June 14, 2018

O.E.C.D. and European Commission Unveil Proposals on Taxation of the Digital Economy

June 14, 2018/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

Following the release of the O.E.C.D.’s B.E.P.S. Action Plan and the E.U.’s approval of the Anti-Tax Avoidance Package, the taxation of the digital economy continues to be unfinished business in the international tax arena. New O.E.C.D. and the European Commission documents mark a milestone, especially the latter, which include two different approaches. They also highlight the difficulties in achieving a consensus, which seems desirable when implementing measures that increase the tax burden of digital activities. José Luis Gaudier of Cuatrecasas, Barcelona, delves into the O.E.C.D. and the European Commission approaches to taxing the digital economy.

June 14, 2018

Do India’s Amalgamation Revisions Prevent Misuse of Accumulated Losses?

June 14, 2018/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

India’s recent Finance Act addressed a tax planning device intended to reduce or eliminate the imposition of the Dividend Distribution Tax ("D.D.T") that applies when a corporation exercises the right to distribute dividends to shareholders. The statue targets plans involving an amalgamation between a profitable company and a loss company and prevents the reduction of earnings when the profitable company is the acquiring company. Does this mean that earnings can be reduced when the loss company is the acquiring company? Differing views have been expressed by Indian tax advisers. CA Anjali Kukreja of R.N. Marwah & Co L.L.P., New Delhi, examines both views and explains why one view is technically preferable.

June 14, 2018

Managing a Transfer Pricing Exam? Wash Your Hands with Soap and Water

June 14, 2018/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

For management of a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign parent, the process by which the I.R.S. conducts an examination of a tax return creates a heightened stress level. It begins with the arrival of an information document request ("I.D.R.") for transfer pricing documentation, which often comes as a surprise to a company. Typically, two or three years have passed since the close of the year under examination and little is recalled about transactions. From there, the expressed positions of I.R.S. examiners and management often are at odds. Drawing on many years of experience in defending intercompany transfer pricing policies, Michael Peggs takes a step back from the fray to examine how opposing, pre-conceived notions on both sides combine with the Semmelweis Reflex to exacerbate what should be a straightforward tax examination.

June 14, 2018

The F-1 Visa – Privileged U.S. Tax Status and How to Keep It

June 14, 2018/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

Foreign students leaving their home country and arriving in the U.S. for higher education may come across many things that seem alien to them – like the accent, culture, and inexplicably large food portions. But one area where they are treated as the aliens is under U.S. Federal income tax law, where foreign students holding F-1 visas are treated as nonresident aliens who are subject to special tax provisions. Neha Rastogi and Beate Erwin discuss tax residence status, Federal income tax consequences, and U.S. reporting requirements for holders of F-1 visas.

June 14, 2018

Corporate Matters: Profits Interest Basics

June 14, 2018/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

In the latest in his series of articles on the relative flexibility of limited liability companies and their desirability for use in many instances, including joint ventures, Simon H. Prisk looks at grants of profits interests as a means of compensating service providers and employees. If done properly, these incentives can be optimized by favorable tax treatment, achieving the same or better tax results than incentive stock options available to C-corporations and S-corporations. If done without proper thought and planning, the results may be suboptimal.

June 14, 2018

Foreign Investor in a U.S. L.L.C. – How to Minimize Withholding Tax on Sale of L.L.C. Interest

June 14, 2018/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

U.S. tax law was revised in last year’s tax reform legislation to impose tax on non-U.S. persons recognizing a gain from the sale of a partnership that engages in a U.S. business. Worse, purchasers must collect and pay over to the I.R.S. a withholding tax equal to 10% of the amount realized by the seller. Because of the way U.S. tax law treats partners of partnerships financed with debt, the withholding tax can be greater than the cash that is set to be paid to the foreign seller. In April, the I.R.S. issued guidance on the problem, leading some to recommend a two-step plan to align the withholding tax with the ultimate income tax that will be due. Fanny Karaman and Stanley C. Ruchelman explain the I.R.S. guidance and the two-step plan.

June 14, 2018

I.R.S. Announces Six Compliance Campaign

June 14, 2018/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

The I.R.S. Large Business and International division ("LB&I") recently announced compliance campaigns that are principally directed at compliance in cross-border fact patterns. Included are campaigns to address (i) non-compliance with respect to Form 3520, (ii) compliance issues related to Form 1042, (iii) nonresident, non-citizen individuals inappropriately claiming tax treaty exemptions, (iv) nonresident, non-citizen individuals inappropriately claiming itemized deductions on tax returns, and (v) inappropriate credits claimed by nonresident, non-citizen individuals. Elizabeth V. Zanet looks into the various campaigns and places into context the effect on individuals.

June 14, 2018

Vol. 5 No. 5: Updates and Other Tidbits

June 14, 2018/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

This month, Rusudan Shervashidze and Nina Krauthamer look at several interesting updates and tidbits, including (i) limited relief for transition tax, (ii) a new twist to phishing that involves fake I.R.S. calls, (iii) another twist on phony correspondence requesting W-8BEN information that is used to obtain persona information often used by banks to confirm identities of customers, and (iv) new FinCEN money transmitter rules that apply to I.C.O.’s.

May 09, 2018

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

May 09, 2018/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

This month, Tomi Oguntunde and Nina Krauthamer look briefly at several recent developments in international tax: (i) the Financial Accounting Standards Board continues to study the effect of the recent tax reform legislation on quarterly and annual reports, (ii) winners and losers under the recent tax reform legislation, and (iii) South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., a case involving the right of a state to impose an obligation on out-of-state internet retailers who maintain a “digital presence” in the state through internet sales.

May 09, 2018

I.R.S. Notice 2018-28 Announces Code §163(j) Regulations on Interest Payment Deductions

May 09, 2018/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

Prior to recent tax reform legislation, Code §163(j) was an earnings stripping provision that placed a cap on interest expense deductions on debt instruments held or guaranteed by foreign related persons that were not subject to full 30% withholding tax on U.S.-source interest income or guarantee fees. Under the T.C.J.A., Code §163(j) is now simply a cap on all business interest expense. Notice 2018-28 addresses open matters arising from the change. This includes the carryover of disallowed interest from prior years to 2018, the Super-Affiliation Rules under the new law, and the loss of excess limitation carryforwards. Elizabeth V. Zanet and Beate Erwin explain these and other items in the Notice.

May 09, 2018

A Comparative View of the Principal Purpose Test – U.S. Tax Court v. B.E.P.S.

May 09, 2018/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

In a post-B.E.P.S. world, aggressive tax planning is a mortal sin. If a principal purpose or a main purpose of entering a transaction is tax avoidance, the tax benefits are lost. A ruling in a recent pre-trial hearing in the U.S. Tax Court addressed a clearly abusive transaction aimed at importing high-basis, low-value assets into a U.S. partnership so that the U.S. investors could benefit from losses on nonperforming loans. The I.R.S. moved for summary judgment in its favor, but the motion was denied. Under applicable case law, a transaction can be respected even if it is tax motivated as long as economic substance is present. Consequently, the taxpayer is entitled to a day in court, even if the prospect of victory is slim. Rusudan Shervashidze and Stanley C. Ruchelman compare the approach followed by the U.S. Tax Court with the principal purpose test rules of the A.T.A.D. and B.E.P.S.

May 09, 2018

Code §962 Election Offers Benefits Under U.S. Tax Reform

May 09, 2018/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

Two provisions in the recent tax reform legislation – Code §§965 (transition tax) and 250 (50% deduction for G.I.L.T.I.) – focus on C.F.C.’s and their U.S. Shareholders. In each case, corporate U.S. Shareholders are entitled to a deduction that is not granted to an individual with regard to income that is taxed under Subpart F. However, Code §962 may allow an individual who is a U.S. Shareholder of a C.F.C. to elect to be taxed on the Subpart F Income as if a corporation. This allows for tax at a lower rate and a foreign tax credit for corporate income taxes paid by the C.F.C. Elizabeth V. Zanet and Galia Antebi explain the workings of Code §962 and focus on the position of naysayers who caution that it may not provide the relief it appears to provide.

May 09, 2018

New Tax Treaty Between France and Luxembourg: French Tax Implications for Investors

May 09, 2018/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

France and Luxembourg signed a new double tax treaty on income and capital in late March. Ratification by the end of the year is anticipated. The new treaty reflects the current post-B.E.P.S. environment. Among other things, the residence definition is tightened, the test for the existence of a permanent establishment is loosened, real estate funds face higher withholding tax, a credit method is adopted to avoid double taxation. Christophe Jolk, Attorney at Law, Paris, explains the implications for investors.

May 09, 2018

Failure to Prevent – The Future of Adviser Obligations

May 09, 2018/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

The concept of failure to prevent has grown from its roots in the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and is making inroads into the responsibilities of tax advisers. The recent trend begs the question, do advisors have a duty to prevent the evasion or improper reduction of tax or to report the activity in advance? A team of international advisors looks at the evolution of obligations: Peter Utterström of Peter Utterström Advokat AB, Stockholm, looks at the origin of the concept. Gary Ashford of Harbottle & Lewis, London, looks at recently adopted legislation in the U.K. imposing strict liability on advisers to naughty clients. Lawrence Feld, Attorney at Law, New York, looks at its presence in the U.S. Swiss Bank Program of the Justice Department. Dick Barmentlo of Jaegers & Soons, Amsterdam, addresses a recent case in the Netherlands that imposes civil liability on a Netherlands trust company and its employees for lost taxes suffered by the Dutch tax administration.

April 01, 2018

Insights Vol. 5 No. 3: Updates & Other Tidbits

April 01, 2018/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

This month, Tomi Oguntunde, Sheryl Shah, and Nina Krauthamer look briefly at four recent developments in international tax: (i) the E.U. counteroffensive to U.S. tax reform involving stricter tax rules, (ii) the amendment of Form 1023-EZ, which is a streamlined application for non-profit entities applying for tax exempt status, (iii) Spain’s crackdown on celebrities attempting to evade tax, and (iv) Luxembourg’s continued pushback against the Amazon State Aid case.

April 01, 2018

I.R.S. Offers Additional Guidance on Code §965 Transition Tax

April 01, 2018/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

On the way toward a dividends received deduction for certain dividends paid by foreign subsidiaries, Congress enacted a one-shot income inclusion of all post-1986 earnings from C.F.C.’s and foreign corporations having 10% U.S. Shareholders that are corporations. In March, the I.R.S. issued an F.A.Q. providing additional guidance on open issues for 2017 tax returns. Rusudan Shervashidze and Stanley C. Ruchelman explain the mechanics of the income inclusion and an election to defer payments for eight years, sometimes more.

April 01, 2018

New York Resisting S.A.L.T. Cap Under Federal Tax Reform

April 01, 2018/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

When the T.C.J.A. capped the deduction for state and local income and property taxes at $10,000 – more tax can be paid, but only $10,000 can be deducted – state governments did not take the provision lightly. One proposal that has gained traction in Albany and other state capitals involves creating charitable funds that would raise voluntary capital for specific governmental purposes. The goal is for taxpayers to claim the charitable contributions as a deduction for Federal tax purposes and, at the same time, benefitting from a substantial credit against their state income tax liabilities. Another, less contentious proposal would utilize employer-side payroll taxes to offer employees a credit against state and local taxes. Nina Krauthamer, Elizabeth V. Zanet, and Sheryl Shah assess the viability of these proposals and the likely impact of tax reform on New York State. Opinions are not consistent. Stay tuned.

April 01, 2018

When "Defective" Is Desirable – Pre-Immigration Planning for Families with U.S. Persons

April 01, 2018/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

The term “intentionally defective” sounds problematic, but in reality, is quite favorable when it comes to estate planning. Intentionally defective grantor trusts are an especially useful tool when combined with pre-immigration planning for a family where only one spouse is a U.S. citizen because these trusts are disregarded for income tax purposes but respected for estate tax purposes. If set up and funded by a non-citizen spouse before arrival in the U.S., gift and estate tax planning can be achieved in a low tax environment. In these trusts, the settlor continues to pay tax on the income even though not a beneficiary. As a result, the beneficiary does not pay income tax on trust distributions and the tax payment by the grantor is not considered to be gift to the beneficiary. Hence, no gift tax. Fanny Karaman and Nina Krauthamer explain all.