HIDE

Other Publications

Insights

Publications

Tax Considerations of I.P. When Expanding a Business Offshore

Tax Considerations of I.P. When Expanding a Business Offshore

If a client asks a U.S. tax adviser about the U.S. tax cost of contributing intangible property (“I.P.”) to a foreign corporation for use in an active business, the response can be a dizzying array of bad tax consequences beginning with a deemed sale in a transaction that results in an ongoing income stream. While that is a correct answer, it need not be the only answer. Elizabeth V. Zanet and Stanley C. Ruchelman explore alternatives to a capital contribution of I.P. to a foreign corporation, including (i) the use of a foreign hybrid entity and (ii) licensing the I.P. to a foreign entity in order to benefit from the F.D.I.I. tax deduction. Each alternative may provide interesting tax results, but attention to detail will be required.

Read More

New U.S. Tax Law Adopts Provisions to Prevent Base Erosion

New U.S. Tax Law Adopts Provisions to Prevent Base Erosion

Following the lead of the O.E.C.D. and the European Commission (“E.C.”), the T.C.J.A. adopts several provisions designed to end tax planning opportunities.  In some instances, the new provisions closely follow their foreign counterparts.  In others, the provisions that are specific to U.S. tax law.  Among these changes are (i) the introduction of the G.I.L.T.I. minimum tax on the use of foreign intangible property by C.F.C.’s, (ii) the total revamp of Code §163(j) so that it reflects an interest ceiling rather than an earnings stripping provision, (iii) the restriction of tax benefits derived from the use of hybrid entities and transactions, (iv) the broadened scope of Subpart F through definitional changes, (v) legislative reversals of judicial decisions in which I.R.S. positions in transfer pricing matters were successfully challenged, and (vi) legislative reversals of a judicial decision invalidating Rev. Rul. 91-32 regarding the sale of partnership interests by foreign partner.  Sheryl Shah and Stanley C. Ruchelman discuss these provisions and place them in context. 

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

Tax 101: Deemed Annual Royalty on Outbound Transfers of I.P. to Foreign Corporations

Tax 101: Deemed Annual Royalty on Outbound Transfers of I.P. to Foreign Corporations

U.S. tax law contains provisions that attempt to discourage the outbound migration of intangible assets including specific rules that target transfers affected through corporate inversions.  Elizabeth V. Zanet and Stanley C. Ruchelman discuss the history and current standing of those provisions, while pointing out an alternative that is currently available to limit ongoing tax liability in the context of a start-up operation.

Read More

Tax Concerns on Outbound I.P. Transfers: Pitfalls & Planning in Light of I.R.S. Defeat in Amazon Case

Tax Concerns on Outbound I.P. Transfers: Pitfalls & Planning in Light of I.R.S. Defeat in Amazon Case

In the 21st century, the method of apportioning income from intangible property (“I.P.”), between the various jurisdictions in which the I.P. is developed, owned, and used or consumed, is contentious.  This was evidenced in a recent Tax Court case, Amazon.com, Inc. & Subsidiaries v. Commr., which dealt with transfer pricing rules applicable to an outbound transfer of I.P. and a related cost sharing agreement.  Philip R. Hirschfeld discusses the case in the context of Code §367(d), which relates to outbound transfers of I.P., and Treas. Reg. §1.482-7, which addresses qualified cost sharing agreements.

Read More