Minsk Seminar Conducted by US International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

On June 9, 2017, Mr. Eugene Sherayzen, an international tax attorney and owner of Sherayzen Law Office, was the keynote speaker at a seminar “Introduction to U.S. Tax Compliance for U.S. Citizens and Green Card Holders Residing and Doing Business in Belarus” in Minsk, Republic of Belarus (the “Minsk Seminar”). The attorney conducted the entire Minsk Seminar in Russian, because he speaks this language fluently.

The Minsk Seminar was presented before the Minsk City Lawyer’s Association. It was a historic event, because it appears that this was the very first time that a practicing US international tax attorney conducted a seminar on this topic in Minsk. The Minsk Seminar was well-attended by close to 25-30 persons (despite the fact that it was conducted on a Friday afternoon); it appears that virtually all attendees were practicing lawyers in Minsk.

Mr. Sherayzen decided to make his presentation as broad as possible, but attended to details only as necessary. As a result, this more than two-hour presentation covered the main topics concerning US international tax reporting requirements of a U.S. citizen living and/or doing business in Belarus.

The tax attorney started the Minsk Seminar with the definition of a U.S. tax resident, emphasizing that a U.S. citizen and a U.S. Permanent Resident who reside in Belarus should be considered U.S. tax residents. Then, Mr. Sherayzen discussed the worldwide income reporting requirement and broadly covered various topics concerning specific income recognition.

The tax attorney continued the Minsk Seminar with an overview of the U.S. international information returns concerning individuals who have foreign assets, including an ownership interest in a foreign business. The severe FBAR penalties caused consternation among the attendees. As part of this discussion, he also explained the common-law concept of a “trust”.

The last part of the Minsk Seminar was devoted to the discussion of the U.S. anti-deferral regimes, such as Subpart F and PFIC rules. Mr. Sherayzen explained the potential tax consequences of income recognition under both of these regimes.

Throughout the Minsk Seminar, the Belarussian attorneys asked many questions and readily engaged in a lively comparison of the Belarussian tax rules to the U.S. tax rules. Overall, it was a very friendly seminar. Mr. Sherayzen looks forward to future presentations on this and other U.S. international tax topics in Eastern Europe.

SLO’s 2017 Seminar on Business Lawyers’ International Tax Mistakes

/in , /by

On February 23, 2017, Mr. Eugene Sherayzen, an international tax lawyer and owner of Sherayzen Law Office (“SLO”), conducted a seminar titled “Top 5 International Tax Mistakes Made by Business Lawyers”. The seminar was sponsored by the Corporate Counsel Section and International Business Law Section of the Minnesota State Bar Association.

Mr. Sherayzen commenced the seminar by asking a question about why business lawyers should be concerned with making international tax mistakes. After identifying the main answers, the tax attorney stated that he would focus on the strategic mistakes, rather than any specific U.S. international tax requirements.

Mr. Sherayzen first discussed the Business Purity Trap, a situation where business lawyers view a business transaction as something exclusively within the business law domain and with no relation whatsoever to U.S. tax law. The tax attorney stated that all business transactions have tax consequences, even if the effect is not immediate and there is no actual income tax impact.

Then, Mr. Sherayzen discussed the Tax Dabble Trap. This trap describes a situation where a business lawyer attempts to provide an advice on an international tax issue. The tax attorney explained why business lawyers often fall into this trap and the potentially disastrous consequences this trap may have for the business lawyers’ clients.

The Tax Law Uniformity Trap was the third trap discussed by the tax attorney. One of the most common international tax mistakes that business lawyers (and also many accountants) make is to believe that U.S. domestic tax law and U.S. international tax law are similar. Mr. Sherayzen also pointed out that there is a variation on this trap with respect to foreign owners of U.S. entities.

The discussion of the fourth trap, the Tax Professional Equality Trap, turned out be very fruitful. Mr. Sherayzen drew a sharp distinction between the role played by a general accountant versus the role of an international tax attorney. He also specifically focused on the potentially disastrous consequences the reliance on a domestic accountant may have in the context of offshore voluntary disclosures.

Finally, Mr. Sherayzen discussed the Foreign Exceptionalism Trap. This trap deals with a false belief that certain foreign transactions that occur completely outside of the United States have no tax consequences for the U.S. clients involved in these transactions. Mr. Sherayzen also pointed out that danger of relying solely on foreign accountants and lawyers in this context.

He concluded the seminar with a short examination of another “bonus” tax trap called the Linguistic Uniformity Trap. The description of all tax traps was accompanied by real-life examples from Mr. Sherayzen’s international tax law practice.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional U.S. International Tax Advice to Avoid Costly International Tax Mistakes

If you are a business lawyer who deals with international business transactions or transactions involving tax residents of a foreign country, please contact Sherayzen Law Office to avoid costly international tax mistakes. Our law firm has worked with many business lawyers, helping them to properly structure international business transactions in a way that avoids making international tax mistakes. Remember, it is much easier and cheaper to avoid making international tax mistakes than fixing them later.

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Overseas Green Card Holder & US Tax Residency | Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

While most US taxpayers understand that a US permanent resident who resides in the United States is a US tax resident, there seems to be a great deal of confusion over whether the same is true with respect to a US permanent resident who resides overseas (hereinafter, “Overseas Green Card Holder”). In other words, the question is whether an Overseas Green Card Holder should be considered a US tax resident?

It is important to clear up this confusion, because an individual non-resident only needs to report to the IRS his US-source income and income effectively connected to the United States. On the other hand, a US tax resident must disclose to the IRS his worldwide income and his foreign assets. A failure to report foreign income and foreign assets will expose the noncompliant taxpayer to IRS penalties. In the context of US international information returns, these IRS penalties can be particularly cruel; FBAR penalties and FATCA penalties are the most important examples of the severity with which the IRS may punish noncompliant green card holders.

Now that we understand the importance of determining whether an individual is a US tax resident, we can proceed with answering the question of whether an Overseas Green Card Holder is a US tax resident. The answer is an emphatic “yes”.

A US Permanent Resident is always a US tax resident (unless his permanent residency is stripped away for noncompliance with US immigration laws). The location of his physical residency does not matter. This means that an Overseas Green Card Holder should properly report his worldwide income and his foreign assets to the IRS, including the filing of any required FBARs and/or Forms 8938.

For example, if a US Permanent Resident resides in the United Kingdom, earns a salary and owns UK bank accounts, he should disclose his UK income in the United States and report his UK bank accounts on his Schedule B to Form 1040. He should also verify if he needs to disclose his UK bank accounts on FBAR and Form 8938, among other potential US tax requirements.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Hep With Your US Tax Compliance if You Are an Overseas Green Card Holder

If you are a US permanent resident who resides in foreign country, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional tax help as soon as possible. Our highly-experienced international tax attorney, Mr. Sherayzen, will personally analyze your legal situation, determine the US tax requirements that may apply in your situation and create your tax compliance plan, including one that includes an offshore voluntary disclosure to remedy any past US international tax noncompliance. Then, our professional tax team, under the supervision of Mr. Sherayzen, will prepare all of the required tax documents while Mr. Sherayzen implements the overall legal plan.

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Employment Income Sourcing | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

Employment income sourcing is a very important tax issue for employees of US corporations sent overseas, employees of foreign corporations stationed in the United States and employees who work in different countries during a tax year. For employees who are tax residents of a foreign country, this issue will determine whether their income will be taxed in the United States; whereas for US tax residents, the source of income rules will determine the amount of the allowable foreign tax credit. In this article, I will focus on the employment income sourcing rules concerning monetary compensation of employees.

Employment Income Sourcing: General Rules

The source of income rules concerning employees are very similar to the rules that apply to self-employment income, but there are some differences. The main rule is that the location where the services are rendered determines whether this is US-source income or foreign-source income. If an employee works in the United States, then his salary would be considered US-source income; if he works in a foreign country, his salary would be sourced to that country. See §§861(a)(3) and 862(a)(3).

If the employer pays for work partly performed in the United States and partly outside of the United States, then the salary needs to be allocated between the countries. Treas. Reg. §1.861-4(b)(2)(ii)(A). The key issue arises here – how does an employee allocate this income between the countries?

Employment Income Sourcing: Time Basis Allocation

The first methodology for allocation of income between the countries is stated directly within the regulations – time basis. Id. Here, the IRS offers two choices to the employees: allocation based on specific number of days working in the United States versus separate time periods.

Under the “number of days” variation, the employee adds together the number of days worked in the United States and the number of days worked in a foreign country, figures out the percentages for each country and sources the income according to the percentage allocation. Treas. Reg. §1.861-4(b)(2)(ii)(F).

Under the “time periods” variation, a tax year is split into distinct time periods: one where employee spends all of his time in the United States and one where employee spends all of his time in a foreign country. The compensation paid in the first period is allocated entirely to the United States, whereas the salary paid in the second time period is considered to be foreign-source income. Id.

Employment Income Sourcing: Multi-Year Compensation

An interesting situation occurs with respect to employees with multi-year compensation contracts. A multi-year contract in this context means a situation where the “compensation that is included in the income of an individual in one taxable year but that is attributable to a period that includes two or more taxable years.” Reg. §1.861-4(b)(2)(ii)(F).

Generally, the employment income sourcing in this case occurs in the following manner: (1) employee first aggregates his total contract compensation for the entire year; (2) then, the employee sums up all of the days worked in the United States and all of the days worked in a foreign country for the period covered by the multi-year contract; and (3) the employee sources the income to the United States based on the number of days worked in the United States vis-a-vis the total number of days worked under the contract; the rest of the income is considered foreign-source income. Id. While this approach is specifically described in the regulations, the regulations also generally refer to the “time basis” allocation. Hence, it appears that an employee may have a choice between the “number of days” approach that was just described and the “time periods” variation.

Employment Income Sourcing: Alternative Basis Sourcing

Employees have the right to disregard completely the time basis approach to employment income sourcing and adopt an alternative basis approach. Treas. Reg. §1.861-4(b)(2)(ii)(C)(1)(i).  An employee can do so as long as he is able to establish that “under the facts and circumstances of the particular case, the alternative basis more properly determines the source of the compensation than a basis described in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) or (B), whichever is applicable, of this section.” Id.

An employee is not the only person who has this right; the IRS also has the right to utilize an alternative basis for employment income sourcing “if such compensation either is not for a specific time period or constitutes in substance a fringe benefit.” Treas. Reg. §1.861-4(b)(2)(ii)(C)(1)(ii). The IRS can do so as long as the “alternative basis determines the source of compensation in a more reasonable manner than the basis used by the individual pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section.” Id.

A taxpayer does not need to obtain the IRS consent in order to use the alternative basis for employment income sourcing. He should, however, keep the records in order to be able to show how his method is better than the time basis approach. TD 9212, 70 FR 40663, 40665 (07/14/2005).

Special requirements apply to employees who received $250,000 or more in compensation and use the alternative basis for employment income sourcing. Not only must such employees answer the relevant questions on Form 1040, but they should also attach a detailed statement to their tax returns. Id. The statement must contain the following information: “(1) The specific compensation income, or the specific fringe benefit, for which an alternative method is used; (2) for each such item, the alternative method of allocation of source used; (3) for each such item, a computation showing how the alternative allocation was computed; and (4) a comparison of the dollar amount of the compensation sourced within and without the United States under both the individual’s alternative basis and the basis for determining source of compensation described in § 1.861-4(b)(2)(ii)(A) or (B).” Id.

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

If you are a US taxpayer who receives foreign-source income and/or has foreign assets, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. Our professional tax team, headed by international tax attorney, Mr. Eugene Sherayzen, has helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world with their US international tax issues. We can help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

FinCEN Form 114 and FBAR Are the Same Form | FBAR Tax Lawyers

/in , /by

In my practice, I often receive phone calls from prospective clients who treat FinCEN Form 114 and FBAR as two different forms. Of course, these are the same forms, but I have asked myself: why do so many taxpayers believe that FinCEN Form 114 and FBAR are two different forms?

The simplest answer, of course, would be that taxpayers are simply so unfamiliar with US international tax law that they do not know the form with which both titles, FinCEN Form 114 and FBAR, should be associated. There is definitely a lot of truth to this conclusion, but it does not tell the whole story.

Upon more profound exploration, I found that a significant amount of potential clients believed that either FBAR or FinCEN Form 114 was a tax form while the other form was something else. In other words, some of the taxpayers think that FinCEN Form 114 is a tax form while FBAR is not a tax form while other taxpayers believe that FBAR is a tax form while FinCEN Form 114 is something else.

After making this discovery, I realized that the very nature of FBAR is at the heart of the problem, because FBAR is not a tax form and has nothing to do with Title 26 (i.e. the Internal Revenue Code) of the United States Code. Rather, the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, FinCEN Form 114, commonly known as FBAR, was created by the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. The Bank Secrecy Act forms part of Title 31 of the United States Code. In fact, prior to September 11, 2001, the IRS had almost nothing to do with FBAR.

It was only after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States when the Congress decided to turn over the enforcement of FBAR to the IRS. Initially, the official purpose was to facilitate the Treasury Department’s fight against terrorism. Within a year, though, it became clear that the IRS would use FBAR in its fight against offshore tax evasion and other noncompliance with US international tax laws.

Using the draconian FBAR penalty structure (at that time, the form was still called TD F 90-22.1) against noncompliant US taxpayers turned out to be a highly effective intimidation tool for the IRS – a tool which works very well even today. Once the Treasury Department mandated the e-filing of FBARs, the name of FBAR was changed from TD F 90-22.1 to FinCEN Form 114.

Thus, the confusion over the relationship between FinCEN Form 114 and FBAR stems from FBAR’s peculiar legal history. Most of US taxpayers do not know any of it; they are simply confused by the fact that the IRS is enforcing a form that has two names and which has nothing to do with the Internal Revenue Code.