International Tax Attorney Minnesota Minneapolis

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.

Guilty Plea for Failure to Report Income from Undeclared UBS Account

/0 Comments/in , /by

On October 20, 2014, the Justice Department and the IRS announced that Menashe Cohen pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire to filing a false federal income tax return for tax year 2009. In addition, Mr. Cohen has agreed to resolve his civil liability for failure to report his financial interest in the undeclared UBS account on a FBAR by paying a 50 percent civil penalty to the IRS based on the high balance of his ownership of the undeclared UBS account.

Main Facts of the Case

According to court documents, Mr. Cohen, an oriental carpet dealer, and his sister maintained an undeclared UBS account in Switzerland that had a balance of approximately $1.3 million. Mr. Cohen also maintained bank accounts in Israel and in Jersey, a British Crown dependency located in the Channel Islands off the coast of Normandy, France. It appears that the defendant did report the Israeli and Jersey account on his 2009 FBAR, but he failed to report his financial interest in the undeclared UBS account in Switzerland. In total, for tax years 2006 through 2009, Cohen failed to report approximately $170,000 in income earned from offshore bank accounts.

The actual guilty plea, however, is related only to the 2009 tax return where Mr. Cohen reported only $350 in interest income, when in fact he had received approximately $66,500 in interest from his undeclared UBS account.

Mr. Cohen faces a statutory potential maximum sentence of three years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 at his January 26, 2015, sentencing.

Case Highlights

Mr. Cohen’s case is actually quite troubling because it involves a criminal pursuit of an owner with an undeclared UBS account even though many of the usual criminal facts are not present in the case.

There was no complex tax planning with an intention to conceal the ownership of the undeclared UBS account. The balance on the undeclared UBS account is on the milder side ($1.3 million is not a small amount of money, but the criminal cases tend to concentrate in the amount higher than $3 million); in this case, half of the undeclared UBS account was not even owned by Mr. Cohen, but his sister. Finally, the under-reported amount of interest from the undeclared UBS account was not such a large amount as to normally warrant criminal prosecution.

It appears that two factors steered this case toward criminal prosecution. First, partial FBAR reporting – the fact that Mr. Cohen reported two out of three accounts gave rise to the inference that he acted willfully with respect to his undeclared UBS account.

Second, it appears that the under-reporting of income might have involved all three accounts, not just the undeclared UBS account. If this was the case, then it might have a been a contributory factor in favor of the prosecution as well.

The Importance of the Case to Other Taxpayers With Undeclared Foreign Accounts

Mr. Cohen’s case with respect to his undeclared UBS account contains a strong warning to other US taxpayers with undeclared foreign accounts – it appears that the IRS is now willing to prosecute cases involving lower dollar amounts than in the past. While an undeclared UBS account has its special negative connotations in US tax enforcement, it does appear that there is a growing trend toward criminal prosecution of under-reported foreign income as long as the IRS is comfortable with being able to establish willfulness with respect to FBAR non-reporting.

This means that the taxpayers with balances under $1 million on their undeclared foreign accounts should not take the risk of criminal prosecution lightly. The exact probability of a criminal prosecution should be determined by an international tax lawyer based on the particular facts of a taxpayer’s case.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help with the Voluntary Disclosure of Your Foreign Accounts

If you have undeclared foreign accounts, you should contact Sherayzen Law Office for legal and tax help. We are a team of highly experienced tax professionals who will thoroughly analyze, determine the proper path of your voluntary disclosure, and prepare all of the necessary legal and tax documents. Once your voluntary disclosure is filed, our international tax firm will be there to defend your case against the IRS.

Contact Us Now to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation.

Treatment of Business Profits under the Canada-US Tax Treaty

/0 Comments/in , /by

In this article we will briefly examine the treatment of the business profits of a resident of a contracting State under the Canada-US Income Tax Convention, and the important definition of a “permanent establishment” for purposes of determining the potential taxability of income of such profits.

This article is intended to provide informative material for US taxpayers involved with US-Canada cross-border businesses, and is not intended to constitute tax or legal advice. Please contact the experienced international tax law firm of Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. for issues involving the Canada-US Tax Treaty.

Business Profits under the Canada-US  Tax Treaty

Under the US-Canada Tax Treaty, the business profits of a resident of a Contracting State, “[S]hall be taxable only in that State unless the resident carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein.” (See the definition of “permanent establishment” in next section). Hence, if the resident of a Contracting State carries on, or has carried on, such business, then the business profits of the resident may be taxed in the other State but only to the extent attributable to the permanent establishment.

In determining the business profits of a permanent establishment, certain deductions incurred for the purposes of the permanent establishment, such as executive and general administrative expenses (whether in the State in which the permanent establishment is situated, or elsewhere) may be allowed. However, under the Canada-US Tax Treaty, a Contracting State is not required to allow the deduction of an expenditure which is not generally deductible under the taxation laws of such State.

Additionally, the Canada-US Tax Treaty states that “no business profits shall be attributed to a permanent establishment of a resident of a Contracting State by reason of the use thereof for either the mere purchase of goods or merchandise or the mere provision of executive, managerial or administrative facilities or services for such resident.”

Definition of Permanent Establishment under the Canada-US Tax Treaty

Article V of the Canada-US Tax Treaty provided the original definition of the term “permanent establishment”. As stated in the Canada-US Tax Treaty, the term is defined to mean “[a] fixed place of business through which the business of a resident of a Contracting State is wholly or partly carried on.” Under the Canada-US Tax Treaty, permanent establishment includes: (a) a place of management; (b) a branch; (c) an office; (d) a factory; (e) a workshop; and (f) a mine, an oil or gas well, a quarry or any other place of extraction of natural resources. Furthermore, a building site or construction or installation project constitutes a permanent establishment provided that it lasts more than 12 months. In addition, “A person acting in a Contracting State on behalf of a resident of the other Contracting State other than an agent of an independent status to whom paragraph 7 applies shall be deemed to be a permanent establishment in the first-mentioned State if such person has, and habitually exercises in that State, an authority to conclude contracts in the name of the resident.” (Please see Article V of the Canada-US Tax Treaty for more specific examples of a “permanent establishment”).

The Fifth Protocol (the “Protocol”) to the Canada-US Tax Treaty, signed in September of 2007 and entered into force on December 15, 2008, further modified the definition of permanent establishment. Under the Protocol (Article 3, Paragraph 2), an “enterprise of a Contracting State” that provides services in the other Contracting State may be deemed to have a permanent establishment if it meets at least one of the following conditions:

“(a) Those services are performed in that other State by an individual who is present in that other State for a period or periods aggregating 183 days or more in any twelve-month period, and, during that period or periods, more than 50 percent of the gross active business revenues of the enterprise consists of income derived from the services performed in that other State by that individual; or (b) The services are provided in that other State for an aggregate of 183 days or more in any twelve-month period with respect to the same or connected project for customers who are either residents of that other State or who maintain a permanent establishment in that other State and the services are provided in respect of that permanent establishment.”

Further, the diplomatic notes of Annex B to the Protocol added that, “[t]he principles of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines shall apply for purposes of determining the profits attributable to a permanent establishment”.

Elimination of Article XIV of the Canada-US Tax Treaty

The Protocal had further important impact with respect to services defined as “Independent Personal Services” – Article 9 of the Protocol eliminated Article XIV of the Canada-US Tax Treaty (“Independent Personal Services”). Under previous Article XIV a resident of a Contracting State performing independent personal services in the other Contracting State could be taxed if such “individual has or had a fixed base regularly available to him in that other State but only to the extent that the income is attributable to the fixed base.” The business profits rules explained above and the various definitions of permanent establishment now determine the taxability of such cases.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for legal help with respect to Canada-US Tax Treaty

Treaty interpretation, international tax resolution and international tax planning may involve very complex issues, and it is advisable to seek the assistance of an international tax attorney in this area. This is why it is advised that you contact Sherayzen Law Office to secure professional legal help involving issues related to Canada-US Tax Treaty.

Contact Us to Schedule a Confidential Consultation Now!

FBAR Reporting of Foreign Gold and Silver Storage Accounts

/0 Comments/in , /by

There is a great deal of confusion about the reporting of foreign gold and silver storage accounts on the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR). In this article, I would like to set forth the general legal framework for the analysis of the reporting requirements for the foreign gold and silver storage accounts. However, it should be remembered that this article is for educational purposes only and it does not provide any legal advice; whether your particular foreign gold and silver accounts should be reported on the FBAR is a legal question that should be analyzed by an international tax attorney within your particular fact setting.

FBAR Background

FBAR’s official name is FinCEN Form 114 (formerly form TD F 90-22.1). Generally, the FBAR is used by US persons to report foreign bank and financial accounts whenever the aggregate balance on these accounts exceeds the threshold of $10,000. The FBAR applies to accounts which are directly, indirectly and constructively owned; it further applies to situations where a US person has signatory or other authority over a foreign account.

The above description contains numerous terms of art that have very specific meaning (even with respect to such common terms as “US person” and “accounts”). I only provide a very general definition of the FBAR here, but there is plenty of FBAR articles on sherayzenlaw.com that you can read to learn more about this requirement.

General Rule for Reporting of Foreign Gold and Silver Storage Accounts

In general, if you have a foreign gold and silver storage accounts, they are reportable on the FBAR as long as the threshold requirement is satisfied. However, as almost everything in international tax law, you have to look closely at the definition of terms. In this case, the critical issue is what situations fall within the definition of foreign gold and silver storage accounts.

What are Foreign Gold and Silver Storage Accounts?

It is important to understand that certain facts and details may play a great role in determining whether one has foreign gold and silver storage accounts – this is why it is so important to have an international tax attorney review the particular facts of your case.

Nevertheless, there are certain general legal concepts that provide helpful guidance to international tax attorneys in their FBAR analysis. The most important FBAR factors for determining whether a particular arrangement is defined as foreign gold and silver storage accounts are two interrelated concepts of “custodial relationship” and “control”.

Generally, where another person or entity has access and/or control of assets or funds on your behalf, the IRS is very likely to find that a custodial relationship exists and all such arrangements would be reportable on the FBAR as foreign gold and silver storage accounts. For example, if one buys gold and silver through BullionVault or Goldmoney (whether allocated or non-allocated), one creates foreign gold and silver storage accounts because BullionVault or Goldmoney would handle the transaction on your behalf and store the precious metals on your behalf (and, as mentioned above, even allocate your holdings to a particular gold or silver bar).

A word of caution: the IRS tends to interpret the definitions of “account” and “custodial relationship” very broadly and one must not indulge oneself with false thoughts of security because one thinks that he was able to circumvent a particular fact setting. Again, the existence of foreign gold and silver storage accounts is a legal question that should be reviewed by an experienced international tax lawyer.

Foreign Gold and Silver Storage Accounts: What about a Safe Deposit Box?

There is a situation that comes up often in my practice (particularly for clients with Australian, Hong Kong and Swiss accounts) with respect to FBAR reporting of precious metals – putting gold, silver and other precious metals in a foreign safe deposit box. There is a dangerous myth that safe deposit boxes are never reportable – this is incorrect.

In general, it is true that precious metals held in a safe deposit box are not reportable, but if and only if no account relationship exists. If there is an account relationship with respect to a safe deposit box, then it would be considered a reportable foreign gold and silver storage account for the FBAR purposes.

What does this mean? Let’s go back to the definition of a custodial relationship cited above – an account relationship exists whenever another person or entity has control of funds or assets on your behalf. If one applies this definition to a safe deposit box, then it is likely that the IRS will interpret any situation where an institution or person has access to a safe deposit box as an existence of an account. Moreover, the IRS is likely to find that foreign gold and silver storage accounts exist where an owner (direct or indirect) of the safe deposit box can instruct the institution to sell the gold from the safe deposit box.

Other Reporting Requirements May Apply to Foreign Gold and Silver Storage Accounts

It is important to mention that FBAR is just one of potential reporting requirements under US tax laws. Other reporting requirements (such as Form 8938, 8621, 5471, 8865 and so on) may apply depending on the nature of the foreign gold and silver storage accounts, form of ownership, whether a foreign entity is involved, and numerous other facts. You will need to contact an experienced international tax lawyer to determine your international tax reporting requirements under US tax laws.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help with Reporting of Foreign Gold and Silver Accounts

If you have unreported foreign gold and silver storage accounts, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. Owner Eugene Sherayzen is an experienced international tax attorney who will thoroughly analyze your case, determine the extent of your current reporting requirements and potential non-compliance liability, analyze your voluntary disclosure options, and implement the preferred legal option (including preparation of all legal documents and tax forms).

Contact Us to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation Now!

Illegal Use of Offshore Accounts in the Caribbeans: Advisor Sentenced

/0 Comments/in , /by

In an earlier article, we referred to a case where a investment advisors used offshore accounts in the Caribbeans to launder and conceal funds. On September 5, 2014, the IRS ad the DOJ announced one of these advisors, Mr. Joshua Vandyk, was sentenced to serve 30 months in prison.

Mr. Vandyk, a U.S. citizen, and Mr. Eric St-Cyr and Mr. Patrick Poulin, Canadian citizens, were indicted by a grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on March 6, and the indictment was unsealed March 12 after the defendants were arrested in Miami. Mr. Vandyk, 34, pleaded guilty on June 12, Mr. St-Cyr, 50, pleaded guilty on June 27, and Mr. Poulin, 41, pleaded guilty on July 11. St-Cyr and Poulin are scheduled to be sentenced on October 3, 2014.

According to the plea agreements and statements of facts, All three advisors conspired to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, ownership and control of $2 million (believed to be the proceeds of bank fraud) through the use of the Offshore Accounts in the Caribbeans. The Offshore Accounts in the Caribbeans are often used not only to conceal illegal funds, but also perfectly legal earnings of U.S. persons.

In addition to the use of the Offshore Accounts in the Caribbeans, the advisors assisted undercover law enforcement agents posing as U.S. clients in laundering purported criminal proceeds through an offshore structure designed to conceal the true identity of the proceeds’ owners. Moreover, Mr. Vandyk helped invest the laundered funds on the clients’ behalf and represented that the funds in the Offshore Accounts in the Caribbeans would not be reported to the U.S. government.

According to court documents, Mr. Poulin established an offshore corporation called Zero Exposure Inc. for the undercover agents and served as a nominal board member in lieu of the clients. Mr. Poulin then transferred approximately $200,000 that the defendants believed to be the proceeds of bank fraud from the offshore corporation to the Cayman Islands, where Mr. Vandyk and Mr. St-Cyr invested those funds outside of the United States in the name of the offshore corporation. The investment firm represented that it would neither disclose the investments or any investment gains to the U.S. government, nor would it provide monthly statements or other investment statements with respect to the Offshore Accounts in the Caribbeans to the clients. Clients were able to monitor their investments in the Offshore Accounts in the Caribbeans online through the use of anonymous, numeric passcodes. Upon request from the U.S. client, Mr. Vandyk and Mr. St-Cyr liquidated investments and transfered money from the Offshore Accounts in the Caribbeans, through Mr. Poulin, back to the United States.

This case is just one more example of the increased IRS international tax enforcement with respect to the Offshore Accounts in the Caribbeans.