Role of Swiss Banks in Tax Evasion

1657 words (7 pages) Essay in Banking

04/04/19

Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work
produced by our Essay Writing Service. You can view samples of our professional work
here.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are

those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.

One of the major concerns for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is tax evasion. It was
estimated that the amount of money stashed offshore is between a couple of trillion dollars
to almost thirty trillion dollars (The Economist, 2016). Tax evasion, specifically offshore
tax evasion, is one of the biggest reasons for the difference in tax gap. The difference of
expected tax revenue to be collected by the government and the actual amount collected is
called the tax gap. Numerous wealthy people look for ways to avoid paying taxes on not
only their money, but also their assets. When tax evasion occurs, the government loses out
on billions of dollars. In response to this, the IRS has investigated and established some
approach to locate and collect the back taxes.

Swiss banks with which the wealthy have an offshore account play a significant role in the
evasion of taxes. These individuals promote and in many instances help their clients in
evading their taxes. The IRS has launched many investigations on Swiss banks to put an
end to the trillions of dollars that are not paid in taxes. Due to these cases, Switzerland, the
stronghold in the world of private banking for the wealthy, has lost some of its reputation
(Saunders & Sidel, 2012). The Swiss banks will use different ways in aiding and abetting
their clients. The Swiss bank secrecy laws make it difficult to investigate possible tax
evasion cases because the IRS does not have access to account holder’s names. Swiss laws
prohibits the banks from releasing the names of the American clients to the IRS. This
makes the operation of the IRS much more difficult and tedious as they have had to double
up on their efforts to stop and prevent tax evasion.

In 2007, Bradley Birkenfeld agreed to help U.S. authorities build a case against his
employer UBS. Birkenfeld provided authorities with important descriptions of how UBS
promoted and helped their clients with tax evasion (Saunders & Sidel, 2012). The IRS, with
the help of Birkenfeld and a John Doe summons, was able to obtain the names of 4,450
account holders who were evading taxes (Browning, 2009). John Doe summonses allows
the IRS to investigate alleged fraud for a class of taxpayers that fit a certain criteria. Joe
Doe summonses are issued when identities are not known. With this case, it marked the
first time that a foreign bank was served with a John Doe summon (Mollenkamp, 2009b).
The case of UBS was instrumental in lifting the veil off of Swiss bank secrecy that has
allowed many wealthy people to evade their taxes (Saunders & Sidel, 2012). Not only did
UBS have to provide names of American clients, but in order to resolve the criminal case
they had to pay 780 million dollars (Saunders & Sidel, 2012).

In this case, UBS would communicate about transactions in a secret code in the event that
any one would happen to come across the information, they would not be aware of what
was happening. When discussing about euros, the color orange was used. In regards to
dollars, the word green was used. When referring the one million dollars, they would use
the word swan (Mollenkamp, 2009a).

Get help with your essay today, from our professional essay writers!

Qualified writers in the subject of banking are ready and waiting to help you with your
studies.

 Get help with your essay

 View professionally written samples

Credit Suisse pleaded guilty to conspiring and aiding tax evasion (Grossman, Letzing, &
Barrett, 2014). This company was engaged in fraud activity with full knowledge of there
actions that extended decades long. Credit Suisse took no steps to ensure any compliance
with the tax laws. The crackdown that happened to Swiss accounts in 2008 did not deter
them from obstructing the information from investigators (Grossman, Letzing, and Barrett,
2014). In over a decade, Credit Suisse is the first financial institution to plead
guilty (Grossman, Letzing, & Barrett, 2014).

Offshore companies are not illegal. However, these companies become illegal when they
use an intermediary to hide wealth or suspicious tractions (Mauldin & Saunders,
2016). Panama is a key area for these offshore shell companies. When the Swiss banks
confessed to encouraging tax evasions, they stated they did so by using Panamanian
corporation (Mauldin & Saunders, 2016). Records from Mossack Fonseca & Co., a law
firm in Panama, show that there are many public figures linked to tax havens offshore
(Mauldin & Saunders, 2016). Mossack Fonseca & Co. has set up more than 240,000 shell
companies around the world (Hong & Córdoba, 2016).

Swiss banks and offshore companies are not the only tax havens for the wealthy. New
attractive tax havens are Freeports. A Freeport is a warehouse that houses items such as
paintings, fine wine, classic cars, and precious metals (The Economist, 2013). There is a
suspension of customs duties and taxes paid when housing assets in Freeports. While
Freeports are legal, there is speculation that they play a role in allowing the wealthy to hide
assets.

Along with using John Doe summons to curb tax evasions, the IRS also has the Offshore
Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP). This program in 2011 was known as Offshore
Voluntary Disclosure Initiative (OVDI). The OVDP allows people with offshore accounts
to come forward and pay back their taxes owed. The individuals who are caught evading
taxes are normally faced with criminal charges and substantial penalties. Those who
voluntarily come forward will be given criminal liability protection, which allows them to
avoid criminal penalties (Mollenkamp, 2009a). Those who come forward to provide all
their banks records and also file amended tax returns to include the money in offshore
accounts. Even though they have come forward willing, they will not be given this amnesty
freely; they will have to pay penalties. In the case of UBS, when they received the names of
American clients, people did not know if their name was one of the ones that the IRS now
knows. This program allowed them to come forward and avoid the charges they would
have faced in the event that the IRS knew of their account.

Another effort in curbing tax evasion is the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act
(FATCA). FATCA requires foreign financial institutions to report details of their
American clients’ accounts or they will face punishment for withholding taxes (The
Economist, 2016). FATCA is about moving past the Swiss banking secrecy laws and
receiving information on American clients. Under FATCA, Americans who have assets in
foreign accounts must disclose these accounts in IRS form 8938 (IRS, 2017).

There is also the Whistleblower program. This program pays money to people that blow the
whistle on others who fail to pay the taxes that are owed. When you enter the program you
must provide information or evidence that without it the IRS will not be able to find the
money. The IRS can pay up to 30% of the collected proceeds (Saunders & Sidel, 2012).
This is an amount that the IRS will pay out even if the whistleblower had been apart of
committing the tax evasion. The award is issued as an incentive to have people willing
come in and provide specific and credible information.

The IRS has implemented many tools to help them obtain valuable information on
Americans who have not paid taxes on assets in offshore accounts. They have also taken
steps to prevent these damaging actions from happening in the future. These steps taken
have slowly helped close the differences in the tax gap. The cases of UBS and Credit Suisse
helped the IRS recognize where they needed to make some improvements and where they
could offer incentives to help people come forward in order to reduce the amount of tax
evasion that occurs.

Get help with your essay today, from our professional essay writers!

Qualified writers in the subject of banking are ready and waiting to help you with your
studies.

 Get help with your essay

 View professionally written samples

Works Cited
 Browning, L. (2009, August 19). Names Deal Cracks Swiss Bank Secrecy. The New
York Times. Retrieved September 7, 2017, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/business/global/20ubs.html
 Grossman, A., Letzing, J., & Barrett, D. (2014, May 19). Credit Suisse Pleads
Guilty in Criminal Tax Case. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved September 7,
 2017, from
https://www.wsj.com/article_email/SB100014240527023044227045795717327693
56894-lMyQjAxMTA2MDIwNTEyNDUyWj
 Hong, N., & Córdoba, J. (2016, April 04). Panama Law Firm Has Specialized
Practice. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved September 7, 2017, from
https://www.wsj.com/articles/panama-launches-own-investigation-into-mossack-
fonseca-law-firm-1459805421
 IRS. (2017, August 3). Summary of FATCA Reporting for U.S. Taxpayers.
Retrieved September 7, 2017, from
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/summary-of-fatca-reporting-for-us-
taxpayers
 Mauldin, W., & Saunders, L. (2016, April 05). The ‘Panama Papers’ Scandal – At
A Glance. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved September 07, 2017, from
https://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2016/04/05/the-panama-papers-scandal-at-a-glance/
 Mollenkamp, C. (2009, July 14). Behind UBS Case, a Dogged IRS. The Wall Street
Journal. Retrieved September 7, 2017, from
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124749371765532639
 Mollenkamp, C. (2009, April 29). IRS to Expand Use of ‘John Doe’ Tactic. The
Wall Street Journal. Retrieved September 7, 2017, from
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124087601647561481
 Saunders, L., & Sidel, R. (2012, September 11). Whistleblower Gets $104 Million.
The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved September 7, 2017, from
https://www.wsj.com/article_email/SB100008723963904440175045776454126142
37708-lMyQjAxMTA2MDIwNTAyODU3Wj
 The Economist. (2013, November 23). Über-warehouses for the ultra-rich.
Retrieved September 14, 2017, from
https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21590353-ever-more-wealth-being-
parked-fancy-storage-facilities-some-customers-they-are
 The Economist. (2016, February 20). The biggest loophole of all. Retrieved
September 7, 2017, from https://www.economist.com/news/international/21693219-
having-launched-and-led-battle-against-offshore-tax-evasion-america-now-part