§267 Entity-to-Member Attribution | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

In a previous article, I introduced the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) §267 constructive ownership rules. Today, I would like to focus specifically on the §267 entity-to-member attribution rule.

§267 Entity-to-Member Attribution: General Rule

§267(c)(1) describes the §267 entity-to-member attribution rule. It states that stocks owned by a corporation, partnership, estate or trust will be treated as owned proportionately by its shareholders, partners, or beneficiaries.

Let’s use an example to explain §267(c)(1). Let’s imagine that Peter and Mary (both US citizens who are not family members within the meaning of §267(c)(4)) own 70% and 30% respectively of shares of X, a C-corporation organized in South Dakota. X owns 100% of shares of N, a Nevada C-corporation.

In this situation, under §267(c)(1), Peter and Mary constructively own 70% and 30% of shares of N. Hence, pursuant to §267(b)(2), Peter is considered to be a related person with respect to X and N corporations due to actual constructive ownership of 70% of shares of both corporations (since this is higher than the 50%-of-value threshold demanded by §267(b)(2)).

Also, note that X and N are related persons, because, pursuant to §267(b)(3), they are members of the same controlled group. §267(b)(3) relies on §267(f) for the definition of the “controlled group”; §267(f), in turn, mostly adopts §1563 definition of controlled group (the main difference is that §267(f) reduces the required level of ownership to more than 50% of voting power and value of the stock as opposed to more than 80% demanded by §1563).

§267 Entity-to-Member Attribution: How Stock is Attributed

The §267(c)(1) is a downstream attribution rule. This means that the attribution of stock flows only in one direction – from entity to the shareholder, partner or beneficiary. There is no “upstream attribution” from shareholder, partner, or beneficiary to the corporation, partnership, estate or trust. Note that this differs from the attribution rules for many corporate transactions governed by §318.

Section 267(c)(1) fails to specify the manner in which attributed stock ownership should be apportioned. The most convincing authority for the apportionment of attributed stocks can be found in case law, particularly Hickman v. Commissioner, 30 T.C. Memo 1972-208. In that case, the Tax Court determined that stock would be attributed from a trust to its beneficiaries proportionately based on the fair market value without any discount for indirect ownership. Actuarial value apportionment was also rejected.

§267 Entity-to-Member Attribution: Chain Ownership

It is important to understand that stock constructively owned by a shareholder, partner, or beneficiary pursuant to §267(c)(1) is treated as actually owned for the purposes of further attribution. In other words, the constructive ownership of a shareholder, partner or beneficiary may be further attributed to others. Moreover, such attribution does not have to be under §267(c)(1); rather, any other attribution category can be used (for example, family member stock attribution).

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With US Tax Law

US tax law is extremely complex. An ordinary person will simply get lost in this labyrinth of tax rules, exceptions and requirements. Once you get into trouble with US tax law, it is much more difficult and expensive to extricate yourself from it due to high IRS penalties.

This is why it is important to contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with US tax law as soon as possible. We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world to successfully resolve their US tax compliance and US tax planning issues. We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

§267 Constructive Ownership Rules | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

In a previous article, I discussed the related person definition for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) §267. That article, however, focused on the definition itself rather than on a host of supplementary rules necessary to fully understand this definition. In this article, I would like to discuss one set of these rules – §267 constructive ownership rules.

§267 Constructive Ownership Rules: Purpose of §267(c)

During my initial discussion of the §267 related person definition, I focused only on the actual ownership by related persons. Congress, however, realized that the actual ownership limitations can be easily circumvented by utilizing individuals and entities closely connected to the related persons.

Hence, it enacted §267(c) and §267(e)(3) to expand the application of the related person definition to include the ownership by closely-connected individuals and entities. In other words, even where an individual or entity does not meet any of the §267(a) and (b) tests through his actual ownership, these tests may be met when his actual ownership is added to other persons’ ownership through the operation of §267(c) and §267(e) rules. These are the so-called §267 constructive ownership rules.

§267 Constructive Ownership Rules: Two Parts of the Rules

As explained in a previous article, the related person definition can be found in two different parts of §267 – thirteen categories of §267(b) and one category of §267(a)(2). Similarly, the constructive ownership rules are divided into two separate sections: §267(c) applies to the entire section and §267(e)(3) applies only to §267(a)(2).

§267 Constructive Ownership Rules: Three General Types of Ownership Attribution

§267(c) sets forth three general types of constructive ownership attribution rules:

  1. Entity-to-owner or beneficiary stock attribution – i.e. “stock owned, directly or indirectly, by or for a corporation, partnership, estate, or trust shall be considered as being owned proportionately by or for its shareholders, partners, or beneficiaries” §267(c)(1). I wish to emphasize there that §267(c)(1) applies to any type of an entity: corporations, partnerships, estates and trusts;
  2. Family member stock attribution – i.e. stocks owned by family members are treated as constructively owned by the related person (see §267(c)(2)). §267(c)(4) defines “family of an individual” to include: “only his brothers and sisters (whether by the whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal descendants”; and
  3. Partner-to-partner stock attribution – i.e. “an individual owning … any stock in a corporation shall be considered as owning the stock owned, directly or indirectly, by or for his partner” §267(c)(3). This is a unique rule which is rarely found among other constructive ownership rules of the Internal Revenue Code.

§267 Constructive Ownership Rules: Chain Ownership Attribution

Generally, a taxpayer who is deemed to own stock under the §267 constructive ownership rules is treated as the actual owner of the stock. In other words, the stock that he constructively owns can be used for further attribution of ownership to others – this is the so-called “chain ownership attribution”.

There are three exceptions to this rule. I will mention here only one: §267(c)(5) limits attribution of ownership through a chain of related persons in the case of family member or partnership attribution.

§267 Constructive Ownership Rules: Fourth Type of Ownership Attribution

§267(e)(3) sets forth special constructive ownership rules for determining ownership of a capital or profits interest in a partnership; as it was mentioned above, this rule applies only to the deduction limitation rules of §267(a)(2). This fourth type of ownership attribution is basically an exception to the first three types of §267(c).

§267(e)(3) states that, for the purposes of determining ownership of a capital interest or profits interest of a partnership, §267(c) constructive ownership rules apply except that: (1) partner-to-partner stock attribution of §267(c)(3) shall not apply, and (2) with respect to interest owned (directly and indirectly) by and for C-corporation “shall be considered as owned by or for any shareholder only if such shareholder owns (directly or indirectly) 5 percent or more in value of the stock of such corporation” §267(e)(3)(B).

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With US Tax Law

US tax law is extremely complex, especially US international tax law. An ordinary person will simply get lost in this labyrinth of tax rules, exceptions and requirements. Once you get into trouble with US tax law, it is much more difficult and expensive to extricate yourself from it due to high IRS penalties.

This is why it is important to contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with US tax law as soon as possible. We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world to successfully resolve their US tax compliance and US tax planning issues. We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Related Person Definition – IRC §267 | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) §267 imposes significant restrictions on the ability of related persons to recognize loss from a transaction that involves a sale or exchange of property. Hence, it is important for a tax attorney who advises on such a transaction to understand the concept of a “related person” in order to properly advise his client. In this article, I will discuss the general related person definition; in a future article, I will discuss the related person definition in a more specific context.

Related Person Definition: IRC §267(b) and IRC §267(a)(2)

The related person definition is set forth in two part of IRC §267. The first and most comprehensive description of related persons can be found in IRC §267(b) – this description is used throughout IRC §267. The second part is found §267(a)(2) and it applies for the purposes of §267(a)(2) only. Let’s discuss both parts of the related party definition in more detail.

Related Person Definition: Thirteen Categories of IRC §267(b)

IRC §267(b) describes the following thirteen categories of related persons:

1). Family Members;

2). A corporation and an individual shareholder who owns more than 50% of the value of the stock;

3). Two corporations which are members of the same controlled group. Pursuant to §267(b)(3), the term “controlled group” is similar to the definition used for the purposes of the affiliated corporation rules, but with merely a 50% instead of 80% common ownership requirement;

4). A grantor and a fiduciary of any trust;

5). Fiduciaries of different trusts if the same person is the grantor of both trusts;

6). A fiduciary of a trust and a beneficiary of that trust;

7). A fiduciary of a trust and a beneficiary of another trust as long as the same person is the grantor of both trusts;

8). A corporation and a fiduciary of a trust that owns more than 50% of the value of the stock (also, if the trust’s grantor owns more than 50% of the value of the stock);

9). A tax-exempt organization and a person or individual or the individual’s family member who controls the organization;

10). A corporation and a partnership if the same person owns more than 50% of the value of the corporate stock and more than 50% of the capital or profits interest in the partnership;

11). Two or more S-corporations owned more than 50% by the same person;

12). An S-corporation and a C-corporation if the same person owns more than 50% of the value of each; and

13). An executor and a beneficiary of an estate (there is an exception where a sale of property is made to satisfy a pecuniary bequest).

Related Person Definition: IRC §267(a)(2) Category

As it was mentioned above, the fourteenth category of related persons is described in §267(a)(2). This section contains the income-deduction matching provision (i.e. deduction can be taken in a related party transaction by a related party only when an income is recognized by the second party). For the purposes of §267(a)(2), a personal service corporation (within the meaning of IRC §441(i)(2)) and any employee-owner (within the meaning of §269A(b)(2), as modified by §441(i)(2)) are related as persons under IRC §267.

Related Person Definition: Special Rules for Pass-Through Entities

While I will not cover them over here, it is important to note that special rules exist with respect to pass-through entities such as partnerships and S-corporation. These rules can be found in two separate code provisions. IRC §707(b)(1) governs disallowance of losses on transactions between a partnership and its members. IRC §267(a)(1) governs losses on sales or exchanges between a partnership and any person other than a member of the partnership (a third party).

Related Person Definition: Constructive Ownership Rules

Moreover, I would like to emphasize that the determination of whether a person or entity satisfies any of the IRC §267 categories of the related person definition is not limited to the actual ownership percentage of such person or entity. Rather, §267(c) contains elaborate constructive ownership rules that force one to include in the analysis the ownership by closely connected individuals or entities.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With IRC §267 Related Person Definition and Other Business Tax Issues

US tax law is incredibly complex; the related person definition of IRC §267 is just one example of this complexity. In order to safely navigate through the labyrinth of US tax laws, you need an experienced tax attorney.

This is why you should contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. Our legal team, headed by an international tax attorney Eugene Sherayzen, is highly experienced in helping US taxpayers with proper individual and business tax planning and tax compliance. We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Happy New Year 2020 from Sherayzen Law Office!

/in , /by

Sherayzen Law Office wishes everyone a very happy and prosperous New Year 2020! We also wish you stay in full US tax compliance with US international tax laws while your tax burden decreases!

And, we are here to help our clients to turn these wishes into reality! In the year 2020, Sherayzen Law Office will continue to help its clients with all US international tax law issues, including compliance with FATCA, FBAR and all US international information returns such as Forms 3520, 5471, 8621, 8865 and others.

Moreover, Sherayzen Law Office will continue its leadership in the area of offshore voluntary disclosures, helping its clients to bring themselves into full compliance with US tax laws while lowering and, in some cases, even eliminating numerous IRS penalties. We will continue to do all types of offshore voluntary disclosures, including: Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures (“SDOP”), Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures (“SFOP”), Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures, Delinquent International Information Return Submission Procedures, Modified Traditional Voluntary Disclosure, Reasonable Cause Disclosures and others.

If you are audited by the IRS with respect to your compliance with FBAR, FATCA or any other international information return filing requirements during any point of the new year 2020, then you can advantage of Sherayzen Law Office’s services with respect to IRS audits. We have helped clients throughout the worldwide with IRS audits, including audits related to foreign corporations and offshore voluntary disclosures (e.g. SDOP IRS audit or SFOP IRS audit).

Furthermore, during the new year 2020, Sherayzen Law Office will continue to create new creative and ethical tax plans and implement the old ones in order to allow our clients to take full advantage of the benefits offered by the Internal Revenue Code.

At Sherayzen Law Office, we look at the new year 2020 as an exciting opportunity to continue to deliver top-quality US international tax services to our clients around the globe. Helping people and their businesses with their US international tax issues is our goal!

Contact us directly by phone or email to schedule your confidential consultation!

Happy New Year 2020 to you and your family!

IRC §267 Purpose | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney Austin TX

/in , /by

This brief essay explores the IRC §267 purpose of existence – i.e. Why did Congress decide to enact IRC §267 and in what situations does it generally apply?

IRC §267 Purpose: Problematic Scenarios

When Congress enacted IRC §267, it meant to address a very specific problem in the context of two scenarios. The problem was the rise of a large number of tax minimization strategies based on transactions between persons with shared economic interests (for example, a transaction between a father and his son). The IRS calls such persons with shared economic interests “related persons”.

In particular, these related person transaction strategies focused on two different scenarios. The first scenario was the creation of an artificial loss on the sale or exchange of property between related persons. The second scenario involved transactions between related persons where one of them recognized a deduction while the other one did not recognize any income from the same transaction.

IRC §267 Purpose: Limitations on Related Person Tax Planning

Given the high potential of related person transactions to artificially lower tax liability of all parties involved, Congress enacted IRC §267. The main purpose of IRC §267 is to impose severe limitations on the ability of related persons to realize losses from sales of property to related persons and take deductions with respect to transactions involving related persons.

It should be emphasized that IRC §267 does not impose an absolute limitation on one’s ability to take losses. For example, once a property is sold to an unrelated person, IRC §267(d) allows the seller to offset recognized gain by the previously disallowed loss. In other words, the IRC §267 purpose is to handicap the ability of related persons to artificially lower their federal tax liability, not to deprive related persons from recognizing legitimate losses in transactions with unrelated persons.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With IRC §267

If you have a transaction involving related persons, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with US business tax planning. We have helped taxpayers around the globe with the US tax planning, and We Can Help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!