HIDE

Other Publications

Insights

Publications

Anti-Tax Arbitrage the U.S. Way

Anti-Tax Arbitrage the U.S. Way

Hybrid arrangements come in various forms but share a common goal: Each is designed to enhance beneficial tax results by exploiting differences in tax treatment under the laws of two or more countries.  Anti-hybrid rules were adopted as part of the T.C.J.A., which was enacted in the waning days of 2017.  In December 2018, the I.R.S. released proposed regulations that provide guidance on anti-hybrid rules adopted by Congress.  New terms must be understood, including (i) the deduction/no inclusion (“D./N.I.”) rules, (ii) tiered hybrid dividends, (iii) the hybrid deduction account (“H.D.A.”) that addresses timing, and (iv) a principal purposes test denying the benefit of the dividends received deduction.  If final regulations are adopted by June 22, 2019, they will be effective retroactively to the date of enactment of the statute.  In their article, Beate Erwin and Fanny Karaman explain the workings the proposed regulations.

Read More

Who’s Got the B.E.A.T.? Special Treatment for Certain Expenses and Industries

Who’s Got the B.E.A.T.? Special Treatment for Certain Expenses and Industries

Code §59A imposes tax on U.S. corporations with substantial gross receipts when base erosion payments to related entities significantly reduce regular corporate income tax.  The new tax is known as the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (“B.E.A.T.”).  In the second of a two-part series, Rusudan Shervashidze and Stanley C. Ruchelman address (i) the coordination of two sets of limitations on deductions when payments are subject to B.E.A.T. and the Code §163(j) limitation on business interest expense deductions, (ii) the computation of modified taxable income in years when an N.O.L. carryover can reduce taxable income, (iii) application of B.E.A.T. to partnerships and their partners, and (iv) the application of the B.E.A.T. to banks and insurance companies. 

Read More

Who’s Got the B.E.A.T.? A Playbook for Determining Applicable Taxpayers and Payments

   Who’s Got the B.E.A.T.? A Playbook for Determining Applicable Taxpayers and Payments

Code §59A imposes tax on U.S. corporations with substantial gross receipts when base erosion payments to related entities significantly reduce regular corporate income tax. The new tax is known as the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (“B.E.A.T.”). In late December 2019, the I.R.S. proposed regulations that provide guidance for affected taxpayers. The proposed regulations provide a playbook for making required computations including (i) the gross receipts test to determine if the taxpayer meets the $500 million gross receipts requirement, (ii) the base erosion percentage test, (iii) how to apply the tests when a taxpayer is member of an Aggregate Group having members with differing year-ends, (iv) various computations to determine whether a non-cash transaction is considered to be a payment to a related party outside the U.S. or is outside the scope of the B.E.A.T., and (v) other exceptions from the B.E.A.T. In the first of a multi-part series, Rusudan Shervashidze and Stanley C. Ruchelman tell all.

Read More

Additional Guidance on New Opportunity Zone Funds

Additional Guidance on New Opportunity Zone Funds

Days after Galia Antebi and Nina Krauthamer published “The Opportunity Zone Tax Benefit – How Does It Work and Can Foreign Investors Benefit,” the I.R.S. issued guidance in proposed regulations. Now, in a follow-up article, Galia Antebi and Nina Krauthamer focus on the new guidance as it relates to the deferral election and the Qualified Opportunity Zone Fund. In particular, they address (i) which taxpayers are eligible to make the deferral election, (ii) the gains eligible for deferral, (iii) the measurement of the 180-day limitation, (iv) the tax attributes of deferred gains, and (v) the effect of an expiration of a qualifying zone status on the step-up in basis to fair market value after ten years.

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