Browse Articles:   By Category   /   By Author
HIDE

Other Publications

Insights

Publications

High-Speed Tax Reform: The U.K. Diverted Profits Tax & Restrictions on Corporate Interest Deductions

/
High-Speed Tax Reform: The U.K. Diverted Profits Tax & Restrictions on Corporate Interest Deductions

Among the most notable changes made to U.K. corporate tax over the past 24 months are the introduction of the diverted profits tax (“D.P.T.”) and the reduction of tax relief for corporate interest payments.  D.P.T. is aimed at multinationals operating in the U.K. that try to avoid maintaining a permanent establishment in order to escape U.K. corporate tax.  D.P.T. is imposed at the rate of 25% and treaty relief is not available.  The reduction in relief for corporate interest payments implements the recommendations of B.E.P.S. Action 4.  Eloise Walker and Penny Simmons of Pinsent Masons, London, explain the working of these provisions.

Read More

Insights Vol. 4 No. 5: Updates & Other Tidbits

/
Insights Vol. 4 No. 5: Updates & Other Tidbits

This month, Astrid Champion and Nina Krauthamer look briefly at several timely issues, including (i) a novel claim of treaty residence in Ireland by a nonresident Irish domiciled individual subject to the domicile levy under Irish law and (ii) the introduction of a beneficial ownership register regime in the Cayman Islands regarding certain Cayman Islands corporations.

Read More

Corporate Matters:  Five Steps for Leveraging your Start-Up’s Emerging Intellectual Property

/
Corporate Matters:  Five Steps for Leveraging your Start-Up’s Emerging Intellectual Property

For an emerging business, intellectual property (“I.P.”) can be the business’s most important asset and the difference between its success and failure.  That is why steps must be taken early on to protect those “jewels.”  Barry Lewin of Gottlieb, Rackman & Reisman, P.C. in New York explains five important actions designed to protect and enhance value.

Read More

Amazon Makes the C.U.T. – An Important Taxpayer Win, A Reminder to Consider Transactional Evidence

/
Amazon Makes the C.U.T. – An Important Taxpayer Win, A Reminder to Consider Transactional Evidence

Last month, Insights reported on the Tax Court decision in Amazon v. Commr., involving the “buy-in” payment made as compensation for the right to use pre-existing I.P. in a related-party cost-sharing arrangement (“C.S.A.”).  This month, Michael Peggs comments on the lessons learned from the taxpayer victory in that case regarding (i) the transfer pricing method used, (ii) the assumptions made and analyses used to value the buy-in payment, and (iii) the correct treatment of intangible development costs within the term of the C.S.A.

Read More

Net Operating Losses: A Valuable Asset Worth Preserving

/
Net Operating Losses: A Valuable Asset Worth Preserving

Troubled companies that incur significant net operating losses (“N.O.L.’s”) can carry back those losses for up to two years in order to obtain refunds of tax.  In addition, the losses can be carried forward for up to 20 years to reduce future taxable income.  However, the losses cannot be monetized through transfers to others.  Code §§382 and 269 and separate return limitation year (“S.R.L.Y.”) provisions under the consolidated tax return regulations are designed to prevent taxpayers from selling the benefit of the N.O.L. directly or indirectly.  Philip R. Hirschfeld explains how the loss limitation rules are applied when (i) a change occurs in the ownership of the loss corporation, (ii) a reshuffle of profitable and unprofitable businesses occurs to benefit from a “mixing bowl” effect, or (iii) companies with existing losses enter an affiliated group filing a consolidated Federal income tax return.

Read More

Foreign Tax Credits: General Principles and Audit Risks

/
Foreign Tax Credits: General Principles and Audit Risks

In April, the Large Business & International Division (“LB&I”) of the I.R.S. published an International Practice Unit directed to the foreign tax credit claimed by individuals.  Tax advisers to Americans living abroad or having global investment portfolios may find that the Practice Unit indicates topics of interest for the I.R.S.  Fanny Karaman and Galia Antebi explain the concepts covered, including persons eligible to claim the credit, foreign taxes that qualify for credit, whether to deduct or credit a foreign income taxes, foreign tax credit limitations, and means of ameliorating the effect of unused credits in a particular year.

Read More

I.R.S. Information Exchanges & the Coordinated Tax Raids on Credit Suisse

/
I.R.S. Information Exchanges & the Coordinated Tax Raids on Credit Suisse

In April, coordinated tax raids targeted three separate offices Credit Suisse involved in tax fraud examinations by the Netherlands, France, Germany, the U.K., and Australia.  Was it merely a coincidence that these are countries with which the U.S. regularly cooperates in the exchange of tax information?  Rusudan Shervashidze and Stanley C. Ruchelman discuss the many avenues through which the I.R.S. furnishes and receives information.  One thing is clear: The I.R.S. had the means to transfer information to the relevant tax authorities.

Read More

Economic Nexus Through Ownership and Use of Intellectual Property

/
Economic Nexus Through Ownership and Use of Intellectual Property

For many tax advisers outside the U.S., state corporate income tax is viewed simply as an add-on to the Federal tax.  This relatively simplistic view ignores the requirements of U.S. Federal and Constitutional law that an activity must have a connection – called a nexus – to a state before tax can be imposed on profits allocated to the state.  Alvan L. Bobrow of Akerman LLP in New York explains the concept of “economic nexus,” a way by which digital activity within a state may trigger exposure to state tax.  Companies that license marketing intangibles should be particularly wary.

Read More

Tax 101: Taxation of Intellectual Property – The Basics

/
Tax 101: Taxation of Intellectual Property – The Basics

This month, Tax 101 presents an overview of the basic U.S. Federal tax considerations of transactions that occur over the life cycle of intellectual property (“I.P.”) – from its creation to its acquisition, exploitation, and ultimate sale in a liquidity event.  The article address several important questions: Should expenditures be capitalized or deducted?  If capitalized, over what period is the expenditure amortized?  How are acquisitions of I.P. reported to the I.R.S. when an entire business is acquired?  What is the character of gain on sale?  When is a sale treated as a license?  And when is a license treated as a sale?  Elizabeth V. Zanet and Stanley C. Ruchelman explain.

Read More

Foreign Tax Credit May Not Be Available for Gains Derived Outside the U.S.

/
Foreign Tax Credit May Not Be Available for Gains Derived Outside the U.S.

Merely because a foreign country imposes an income tax and the tax is creditable does not mean that effective relief from double taxation is available.  The U.S. retains the first right to tax income and gains that are domestic in character, and the income or gain on which the foreign tax is imposed must be categorized as foreign for relief to be provided.  Kenneth Lobo and Galia Antebi focus on this issue and advise that advance planning will be required.

Read More

Insights Vol. 4 No. 4: Updates & Other Tidbits

/
Insights Vol. 4 No. 4: Updates & Other Tidbits

This month, Astrid Champion, Nina Krauthamer, and Jennifer Lapper look briefly at several timely issues, including (i) instructions for Form 8975, Country-By-Country Report, and Schedule A, Tax Jurisdiction and Constituent Entity Information, for U.S.-based multinationals, (ii) tax breaks for midsized companies in China, (iii) an executive order calling for review of all I.R.S. regulations issued in 2016, with a view to their withdrawal, and (iv) the French Constitutional debate over penalties for nondisclosure of trust assets.

Read More

LB&I Audit Insights: Using a Code §6038A Summons When a U.S. Corporation is 25% Foreign Owned

/
LB&I Audit Insights: Using a Code §6038A Summons When a U.S. Corporation is 25% Foreign Owned

Code §6038A provides that a U.S. corporation that is 25% or more foreign-owned must provide the I.R.S. with information on certain transactions with its 25% foreign owner and any other foreign related party.  The goal is to obtain access to documents that are helpful in determining the correctness of the U.S. tax return.  In an I.P.U., LB&I explains how it plans to obtain documents held outside the U.S.  This may include a requested exchange under a tax information exchange agreement or a summons served on a domestic agent appointed to receive a summons that is enforceable abroad.  Galia Antebi and Stanley C. Ruchelman explain the process that will be followed by the I.R.S.

Read More

Tax Home v. Abode – Are They the Same for Code §911 Purposes?

/
Tax Home v. Abode – Are They the Same for Code §911 Purposes?

Section 911 of U.S. tax law provides certain tax benefits to persons who report foreign earned income.  To be entitled to the benefits, an individual must have a “tax home” abroad, provided that he or she does not have an “abode” in the U.S.  A recent summary opinion by the Tax Court illustrates the difference between those two terms.  Rusudan Shervashidze and Philip R. Hirschfeld explain.

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

Code §163(J) – Ignoring U.S. Thin Capitalization Rules May Leave Tax Advisors Thinly Prepared for Audits

/
Code §163(J) – Ignoring U.S. Thin Capitalization Rules May Leave Tax Advisors Thinly Prepared for Audits

B.E.P.S. Action 4 focuses on the need to address base erosion and profit shifting using deductible payments, such as interest, that can give rise to double nontaxation in inbound and outbound investment scenarios. The U.S. addressed this problem many years ago with Code §163(j).  In light of recent I.R.S. guidance providing a step-by-step plan to assist auditors when analyzing interest payments, non-U.S. practitioners should be aware of the thin capitalization debt rules when planning for multinational structures.  Kenneth Lobo and Beate Erwin explain how the provision works in general and in several illustrative fact patterns. 

Read More

How to Calculate Gain or Loss on Payables & Receivables Denominated in Nonfunctional Currency

/
How to Calculate Gain or Loss on Payables & Receivables Denominated in Nonfunctional Currency

If all currencies were pegged to one single standard and did not fluctuate in value among themselves, the concept of currency gain and loss would not be needed.  However, no universal standard exists and major currencies tend to fluctuate.  Consequently, a uniform method must be applied to identify the amount of a transaction when the conversion rate changes between a booking date and a payment date of a transaction denominated in a non-functional currency.  In a recent International Practice Unit (“I.P.U.”), the LB&I Division of the I.R.S. provides a broad overview of how currency gains and losses are recognized for U.S. tax purposes.  Elizabeth V. Zanet and Stanley C. Ruchelman examine the applicable rules in the I.P.U.

Read More

U.K. Drops Changes to Non-Domicile Regime, But Likely Not for Long

/
U.K. Drops Changes to Non-Domicile Regime, But Likely Not for Long

After months of H.M.R.C. consultation, a new regime was put in place for non-domiciled U.K.-resident individuals (“Non-Doms”) on April 6, 2017, only to see the legislation pulled from Finance Bill 2017 on April 25.  The snap election in the U.K. put consideration of Non-Dom taxation on hold when 72 of the 135 clauses were removed from the bill.  This allowed Parliament to approve the legislation in two hours.  Gary Ashford of Harbottle Lewis, London, summarizes the short-lived provisions and those that failed to be enacted on April 6.  The proposed regime remains a work in process, and enacting legislation could be back on the table as early as this fall.

Read More

Value-Added Tax 101 – A Far Cry from a Border Tax

/
Value-Added Tax 101 – A Far Cry from a Border Tax

Although the U.S. is the world’s largest economy, it is the only world economy that does not have a national value-added tax (“V.A.T.”).  Until the border adjustment tax (“B.A.T.”) proposals were floated, most cross-border tax advisers in the U.S. only had vague concepts of the workings of a national V.A.T.   Fanny Karaman and Stanley C. Ruchelman explain the mechanics of the V.A.T. as enacted in the E.U., cautioning that the B.A.T. is not a V.A.T.

Read More

Valuation – More Art than Science

/
Valuation – More Art than Science

In a recent case, the Tax Court was asked to evaluate two Old Masters paintings from the 17th century.  Sotheby’s provided the valuation for estate tax purposes on a gratuitous basis.  The appraised value totaled $600,000 for the two works.  The estate retained the same auction house to sell one of the paintings.  The sale price at auction was $2.1 million before buyer’s premium, and the auction took place within 34 months of the issuance of the appraisal report.  Kenneth Lobo and Nina Krauthamer explain why the court had no difficulty finding that the estate’s expert was not independent and that the subsequent sale was relevant

Read More

Cross-Border Complexities: What You Need to Know Before Your Non-U.S. Client Invests in the U.S.

/
Cross-Border Complexities: What You Need to Know Before Your Non-U.S. Client Invests in the U.S.

When foreign tax counsel advises a client on a personal investment in the U.S., it is common for a U.S. tax adviser to comment on the scope of U.S. income, gift, and estate taxes.  Sometimes the investment is made through a trust and other times it is made directly.  In their article, Kenneth Lobo and Fanny Karaman answer questions raised in the context of fact patterns often used.

Read More