International Business Transactions | Business Tax Lawyer Minneapolis

/0 Comments/in , /by

Despite their apparent diversity and complexity, international business transactions can be grouped into three categories: export of goods and services, licensing and technology transfer and foreign investment transactions.

International Business Transactions: Export of Goods and Services

The first category of international business transactions consists of exports involving a sale of a commodity, manufactured goods or services to a purchaser in a foreign country. Such exports may be done pursuant to a single or series of contracts (first type of export of goods and services) or under a more permanent arrangement (second type of export of goods and services), such as: branch office, sales subsidiary, designated foreign representative, distributor, et cetera.

The first type of exports of goods and services are usually “arms length transactions” whereas the second type often involves related-party transactions. The latter sub-type may often draw the attention of the IRS due to high potential of abuse through tax avoidance measures as well as transfer pricing.

In addition to import tax considerations, exporting goods and services also entails a number of legal considerations and documents, such as the sales contract, insurance, transportation documents (e.g. bill of lading), payment mechanisms (e.g. letters of credit), export and import licenses, et cetera. Even the very establishment of a permanent export structure (franchise, subsidiary, et cetera) may raise an avalanche of legal issues that must be resolved in order for the business structure to work.

International Business Transactions: Licensing and Technology Transfers

The second category of international business transactions involves licensing of intellectual property rights and technology transfers. In reality, the technically-correct classification of international business transactions would place licensing and technology transactions as a variation on the export transactions. However, there are important distinctions between the first and the second categories of international business transactions that justify the classification of licensing and technology transfers as a separate category of international business transactions.

The basic idea behind the licensing and technology transfer transactions is not complex: instead of manufacturing a particular product in its home country and then exporting it to foreign countries, the company that owns the intellectual property rights licenses the actual science and the know-how behind the manufacturing process to a foreign firm so that it can manufacture the goods in the foreign country. In return, the company that owns the IP rights receives either a specified payment or a certain percentage based on annual gross sales or production volume.

The advantage of this type of export transaction is the relative ease with which the owner of IP rights can increase earnings without the need to set up a foreign distribution and services network. Moreover, the costs and risks of such a sales distribution network shift to licensee instead of the owner of the IP rights.

The technology transfer and IP licensing, however, carry significant risks of their own. First of all, there is a significant danger that the foreign licensee will master the new technology to directly compete with the IP owner. We have recently seen such an example with many “clean energy” Chinese companies. Second, there is a risk that the transferred technology may be simply stolen in a country where the IP rights are not property protected. Here, the problem is not only the appearance of an eventual competitor, but also of lost license fees. Finally, the licensee may improperly use the technology and create substandard goods, thereby damaging the reputation of the IP owner.

While these risks may be mitigated with proper business planning, one must be very careful about technology transfers and IP licensing, especially in the industries where technologies and know-how change at a slower pace.

International Business Transactions: Foreign Investment Transactions

The final major type of international business transactions consists of foreign investment transactions. This category, in turn, consists of two sub-categories: direct foreign investments and portfolio foreign investments.

Direct foreign investment usually implies an establishment or acquisition of a production capacity or a permanent enterprise, such as a factory or hotel, in the United States. In the United States, any equity investment of ten percent or more is classified as direct foreign investment. Usually, the foreign investor would directly participate in the management of this enterprise. Of course, the direct foreign investment can be done by a US investor investing directly in a foreign country and a foreign investor investing directly in the United States.

There are two types portfolio foreign investments. The first type consists of investments in debt instructions, such as bonds and debentures. The second type consists of an equity investment in which an investor does not have any management role.

There are many advantages to engaging in foreign investment transactions; I will just point out four such advantages here. First, an investor is investing directly into a foreign enterprise which is considered to be a “local” company, thereby avoiding the complications of exporting goods and services. Second, an acquisition of an already established company with its business network, established workforce and reputation, may facilitate a rapid growth in the sales of the produced goods or services. Third, unlike the first category of international business transactions, the host country may be very interested in a direct foreign investment, because it creates jobs and helps the local economy. Hence, an investor may benefit from government incentives, especially free economic zones which levy low to no tax. Finally, in the case of a portfolio investment, investors have limited exposure due to a diversified portfolio and limited equity stake in a single enterprise.

There may be, however, serious disadvantages to foreign investment transactions; I will mention here only three potential problems. First, a direct foreign investment exposes an investor to potential political and economic changes in the host country. For example, expropriation is a significant risk in South American countries. Second, a direct foreign investment implies an international corporate structure that may be very complex, expensive and require extensive tax and business planning. Finally, a portfolio investor without a management role is at the mercy of the company’s management, which may significantly affect the value of his investment.

International Business Transactions: Hybrid Investments

The classification of international business transactions that I provided above is an ideal one. In reality, hybrid investments (i.e. investments that have the features of more than one category of international business transactions) are widespread. One can easily find examples of portfolio investors who control an enterprise through a management agreement.

Serious Illness as Reasonable Cause | International Tax Lawyer

/0 Comments/in , /by

We are continuing our series of articles on Reasonable Cause. Today, we will discuss whether a serious illness can establish a reasonable cause for abatement of the IRS penalties. It is important to note that this discussion of serious illness as a reasonable cause is equally applicable to death and unavoidable absence of the taxpayer (in fact, the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) discusses all three circumstances – death, serious illness and unavoidable absence of taxpayer – at the same time in providing guidance on reasonable cause).

Serious Illness Can Constitute a Reasonable Cause

IRM 20.1.1.3.2.2.1 (11-25-2011) expressly states that serious illness can be used as a Reasonable Cause Exception: “death, serious illness, or unavoidable absence of the taxpayer, or a death or serious illness in the taxpayer’s immediate family, may establish reasonable cause for filing, paying, or depositing late… .” In this context, “immediate family” means spouse, siblings, parents, grandparents, or children.

In the business context, a reasonable cause may be established if death, serious illness or other unavoidable absence occurred with respect to a taxpayer (or his immediate family) who had the sole authority to execute the return, make the deposit, or pay the tax. The same rule applies to corporations, partnerships, estates, trusts and other legal vehicles for conducting business.

Taxpayer Has the Burden of Proof to Establish that Serious Illness Constitutes Reasonable Cause for His Prior Tax Noncompliance

Stating that a serious illness can constitute a reasonable cause for abatement of the IRS penalties with respect to prior tax noncompliance is not equivalent to stating that serious illness automatically establishes a reasonable cause.

On the contrary, the taxpayer has the burden of proof to establish that serious illness did indeed constitute reasonable cause with respect to his prior tax noncompliance. In other words, serious illness may not be sufficient to establish reasonable cause for various reasons (for example, in cases where it was not actually related to tax noncompliance).

Factors Relevant to Determination of Whether Serious Illness Is Sufficient to Establish Reasonable Cause Exception

IRM 20.1.1.3.2.2.1 (11-25-2011) provides a list of recommended factors to consider in evaluating a taxpayer’s request for abatement of penalties based on serious illness, death or unavoidable absence. I somewhat modified the list to fit in all factors expressly mentioned in the IRM. Here is the non-exclusive list of factors expressly referenced in the IRM:

1. the relationship of the taxpayer to the other parties involved;

2. the dates, duration, and severity of illness (in case of death, the date of death; in case of unavoidable absence, the dates and reasons for absence);

3. how the event prevented tax compliance;

4. how the event impaired other obligations (including business obligations);

5. if tax duties were attended to promptly when the illness passed (or within a reasonable period of time after a death or absence);

6. (in a business setting) in a situation where someone other than responsible person or the taxpayer was responsible for meeting the infringed business tax obligation, and why that person was unable to meet the obligation;

7. (in a business setting) if only one person was authorized to meet the tax obligation, whether such an arrangement was consistent with ordinary business care and prudence.

This is not an all-inclusive list of factors. The IRM foresees the possibility that any other relevant factors may be considered in the analysis of whether a Reasonable Cause Exception was established based on serious illness, death or unavoidable absence.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Experienced Help With Establishing A Reasonable Cause Defense, Including Based on Serious Illness

There is always a risk that the IRS may reject a taxpayer’s reasonable cause argument, often simply because the argument was never properly elaborated by the taxpayer. This is why it is important to maximize your chance of success by timely securing professional legal help.

Sherayzen Law Office is a highly experienced tax law firm that has helped its clients around the world to establish various reasonable cause defenses against IRS domestic and international tax penalties. We can help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Credit Suisse and Italy Settle Dispute Over Undisclosed Offshore Accounts

/0 Comments/in , /by

On December 14, 2016, Credit Suisse and Italy settled their dispute over Credit Suisse undisclosed offshore accounts owned by Italian tax residents. The settlement between Credit Suisse and Italy was approved by a judge in Milan and obligates Credit Suisse to pay a total of 109.5 million euros – 101 million euros in taxes, interest and penalties; 7.5 million euros as a disgorgement of profits; and 1 million euros as an administrative penalty.

The settlement between Credit Suisse and Italy has ended an investigation by the Italian authorities into the bank’s involvement in helping Italians evade Italian taxes. The Italian government’s inquiry into the Credit Suisse’s role in Italian tax evasion appeared to be thorough and, at times, even combined with significant pressure. For example, in December of 2014, the Italian tax authorities raided the offices of a Credit Suisse’s subsidiary in Milan.

The agreement between Credit Suisse and Italy does not mean the end of the Italian tax authorities’ investigation of Italians with undisclosed offshore accounts. On the contrary, these activities will continue their relentless progress.

While a significant event, the settlement between Credit Suisse and Italy pales in comparison with the settlement between Credit Suisse and the US Department of Justice when Credit Suisse paid $2.6 billion.

Nevertheless, the settlement between Credit Suisse and Italy points to the continued global trend of increased focus on international tax compliance. The new trend really started with the IRS victory in the UBS case in 2008, gained steam with the 2009 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program and became worldwide with the passage of FATCA in 2010.

Countries throughout the world, including Italy, have followed the US lead in international tax enforcement. In fact, it appears that the European countries have gone further in some aspects than the United States, especially after the adoption of the Common Reporting Standard (CRS). While the United States refused to join CRS arguing that its revolutionary FATCA already achieved the same goals (and, thereby, effectively turning the United States into a tax shelter for nonresident aliens), the vast majority of the European countries adopted the CRS and applied unprecedented pressure on the financial industry to share the heretofore confidential information with various government tax authorities.

Switzerland has arguably felt more pressure than any other country in the world and has largely been forced to give up its much vaunted bank secrecy. After the US DOJ Program for Swiss Banks dealt the decisive blow to the Swiss bank secrecy laws, various European countries decided to take advantage of the Swiss banks’ defeat and swarmed into Switzerland to get their share of penalties and information regarding tax noncompliance of their own citizens. The recent settlement between Credit Suisse and Italy is just one more example of this continued European squeeze of the Swiss banks for money and information.

US Airspace and the Definition of the United States | US Tax Lawyers

/0 Comments/in , /by

This article is a continuation of a recent series of articles on the exploration of the definition of the United States. As it was mentioned in a prior article, the general definition of the United States found in IRC § 7701(a)(9) has numerous exceptions throughout the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”). The US airspace is another example of such exceptions. In this article, I would like to outline some of the ways in which the borders of the United States are defined in the context of the US airspace.

General Tax Definition of the United States Does Not Mention US Airspace

The general tax definition of the United States is found in IRC § 7701(a)(9). According to IRC § 7701(a)(9), the United States is comprised of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and the territorial waters. There is no mention of the US airspace.

This, of course, does not mean that US airspace never constitutes part of the United States. Rather, as I had explained it in a prior article, one needs to look at the specific tax provisions and determine if there is a special definition of the United States that applies to them.

Examples of Various IRC Provisions Including and Excluding US Airspace from the Definition of the United states

Indeed, there is a rich variety of treatment of US airspace that can be found within the IRC. Here, I will just mentioned three examples that demonstrate how differently the IRC provisions define the United States with respect to its airspace.

1. There is an esoteric but important IRC § 965 which deals with the Dividends Received deduction for repatriated corporate earnings. IRS Notice 2005-64 provides foreign tax credit guidance under IRC § 965 and specifically follows the general definition of the United States with the addition of the Continental Shelf. Then, the Notice states: “the term ‘United States’ does not include possessions and territories of the United States or the airspace over the United States and these areas”. Thus, the US airspace is excluded from the tax definition of the United States under IRC § 965.

2. The treatment of the US airspace is the opposite for the purposes of the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion (“FEIE”). Since FEIE allows a taxpayer to exclude only “foreign” earned income, the tax definition of the United States is crucial for this part of the IRC.

In general, the courts have ruled that the airspace over the United States is included within the definition of the United States with respect to IRC § 911. This means that, if you are flying over the United States, you are considered to be within the United States for the purposes of FEIE.

3. When we are dealing with the analysis of whether an individual is a US tax resident under the Substantial Presence Test, we are again back to the same situation as in example 1 – the US airspace is not included in the definition of the United States.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Legal and Tax Help

Sherayzen Law Office is a premier international tax law firm that helps individuals and businesses with US tax compliance, including Offshore Voluntary Disclosures. We can help you with any US international tax law issues.

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

US Continental Shelf Definition of the United States | US Tax Attorney

/0 Comments/in , /by

The US continental shelf presents a unique problem to the tax definition of the United States. It is governed by a special tax provision that sets it apart from any other tax definition. If fact, the US continental shelf is only considered to be part of the United States with respect to specific taxpayers who are engaged in a particular activity on or over the continental shelf. In this article, I will explore certain features of the US continental shelf definition of the United States that distinguishes it from any other tax provision in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).

Definition of the US Continental Shelf

For the purposes of the US income tax, the IRC § 638(1) states that the United States “when used in a geographical sense includes the seabed and subsoil of those submarine areas which are adjacent to the territorial waters of the United States and over which the United States has exclusive rights, in accordance with international law, with respect to the exploration and exploitation of natural resources.” The opening clause of IRC § 638 specifically states that this definition of the United States applies only to the activities “with respect to mines, oil and gas wells, and other natural deposits.”

Analysis of the Definition of the US Continental Shelf

Two aspects need to be noted with respect to the definition above. First, the reference to international tax law means that the US government considers 200 miles of land underneath the ocean as its territory (the so-called “Exclusive Economic Zone” or “EEZ”). An interesting assumption that underlies IRC § 638 is that the continental shelf and the EEZ are the same.

Second, I want to emphasize that this is the definition that is tied to land only, not the water above the land – even more precisely, to certain activities on the ocean’s floor rather than in the water. This is a highly important aspect of IRC § 638, because it produces interesting results.

On the one hand, anyone (including foreign vessels and foreign contractors) drilling or exploring oil in the US continental shelf is considered to be engaged in a trade or business in the United States, which subjects these individuals and companies to US income tax. This also means that US tax withholding needs to be done with respect to foreign contractors. Moreover, even personal property (located over the US continental shelf) of a taxpayer engaged in the drilling or the exploration of the US continental shelf would most likely be classified as US personal property within the meaning of IRC § 956.

On the other hand, fishing in a boat in the same zone will not be considered as an activity within the United States, because it is not linked to mines, oil and gas wells, and other natural deposits.

This means that the application of the US Continental Shelf’s definition of the United States depends on the activity of the taxpayer, not just his location.

US Continental Shelf Rules and Foreign Countries

There is one more interesting aspect of the US continental shelf definition of the United States: its application to foreign countries. The first part of IRC § 638(2) states that the same definition of the continental shelf will also apply to foreign countries – i.e. the seabed and subsoil adjacent to the foreign country or possession and over which the country has EEZ rights.

At the end, however, IRC § 638(2) contains an interesting limitation: “ but this paragraph shall apply in the case of a foreign country only if it exercises, directly or indirectly, taxing jurisdiction with respect to such exploration or exploitation.” In other words, if a foreign country exercises its taxing jurisdiction over the continental shelf, then it is considered to be part of a foreign country. Otherwise, it will be considered as “international waters” (since it is also outside of the US continental shelf).

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help with US Tax Issues

The definition of the United States in the context of the US continental shelf is just one of many examples of the enormous complexity of US tax laws. While even US citizens with domestic assets only have to struggle with these issues, the complexity of US tax laws is multiplied numerous times when one deals with a foreign individual/company or even US taxpayers with foreign assets. It is just too easy to get yourself into trouble.

This is why you need the help of the professional international tax law firm of Sherayzen Law Office. Our firm specializes in helping US and foreign taxpayers with their annual tax compliance, tax planning and dealing with past US tax noncompliance.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!