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

What HSBC India Accountholders Can Expect From the IRS

9 July, 2011 Parag Patel 0 Comments 1 category

Parag P. Patel, Esq.By Parag P. Patel, Esq. | Updated July 9, 2011

Our firm recently informally met with a US Department of Justice official (name withheld because official was not authorized to officially speak) in Washington DC regarding the pending summons served on HSBC India to reveal account information (including names, addresses, etc.) of U.S. residents with HSBC accounts in India.

The government official stated that HSBC India accountholders’ discovered via the answered subpoena will not be able to enter the 2011 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative (OVDI), which will be available until Aug. 31, 2011.  However, the official also stated that taxpayers preliminarily cleared (the first stage of the OVDI process) to enter OVDI will not be removed from the OVDI program (even prior to the final filing of the taxpayer’s OVDI application) even if the same taxpayer is subsequently discovered by the IRS via the answered HSBC subpoena.

The government official’s statements make it imperative that HSBC India accountholders seriously consider entering the OVDI program.

BACKGROUND

On April 7, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order authorizing the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to serve a “John Doe” summons requesting information from one of the world’s largest banks, HSBC, regarding U.S. residents who may be using accounts at HSBC in India to evade federal income taxes. If HSBC produces these records, which is likely, it may be too late for U.S. taxpayers with undisclosed HSBC accounts to take advantage of the IRS Voluntary Disclosure Program for offshore accounts.

The IRS says there are 9,000 high net worth Indian US residents who maintain at least $100,000 in their bank accounts in HSBC India but only 1,921 of them have disclosed details of their accounts.  In a statement to a San Francisco court, senior IRS official Daniel Reeves said, “This indicates that thousands of US taxpayers of Indian origin who maintain more than $100,000 in accounts with HSBC, may have failed to disclose their HSBC India accounts to the United States Government.”  He went on to say, “It is also likely that those taxpayers may have failed to report income earned on those undisclosed accounts.”

Is Voluntary Disclosure Right for You?

The factors involved in determining whether a taxpayer should make a voluntary disclosure are numerous and complex. A taxpayer considering making a voluntary disclosure may want to discuss the matter with experienced legal counsel. Such a discussion with legal counsel would be protected from disclosure by attorney-client privilege, which is particularly vital in instances where the taxpayer ultimately decides not to make the disclosure. However, a consultation regarding the voluntary disclosure program with a non-attorney (including the taxpayer’s accountant) is not a privileged communication. If the decision were made not to enter the OVDI, and the IRS discovers the foreign financial account, the taxpayer’s accountant or other non-attorney could become a witness for the IRS against the taxpayer. This would not be the case if an attorney, rather than an accountant or other non-attorney, had been consulted.

A taxpayer contemplating a voluntary disclosure also may want to consider the differences in the financial consequences of participating in the OVDI, opting out of the OVDI or making a traditional voluntary disclosure. (It is not known at this time, but it appears the IRS may initially process all voluntary disclosures of offshore issues through the OVDI.) In many instances, the OVDI would involve more years, higher taxes and significantly larger penalties than a traditional voluntary disclosure.

Taxpayers participating (willingly or not) in the OVDI may face an IRS unwilling to negotiate, notwithstanding facts supporting the reduction or elimination of penalties. Taxpayers who believe their situation warrants reduced penalties  can opt out of the OVDI and take their chances in a full examination. Before that decision is made, however, a taxpayer must perform a careful analysis of the facts surrounding the case.

That analysis should be directed at determining:
• exactly what years are open under the statute of limitations (possibly less than the eight years under the OVDI);
• the magnitude of additional tax and interest due;
• what tax penalties are applicable (fraud, accuracy-related or none); and
• •what additional information-return penalties may apply in cases involving foreign accounts, trusts, gifts, corporations and other business entities.

Key to this analysis are issues regarding negligence, fraud, willfulness, mitigation, burden of proof (on the taxpayer or on the IRS) and quantum of proof.  Only after a thorough review of an HSBC accountholder’s particular situation should a decision be made regarding whether a voluntary disclosure should be made and, if so, whether it should be made pursuant to the inflexible OVDI or through potentially less-rigid traditional means.

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.

Parag P. Patel, Esq.About the Author

Parag P. Patel, Esq. brings over three decades of experience to individuals and businesses facing complex tax problems. Holding advanced degrees from Georgetown University Law Center (J.D.) and New York University School of Law (LL.M. in Tax Law), the nation’s top tax programs, Mr. Patel delivers sophisticated and creative strategies in complicated federal and state audits, penalty abatements, and foreign asset/income reporting. His practice emphasizes international tax matters, specifically foreign financial account reporting (FBAR), voluntary disclosures, and penalty defense.

Book a Paid Legal Consultation

Related Posts

  • In Addition to HSBC, Credit Suisse Also Being Investigated for Offshore Activities

    On July 14, 2011, Credit Suisse received a letter notifying it that it is a…

  • Time Running Out for HSBC India accountholders sought by IRS

    If HSBC produces these records, which is likely, it may be too late for U.S.…

  • HSBC Expected to Disclose Account Holders Names

    The IRS has petitioned for a federal court authorization to enable it to obtain information…

Tags: amnestyAsset Protection foreign account hsbc offshore accounts tax voluntary disclosure
Category: Planning for Tax Minimization

Post navigation

Previous: Foreign Account Penalties Are Unfair
Next: “Willfulness” When Deciding Whether to Opt Out of 2011 OVDI

Related Posts

An exception to PFICs in Foreign Pension Plan Accounts

Certain US persons may become subject to the passive foreign…

Read More

The legal standard of “willfulness”: Opt out to avoid high penalties

Under IRS Form 1040, at the bottom of Schedule B,…

Read More

The Tax Issues of Expatriation

The “United States Permanent Resident Card”, also known as a…

Read More

Recent Posts

  • The Enforcement Surge: What the DOJ and IRS Campaign Means for Tax Professionals and Their ClientsOctober 17, 2026
  • The High Price of Payroll Tax Non-Compliance: Lessons from United States v. PittsSeptember 15, 2026
  • FBAR Willfulness, Recklessness, and the Excessive Fines Defense: Key Takeaways from United States v. RundSeptember 11, 2026
  • FBAR Enforcement and Penalty Analysis: United States v. NiksichSeptember 5, 2026
  • Billions Offshore, Millions Missed: What TIGTA’s Report Means for FATCA EnforcementSeptember 2, 2026
  • Criminal Tax Enforcement Takes Center Stage: The National Fraud Enforcement Division MemorandumAugust 21, 2026
  • Navigating New Jersey Tobacco and Vapor Excise Tax AuditsAugust 11, 2026
  • Navigating the US Estate Portability Election: Strategic Timing and Compliance Procedures for Form 706July 13, 2026
  • IRS Transitions from First Time Abatement to Automated Penalty Relief: Strategic Impacts for Tax AdvisorsJuly 11, 2026
  • Parag Patel to Present on IRS Foreign Asset Enforcement at the 2026 NATP TaxposiumJuly 9, 2026

Search

Archives

  • October 2026
  • September 2026
  • August 2026
  • July 2026
  • June 2026
  • May 2026
  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • September 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • December 2006
  • July 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • March 2001
  • March 1999
  • February 1998
  • August 1996
  • July 1996

Meta

  • Log in

Categories

  • Estate Planning and Probate
  • Planning for Tax Minimization

Law Firm Attorney WordPress Theme By Themespride