Skip to content
Tax Law Center Blog

Tax Law Center Blog

  • Tax & Foreign Assets
    • Tax Law Services
    • Foreign Asset Planning
  • About
  • Contact Us
Close Button

National Taxpayer Advocate Criticizes IRS over handling of offshore voluntary disclosures

18 February, 2013

The 2012 National Taxpayer Advocate (NTA) Annual Report to Congress criticized current IRS practices in the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) that hinder voluntary compliance by penalizing taxpayers who are entitled to a reasonable cause exception from willfulness.

One of the major complaints of the 2011 OVDI was that penalty presumed willfulness. Many taxpayers and practitioners viewed the penalty as harsh because willfulness, especially in the case of FBARs, is the government’s burden to prove. The 2012 OVDP attempted to address the criticism received from the 2011 OVDI. Specifically, FAQ 51.1 (of the 2012 OVDP) provides that benign taxpayers who have reasonable cause for their failure to file certain tax returns may be better off by first applying to the OVDP program and subsequently opting out of the civil settlement structure.

According to the FAQs, opting out of the civil settlement structure does not affect the status of a taxpayer’s voluntary disclosure under Criminal Investigation’s Voluntary Disclosure Practice, so long as the taxpayer is fully cooperative in the examination process, by providing all requested foreign records and submitting to interviews, as requested, and as long as no new issues are uncovered that were previously not disclosed.

Taxpayers who follow an “opt out” path in offshore voluntary disclosures (i.e. taxpayers who enter OVDP but subsequently opt out of the program’s civil penalty structure) are generally disadvantaged because they are subject to extended resolution times over smaller amounts when compared to traditional offshore voluntary disclosure participants, the report said.

The average time to resolve OVDP submissions for taxpayers who elected to remain within the program’s civil settlement structure was about 300 days. For participants who opted for the path envisaged under FAQ 51.1, however, the average resolution time (if the case has been closed at all) was approximately 550 days.

Therefore, the OVDP process burdens taxpayers eligible for a reasonable cause exception (e.g. more compliant taxpayers) by processing participants not eligible for the exception (e.g. presumably less compliant taxpayers) through the program more quickly, the report said.

Participants eligible for FAQ 51.1 relief usually involved smaller amounts (compared to participants who did not qualify for such relief), usually averaging about $15,000. The prolonged time for settlement generally meant that such participants incurred significantly higher representation fees compared to those who did not seek to opt out of the civil penalty structure.

Patel Law Offices has consulted with hundreds of clients regarding their offshore assets. Patel Law Offices is a law firm dedicated to helping clients resolve complicated tax, criminal tax, and international tax problems. Our firm assists (and defends) clients and their advisors to legally disclose (and legitimize) foreign accounts.

Related Posts

  • Major changes to IRS offshore voluntary compliance programs

    Many clients are asking our office about the new compliance solutions to clean up past…

  • Frequent Scenarios in Offshore Voluntary Disclosures

    I have frequently seen the following scenarios in working with clients to determine whether a…

  • IRS Announces New Statistics Regarding Voluntary Disclosures

    Since the initiation of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) which originally…

Tags: amnestyAsset Protection FBAR foreign account offshore accounts opt out ovdi OVDP penalties and interest voluntary disclosure
Category: Planning for Tax Minimization

Post navigation

Previous: Appeals of penalties imposed during the Offshore Voluntary Opt-Out
Next: Increase in the annual gift tax exclusion to $14,000

Related Posts

Swiss Banks are Pressuring Customers to Disclose

Swiss banks are pressuring current and former U.S. account holders…

Read More

Is my trade or business a “Specified Service Trade or Business” and is my taxable income more than the amount that permits me to have a full 20% Section 199A deduction?

Internal Revenue Code Section 199A was enacted as part of…

Read More

New Report: Delinquent Taxpayers Could be Identified at US Border Crossings

The Internal Revenue Service’s collection efforts need to be improved…

Read More

Recent Posts

  • Parag Patel, Esq. Presents “Latest Federal Tax Controversy Update” for NJCPA Membership+November 13, 2025
  • Parag Patel, Esq. Presents at New Jersey Society of Certified Public Accountants — “One Big Beautiful Bill”November 11, 2025
  • The Trust Fund Recovery Penalty in Focus: United States v. Flaim and the Unwavering Standard of “Willfulness”November 7, 2025
  • ₿ Reporting Digital Assets: Understanding the Basic Income Tax Rules for CryptocurrencyNovember 4, 2025
  • The End of an Era: The IRS Eliminates the Acknowledgement of the Facts IDROctober 31, 2025

Pages

  • About Patel Law Offices
  • Delinquent FinCen Form 114 (FBAR) Filings
  • Delinquent or unfiled IRS Form 5471
  • Request A Free Educational Consultation

Law Firm Attorney WordPress Theme By Themespride