HIDE

Other Publications

Insights

Publications

Is the 100% Dividend Received Deduction Under Code §245A About as Useful as a Chocolate Teapot?

Is the 100% Dividend Received Deduction Under Code §245A About as Useful as a Chocolate Teapot?

Remember when Code §1248 was intended to right an economic wrong by converting low-taxed capital gain to highly-taxed dividend income? (If you do, you probably remember the maximum tax on earned income (50% rather than 70%) and income averaging over three years designed to eliminate the effect of spiked income in a particular year.) Tax law has changed, and dividend income no longer is taxed at high rates. Indeed, for C-corporations receiving foreign-source dividends from certain 10%-owned corporations, there is no tax whatsoever. This is a much better tax result than that extended to capital gains, which are taxed at 21% for corporations. Neha Rastogi and Stanley C. Ruchelman evaluate whether the conversion of capital gains into dividend income produces a meaningful benefit in many instances, given the likelihood of prior taxation under Subpart F or G.I.L.T.I. rules for the U.S. parent of a multinational group. Hence the question, is the conversion of taxable capital gains into dividend income under Code §1248 a real benefit, or is it simply a glistening

Read More

C-Corps Exempt from Full Scope of Foreign Income Inclusion

C-Corps Exempt from Full Scope of Foreign Income Inclusion

One of the principal highlights of the T.C.J.A. is the 100% dividends received deduction ("D.R.D.") allowed to U.S. corporations that are U.S. Shareholders of foreign corporations. At the time of enactment, many U.S. tax advisers questioned why Congress did not repeal the investment in U.S. property rules of Subpart F. Under those rules, investment in many different items of U.S. tangible and intangible property are treated as disguised distribution. In proposed regulations issued in October, the I.R.S. announced that U.S. corporations that are U.S. Shareholders of C.F.C.'s are no longer subject to tax on investments in U.S. property made by the C.F.C. Stanley C. Ruchelman explains the new rules and their simple logic – if the C.F.C. were to distribute a hypothetical dividend to a U.S. Shareholder that would benefit from the 100% D.R.D., the taxable investment in U.S. property will be reduced by an amount that is equivalent to the D.R.D. allowed in connection with the hypothetical dividend.

Read More

Modifications to the Foreign Tax Credit System Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

Modifications to the Foreign Tax Credit System Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

The T.C.J.A. introduces new concepts in foreign tax credit planning and eliminates others.  Gone are the pool of post-1986 earnings & profits and deemed-paid foreign tax credits for intercompany dividends.  In their place is a dividends received deduction.  Allocations of interest expense between foreign-source income and domestic income now must be based on tax book value.  Entities that manufacture in one jurisdiction and sell in another will find that the source of income is controlled only by production activities.  Neha Rastogi and Stanley C. Ruchelman explain.

Read More

Impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on U.S. Investors in Foreign Corporations

Impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on U.S. Investors in Foreign Corporations

International tax planning in the U.S. has been turned on its head by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“T.C.J.A.”).  This article looks at (i) the new dividends received deduction that eliminates U.S. tax on the receipt of direct investment dividends paid by a 10%-owned foreign corporation to a U.S. corporation, (ii) the repatriation of post-1986 net accumulated earnings of 10%-owned foreign corporations by U.S. persons and the accompanying deferred tax rules, (iii) changes to Code §367(a) that eliminate an exemption from tax on outbound transfers of assets that will be used in the active conduct of a foreign trade or business, and (iv) a broadening of the scope of Subpart F income by reason of a change to certain definitions.  Rusudan Shervashidze and Stanley C. Ruchelman address and comment on these revisions.

Read More

Transfer Pricing Adjustment Does Not Reduce Dividend Received Deduction from C.F.C.

When the I.R.S. successfully maintains an adjustment to transfer pricing within an intercompany group, taxable income is increased to one participant but cash remains at the level that existed at year-end prior to the I.R.S. adjustment.  To avoid a second tax adjustment, the party with excessive cash – as determined after the I.R.S. adjustment – may be treated as if it incurred an account payable, which can be repaid free of additional tax.  In Analog Devices, the I.R.S. attempted to argue that the account payable of the C.F.C. should be treated as an actual borrowing.  The effect of an actual borrowing limited the favorable tax treatment under Code §965.  That provision temporarily allowed an 85% dividends received deduction for a U.S. corporation receiving a dividend from a controlled foreign corporation.  The Tax Court disagreed with the I.R.S. position. Kenneth Lobo and Beate Erwin explain.

Read More