Action Item 1: The O.E.C.D.'s Approach to the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy

Read Publication

The O.E.C.D.’s Action Plan adopted in Saint Petersburg in 2013 aims at tracking where economic activities generating taxable profits are performed and where value is created. It aims at ensuring that taxation follows the economic activities and the creation of value and not the other way around. Action Item 1 of the Action Plan (the “Action 1 Deliverable”) focuses on the tax challenges of the digital economy. Along with the 2014 Deliverable on Action 15 (Developing a Multilateral Instrument to Modify Bilateral Tax Treaties), the Action 1 Deliverable is a final report.

The Action 1 Deliverable published on September 16, 2014 mainly reiterates the March 2014 Public Discussion Draft on Action 1 (click here to access our article on the 2014 Public Discussion Draft). It restates that, while B.E.P.S. is exacerbated in the digital economy space, the digital economy cannot be ring-fenced from other sectors of the economy for B.E.P.S. purposes because the digital economy is an ever growing portion of the entire economy. The Action 1 Deliverable thus refers to other Actions to address common B.E.P.S. issues that are not specific to the digital economy. Action Item 1 also refers to the O.E.C.D.’s International V.A.T./G.S.T. Guidelines with regard to V.A.T. issues raised by the digital economy. Although the Action 1 Deliverable adds relatively little to the previously published Public Discussion Draft on Action Item 1, the benefit of a set of uniformly accepted rules should not be understated. With European countries struggling to raise tax revenue in order to close budget gaps, the risk of adverse unilateral action by one or more countries is real. During a symposium held in Rome at the beginning of the month, certain European countries, and especially Italy, pushed for unilateral action with regard to the taxation of the digital economy. If that action proceeds to enactment, digital tax chaos could be encountered.

I.R.S. Announces Major Changes to Amnesty Programs

Read Publication

The I.R.S. announced major changes to its amnesty programs last month. These changes can be broken into two parts: changes to the 2012 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (“O.V.D.P.”), which can be to referred to as the 2012 Modified O.V.D.P. or the 2014 O.V.D.P., and changes to the streamlined procedures (“Streamlined Procedures”). As the requirements for the latter are relaxed, the requirements for the former are tightened.

The changes in the amnesty programs reflect the new I.R.S. approach for addressing taxpayers with offshore tax issues. The new approach provides one path for willful taxpayers, with steeper penalties but certainty, and another path for taxpayers who believe their conduct was non-willful, with reduced penalties but uncertainty to the extent their conduct is subsequently proven willful.

CHANGES TO O.V.D.P.

The major changes to the 2012 O.V.D.P. include the following:

1. Changes to Preclearance Process

Under the 2012 O.V.D.P., all that was required was to submit a preclearance request was a fax to the I.R.S. O.V.D.P. department that contained the taxpayer’s name, social security number, date of birth, address, and if the taxpayer was represented by an authorized party, an executed power of attorney (P.O.A.).

O.V.D.P. Update

Read Publication

I.R.S. ANNOUNCES MAJOR CHANGES TO O.V.D.P. AND STREAMLINED PROCEDURES

After more than two weeks of speculation, 49 on June 18, 2014, the I.R.S. announced major changes to its current offshore voluntary disclosure programs earlier today. The programs affected are the 2012 Streamlined Filing Compliance Procedures for Non-Resident, Non-Filer U.S. Taxpayers (the “Streamlined Procedures”) and the 2012 O.V.D.P.

In general, as will be discussed in more detail below, the changes to the programs relax the rules for non-willful filers and at the same time potentially increase penalties for willful non-compliance.

The changes to the O.V.D.P., as announced today, include the following:

• Additional information will be required from taxpayers applying to the program;
• The existing reduced penalty percentage for non-willful taxpayers will be eliminated;
• All account statements, as well as payment of the offshore penalty, must be submitted at the time of the O.V.D.P. application;
• Taxpayers will be able to submit important amounts of records electronically; and
• The offshore penalty will be increased from 27.5% to 50% if, prior to the taxpayer’s pre-clearance submission, it becomes public that a financial institution where the taxpayer holds an account or another party facilitating the taxpayer’s offshore arrangement is under investigation by the I.R.S. or the Department of Justice.

F.B.A.R. Update: What You Need to Know

Read Publication

NOTWITHSTANDING OFFICIAL COMMENTS, BITCOIN EXCHANGE ACCOUNTS SHOULD BE REPORTED ON F.B.A.R.’S

As noted in our previous issue, the I.R.S. clarified the tax treatment of Bitcoin, ruling that Bitcoin will not be treated as foreign currency but will be treated as property for U.S. Federal income tax purposes. As a result, the I.R.S. ruling may allow for capital gains treatment on the sale of Bitcoin. However, the ruling did not address whether Bitcoin is subject to Form 114 reporting.

This month, pursuant to a recent I.R.S. webinar, an I.R.S. official stated that Bitcoins are not required to be reported on this year’s Form 114. However, the official noted that the issue is under scrutiny, and caveated that the view could be changed in the future.

Notwithstanding the official’s comments, whether Bitcoin is a reportable asset will depend on the nature and manner it is held.

F.B.A.R. Assessment and Collections Processes: A Primer

Read Publication

With the June 30^th deadline fast approaching and the recent cases addressing F.B.A.R. penalties, we thought it would be useful to provide a primer on F.B.A.R. assessment and collections processes.

BACKGROUND

In general, a U.S. person having a financial interest in, or signature authority over, foreign financial accounts must file an F.B.A.R. if the value of the foreign financial accounts, taken in the aggregate and at any time during the calendar year, exceeds $10,000.

The F.B.A.R. must be filed electronically by June 30 of the calendar year following the year to be reported. No extension of time to file is available for F.B.A.R. purposes.

Failure to file this form, or filing a delinquent form, may result in significant civil and/or criminal penalties:

• A non-willful violation of the F.B.A.R. filing obligation can lead to a maximum penalty of $10,000. If reasonable cause can be shown and the balance in the account is properly reported, the penalty can be waived.
• In the case of a willful violation of the filing obligation, the maximum penalty imposed is the greater of $100,000 or 50% of the balance in the account in the year of the violation.

F.B.A.R. Penalty: Recent Cases

Read Publication

U.S. v. ZWERNER: WILLFUL NON-FILINGS RESULT IN MONSTROUS CIVIL PENALTIES

United States v. Zwerner illustrates the potential for monstrous civil penalties resulting from willful failure to file F.B.A.R.’s. It further confirms the point that, if evidence of willfulness exists even in a sympathetic case, the I.R.S. may assert willful penalties in the case of “silent” or “quiet” disclosures, which the I.R.S. and its officials have consistently warned in official and non-official statements.

The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

From 2004 through 2007, Carl Zwerner, currently an 87-year-old Florida resident, was the beneficial owner of an unreported financial interest in a Swiss bank account that he owned indirectly through two successive entities. He did not report the income on the accounts for the period of 2004 through 2007, according to the complaint filed by the United States, but in his answer to the complaint, Zwerner, while admitting that he filed a delinquent F.B.A.R. for 2007, denied filing an amended return for that year, stating that his financial interest in the foreign account was reported on his timely-filed 1040 for that year. The complaint also alleged that, for 2006 and 2007, he represented to his accountant that he had no interest or signature authority over a financial account in a foreign country. Zwerner denied those allegations.

Tax 101: Transactions in FX - A Primer for Individuals

Read Publication

In our last issue, we discussed the recent I.R.S. guidance on bitcoins which, in general, stated that transactions in bitcoins should be treated as transactions in property under the general rules of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) rather than the special rules applicable to foreign currency. We therefore thought it would be useful to provide a primer on common transactions involving foreign currency (sometimes hereinafter referred to as “FX”) with respect to U.S. individuals.

IN GENERAL

The first thing to note about engaging in transactions involving foreign currency is that foreign currency is treated as any other asset. Think stocks, bonds, or real estate. When an individual buys foreign currency, that individual has a basis in the FX (e.g., Euro) similar to any other investment. When the individual sells that foreign currency, that individual will have a realization event, in which case gain or loss may have to be recognized. Whether the character of that gain or loss is ordinary will depend on the specific transaction and the applicability of Code §988, as will be discussed in more detail below.

Example 1

Mr. FX Guy, a U.S. citizen individual, buys real property located in the U.K. for 100,000 British pounds (£) on January 1, 2014. In order to effectuate the purchase, Mr. FX Guy uses £100,000 that he purchased for $150,000 on January 1, 2012 when the exchange rate was $1.5 to £1. Assume on January 1, 2014, the exchange rate was $2: £1 as the British pound appreciated against the U.S. dollar. The £100,000 has a basis of $150,000. It was acquired on January 1, 2012 and disposed of on January 1, 2014. The disposition is a sale of an asset (in this case, the FX). The amount realized is the fair market value of the consideration received, or $200,000. Accordingly, the taxpayer has a gain of $50,000 attributable to the foreign currency that must be recognized. The character of the gain, and the applicability of §988, will depend on whether the transaction was a “personal transaction.”

Insights Vol. 1 No. 3: Update & Other Tidbits

Read Publication

CORRECTION TO THE PROPOSED 2013 DIVIDEND EQUIVALENT REGULATIONS

On December 5, 2013, proposed and final Treasury Regulations were published, relating to U.S. source dividend equivalent payments made to nonresident individuals and foreign corporations. On February 24, 2014, a correction to the proposed regulations was published, which tackles errors contained in the 2013 proposed regulations. The corrections mainly clarify the 2013 proposed regulations and prevent any potential misleading caused by their formulation. In addition, on March 4, 2014, the I.R.S. released Notice 2014-14, which states that it will amend forthcoming regulations to provide that specified equity-linked instruments (“E.L.I.’s”) will be limited to those issued on or after 90 days following publication of the final regulations. This will allow additional time for financial markets to implement necessary changes.

UNITED STATES AND HONG KONG SIGN T.I.E.A.

On March 25, 2014, H.K. and U.S. governments signed a Tax Information Exchange Agreement (“T.I.E.A.”) confirming their commitment to enter into an I.G.A., subject to ongoing discussions. The T.I.E.A. will apply to profits tax, salaries tax, and property tax in H.K. and will cover federal taxes on income, estate and gift taxes, and excise taxes in the U.S.

The O.E.C.D.'s Approach to B.E.P.S. Concerns Raised by the Digital Economy

Read Publication

On March 24, 2014, ten days after the O.E.C.D. released its public discussion draft on prevention of treaty abuse, a second public discussion draft was released, addressing the tax challenges of the digital economy (the “Discussion Draft”).

The Discussion Draft emphasizes the concept that the digital economy should not be ring-fenced and separated from the rest of the economy, given its relationship to the latter. It provides a detailed introduction to the digital economy, including its history, components, operations, and different actors. Surprisingly, it does not propose any groundbreaking approaches to addressing the base erosion and profit shifting (“B.E.P.S.”) challenges encountered in the digital economy. It simply reflects an approach that is consistent with the fight against B.E.P.S. – seeking to determine where economic activity takes place in the digital economy in order to best achieve taxation in a non-abusive fashion.

The Discussion Draft singles out six factors that characterize the digital economy in light of B.E.P.S. concerns:

1. Mobility of all facets of the digital economy, including the intangibles used, the users themselves, and the business functions carried on by various players in the business model;
2. Reliance on data;
3. Network effects;
4. Use of multi-sided business models;
5. Tendency towards monopoly or oligopoly; and
6. Volatility