden of proof. Check the video version Click for more Info

There are two types of FBAR violations for non-reporting offshore accounts: willful and non-willful and the IRS imposes very different penalties for each one. To put this into perspective: A willfulness penalty is the greater of $100,000 OR 50% of the balance in the foreign account at the time of the violation. A non-willful violation leads to a maximum penalty of $10,000. What Am I Supposed to Do During an FBAR IRS Audit? First off, the IRS is sending a clear message to the public. They are taking FBAR violations as serious and they will be using the case law as a tool during examinations. Taxpayers who might want to convince the IRS revenue agent that their failure to report a foreign bank account was unwillful will face these judgments above head on. The IRS agents will be fully cognizant of these court cases. The IRS agents will rely on these judgments to support their position. Put differently, deniability in the form of ignorance of the FBAR obligation or insisting that you did not read or comprehend the tax return properly will in all probability not bring relief to anyone pinned in this position. The key to turning these kinds of cases around is a clear understanding of what willfulness means in legal terms coupled with a clear understanding of what the government must produce to meet the required burden of proof. Click Check Our Youtube Channel Click to talk to and Expert

Today we talk about common problems people run into with Foreign Bank Accounts, Trusts or Foreign Pension Plans. Also how, if you so desire, can make a charitable gift to the U.S. Federal Government. For questions regarding these or other tax issues you may have please contact me at 510-797-8661

Are you up to date with your FBAR (Reports of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts)? If not, a cross-border financial advisor might be able to help you get things straightened out. Eli Noff is a U.S. based cross-border CPA and tax attorney who helps American citizens living abroad be U.S. tax compliant. Specifically, Eli outlines how FBAR reports are a determining factor in tax compliance. He explains who uses the information on the report, and how it is used. Eli highlights the penalties that non-compliance brings. Don’t despair if you haven’t kept up to date with your reporting requirements. Listen to the show to learn more about what you can do. Read this before you file your U.S. taxes How do you prepare for filing your taxes with the U.S. government? What numbers and forms do you need? Download the checklist Tax and Investment Reminders for Americans Living in Israel for the steps you need to take in order to complete your FBAR reports and other tax filing requirements. Remember to always consult a tax professional before you file. Take advantage of filing your taxes to look at your investments and make sure that they are suited to your investment goals. Download free resource: Tax and Investment Reminders for Americans Living in Israel To learn more about Eli Noff visit his corporate website. If you’re not already receiving updates on new episodes, sign up now, and as a special bonus, receive Doug’s free ebook The Retirement Planning Book.

Civil and criminal enforcement of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) violations are on the rise. This Bottom Line videocast discusses the changes to the rules impacting FBAR filing obligations and the impact of the changes on potential penalties, including: The IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program, which is ending September 28, 2018 What companies should do now if they discover that their filing obligations are not compliant What civil and criminal enforcement efforts are underway where FBARs were not filed and how you should prepare

Civil and criminal enforcement of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) violations are on the rise. This Bottom Line videocast discusses the changes to the rules impacting FBAR filing obligations and the impact of the changes on potential penalties, including: The IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program, which is ending September 28, 2018 What companies should do now if they discover that their filing obligations are not compliant What civil and criminal enforcement efforts are underway where FBARs were not filed and how you should prepare

The explosive growth in the crypto-currency sector has created “questions about tax compliance.” Back in March 2014, the IRS issued long-awaited guidance (IRS Notice 2014-21) labeling cryptocurrency, including Bitcoin, as “intangible property.” Investors and traders hold Bitcoin as a capital asset, as if it were a precious metal or corporate stock. Because it’s a capital asset, the IRS requires American resident taxpayers to report Bitcoin trading income and losses worldwide on U.S. resident tax returns. In other words, if you trade bitcoin, you must report capital gains to the IRS. It doesn’t matter whether you repatriate funds back to the U.S., or not. As far as accounting goes, investors and traders holding cryptocurrency should use capital gain or loss tax treatment on sales and exchanges, with the realization method. For example, if you buy Bitcoins with U.S. dollars and later sell them for U.S. dollars, a capital gain or loss needs to be reported on that transaction. Americans also trade Bitcoins on Bitcoin exchanges, and they should report realized capital gains and losses on each trade, even if the trader doesn’t convert underlying Bitcoin back into U.S. dollars. It’s similar to having a foreign-based brokerage account in a foreign currency (i.e., Euros), where a trader buys and sells European equities held in Euros, and does not convert Euros back to U.S. dollars during the year. There are two choices for tax reporting: Convert Bitcoin to U.S. dollars on each purchase and sale transaction using the Bitcoin market price that day in U.S. dollars, or use Bitcoin as a functional currency, using an average Bitcoin vs. U.S. dollar conversion rate for the tax year. Bitcoin and foreign bank account reporting U.S. residents with a foreign bank, brokerage, investment and another type of account (including retirement and insurance in some cases) who meet reporting requirements must e-file FinCEN Form 114, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Account. If the aggregate or combined value of all of your foreign bank accounts is $10,000 (USD) or greater for the entire tax year, you must report these accounts on an FBAR because you have eclipsed the threshold for filing FinCEN Form 114. Just like foreign account holders don’t have to report precious metals in offshore safe deposit boxes, the conventional wisdom was that taxpayers also don’t have to report Bitcoin in virtual wallets. This was the view that IRS analyst Rod Lundquist espoused in June 2014, a date that seems like light-years ago now.  A lot has changed since then. While the IRS allowed taxpayers to exclude Bitcoin from their 2013 foreign bank account filings, it’s not clear if the IRS continues to allow an exclusion of Bitcoin, or Bitcoin derivative contracts on current year FinCEN 114 filings. When in doubt, due to the staggering penalties for non-compliance, I recommend including these Bitcoin accounts on FinCEN 114.

Enjoy the content.

Indictments can teach us a lot about having foreign bank accounts and not reporting them to the Treasury Department and the IRS. FinCen and FBAR, learn those two terms.

Indictments can teach us a lot about having foreign bank accounts and not reporting them to the Treasury Department and the IRS. FinCen and FBAR, learn those two terms.

If you have a foreign bank account, or are a signer on a foreign bank account, with over $10,000 at any given time during the year, you have a reporting requirement with the US Treasury Department. If not reported it could be a criminal offence.

If you have a foreign bank account, or are a signer on a foreign bank account, with over $10,000 at any given time during the year, you have a reporting requirement with the US Treasury Department. If not reported it could be a criminal offence.

If you have a foreign bank account over $10,000 at any given time during the year - you have to report

If you have a foreign bank account over $10,000 at any given time during the year - you have to report

Today, we are joined by Edmund John, founder and CEO of Flag Theory… Flag Theory is a company that specializes in, well… turning people into Jason Bourne. International bank accounts, offshore corporations, multiple passports… you name it. This episode reflects my ongoing curiosity around and passion for disaster planning. What happens when economies collapse? When countries go to war? I don't know about you, but I want to be prepared, just in case. In this episode, we talk about everything from weathering political instability to legally avoiding taxes and everything in between. Though you might think you need to be a multimillionaire to worry about this kind of stuff, but as Edmund explained, you really don't… In fact, after meeting Edmund and his team a month or so ago, I promptly signed up for their services and started protecting myself. Just a quick heads up and disclaimer. I do use and do recommend Flag Theory and their services, but it's important that you know that I earn a small commission if any of you guys choose to work with them. It's also important that you understand that nothing in this episode constitutes financial or investment advice, so, even though I'm now protected by redundant corporate entities in two countries… please don't sue me!

Research shows that small business creation tends to be an engine for economic growth. Every big business today was once yesterday's small business. To grow successfully, a small business needs access to credit but when a foreign bank enters into a new country, what happens to small business's ability to borrow money? The new financial institutions may prefer to deal with more established credit risks and make it difficult for aspiring entrepreneurs to borrow money. Or, they could increase competition and create cheaper access to credit. So what does foreign banking end up doing to lower-income countries as it pertains to development? We talk with Charles Calomiris of Columbia University to see what the effect of foreign banking is on entrepreneurship. **Stay tuned after the credits when we have a song Charles recorded with his band Electiontricity about Donald Trump**

Topics Covered: Donald Trump’s Tax Plan. How Some Investors Get Special Access to Companies Beware if you have undisclosed foreign bank accounts and unreported foreign income – U.S. Signs Competent Authority Arrangements with Australia and the United Kingdom Questions from our listeners: What if I haven’t invested enough for retirement? What’s the difference between an […] The post Jeffrey B. Kahn, Esq. and Windus A. Fernandez Brinkkord Discusses Trump Tax Plan and New IRS Developments Detecting Non-compliant Taxpayers With Foreign Bank Accounts On ESPN Radio – October 2, 2015 Show appeared first on Tax Attorney Orange County CA | Kahn Tax Law.

China... Just the mention of China can bring up varied reactions from most people. A lot of people may think of China as over-populated where most of their products comes from and culturally, as a bit of an enigma. But to those of us in the eCommerce world, China is incredibly relevant, with boundless opportunities for growth in your business. You can find show notes and more information by clicking here: http://bit.ly/1W34LFY

Policy makers often decide to liberalize foreign bank entry but at the same time restrict the mode of entry. We study how different entry modes affect the interest rate for loans in a model in which domestic banks possess private information about their incumbent clients but foreign banks have better screening skills. Our model predicts that competition is stronger if market entry occurs through a greenfield investment and therefore domestic banks' interest rates are lower. We find empirical support for our results for a sample of banks from ten Eastern European countries for the period 1995-2003.