Members of Ruchelman P.L.L.C. contribute to publications throughout the world and the Firm’s monthly tax journal, Insights.
Beate Erwin, Kenneth Lobo, and Stanley C. Ruchelman explain how the branch rule works when a C.F.C. operates a manufacturing or selling branch in another country. While the concept is easy to explain, the computations are somewhat confusing. The article explains all.
Read MoreRusudan Shervashidze and Stanley C. Ruchelman explain the tests the I.R.S. applies to determine whether a foreign corporation is a C.F.C. and a U.S. person is a “U.S. Shareholder” potentially subject to tax under Subpart F. They explain the tax forms that examiners are encouraged to look for and the telltale signs of direct, indirect, and constructive ownership of shares by U.S. persons.
Read MoreU.S.-based companies facing an I.R.S. examination of international operations may secretly wish to obtain an advance look at how I.R.S. examiners plan to carry out the examination. After all, what better way to prepare for a test than to get the questions in advance? Surprise – the Large Business & International (LB&I) Division of the I.R.S. has published its training guides for examiners.
LB&I is responsible for examining tax returns reporting international transactions, and it is in the process of revising the method by which returns are chosen for examination and the the process by which those examinations are conducted. Several aspects of the guidance will be addressed through out this edition of Insights. Stanley C. Ruchelman explains.
Read MoreIn December, the I.R.S. released Prop. Treas. Reg. §1.60384 -15, which details the country-by-country (CbC) reporting that will be required of large U.S.-based business entities. The proposed regulations define the persons required to file the CbC report, companies that are to included in the report, information that must be reported, acceptable measurement methodologies to be used, and uses to which data may be put.
These regulations closely follow the model recommended by the O.E.C.D. B.E.P.S. report. Sheryl Shah and Stanley C. Ruchelman explain the I.R.S.’s reasons and request for input regarding national security exemptions not otherwise considered by the O.E.C.D.
Read MoreThe latest step in inversion controversy involving U.S. publicly traded corporations is the upcoming merger between pharmaceutical giants, Pfizer and Allergan, in a stock transaction estimated to be worth $160 billion. Kenneth Lobo and Stanley C. Ruchelman look at recent I.R.S. countermeasures attacking cross-border mergers that the I.R.S. views as inversions. Among other measures, rules are announced to limit planning alternatives using check-the-box entities to stuff assets into an acquirer without exposing those assets to tax in the jurisdiction of residence of the acquirer and use of parent-company stock as the consideration for the acquisition.
Read MorePublished in Taxes & Wealth Management by Thomson Reuters, Issue 8-4: November 2015.
Read MoreThe question of the proper treatment of a contract transferring exclusive rights to the use of a patent – as a sale or a license – is one that has been addressed many times in U.S. jurisprudence. It has recently popped up again in a case before the U.S. Tax Court involving the generic pharmaceutical giant Mylan Inc., a company that has been the subject of much negative publicity arising from its inversion and subsequent re-immersion as a U.S. domestic company. In September, the I.R.S. filed a memorandum in support of a motion for summary judgment. We explain the basis for the I.R.S. position and comment on its merits.
Read MoreFor many tax advisers, it is fashionable to complain about the O.E.C.D.’s B.E.P.S. project because it imposes an unrealistic standard of behavior on multinational groups. Then, along comes a case such as Russian Recovery Fund, Ltd. v. U.S. and one understands the problem of real base erosion. The case involved a distressed asset/debt (D.A.D.) transaction. Here, hubris and greed in the financial services sector team up to make the O.E.C.D. look good.
Read MorePublished in Journal of Taxation and Regulation of Financial Institutions, Volume 27, Number 5: May/June 2014. © Civic Research Institute. Authorized Reprint.
Read MorePublished in Journal of Taxation and Regulation of Financial Institutions, Volume 28, Number 4: March/April 2015. © Civic Research Institute. Authorized Reprint.
Read MorePublished in International Taxation, Volume 13, Issue 3: September 2015.
Read MoreThe busy season for the B.E.P.S. Project opened at the end of July, as O.E.C.D. Working Parties completed their assignments. Readers may wish to see how the world will look after all B.E.P.S. Actions are completed. Galia Antebi and Stanley C. Ruchelman discuss several developments.
Read MoreIs the Altera case important because it struck down the I.R.S.’s stock-based compensation regulations related to cost sharing agreements? Or is it important because of the procedural analysis, which enabled the Tax Court to be in position to strike down a regulation? Beate Erwin, Stanley C. Ruchelman, and Michael Peggs explain why the case is important for both reasons.
Read MoreIn a partial reversal of the I.R.S. position, a U.S. financial institution was allowed to deduct interest expense on borrowings that formed part of a S.T.A.R.S. transaction in Salem Financial, Inc. v. United States. While the Appeals Cout held that the taxpayer could not claim foreign tax credits for the U.K. taxes paid pursuant to the S.T.A.R.S. transaction, it allowed deductions for interest paid on a loan.
Branch Banking & Trust Corporation (“BB&T”), a North Carolina financial holding company, and Barclays Bank PLC (“Barclays”), a U.K. bank were the participants in a financial product transaction BB&T entered into a structured trust advantaged repackaged securities (“S.T.A.R.S.”) transaction with Barclays from August 2002 through April 2007. Generally, the economic benefit of a S.T.A.R.S. transaction is to increase yields on investments by affixing an interest expense deduction and a double dip of foreign tax credits to the total return of the investor. Barclays invented the S.T.A.R.S. transaction structure along with the international accounting firm based in the U.K., KPMG L.L.P.
First published by the Canadian Tax Foundation in (2015) 23:6 Canadian Tax Highlights.
Read MoreOur practice involves the drafting of many different types of partnership agreements and other agreements governing the relationship among individuals involved in a common enterprise. These agreements include general and limited partnership agreements, operating agreements or limited liability company agreements, and shareholder agreements for corporations. In this article, all these types of entities are referred to as “joint ventures.”
During the initial client discussions with respect to these agreements we highlight and discuss the usual laundry list of matters that co-investors should consider at the time of formation. One matter that we believe should be addressed in every joint venture agreement is what happens upon the death of a member of the joint venture. For obvious reasons, many do not want to focus on this point. However, the procedure to be followed when surviving spouses and heirs inherit an ownership interest is best handled at the beginning of the joint venture. While it may appear that all joint venture members have similar interests, relationships can change very quickly, and the bottom line is that while one may be very interested in being in partnership with a certain individual, the same interest may not attach to that person’s spouse.
Two years ago, a U.S. Senate investigation accused Ireland of granting Apple Inc. special tax treatment. This accusation sparked a seemingly never-ending investigation into the state aid granted by certain European countries to specific multinational companies. More recently, Apple, Starbucks, Fiat, and various other companies exposed in the “Luxembourg Leaks” scandal were accused of having paid substandard taxes as a result of agreements between those companies and the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Ireland, which constituted illegal state aid.
Now, the European Commission (the “Commission”) is looking into the penalties that should be levied upon the income earned through these agreements. The Commission’s investigations into these advance rulings and advance pricing agreements (“A.P.A.’s”) between E.U. member-states and major U.S. multinationals could lead to tax adjustments dating as far back as ten years.
State aid is defined as “an advantage in any form whatsoever conferred on a selective basis to undertakings by national public authorities.” This does not include subsidies or tax breaks available to all entities. A measure of state aid constitutes an intervention by a state, or through state resources, that gives specific companies or industry sectors an advantage on a selective basis, thereby distorting competition and affecting trade between E.U. member states.
On April 13, the Office of the National Taxpayer Advocate (“N.T.A.”) urged the Internal Revenue Service (“I.R.S.”) to reduce foreign asset reporting requirements magnified by the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“F.A.T.C.A.”). The N.T.A. is an independent organization within the I.R.S. that aids taxpayers in resolving issues with the I.R.S. It identifies issues and suggests changes to the I.R.S. and Congress to aid both the I.R.S. and all taxpayers.
Currently, U.S. persons with foreign bank accounts file two reports relating to such accounts: one report for the I.R.S. and the other report for the Treasury Department. In a recommendation to the I.R.S., the N.T.A. said on April 13 that taxpayers shouldn’t have to report assets on Form 8938, Statement of Foreign Financial Assets, if those assets are already reported or reflected on a Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) Report 114, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (“F.B.A.R.”).
Form 8938 has been expanded to reflect changes under F.A.T.C.A., which requires foreign financial institutions to report U.S.-owned accounts to the I.R.S. or face, in some cases, a 30% withholding tax on their U.S.-source income.
In addition, the N.T.A. urged the I.R.S. to reduce the burden on taxpayers with accounts abroad who are bona fide residents of the foreign countries in which they live, suggesting that it should not require banks organized under the laws of those countries to report such accounts under F.A.T.C.A.
In Notice 2015-10 (the “Notice”), issued on April 28, 2015, the I.R.S. stated that it was concerned about cases in which persons subject to withholding under Code §§1441-1443 (“Chapter 3”) or Code §§1471 and 1472 (“Chapter 4”) are making or will make claims for refunds or credits in circumstances where a withholding agent failed to deposit the amounts required to be withheld under §6302.
If a withholding agent fails to deposit an amount withheld under Chapters 3 or 4, or reported as withheld on Form 1042-S, and the I.R.S. issues a refund or credit for the amount, the I.R.S. may not be able to recover that amount because the claimant, and in some cases the relevant withholding agent, may be outside the United States. The new regulations aim to reduce the risk that the I.R.S. may issue improper refunds or credits for fictitious withholding or amounts that have not been deposited and are difficult to collect.
As will be seen below, the new regulations would limit a foreign taxpayer’s refund or credit to the amount deposited by the withholding agent. Though collecting undeposited amounts from withholding agents located outside the United States may be difficult for the I.R.S., one wonders about the fairness of limiting a foreign taxpayer’s refund or credit when the I.R.S. could use its greater resources to collect against the withholding agent.
In recent years, Russia has introduced several economic and political reforms, including a deoffshorization policy that some would say appears to be sound economic policy but others would say is more politically motivated by the centralization of power in the office of the President. In principle, the idea is to make Russian legislation friendly for Western investors, although the context suggests otherwise. Nonetheless, Russia is attempting to westernize its domestic laws and introduce economic concepts that are familiar to Western businessmen.
In 2014, the Russian government came out with a plan that would attack capital flight by residents. This was the so-called “deoffshorization” of investments. Among other things, this legislation increases the tax burden of many offshore holding companies by requiring payment of Russian taxes in the absence of any repatriation of profits. It also requires the disclosure of beneficial owners in the accounting statements of these holding companies. Again, these are concepts that are popular among policy makers in Western Europe, albeit in a different context.
Now, the Russian government is contemplating introduction of the “trust” into the Russian legal system. New laws are anticipated that are intended to formalize Russian arrangements where the nominal owner and the beneficial owner are separate individuals.
