Liechtenstein Anstalt: US Tax Treatment | Foreign Trust Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

Over the years, the IRS has made a number of rulings with respect to whether certain foreign entities should be considered trusts for US tax purposes. In this article, I would like to discuss the US tax classification of Liechtenstein Anstalt based on the 2009 IRS Chief Counsel Advice Memorandum, AM 2009-012.

Liechtenstein Anstalt: Creation of the Entity

The word “anstalt” means “establishment”. Any natural and legal person can form an Anstalt. Such a person is called a “Founder”.

A person may form an Anstalt for himself or for another party pursuant to a power of attorney or through a fiduciary arrangement. In most cases, Founders are Liechtenstein attorneys or trust companies that protect the anonymity of the actual owner or beneficiary of the Anstalt.

In order to create an Anstalt, the Founder signs Anstalt’s articles. The legal personality of Anstalt is created once the Founder submits to the government registry its articles, the constitutive declaration, proof that capital has been paid in and evidence that the official registration fees have been paid.

Liechtenstein Anstalt: Founder’s Powers

The Founder has the same powers with respect to an Anstalt that are generally attributed to shareholders in a company. Additionally, the Founder possesses “Founder’s rights”, which provide unlimited control and powers of administration (including the power to dismiss directors, distribute profits and liquidate the Anstalt). The Founder may transfer the rights given to him by law and by the articles, in whole or in part, to one or more assignees or successors. The Founder’s rights may also pass through inheritance.

Liechtenstein Anstalt: Board of Directors

An Anstalt must have a Board of Directors (called a Board of Management or Administration) to represent it in its dealings with third parties. In most cases, the Founder will be a member of the Board. The Founder usually appoints the members of the Board for a term of three years, but may appoint for lesser or longer terms. The Board may consist of one or more natural or legal persons. At least one member of the Board authorized to represent the Anstalt and conduct business on its behalf must have a registered office in Liechtenstein. This member must also be authorized to practice as a lawyer, trustee or auditor, or have other qualifications recognized by the government.

The Board has power with respect to all matters that are not specifically reserved to the Founder. The Founder may give authority to the Board to exercise some or all of the Founder’s rights. The Board may give signatory or agency authority to its own members or to others on behalf of the Anstalt. The Board may assign its management and executive responsibilities partially or completely to one or more of its members or to third persons. In carrying out its management and representation functions, the Board must observe all limitations on its authority contained in the articles in instructions and/or regulations issued by the Founder.

Liechtenstein Anstalt: Beneficiaries and Power of Appointment

The Anstalt’s beneficiaries are those natural or legal persons designated by the Founder, or the person holding the Founder’s rights, as entitled to receive the profits and/or liquidation proceeds of the Anstalt. The right to appoint beneficiaries is usually set forth in the articles and may be reserved to the Founder or granted to the Board or to third persons. If no beneficiaries are appointed, the Founder or his successors are presumed to be the beneficiaries.

Liechtenstein Anstalt: No Shares

The capital of an Anstalt is usually not divided into shares.

Liechtenstein Anstalt: Limited Liability

The liability of an Anstalt is limited to the extent of its assets. No personal liability extends to the Founder, the Anstalt’s Board or the beneficiaries.

Liechtenstein Anstalt: Ability to Conduct Business

Anstalts may hold patents and trademarks, hold interests in other companies and may conduct any type of business except banking. If the articles permit the Anstalt to engage in commercial or industrial activities or a trade, the Anstalt is required to keep proper books and records as well as prepare annual financial statements.

In fact, in most cases, the primary purpose for the establishment of an Anstalt is to conduct an active trade or business and to distribute the income and profits therefrom to the beneficiaries of the Anstalt. The beneficiaries of an Anstalt are usually the previous owners of the business assets contributed to the Anstalt and, in most situations, the Founder acts as a nominee or agent of the beneficiaries in conducting the active trade or business of the Anstalt.

Liechtenstein Anstalt: US Tax Treatment

Based on this description of Liechtenstein Anstalts, the IRS held that a Liechtenstein Anstalt is generally not a trust, but a business entity under Treas. Reg.§301.7701-2(a). This decision would apply in a majority of cases where the primary purpose of a Liechtenstein Anstalt is to actively carry on business activities.

This decision, however, should not be applied automatically to all Liechtenstein Anstalts. Rather, the IRS stated that, in cases where the facts and circumstances indicate that a Liechtenstein Anstalt was created “for the primary purpose of protecting or conserving the property of the Anstalt on behalf of beneficiaries, the Anstalt in such a case may be properly classified as a trust under §301.7701-4.” IRS, Chief Counsel Advice Memorandum, AM 2009-012 – Section 7701 – Definitions. Thus, the critical issue in the analysis of whether a Liechtenstein Anstalt should be treated as a trust is whether it was established primarily to conduct a trade or business or to protect and conserve assets for the designated beneficiaries of the Anstalt.

Moreover, in order for a Liechtenstein Anstalt to qualify for trust classification, all elements of a trust must be present: (1) a grantor, (2) a trustee that has legal title and a legal duty to protect and conserve the assets for the designated beneficiaries, (3) assets, and (4) designated beneficiaries. See Swan v. Commissioner, 24 T.C. 829 (1955), aff’d and rev’d on other grounds, 247 F 2d 144 (2d Cir. 1957).

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help Concerning Proper US Tax Classification of a Liechtenstein Anstalt as well as Form 5471 and Form 3520 Compliance

Determining the proper classification of a Liechtenstein Anstalt is very important for its beneficiaries and Founders who are US tax residents, because classification of an Anstalt has a direct impact on these taxpayers’ US international tax compliance, including determining whether Form 3520 or Form 5471 has to be filed. Such determination of US tax treatment of a Liechtenstein Anstalt should be done by an experienced international tax law firm.

This is why, if you are a beneficiary and/or a Founder of a Liechtenstein Anstalt, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with your US tax compliance. We have successfully helped US taxpayers from over 70 countries with their US international tax compliance issues, including classification of foreign business entities and foreign trusts. We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

New Form 1040-SR for Seniors | US Tax Lawyers & Attorneys

/in , /by

For the very first time, the IRS has created a new tax form called Form “1040-SR”. “SR” here standards for “seniors”. The idea is that the new form will be used by senior taxpayers. Let’s discuss Form 1040-SR in more detail.

Form 1040-SR: Reasons for Its Creation

The reason for the creation of Form 1040-SR was the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018. The Act obligated the IRS to create a new form for seniors.

Form 1040-SR: Eligibility

Taxpayers born before Jan. 2, 1955 (i.e. those who are 65 years old or older), have the option to file Form 1040-SR whether they are working, not working or retired. Married couples filing a joint return can use the new form regardless of whether one or both spouses are age 65 or older or retired.

Form 1040-SR: Differences from Regular Form 1040

The principal difference between the regular Form 1040 and Form 1040-SR is a larger font and better readability.

Otherwise, all lines and checkboxes on the new form mirror the Form 1040, and both forms use all the same attached schedules and forms. The new form allows income reporting from other sources common to seniors such as investment income, Social Security and distributions from qualified retirement plans, annuities or similar deferred-payment arrangements. Both forms use the same “building block” approach introduced last year that can be supplemented with additional Schedules 1, 2 and 3 as needed.

Many taxpayers with basic tax situations can file Form 1040 or 1040-SR with no additional schedules. However, taxpayers with international tax exposure will most likely need additional schedules.

Seniors can use Form 1040-SR to file their 2019 federal income tax return, which is normally due on April 15, 2020 but has been extended to July 15, 2020 because of the Coronavirus. The revised 2019 Form 1040 Instructions cover both versions of Form 1040.

Seniors With Foreign Assets and Foreign Income Still Need to Comply With US International Tax Requirements

Sherayzen Law Office wishes to warn seniors that using Form 1040-SR does not relieve seniors of their obligation to comply with US international tax reporting requirements concerning their foreign assets and foreign income.

US tax residents must disclose their worldwide income on their US tax returns even if they are filing Form a 1040-SR this year. Similarly, all US international information returns must be filed with the senior version of Form 1040. Finally, foreign accounts must be disclosed not only on FBAR, but also on Schedule B of Form 1040-SR and possibly Form 8938.

If you have undisclosed foreign assets and foreign income for prior years, should contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with the offshore voluntary disclosure of your past noncompliance with US international tax reporting requirements. We have successfully helped hundreds of US taxpayers resolve their prior US tax noncompliance issues, and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Form 114 Trust Filers | FBAR Tax Lawyer & Attorney Nevada Las Vegas

/in , /by

FinCEN Form 114 trust filers constitute a highly problematic category of FBAR filers. Form 114 trust filers are problematic not so much because the FBAR requirement itself is unclear, but, rather, because the trustees do not realize that this requirement applies to them. In this article, I would like to educate potential Form 114 trust filers about the FBAR requirement and when it applies to them.

Form 114 Trust Filers: FBAR Background Information

The Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, FinCEN Form 114, commonly known as FBAR, was created in the 1970s as a result of the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. Originally designed to fight financial crimes and terrorism, FBAR turned into a formidable weapon for the IRS after 2001 to fight US international tax noncompliance.

The biggest reason why FBAR became such a useful tool to fight US international tax compliance are the draconian penalties associated with FBAR noncompliance. FBAR has a full range of penalties from criminal (i.e. a person actually going to jail for FBAR noncompliance) to non-willful (which may apply in situations when a person did not even know that FBAR existed).

A US person must file FBAR if he has a financial interest in or signatory authority over foreign financial accounts and the aggregate value of these foreign financial accounts exceeds $10,000 at any time during the calendar year. Prior to 2016 FBAR, the FBAR deadline was June 30 of each year. Starting 2016 FBAR, the FBAR deadline is aligned with the tax return deadline, including automatic extension to October 15 (this is still true as of the tax year 2021). This may change in the future years.

FinCEN Form 114 Trust Filers: Trusts Must File FBARs

All US persons who meet the FBAR filing requirements must file the form by the required deadline. The term “US persons” includes not just individuals and businesses, but also estates and trusts. A trustee’s failure to timely file an accurate FBAR may result in the imposition of FBAR penalties on the trust.

All types of trusts (as long as they are US persons) must file FBARs, including non-grantor trusts and grantor trusts. It is important to emphasize that the fact that all trust income passes to the grantor or another owner of the trust does not absolve the trust from its obligation to file FBARs.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With FinCEN Form 114 Trust Filings and Trust Offshore Voluntary Disclosures

Unfortunately, many trustees still miss the fact that they must file FBARs on behalf of the trust. As I stated above, this may expose the trust to significant FBAR penalties.

Hence, if you are a trustee of a trust which has not complied with its FinCEN Form 114 obligations, then contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help as soon as possible. We have successfully helped hundreds of US taxpayers, including trusts, to resolve their prior FinCEN Form 114 noncompliance. We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

§318 Option Attribution | International Tax Lawyers United States

/in , /by

A previous article defined “option” for the purposes of the IRC (Internal Revenue Code) §318(a)(4). Today, I will discuss the main §318 option attribution rule.

§318 Option Attribution: Main Rule

Under §318(a)(4), “if any person has an option to acquire stock, such stock shall be considered as owned by such person.” For the purposes of §318 option attribution rules, an option to acquire an option to acquire stock is also considered an option to acquire stock. Id. It does not matter whether the option to acquire an option is granted by the corporation or by a shareholder.

Additionally, a series of options to acquire an option to acquire stock is considered an option to acquire stock Id.; in other words, the owner of a series of options is the constructive owner of the stock. That is the subject of this series.

Let’s use the following example to illustrate §318 option attribution: A and B each own 10 shares in X, a C-corporation; A has an option to acquire 5 shares of X owned by B; A also has an option to acquire an option to acquire B’s other 5 shares of X; finally, A has an option to acquire 5 unissued shares of X. The issue is: how many shares does A own?

By applying the rules above, A would actually and constructively own a total of 25 shares: 10 shares that he actually owns and 15 shares the he constructively owns under §318(a)(4) (all 10 shares of X owned by B plus 5 unissued shares of X).

§318 Option Attribution: Special Case of Convertible Debentures

Pursuant to Rev. Rul. 68-601, an owner of a convertible debenture (i.e. a debenture that can be converted into stock of a corporation) is deemed to be in the same position as a an option owner for the purposes of §318(a)(4) as long as he has the right to obtain the stock at his election. In other words, an owner of such a convertible debenture is a constructive owner of the stock into which the debenture can be converted.

Moreover, by drawing an analogy to the main §318 option attribution rule, an option to acquire a convertible debenture would be treated in the same manner under §318 as an option to acquire an option to acquire stock. Hence, the owner of an option to acquire a convertible debenture is a constructive owner fo the stock into which this debenture can be converted.

§318 Option Attribution vs. §318 Family Member Attribution

There are certain situations where stocks may be attributed to an individual under both, §318(a)(1) (i.e. family attribution rules) and the §318(a)(4) (i.e. option attribution rules). Since there are differences in legal effect, it is important to understand which rule governs in such situations.

Under §318(a)(5)(D), §318 option attribution supercedes the §318 family attribution. In other words, where an individual is deemed to be a constructive owner of shares under both rules, only the §318 option constructive ownership rules will apply to him.

This primacy of option attribution over family attribution may have a highly important tax impact in certain situations, such as the tax treatment of redemption of stock by a corporation. Let’s analyze an example to illustrate the disparate impact of these two attribution rules in the context of the §302(c)(2) waiver.

Let’s use the following hypothetical situation: W, an individual, owns 10 shares of X, a C-corporation; her husband, H, owns the remaining 40 shares of X; W has an option to purchase all of H’s shares of X. W redeems all l0 shares of X with the idea to establish a complete termination of her interest in the corporation once she waives the attribution of H’s shares to her by using the §302(c)(2) waiver (we assume here that she also fulfills all other requirements under §302). Will this strategy work in this case?

The answer is no. The problem is that the waiver under §302(c)(2) is available only for attribution from a family member. While it is true that W is a constructive owner of H’s 40 shares by the operation of family attribution rules, she is also the constructive owner of the same shares under the §318 option attribution rules. Since option attribution supercedes family attribution, she cannot use the §302 waiver. This means that W cannot establish a complete termination of her interest in X and the redemption of her 10 stocks will be treated as a dividend (with no cost-basis offset against the proceeds) as opposed to a sale.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With US International Tax Law

If you own foreign assets, including foreign business entities, you have the daunting obligation to meet all of your complex US international tax compliance requirements; otherwise, you may have to face the wrath of the IRS in the form of high noncompliance penalties. In order to successfully meet your US international tax compliance obligations, you need the professional help of Sherayzen Law Office.

We are an international tax law firm that specializes in US international tax compliance and offshore voluntary disclosures. We have successfully helped hundreds of US taxpayers worldwide with their US international tax compliance, and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

§318 Option Definition | US International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

This article continues our series of articles on the IRC (Internal Revenue Code) §318 constructive ownership rules. In this article, I would like to introduce the readers to the infamous §318 option attribution rules. Before we delve into the discussion of the constructive ownership rules for options, however, it is important to understand what “option” actually means for the purpose of §318. Hence, today, I will focus on the §318 option definition.

§318 Option Definition: Main Rule

An option is a right to obtain stock at a certain price and date. I want to emphasize that option is not an obligation, it is a right which a taxpayer may or may not ever exercise.

Such a broad §318 option definition includes a great variety of options: options to purchase stock, option to acquire unissued stocks (as long as a shareholder has the right to obtain stock at his election – see Rev. Rul. 68-601), certain warrants and debentures that may be converted into stocks (as long as there are no contingencies, other than time, that must be met before the conversions rights can be exercised – see FSA 200244003), et cetera.

§318 Option Definition: Rights Not Considered Options

Not all rights to acquire stock, however, are considered options for the purposes of §318 option definition. There is a large number of exceptions, but all of them are centered around the concept of some type of restrictions on the exercise of the option. I will list below the five most popular exceptions which are not considered options under §318(a)(4):

First, a right to acquire stock is not an option if the optionee does not have control over the exercise of the option. For example, if there are many contingencies which can prevent exercise of an option, then this is not an option of the purposes of §318(a)(4). See FSA 199915007.

Second, a corporation’s right to buy back its own stocks is not an option for the purposes of §318. Rev. Rul. 69-562.

Third, a right of first refusal is not an option for the purposes of §318. For example, if the right to purchase stock is contingent on the obligor’s decision to sell, then this is not an option under §318(a)(4). TAM 8106008. We can even broaden the rule not only to a right of first refusal, but to almost all situations where the exercise of option depends on the other party’s decision to sell.

Fourth, certain stock appreciation rights are not options if they only entitle the owner of these rights to cash benefits, but do not permit acquisition of stock. Of course, if contract entitles the owner to the right to acquire stocks, then such stock appreciation rights may actually be options §318. See PLR 9341019.

Finally, the right to acquire stocks is not an option under §318 if such transfer is restricted and requires consent. For example, the IRS held in TAM 9410003 that such an arrangement (i.e. restriction on the transfer of shares without other shareholders’ consent) combined with the right of first refusal did not constitute an option to acquire those shares.

§318 Option Definition: Exceptions to Restrictions

I would like to warn the readers, however, that not all restrictions on exercise of an option automatically exclude a right to acquire a stock from the §318 option definition. We can outline two broad exceptions to restrictions here.

First, where the control over the decision to exercise the option rests with the holder of the right to purchase a stock, such a restriction is insufficient to prevent this arrangement to be treated as an option. See Rev. Rul. 68-601.

Second, where the restriction is fixed in time. For example, under FSA 200244003, a warrant is an option if there are no contingencies or limitations on the right to exercise other than time limitation. Similarly, if the right to acquire shares can only be exercised on a fixed date, it is an option. Rev. Rul. 89-64.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With US International Tax Law Concerning Foreign Corporations

If you are an owner of a foreign corporation, you are facing a very difficult task of working through the enormous complexity of US international tax compliance requirements and trying to avoid the high IRS noncompliance penalties. In order to be successful in this matter, you need the professional help of Sherayzen Law Office.

We are an international tax law firm that specializes in US international tax compliance and offshore voluntary disclosures. We have successfully helped hundreds of US taxpayers worldwide with this issue, and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!