Posts

Specified Domestic Entity: Closely-Held Test | 8938 Lawyer & Attorney

In a previous article, I introduced the key term of the Specified Domestic Entity (“SDE”) Definition for corporations and partnerships that may be required to file FATCA Form 8938: “formed or availed of”. At that point, I stated that this term required that a business entity satisfies two legal tests. One of these tests is a Closely-Held Test.

Closely-Held Test: Background Information

Starting tax year 2016, certain business entities and trusts that are classified as SDEs may be required to file Form 8938 with their US tax returns. Treas. Reg. §1.6038D-6(a) states that “a specified domestic entity is a domestic corporation, a domestic partnership, or a trust described in IRC Section 7701(a)(30)(E), if such corporation, partnership, or trust is formed or availed of for purposes of holding, directly or indirectly, specified foreign financial assets.”

In a previous article, I discussed the fact that “formed or availed of” is a term of art which has no relationship to the actual finding of intent. Rather, in the context of corporations and partnerships, the “formed or availed of” requirement is satisfied if two legal tests are met. One of these tests is a Closely-Held Test, which is the subject of this article.

Closely-Held Test: General Requirements

In order to meet the closely-held test, a corporation or partnership must be closely held by a specified individual. There are two separate parts of this test that need to be analyzed: (a) who is considered to be a specified individual, and (b) what percentage of ownership meets the “closely held” requirement.

Closely-Held Test: Specified Individual

In another article, I already defined the concept of a Specified Individual. It is, however, worth re-stating the definition here again for convenience purposes. Treas. Reg. §1.6038D-1(a)(2) defines Specified individual as anyone who is: (I) US citizen; (ii) resident alien of the United States for any portion of the taxable year; (iii) nonresident alien for whom an election under 26 U.S.C. §6013(g) or (h) is in effect; or (iv) nonresident alien who is a bona fide resident of Puerto Rico or a section 931 possession.

Closely-Held Test: Ownership Percentage for Corporations and Partnerships

The ownership requirement of the Closely-Held Test is explained in Treas. Reg. §1.6038D-6(b)(2) with respect to both, corporations and partnerships. A domestic corporation is considered to be “closely held” if “at least 80 percent of the total combined voting power of all classes of stock of the corporation entitled to vote, or at least 80 percent of the total value of the stock of the corporation, is owned, directly, indirectly, or constructively, by a specified individual on the last day of the corporation’s taxable year.” Treas. Reg. §1.6038D-6(b)(2)(I).

A domestic partnership is “closely held” if “at least 80 percent of the capital or profits interest in the partnership is held, directly, indirectly, or constructively, by a specified individual on the last day of the partnership’s taxable year.” Treas. Reg. §1.6038D-6(b)(2)(ii).

It is important to emphasize that the 80% threshold is met not only through direct ownership, but also through indirect and constructive ownership. So, one must closely look at the attribution rules of 26 U.S.C. §267 to determine whether the Closely-Held Test is met. Moreover, the constructive ownership rules for the purposes of the Closely-Held Test also contain an additional provision for the addition of spouses of individual family members.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Experienced Help with US International Tax Compliance Requirements for Corporations and Partnerships

If you are a minority or a majority owner of a corporation or partnership that either operates outside of the United States or has foreign assets, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with US international tax compliance requirements. Our firm is specializes in the are of US international tax law. We can Help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Cyprus-Saudi Arabia Tax Treaty Signed | International Tax Lawyers

On January 3, 2018, the “Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with respect to Taxes on Income and for the Prevention of Tax Evasion between the Republic of Cyprus and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” or the Cyprus-Saudi Arabia Tax Treaty was signed in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

The Cyprus-Saudi Arabia Tax Treaty was signed during the official visit of the President of Cyprus to Saudi Arabia. On behalf of Cyprus, the treaty was signed by Mr. Ioannis Kasoulides, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus. On behalf of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the treaty was signed by Mr. Mohammad Abdullah Al-Jadaan, Minister of Finance of Saudi Arabia.

Cyprus authorities have stated that the Cyprus-Saudi Arabia Tax Treaty is based on the OECD Model Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation on Income and on Capital, and it includes the exchange of financial and other information in accordance with the relevant Article of the Model Convention.

The signing of the Cyprus-Saudi Arabia Tax Treaty comes at a very special time for Saudi Arabia as another eleven princes were arrested. It should be remembered that there were numerous arrests for corruption in November of 2017.

The signing of the Cyprus-Saudi Arabia Tax Treaty will strengthen the treaty networks of both countries. The exchange of information will also help Saudi Arabia to exercise better control the flow of funds from Saudi Arabia to Cyprus.

Moreover, the exchange of information between Saudi Arabia and Cyprus may also inadvertently lead to this information being turned over to the IRS through FATCA (i.e. this information may be disclosed to the IRS by Cyprus or any other FATCA-compliant country that obtains it from Cyprus through another exchange of information arrangement). Hence, there is an increased potential of the IRS discovery of noncompliance with US international tax provisions by Saudi Arabian citizens who are also US tax residents.

It should be noted that the Cyprus-Saudi Arabia Tax Treaty was only signed and it has not yet been ratified by either country.

Sherayzen Law Office will continue to monitor new developments with respect to the Treaty.

Belarus-Spain Tax Treaty Approved | FATCA Lawyer News

On December 19, 2017, the Belarusian Council of the Republic, which is the upper chamber of the Belarusian parliament, approved a law on the ratification of the pending Belarus-Spain Tax Treaty. The Belarus-Spain Tax Treaty will cover both income and capital gain taxes and is meant to prevent the double taxation of the same income in both countries. This development comes after both countries signed the Belarus-Spain Tax Treaty in Madrid, Spain, on June 14, 2017.

The exact text of the treaty is not yet known. There are reasons to believe, however, that it includes an article on the automatic exchange of tax-related information in compliance with the OECD standard. The exchange of information under the Belarus-Spain Tax Treaty is reported to be quite extensive.

The Belarus-Spain Tax Treaty will enter into force within three months after all of the ratification procedures are completed. Once in force and effective, the Belarus-Spain Tax Treaty will replace the agreement signed between the former Soviet Union and Spain on March 1, 1985.

The Belarus-Spain Tax Treaty is just the latest example of the recent rise in the number of tax treaties signed between various countries. It appears that the web of treaties between various countries is growing increasingly wider and diverse as a result of the global preference for bilateral negotiations over the multilateral ones.

Similarly, as a result of FATCA and CRS, there has been an explosion of the agreements concerning automatic exchange of certain tax-related information, including those related to foreign accounts and beneficial ownership of foreign corporations. Again, the general trend toward bilateral negotiations, led by FATCA implementation treaties (which are bilateral treaties between the United States and other countries), can be clearly observed from these developments.

This trend toward bilateral negotiations reflects the underlying complex historical processes of moving to an increasingly multipolar world. This, of course, offers little consolation to US taxpayers as well as taxpayers of other countries who are increasingly caught between the ever demanding tax compliance requirements of various countries. The recent Belarus-Spain Tax Treaty will make but a modest contribution to this burden; yet, it is definitely part of this trend.

Sherayzen Law Office will continue to observe and analyze these trends and developments, including the progress of the new Belarus-Spain Tax Treaty.

Nine Swiss AEOI Agreements in Force Since January 1 2017 | FATCA Lawyer

Switzerland has recently become one of the most active countries with respect to expanding its network of automatic exchange of information agreements (Swiss AEOI Agreements). In fact, since January 1, 2017, nine Swiss AEOI Agreements entered into force.

Nine Swiss AEOI Agreements

All of the Swiss AEOI Agreements were signed via exchange of notes in late 2016 and entered into force from January 1, 2017. All of the Swiss AEOI Agreements were signed based on the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters (Protocol 10) in accordance with OECD CRS (common reporting standard). OECD CRS is the OECD version of FATCA.

Let’s list out the countries with which Swiss AEOI Agreements were signed in late 2016. They can be divided into two groups: the October Group and the December group.

The October Group includes Guernsey, Iceland, Isle of Man, Jersey, Norway and South Korea. All of the agreements were signed via an exchange of notes dated October 26, 2016 and October 28 (Iceland), November 1 (Jersey), November 10 (Guernsey), November 16 (South Korea), December 5 (Isle of Man) and December 13 (Norway).

The December Group includes Japan-Switzerland agreement signed via exchange of notes on December 8, 2016; Australia-Switzerland agreement that was signed via an exchange of notes dated December 8, 2016, and December 14, 2016; and Canada-Switzerland AEOI that was signed via an exchange of notes dated December 9, 2016, and December 22, 2016.

Indirect Impact of Swiss AEOI Agreements on US Taxpayers

This expansion of the information exchange network through Swiss AEOI Agreements poses an additional danger of the IRS detection of tax noncompliance by US taxpayers.

Why? The answer is simple – each of the countries that signed Swiss AEOI Agreements must also comply with its FATCA obligations with respect to US taxpayers. As the information exchange traffic increases through Swiss AEOI Agreements, there is a higher probability that FATCA-related information may be accidentally uncovered and transmitted to one of the Parties to the Swiss AEOI Agreements. Then, this Party may turn over this information to the IRS through FATCA reporting or an automatic exchange of information agreement with the IRS (present or future).

Therefore, US taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts in Australia, Canada, Guernsey, Iceland, the Isle of Man, Japan, Jersey, Norway, South Korea and Switzerland are at an increased risk of the IRS detection and should immediately consult with an experienced international tax law firm with respect to their voluntary disclosure options.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With Offshore Voluntary Disclosures Concerning Foreign Assets and Foreign Income

If you have undisclosed foreign assets or foreign income, you should contact Sherayzen Law Office as soon as possible. Sherayzen Law Office is a highly experienced international tax law firm that has helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world to bring their tax affairs into full compliance with US tax laws, while reducing their noncompliance penalties and even lowering their tax liabilities (by utilizing missed opportunities for tax optimization in the years covered by voluntary disclosure). We can help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!