“Girls Gone Wild” founder Joe Francis feels he finally got a break when a federal judge okayed a deal that Francis struck with prosecutors. Under the agreement, Francis was credited with 301 days already served and sentenced to one year of probation.
The plea deal was struck after Francis learned that a key witness, Francis’ former accountant, had withheld information from his defense team at trial. Francis was originally indicted on tax evasion charges in 2007 stemming from a number of income omissions and false deductions. He pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of filing false tax returns and one count of bribing Nevada jail workers.
“I think we won that one,” Francis said after the hearing.
The former bad boy was polite during the hearing, answering questions as asked. It was quite a turn-around from the belligerent persona he had maintained since the charges were first brought against him in 2007.
After the hearing, he kissed his mother.
Apparently he really does kiss his mother with that mouth.
The Tax Justice Network has recently released its list of the most secretive financial jurisdictions in the world. And who topped the list? Luxembourg? Switzerland? Hong Kong? Caymans?
Nope, it’s the United States. Yeah, of America.
But don’t get too excited with your finger pointing. It has little to do with most of the US. It’s all about Delaware (you don’t hear that very often).
The Tax Justice Network has identified what they consider “a number of key contributors to global financial secrecy on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis.” They then map that data and it’s published as the Financial Security Index (FSI).
Delaware’s status as the “incorporation haven of the USA” and its, well, *favorable* tax laws, have contributed to its ranking. The TJN noted, for example, that “the growth of private individual deposits by non-residents was most robust in the United States outranking other popular financial jurisdictions such as the Cayman Islands, United Kingdom, and Luxembourg with total non-resident deposits equalling $2.6 trillion in 2007.”
Banking crisis in the US? What banking crisis?
The TJN considered the data substantial enough to place Delaware ahead of Luxembourg (2nd), Switzerland (3rd), the Cayman Islands (4th) and the United Kingdom (5th).
Of course, anyone familiar with Delaware already knows about its favorable laws. Many of our international clients approach us about a Delaware incorporation and often, they have already been advised by their local counsel abroad to incorporate in Delaware to avoid certain state and local taxes. Of course, what they’re often not advised is that merely being incorporated in one state doesn’t offset physical presence tests in other states that might eventually drag them into other states for tax purposes. The classic example is a manufacturing company which is advised to incorporate in Delaware even though they may be, say, building a facility in New Jersey. The presence of the building in NJ will subject them to NJ state tax, irrespective of their Delaware “tax home.”
Delaware also has laws and courts which promote asset protection and dynasty trusts inside the state. I should know since I used to work for a trust company in Delaware. I reviewed and helped administer many high dollar trusts, including a number of family trusts for names that definitely rang a bell. Again, sticking a trust inside Delaware is much like incorporating inside of Delaware – you have to know what you’re doing to take advantage of the tax laws. You can’t just throw money in a trust and yell, “Ha!”
What does this mean for the US and its reputation as it attempts to foil banking secrecy laws in other jurisdictions? Absolutely nothing. Zero.
It makes for a bunch of fun headlines but I don’t think it changes the US’ standing in the world in terms of financial secrecy. Truth be told, the TJN arranges its data as it sees fit but there’s just no comparing the secrecy of incorporation records (which can be public anyway) to the strict, no holds barred secrecy of Luxembourg and Swiss banking laws. It’s just not the same thing.
I also think the TJN has a way to go in terms of making its data mean something to those outside of its network. A relatively young organization, it was formed in March 2003. According to its website, “[i]t is dedicated to high-level research, analysis and advocacy in the field of tax and regulation. We work to map, analyse and explain the role of taxation and the harmful impacts of tax evasion, tax avoidance, tax competition and tax havens.”
As a tax geek, I have to say that I enjoy the research and data. I just think you have to make it mean something beyond a sound byte.
Jeffrey Chernick, a toy salesman out of New York, was sentenced on Friday to three months in prison for hiding millions of dollars from the IRS. Upon his release, Chernick will serve six months’ house arrest and six months’ probation. The judge did not impose an additional fine as Chernick is already subject to more than $4.5 million in civil penalties for filing a false tax return.
Chernick becomes the second UBS client to be sentenced in the scandal. Earlier in the week, Steven Michael Rubinstein was sentenced to three years’ probation, one year of house arrest and a$40,000 fine.
I noted at the Rubinstein sentencing that I felt that the punishment was light. US District Judge James Cohn apparently felt similarly, noting with respect to these specific cases, “The concept that tax evaders can get probation sends the wrong message… Some amount of incarceration is warranted.”
Chernick cooperated with authorities, which may have lessened his sentence: he had faced up to three years in prison. But even prosecutors sought leniency for Chernick, suggesting that his cooperation played a “significant and early step” in the UBS investigations, offering information about other taxpayers and banks.
In addition to pleading guilty to tax evasion, Chernick also admitted to paying a bribe, arranged by attorney Matthias Rickenbach and Swiss banker Hansruedi Schumacher, to a Swiss government official for information about which UBS accounts would be given to US authorities. That investigation is ongoing and it will be interesting to see the reach of the bribery scheme.
Chernick began setting up offshore accounts as early as 1981 in order to hide commissions on toy sales from the IRS. Over the years, he moved money from account to account and otherwise attempted to conceal his assets.
Interestingly, Chernick made an effort to sign up for the IRS’ voluntary disclosure program but did not qualify. Taxpayers who were under investigation or already facing charges did not qualify for the program.
Expect more high profile disclosures over the next few weeks. Clearly, the IRS hopes to send a message. The real question is: who’s getting it?
Technorati Tags:
IRS, Jeffrey Chernick, Matthias Rickenbach, tax evasion, Steven Michael Rubinstein
So, who among us didn’t see this coming? IRS Commish Doug Shulman has announced the establishment of a new enforcement unit targeting the very wealthy. The group, called the Global High Wealth Industry, will specifically investigate partnerships, offshore trusts and other techniques used by the wealthy to hide income.
How wealthy is wealthy? Unlike a number of reality TV shows of late, this isn’t about faux millionaires. Try tens of millions of dollars wealthy.
The new enforcement group comes on the heels of a recent amnesty program offered to taxpayers who had been hiding money offshore. Tax pros, including me, viewed the amnesty program as the writing on the wall that the IRS would be ramping up enforcement. A mere two weeks after the extended amnesty deadline, the IRS confirmed that suspicion.
Whether the new enforcement group is a success remains to be seen. Some critics argue that an additional level of administration won’t help – and may, in fact, just confuse matters. But Shulman sees it differently: “You cannot assess compliance among the nation’s wealthiest individuals by looking only at their 1040s…. Our goal is to better understand the entire economic picture of the enterprise controlled by the wealthy individual and to assess the tax compliance of that overall enterprise.”
