IRS 2014 Final and Proposed Regulations Regarding Form 5472

/0 Comments/in , /by

In 2014, the IRS issued both final (T.D. 9667), and proposed (REG-114942-14) regulations amending the rules for filing Form 5472, (“Information Return of a 25% Foreign-Owned U.S. Corporation or a Foreign Corporation Engaged in a U.S. Trade or Business”). Form 5472 is used to provide the information required under Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) Sections 6038A and 6038C when reportable transactions occur during the taxable year of a reporting corporation with a foreign or domestic related party.

This article will briefly explain the final and proposed regulations affecting Form 5472; it is not intended to convey tax or legal advice. If you have questions regarding filing of Form 5472 or any international tax matters, please contact owner Eugene Sherayzen, an experienced tax attorney at Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd.

Form 5472 Final Regulation (T.D. 9667)

On June 10, 2011, under the above-mentioned IRC Sections, the IRS had previously published temporary regulations and a notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to the temporary regulations in the Federal Register (76 FR 33997, TD 9529, 2011–30 IRB 57; REG–101352–11, 76 FR 34019) (2011 regulations), amending final regulations to provide that a duplicate filing of Form 5472 generally (previously required in Regulation Section 1.6038A-2(d)) would no longer be required, regardless of whether the filer files a paper or an electronic income tax return. This was determined because of advances in IRS electronic processing and data collections.

The 2014 final regulation, T.D. 9667, adopts the 2011 regulations without substantive change as final regulations, and removes the previous temporary regulations. The regulation became effective as of June 6, 2014.

Form 5472 Proposed Regulation (REG-114942-14)

On the same date as the final regulation was issued, the IRS concurrently issued proposed regulation (REG-114942-14). At issue was a provision (Treas. Reg. Section 1.6038A-2(e)), allowing for timely filing of Form 5472 separately from an income tax return that is untimely filed.

Because of the significant penalties involved for failing to file a timely and accurate Form 5472 (as noted in the proposed regulation and subject to reasonable cause exception, “an initial penalty of $10,000 (with possible additional penalties for continued failure) shall be assessed for each taxable year and for each related party with respect to which the failure occurs”), this process could be utilized by filers in such circumstances.

However, the IRS stated in the proposed regulation that, “with the benefit of experience”, it determined that the untimely-filed return provision was not conducive to efficient tax administration and that filing Form 5472 should not differ significantly from the methods and penalties applicable to similar information returns, such as Form 5471, (“Information Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Corporations”) and Form 8865 (“Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Partnerships”). As noted in the proposed regulation, “those forms must be filed with the filer’s income tax return for the taxable year by the due date (including extensions) of the return, and there is no provision equivalent to the untimely filed return provision under § 1.6038A-2T(e) of the 2011 temporary regulations that would require or permit separate filing of those forms. See §§ 1.6038-2(i) and 1.6038-3(i)(1). Accordingly, it is proposed that the untimely-filed return provision contained in § 1.6038A-2(e) be removed.”

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Form 5472 Compliance

If you have any questions regarding the filing of your Form 5472 or you just need complex tax planning for cross-border business entities, please contact our experienced international tax team at Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd.

FATCA Letters

/0 Comments/in , /by

Following the implementation of Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”) on July 1, 2014, foreign banks around the world started sending out FATCA Letters to their US (or suspected US) customers who had accounts on record prior to as well as on June 30, 2014. In a previous article, I discussed the reason for FATCA Letters and their impact on US taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts. In this article, I would like to focus the discussion on what type of information is typically contained in FATCA Letters.

FATCA Letters: Background Information

FATCA is codified in the Internal Revenue Code Sections 1471 through 1474 and contains an unprecedented amount of new international tax requirements for US persons, foreign financial institutions (FFIs), and US withholding agents (USWAs).

For the purpose of this article, I will concentrate solely on the FATCA requirement to analyze pre-existing accounts and report them to the IRS. Currently, according to the new deadline extensions found in IRS Notice 2014-43, “pre-existing” accounts are those accounts that were maintained by FFIs prior to or on June 30, 2014.

These pre-existing accounts are the main target for FATCA letters sent out to their clients by foreign banks. Of course, FATCA letters may also apply to the accounts opened after July 1, 2014, but, in many cases, these accounts were already opened according to FATCA account opening procedures (hence, all of the questions that are usually contained in FATCA letters should have been asked at the point when the account was opened).

The purpose for FATCA letters is for the FFI to obtain the necessary information to comply with its own FATCA reporting requirements. Hence ,the content of the FATCA letters is going to be fairly uniform irrespective of the FFI that sends it, even though the format of FATCA letters may differ greatly among the countries and even FFIs within a country.

FATCA Letters: Typical Content

As I mentioned above, virtually every FATCA Letter is geared toward obtaining certain types of information which is necessary for the FFI’s own reporting to the IRS (either directly or through a national tax authority). The overall requested information can be divided into three categories:

1. Personal Information

FATCA letters first typically try to confirm the exact name, nationality and address of the account holder. Most FATCA letters will also ask for the date of birth, country of birth and the account holder’s telephone number.

2. Determination of US Status and Form W-9

This is the most critical part of FATCA Letters, because it aims at verifying whether the account holder is a US person in any common way. The exact format of this part differs greatly from bank to bank, but a typical FATCA letter would either request the account holder to fill-out a Form W-9 directly or first ask a few questions (such as “do you have US nationality”, “are you a US Lawful Permanent Resident”, or “Have you spent a substantial period of time in the USA”) and then ask to fill-out Form W-9 if any of these questions are answered positively.

Also, depending on a country, an FFI would also typically ask the taxpayer to sign some sort of a consent to the disclosure of FATCA data to the IRS. In Switzerland, it is always present.

3. Further Determination of Status Questions; Possible Forms W-8BEN and W-9

Once the first basic part of the US status determination is finished, FATCA letters go on to ask a second set of questions aimed at uncovering potential inconsistencies in the status claim and verify if the account holder may be a US person in some other way.

In this part, FATCA letters typically ask whether the account holder was born in the United States, is a US person for any other reason, has effectively connected US income, has US mailing address, and has a US telephone number.

If the answer to any of these questions is “yes”, FATCA letters would generally ask the taxpayer to provide further information. For example, where the account holder is a US person for any other reason or cannot prove that he is not a US person if he was born in the United States, then FATCA letters would request Form W-9 and a consent to the disclosure of FATCA data to the IRS.

On the other hand, if the account holder persists in being considered as a non-US person and can prove it, then FATCA letters would ask for Form W-8BEN and a non-US passport (or other similar documentation). In case the account holder was born in the United States but claims to be a non-US person, FATCA letters would demand a copy of the certificate of loss of US nationality.

W-8BEN may also be required if the account holder is not a US person but has US-source income.

Impact of FATCA Letters on US Account Holders

The basic purpose behind FATCA is to allow the IRS to easily identify a US person’s non-compliance with US tax laws concerning reporting of foreign-source income and foreign assets. FATCA letters allow the FFIs to quickly identify with a fair degree of certainty whether their account holders are US persons and ultimately relate this information to the IRS on Form 8966.

This means that US taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts are currently facing an imminent risk of a third-party disclosure of their tax non-compliance to the IRS. If these taxpayers do not do anything, the risk of the IRS finding them has become unacceptably high.

Moreover, if the IRS commences an investigation of these US taxpayers before they engage in any type of voluntary disclosure, these taxpayers are not likely to be able to enter the IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program leaving them potentially unprotected to the draconian FBAR criminal and civil penalties as well as potentially large income tax penalties.

Thus, the receipt of FATCA letters is a critical legal event that starts the clock for these taxpayers in terms of their ability to voluntarily disclose their accounts. This means that these taxpayers need to act quickly and immediately consult an international tax attorney who specializes in this area to explore their voluntary disclosure options.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office if You Received a FATCA Letter

If you have undisclosed foreign accounts and you received a FATCA letter from your foreign bank, contact Sherayzen Law Office immediately. Mr. Eugene Sherayzen is an experienced international tax attorney who has successfully helped hundreds of US taxpayers like you to bring their affairs back into US tax compliance. Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. can help you!

Contact Us to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation Now!

Brazil FATCA IGA Signed

/0 Comments/in , /by

The long-awaited Brazil FATCA IGA (Intergovernmental Agreement) was finally signed on September 23, 2014. This is an event of high importance and, in this article, I would like to explore Brazil FATCA IGA in more detail.

FATCA & Model Treaties

FATCA (“Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act”) was signed into law in 2010. This is a grand piece of US legislation that has already made a huge impact on international tax compliance landscape, and US taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts are feeling the pressure of this law more than anyone else.

In essence, FATCA directs foreign financial institutions (FFIs) to identify and report to the IRS all of their US customers with the account balances of $50,000 or more. How this reporting is done will depend on the tax treaty that is signed by the relevant foreign country.

There are two Model treaties that IRS created for the foreign countries to sign. Model I treaty that requires FFIs to send the reporting information regarding US-held accounts to their national tax authority which will report this information to the IRS. Model II treaty skips the national authority – it requires FFIs to directly turn over the US-owned account information directly to the IRS.

Brazil FATCA IGA is a reciprocal Model I treaty.

Brazil FATCA IGA

Since Brazil FATCA IGA is a Model I treaty, under the Brazil FATCA IGA, Brazilian FFIs will turn over the information regarding US accountholders to Receita Federal Brasileira (the national tax authority in Brazil). Receita Federal Brasileira will then turn over all of this information to the IRS. A Brazilian FFI that complies Brazil FATCA IGA due diligence and reporting requirements will be eligible to be treated as a registered deemed-compliant FFI for FATCA purposes.

Remember that Brazil FATCA IGA is a reciprocal treaty. This means that the United States will also have to share information with the Receita Federal Brasileira regarding accounts held by Brazilian residents with certain US financial institutions.

Impact of Brazil FATCA IGA on US Taxpayers with Undisclosed Accounts in Brazil

The signing of Brazil FATCA IGA suddenly raised the stakes for US taxpayers with undisclosed bank and financial accounts in Brazil, because there is almost a certainty that these accounts will now be reported to the IRS. This, in turn, means nothing else than full exposure of undisclosed US-held accounts to a potential IRS investigation with potential criminal and willful FBAR penalties as well as additional penalties (including criminal) with respect to US tax returns.

Moreover, the implementation of Brazil FATCA IGA means that this exposure to the IRS investigation is likely to occur very soon, perhaps as soon as December 31, 2014 or (more likely) March 31, 2015. If the IRS learns about the existence of these undisclosed accounts from Receita Federal Brasileira before the US taxpayer with undisclosed Brazilian accounts attempts his voluntary disclosure, it is very likely that this taxpayer will not be able to enter the 2014 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With Undisclosed Bank and Financial Accounts in Brazil

If you have undisclosed foreign and financial accounts in Brazil, you should contact Sherayzen Law Office for legal and tax help as soon as possible. Our international tax law office is highly experienced in the matters related to the Offshore Voluntary Disclosures and has helped hundreds of US taxpayers worldwide to bring their tax affairs into full compliance with US tax laws.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation Now.

Ireland to End Double Irish Tax Loophole used by many US Companies

/0 Comments/in , /by

Less than a month ago, Irish Finance Minister Michael Noonan announced in an address introducing the 2015 budget to the Irish parliament that the country will be changing its tax code to require all companies registered in Ireland to be tax residents, thereby ending the so-called Double Irish loophole utilized by many US companies and multinationals to reduce their tax liabilities. Noonan was quoted in one recent article as stating, “Aggressive tax planning by the multinational companies has been criticized by governments across the globe, and has damaged the reputation of many countries.”

This article will briefly examine the Double Irish structure used by US companies and others, and the new changes that will affect this structure; this article is not intended to convey tax or legal advice under either US or Irish laws.

The changes to the Double Irish loophole, combined with the recent Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service Notice 2014-52, “Rules Regarding Inversions and Related Transactions” will significantly affect many US companies. Tax planning and compliance will become even more important the days ahead. Please contact Mr. Eugene Sherayzen, an experienced international tax attorney at Sherayzen Law Office, PLLC for questions about your tax and legal needs.

The Double Irish Loophole

Before the new changes, multinationals could utilize a structure commonly referred to as the “Double Irish”. In general, under the Double Irish structure, companies would take advantage of Irish territorial taxation laws, meaning that the income of an Irish subsidiary operating outside of Ireland would not be subject to taxation. Prior to the new change, an entity in Ireland would be considered to be a tax resident not where it was incorporated, but rather where its controlling managers were located; thus, an entity registered in Ireland with its managers located in a tax haven would be considered to be a tax resident of the tax haven, and not Ireland, if properly structured.

US companies would often take advantage of this structure by forming offshore subsidiary entities that would own the rights to intellectual property located outside the United States, typically without paying US tax, through a cost sharing agreement between US parents and offshore companies. The non-US intellectual property rights would then be licensed to a second Irish subsidiary (hence the “Double Irish” phrase), which would be an Irish tax resident, generally in return for royalty payments, or similar fees. The second Irish subsidiary would additionally be able to deduct the royalties or other fees paid to the entity in the tax haven, thereby reducing its taxable profits (and subjecting any remaining profits to Ireland’s competitive 12.5% rate). Until such profits were remitted to the US, they would typically not be subject to US taxation.

Many US companies, such as LinkedIn, Facebook, Google, Twitter and others successfully used the Double Irish loophole to reduce their overall tax liabilities.

Ending the Double Irish Loophole

Under the new changes to the Double Irish loophole, beginning in January of 2015, all newly Irish-registered entities will automatically be deemed to be Irish tax residents. The new rules will not apply to companies currently utilizing the Double Irish structure; however, such companies will need to be compliant with the new rules by the end of 2020. Ireland will still retain its favorable 12.5% corporate tax rate.

The changes to the Double Irish loophole were made as a result of intense international criticism and potentially adverse consequences for Ireland. This year, the European Commission announced that it would conduct a formal investigation into the practices of various companies with Irish subsidiaries, including the Double Irish loophole. According to various news reports, European Union officials have expressed preliminary support for the new changes.

To address the possible loss of jobs resulting from the new changes (one news report puts the number of jobs created by foreign firms registering in Ireland to be 160,000 jobs, or approximately one in ten workers in the country – a lot of these jobs were created as a result of the Double Irish loophole), Noonan announced that he intended to create a new taxable rate for income derived from intellectual property in the form of a “Knowledge Development Box”. However, the EU is currently investigating so-called “patent boxes” (which could likely be similar to Noonan’s future proposal) utilized by various other European countries, such as the U.K. and the Netherlands.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With International Tax Planning

Since 2008, the world has experienced an almost unprecedented surge in the international tax enforcement, reflecting the desire (and the great economic need) of many countries to be able to obtain what these countries consider their fair share of tax revenues from international companies. The recent change to Irish tax laws with respect to the Double Irish loophole is just the latest example of this growing trend.

As tax enforcement rises, many US companies operating overseas and foreign companies operating in the United States are facing increasing risks of over-taxation with a direct threat to their profitability. For a number of reasons, the mid-size and small companies that operate internationally face a disproportionate increase in these risks than large multinational companies.

Sherayzen Law Office has successfully helped companies around the world to successfully operate internationally while reducing the risks of being subject to unfair tax treatment. If you have a small or mid-size business that operates internationally, you should contact our international tax team for professional legal and tax help.

Are the new IRS Inversion Regulations in Notice 2014-52 Working?

/0 Comments/in , /by

On September 22, 2014, the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued Notice 2014-52, “Rules Regarding Inversions and Related Transactions” in the wake of recent inversions.

In previous articles on Hopscotch loans and de-control of CFCs, we covered certain aspects of the new regulations to be issued. This article will examine some of the changes that various corporations have recently made to pending inversions as a consequence of the new IRS Notice 2014-52; the article is not intended to convey tax or legal advice. Please contact Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. for questions about your tax and legal needs.

IRS Notice 2014-52 Intended to Address Tax Avoidance

As stated in Notice 2014-52, Treasury and the IRS “understand that certain inversion transactions are motivated in substantial part by the ability to engage in certain tax avoidance transactions after the inversion that would not be possible in the absence of the inversion.” Such inversions were viewed to be specifically inconsistent with the purposes of Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) Section 7874 and 367, and accordingly, Treasury and the IRS intend to issue new regulations under IRC Sections 304(b)(5)(B), 367, 956(e), 7701(l), and 7874. After Notice 2014-52 was issued, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew was quoted as saying that the new regulations would “significantly diminish the ability of inverted companies to escape U.S. taxation.” Treasury and the IRS are also “considering guidance to address strategies that avoid U.S. tax on U.S. operations by shifting or “stripping” U.S.-source earnings to lower-tax jurisdictions, including through intercompany debt.” Notice 2014-52 is currently in the comment period.

At Least One Inversion Deal Cancelled

On October 3, 2014, the Raleigh, North Carolina-based Salix Pharmaceuticals Ltd, announced that it would be cancelling a deal to merge with an Irish subsidiary of the Italian company, Cosmo Pharmaceuticals SpA, specifically referencing Notice 2014-52 as creating “more uncertainty regarding the potential benefits we expected to achieve.”

Notice 2014-52 appears to have sufficiently created its intended result in this case. The CEO for Cosmo, Alessandro Della Cha, was quoted in an article as saying, “The (U.S.) administration has taken steps to make inversions more difficult and to make it harder to extract the benefits.”

Scuttling the deal was particularly costly for Salix as it also had to pay Cosmo a break-up fee of $25 million; however, according to various reports, the company has also been sought for a potential deal by Allergan Inc. as well as a Actavis Plc.

Medtronic Adjusts Deal in Response to Notice 2014-52

Unlike the response that Salix took to Notice 2014-52, Minnesota-based Medtronic Inc. recently announced that it would still close the proposed deal to acquire Ireland-based Covidien Plc by the end of this year, or early next year.

However, instead of the originally-proposed deal to use cash from its foreign subsidiaries to purchase the company, it will borrow $16 billion to close the approximately $43 billion transaction. As with Salix, a spokesman for Medtronic cited Notice 2014-52 as the reason for the change in the terms of the transaction.

As tax experts study proposed deals under the new IRS rules, it is very likely that more companies planning inversions will adjust their deals in a similar manner.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help with Complex International Tax Planning

Notice 2014-52 is just the latest in the avalanche of recent IRS initiatives in international tax enforcement. The recent explosion in the number of international tax regulations has greatly complicated the ability of US persons conduct business overseas. This is why you are advised contact Mr. Eugene Sherayzen an experienced international tax attorney at Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. for professional legal and tax guidance in this increasingly complex area of law.