I.R.S. Defines Measure for Tax Rate Disparity Test

Read Publication

In order to reduce its overall foreign tax rate, a company may attempt to separate its foreign manufacturing from its foreign sales operations. If a foreign manufacturing entity sells products at a low margin to a related foreign sales entity in a lowtax jurisdiction, less foreign taxes are paid than if the foreign manufacturing entity sold the products directly to customers. This type of transaction would generally trigger foreign base company sales income (“F.B.C.S.I.”) for the sales entity, while the manufacturing entity could rely on the exception whereby income produced by certain manufacturing activities is not included in F.B.C.S.I. (the “Manufacturing Exception”).

McDonald's Accused of Re-Routing Royalty Payments to Avoid Billions in European Taxes

Read Publication

Labor unions are accusing McDonald’s of avoiding €1 billion in tax by re-routing revenue through Swiss and Luxembourg units.

McDonald’s apparently asked its various franchises to pay it royalty revenue for using the McDonald’s brand.

Insights Vol. 2 No. 2: Updates & Other Tidbits

Read Publication

BUSINESSMAN PLEADS GUILTY TO CONCEALING $8.4 MILLION

A Connecticut business executive, George Landegger, pled guilty to willfully failing to report $8.4 million held in Swiss bank accounts to the I.R.S. During the early 2000’s until 2010, Landegger maintained undeclared accounts which reached a maximum value of over $8.4 million at an unidentified Swiss bank.

While Landegger’s defense attorney confirmed that Landegger has not been accepted to the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (“O.V.D.P.”), Landegger, according to the prosecutors, repeatedly rejected the possibility of disclosing his undeclared accounts to the I.R.S. through the O.V.D.P. and instead proactively took steps to conceal his accounts. Landegger held his undeclared accounts in a sham entity formed by a Swiss lawyer under the laws of Liechtenstein. In August 2013, the Swiss lawyer pled guilty to tax fraud conspiracy charges and has been cooperating with prosecutors.

Landegger agreed to pay a civil penalty of over $4.2 million and more than $71,000 in back taxes as part of his plea, entered on January 15, 2015. Landegger’s sentencing will be held May 12. He faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison. In his statement, I.R.S. Acting Special Agent-in-Charge Thomas E. Bishop stressed that uncovering hidden offshore accounts and income is the Service’s top priority and that it will continue working with the Department of Justice to do so. This case illustrustrates the importance of a timely O.V.D.P. submission.

OBAMA PROPOSES INCREASE IN CAPITAL GAINS TAX, ELIMINATION OF STEPPED-UP BASIS ON INHERITED ASSETS

President Obama has proposed a 28% tax rate on capital gains for couples with $500,000 in annual income and eliminating the stepped-up basis on inherited investments. Obama believes that these tax increases will help to pay for expanded benefits for middle- and low-income households. Congressional Republicans have indicated that they would not support Obama’s proposal.

Insights Vol. 2 No. 1: Updates & Other Tidbits

Read Publication

TAX EVASION INDIAN STYLE: CRIMINAL OR CIVIL OFFENSE?

Judicial authorities in India are recommending that the country adopt a similar position as the United States with respect to offshore bank accounts. While investigating the “black money” held in undeclared Swiss bank accounts by 628 wealthy Indians, two of the judges recommended that tax evasion should constitute a criminal offense and not simply a civil one.

The scandal has been at the forefront of both political discussion and legal debate since there is a fine line that is being straddled between disclosing and punishing these tax evaders versus violating the confidentiality clause from the Indian-Swiss tax treaty. According to the treaty, these account names can only be revealed once charges identifying the specific individual have been filed.

In India, “black money” has always been an obstacle to tax collection. Black money constitutes undeclared income that has been “hidden,” profits from the undervaluation of exports, and earnings from fake invoices or unaccounted-for goods. Black money not only affects the national treasury, but has fueled corruption, too. According to the judges, classifying tax evasion as a criminal offense, and dealing with these lawbreakers more strictly should serve as a deterrent.

HAND IT OVER, MICROSOFT?

In conjunction with its audit of Microsoft’s cost-sharing transfer pricing methods for the 2004-2006 tax years, the I.R.S. has filed a petition for enforcement of an issued summons for 50 types of documents, including those relating to marketing, R&D, financial projections, revenue targets, employees, studies, and surveys.

Insights Vol. 1 No. 11: Updates & Other Tidbits

Read Publication

B.E.P.S. PROJECT FACES CHALLENGE IN ADDRESSING C.F.C. RULES

The O.E.C.D.’s pending base erosion and profit shifting action plan is due to face a significant challenge as to how to address controlled foreign corporations. Action 3, which strengthens C.F.C. rules, is set to be released in 2015. Currently, European case law restricts the scope of E.U. members establishing C.F.C. regimes.

Stephen E. Shay of Harvard Law School says the U.S. is encouraging the expansion of the C.F.C. rules as a way to solve several of the issues the B.E.P.S. action plan is trying to address, however, these new rules run the risk of being contrary to E.U. jurisprudence. The E.U.’s ability to adopt stringent C.F.C. rules is limited by the Cadbury Schweppes (C-196/04), a 2006 ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Court held that E.U. freedom of establishment provisions preclude the U.K. C.F.C. regime unless the regime “relates only to wholly artificial arrangements intended to escape the national tax normally payable.”

Without resolving the issue among E.U. countries, Action 3 may not be effective in appropriately addressing earnings stripping. However, Shay also added that Action 2, which neutralizes the effects of hybrid mismatch arrangements, so far appears to include an approach that works without C.F.C. rules.

CHARGES LAID AGAINST U.S. CITIZEN FOR MAINTAINING ALLEGED SECRET SWISS BANK ACCOUNTS

Department of Justice announced that charges have been laid against Peter Canale, a U.S. citizen and resident of Kentucky, for conspiring to defraud the I.R.S., evade taxes, and file a false individual income tax return. It is alleged that Canale conspired with his brother and two Swiss citizens to establish and maintain secret, undeclared bank accounts in Switzerland.

In approximately the year 2000, a relative of Canale died and left a substantial portion of assets which were held in an undeclared Swiss bank account to Canale and his brother, Michael. The brothers met with two Swiss citizens, who agreed to continue to maintain the assets in the undeclared account for the benefit of the Canales.

New I.R.S. Procedures for Canadian Retirement Plans

Read Publication

On October 7, 2014, the I.R.S. released Revenue Procedure 2014-55, which provides guidance for U.S. citizens or residents who own a Canadian Registered Retirement Savings Plan (“R.R.S.P.”). In short, U.S. citizens/Canadian residents, Canadian citizens/U.S. residents, and dual citizens will no longer need to file Form 8891 to defer the accrued R.R.S.P./R.R.I.F income for U.S. tax purposes. The deferral will now occur automatically, assuming the individual is “eligible.” These new procedures will apply even if the contributions to the R.R.S.P./R.R.I.F. were made as a resident of Canada.

However, practitioners should note that this does not alleviate the need to file Form 8938 or FinCen Form 114 upon receiving a distribution from an R.R.R.P.

Original Treatment

An individual who is both a U.S. citizen/resident and a beneficiary of a R.R.S.P will be subject to current U.S. income taxation on income accrued in the plan even though the income is not currently distributed to the beneficiary. In Canada, the individual is not subject to Canadian income taxation until the accrued income is actually distributed from the plan. This leads to a mismatch in the timing of the U.S. tax and the Canadian tax, resulting in possible double taxation.

Article XVIII, Paragraph 7 of the U.S.-Canada Income Tax Convention (the “Treaty”) provides that an individual may defer U.S. taxation on income accumulated in an R.R.S.P., but only if the individual makes an annual election to defer the taxation of income.

Recapitalization of L.L.C. Interests and Issuance of Profit Interests Held to be Gifts in Estate Freeze

Read Publication

Code §2701 is a provision which renders the transfer of a partnership or membership interest to a family member a gift. The tax typically applies in an “estate freeze” scenario, where one generation attempts to transfer assets which appreciate in value to another generation, thereby removing it from their estate for estate tax purposes. In its latest Chief Counsel Advice (“C.C.A.”), the I.R.S. held that a recapitalization of a limited liability company (“L.L.C.”) triggers a gift under Code §2701 in a case where a mother retained a right of distribution but transferred the gain or loss attributable to the L.L.C.’s assets to her sons. The I.R.S. held that the interest retained by the transferor (a distribution right on the existing capital account balance) was a senior interest, whereas the transferred interest held by the sons (the right to future gain of the L.L.C.’s assets) was found to be a subordinate interest. What is notable and most troubling here is that the interests transferred to the sons are so-called “profits interests,” issued for future services to be rendered to the L.L.C.

IN GENERAL

Code §2701 imposes special gift tax valuation rules when partnership or membership interests are transferred to family members. Family members covered under Code §2701 include the spouse of the transferor, any lineal descendant of the transferor or the transferor's spouse, and the spouse of any such descendant. In general, Code §2701 devalues interests of senior family members in order to increase the value of interests transferred to junior family members. Code §2701 generally applies to situations where the transferor retains a senior interest and transfers a subordinate interest to the transferee – such as when a parent keeps preferred shares and transfers common shares to family members.

Action Item 15: Developing a Multilateral Instrument to Modify Bilateral Tax Treaties

Read Publication

AN EXERCISE IN “POINT/COUNTERPOINT”

Implementation of many of the B.E.P.S. Action Items would require amending or otherwise modifying international tax treaties. According to the O.E.C.D., the sheer number of bilateral tax treaties makes updating the current treaty network highly burdensome. Therefore, B.E.P.S. Action Item 15 recommends the development of a multilateral instrument (“M.L.I.”) to enable countries to easily implement measures developed through the B.E.P.S. initiative and to amend existing treaties. Without a mechanism for swift implementation of the Action Items, changes to model tax conventions merely widen the gap between the content of the models and the content of actual tax treaties.

Discussion of Action Item 15 has centered on the following issues:

• Whether an M.L.I. is necessary,
• Whether an M.L.I. is feasible, and
• Whether an M.L.I. is legal.

In the spirit of these ongoing discussions concerning Action Item 15, we offer our commentary in a “point/counterpoint” format.

Corporate Matters: Delaware or New York L.L.C.?

Read Publication

When a client is considering commencing business operations in New York, we are often asked whether it is preferable to form a limited liability company (“L.L.C.”) in New York or in Delaware. As we have mentioned in a previous issues, Delaware is generally the preferred jurisdiction for incorporation and the jurisdiction we typically recommend.

We thought it might be helpful to set out a short summary of issues that one will encounter in choosing between a New York or a Delaware L.L.C. and the relevant advantages and disadvantages of using either state.

Filing Fees

The fee for filing the articles of organization for a New York L.L.C. is $200, while the fee for filing a certificate of formation in Delaware is only $90.00. However, if the Delaware L.L.C. intends to conduct business in New York, it must file an application of authority for a foreign limited liability company, accompanied with a certificate of good standing from Delaware.

The determination of whether the Delaware L.L.C. is conducting business in New York is largely fact specific. The filing fee for the application for authority is $250, and the Delaware fee for a certificate of good standing can range from $50 (for a short form certificate) to $175 (for a long form certificate).

Insights Vol. 1 No. 7: Updates & Other Tidbits

Read Publication

KENNETH WOOD NAMED ACTING DIRECTOR OF I.R.S. TRANSFER PRICING OPERATIONS

On July 24, the I.R.S. selected Kenneth Wood, senior manager in the Advance Pricing and Mutual Agreement Program, to replace Samuel Maruca as acting director of Transfer Pricing Operations. The appointment took effect on August 3, 2014. We previously discussed I.R.S. departures, including those in the Transfer Pricing Operations, here.

To re-iterate, it is unclear what the previous departures signify—whether the Large Business & International Division is being re-organized, or whether there are more fundamental disagreements on how the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“B.E.P.S.”) initiative affects basic tenets of international tax law as defined by the I.R.S. and Treasury. Although there is still uncertainty about the latter issue, Ken Wood’s appointment seems to signify that the Transfer Pricing Operations’ function will remain intact in some way.

CORPORATE INVERSIONS CONTINUE TO TRIGGER CONTROVERSY: PART I

President Obama echoed many of the comments coming from the U.S. Congress when he recently denounced corporate inversion transactions in remarks made during an address at a Los Angeles technical college. As we know, inversions are attractive for U.S. multinationals because as a result of inverting, non-U.S. profits are not subject to U.S. Subpart F taxation. Rather, they are subject only to the foreign jurisdiction’s tax, which, these days, is usually lower than the U.S. tax. In addition, inversions position the multinational group to loan into the U.S. from the (now) foreign parent. Subject to some U.S. tax law restrictions, interest paid by the (now) U.S. subsidiary group is deductible for U.S. tax purposes with the (now) foreign parent booking interest at its home country’s lower tax rate.

“Inverted companies” have been severely criticized by the media and politicians as tax cheats that use cross-border mergers to escape U.S. taxes while still benefiting economically from their U.S. business presence. This has been seen as nothing more than an unfair increase of the tax burden of middle-income families.

U.S.-Based Pushback on B.E.P.S.

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION

In addition to the aggressive actions by some foreign countries to levy more taxes on U.S. taxpayers before a consensus has been reached, the process established by the O.E.C.D. raises serious questions about the ability of the United States to fully participate in the negotiations.

Ultimately, we believe that the best way for the United States to address the potential problem of B.E.P.S. is to enact comprehensive tax reforms that lower the corporate rate to a more internationally competitive level and modernize the badly outdated and uncompetitive U.S. international tax structure.

So say Representative Dave Camp (R) and Senator Orrin Hatch (R), two leading Republican voices in Congress, on the O.E.C.D.’s B.E.P.S. project.

Does this somewhat direct expression of skepticism represent nothing more than U.S. political party politicking or a unified U.S. government position that in fact might be one supported by U.S. multinational corporations? The thought of the two political parties, the Administration and U.S. industry agreeing on a major political/economic issue presents an interesting, if unlikely, scenario. This article will explore that scenario.

OVERVIEW OF B.E.P.S./WHY B.E.P.S.?/WHY NOW?

Base erosion and profit shifting (“B.E.P.S.”) refers to tax planning strategies that exploit gaps and mismatches in tax rules in order to make profits “disappear” for tax purposes or to shift profits to locations where there is little or no real activity and the taxes are low. This results in little or no overall corporate tax being paid.

Tax 101: Taxation of Foreign Trusts

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS A FOREIGN TRUST?

In General

A trust is a relationship (generally a written agreement) created at the direction of an individual (the settlor), in which one or more persons (the trustees) hold the individual's property, subject to certain duties, to use and protect it for the benefit of others (the beneficiaries). In general, the term “trust” as used in the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) refers to an arrangement created either by a will or by an inter vivos declaration whereby trustees take title to property for the purpose of protecting or conserving it for the beneficiaries under the ordinary rules applied in chancery or probate courts.

Trusts can be characterized as grantor trusts or ordinary trusts. Ordinary trusts can be characterized as simple trusts or complex trusts; U.S. tax laws have special definitions for these concepts. A simple trust is a trust that is required to distribute all of its annual income to the beneficiaries. Beneficiaries cannot be charitable. A complex trust is an ordinary trust which is not a simple trust, i.e., a trust that may accumulate income, distribute corpus, or have charitable beneficiaries. Ordinary trusts are “hybrid” entities, serving as a conduit for distributions of distributable net income (“D.N.I.”), a concept defined in the Code,52 to beneficiaries and receiving a deduction for D.N.I. distributions, while being taxed on other income (e.g., accumulated income, income allocated to corpus).

A trust can be domestic or foreign. This article will focus on the U.S. tax consequences with respect to “foreign grantor trusts” (“F.G.T.”) and “foreign nongrantor trusts” (“F.N.G.T.”).

Cross-Border Estate Planning: Canadian Parents of U.S. Children

Read Publication

U.S. transfer taxes (U.S. gift, estate and generation skipping taxes) should be a concern to any practitioner creating an estate plan with U.S. links. The following article addresses U.S. estate tax consequences of a family comprised of Canadian citizen/resident parents with American children.

IN GENERAL

Transfer tax is imposed on the fair market value of the property transferred, reduced by any consideration received.

U.S. citizens, and non-U.S. citizen individuals that are domiciled in the U.S., are subject to the U.S. transfer tax system on global assets.

A person acquires a domicile in a place by living there, for even a brief period of time, without the presence of a definite intention to leave.

A facts and circumstances test is used to determine domicile. Factors include, e.g.:

1. Statements of intent (as reflected, e.g., on tax returns filed, visa application, and similar evidence);
2. Time spent in U.S. versus time spent abroad;
3. Visa status (e.g., green card holder);
4. Ties to the U.S. versus abroad;
5. Country of citizenship;
6. Location of employment, business, and assets;
7. Other indicators such as voting, affiliations, membership, driver license, and similar items.

Residence without the intention to remain indefinitely will not constitute a domicile, and the intention to change domicile will not effect such a change unless accompanied by actual relocation.

Proposed Partnership Regulations Will Affect Partnership Deal Economics

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION

In 2014-8 I.R.B., the I.R.S. proposed amendments to regulations issued under Code §707 relating to disguised sales of property to or by a partnership and under Code §752 regarding the treatment of partnership liabilities. The proposed regulations address certain deficiencies and technical ambiguities in the existing regulations and certain issues in determining partners’ shares of liabilities under Code §752. The proposals are designed to limit taxpayers’ ability to structure a sale of a partnership interest as a contribution of property by one partner and the receipt of a distribution by a second partner in a way that is not taxable in the year of the transaction. For a foreign investor, the proposed regulation regarding the interplay of partnership liabilities and investor basis in the partnership add another unwelcome level of complexity that must be accounted for in tax planning for an investment. The reason is that a partner’s ability to deduct losses of a partnership or L.L.C. is capped at the basis maintained in the partnership interest held. Partners have basis for liabilities of the partnership. The issue is the allocation of losses among the partners or members. The proposed regulations limit ways to increase basis through planning mechanisms that have been accepted for a long period of time.

PARTNERSHIP BASICS AND RELATED ISSUES

Background

A partnership is said to be created when persons join together their money, goods, labor, or skill for the purpose of carrying on a trade, profession, or business and when there is community of interest in the profits and losses.

New York State Makes Major Changes to Estate and Gift Tax Law

Read Publication

New Exclusion Amount: Prior to April 1, 2014, an estate was required to file a New York State estate tax return if the total of the federal gross estate plus the federal adjusted taxable gifts and specific exemption exceeded $1 million (the “basic exclusion amount”) and the individual was either: (i) a resident of the state at the time of death or (ii) a resident or citizen of the U.S. at the time of death but not a resident of the state, whose estate includes real or tangible personal property located in the state. (Other rules apply to individuals who were not residents or citizens of the U.S., but who died owning real or tangible personal property located in the state.)

Recent N.Y.S. legislation has increased the basic exclusion amount as follows:

• For individuals dying on or after April 1, 2014 and before April 1, 2015 - $2,062,500
• For individuals dying on or after April 1, 2015 and before April 1, 2016 - $3,125,000
• For individuals dying on or after April 1, 2016 and before April 1, 2017 - $4,187,500
• For individuals dying on or after April 1, 2017 and before January 1, 2019 - $5,250,000

After January 1, 2019, the basic exclusion amount will be indexed for inflation from 2010, which should link the state exclusion amount to the federal amount.

U.S. Tax Treaty Update→

Read Publication

At a business meeting on April 1, 2014, the Senate Foreign Relations committee approved two proposed treaties with Hungary and Chile, tax treaty amendments (“protocols”) with Switzerland and Luxembourg, and a protocol amending the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters.

As in recent years, improved information sharing and limitations on “treaty shopping” (the inappropriate use of a tax treaty by residents of a third country) continue to be important U.S. objectives.

Highlights of the approved measures include the following:

• The proposed treaty between Hungary and the U.S. encompasses a comprehensive “Limitation on Benefits” provision, unlike the current treaty with Hungary, of 1979, which contains no such limitation, and also provides for a full exchange of information. The new Limitation on Benefits provision includes a measure granting so-called “derivative benefits” similar to the provision included in all recent U.S. tax treaties with European Union members.