international-tax-lawyer

Brazilian Mutual Funds: US Tax Obligations | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

It is a common, almost default practice in Brazil to invest in Brazilian mutual funds. While this practice is perfectly innocent for majority of Brazilians, it may present a huge compliance issue for Brazilians who are also US taxpayers. The problem is that this type of an investment draws at least two important US tax reporting requirements – FBAR and Form 8621. In this article, I will provide a broad overview of each of these requirements concerning Brazilian mutual funds.

Brazilian Mutual Funds: FBAR Reporting

FinCEN Form 114, the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, commonly known as “FBAR”, is undoubtedly the most important requirement that applies to US taxpayers with Brazilian mutual funds. As long they meet the filing threshold, US taxpayers are required to disclose all of their Brazilian mutual funds on FBAR.

The threshold is very easy to meet for two reasons. First, it is very low, just $10,000. Second, this threshold is determined by taking the calendar-year highest balances of all of the taxpayer’s foreign accounts and adding them all up. Sometimes, this results in significant over-reporting of a person’s actual balances, which easily satisfies the FBAR reporting threshold.

What makes FBAR compliance so important is its draconian penalty system. FBAR noncompliance may result in severe noncompliance penalties, even criminal penalties. The 2024 Civil FBAR Penalties and the IRS FBAR Tax Lawyer & Attorney willful penalties are huge and are imposed on a per-account basis. Even if the taxpayer did not know about the existence of FBAR, the IRS may still impose large non-willful FBAR penalties.

Brazilian Mutual Funds: Form 8621 PFIC Reporting

The biggest practical problem with Brazilian mutual funds, however, lies in the fact that all of these funds are classified as Passive Foreign Investment Companies or PFICs under US international tax law. This is bad news for US taxpayers, because being an owner of a PFIC means a substantial tax compliance burden, especially under the default IRC Section 1291 rules.

There are four PFIC problems that make PFIC tax compliance so burdensome to US owners of foreign mutual funds. First, the PFIC tax and PFIC interest can be substantial. Moreover, since PFIC tax and PFIC interest are calculated independent of a taxpayer’s actual tax bracket, a taxpayer with Brazilian mutual funds may see a significant rise in his US tax liability. It may occur even in a situation where a taxpayer may not otherwise owe any tax to the IRS. This fact may also be significant in the context of an offshore voluntary disclosure.

Second, PFIC calculations may be very complex and expensive. The professional fees for PFIC calculations may easily outstrip all other professional fees related to other aspects of your US tax compliance.

Third, the actual disclosure of PFIC income occurs on Form 8621 before it is entered into your personal or business tax return. This information return must be filed with your US tax return. Unfortunately, since the vast majority of tax software programs (consumer and professional) do not support Form 8621 compliance, it is very likely that you will not be able to e-file your US tax return; rather, you may have to mail it.

Finally, Form 8621 is a very obscure requirement known mostly to a handful of US tax professionals who specialize in US international tax compliance (such as Sherayzen Law Office). This means that your local tax accountants are unlikely to be able to do PFIC calculations. Rather, in order to stay in full US tax compliance, you will have to secure help from someone among a very small number of PFIC specialists, like Mr. Eugene Sherayzen of Sherayzen Law Office, that exist in the United States.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With US Tax Reporting of Your Brazilian Mutual Funds

If you are a US owner of Brazilian mutual funds, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional assistance. We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers resolve their US tax compliance issues concerning foreign mutual funds, including Brazilian mutual funds, and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Indian Mutual Funds & US Person’s Tax Obligations | International Tax Attorney

/in , /by

After having handled so many offshore voluntary disclosures for my Indian and Indian-American clients, I can clearly see that US tax reporting obligations concerning Indian mutual funds is one of the most troublesome areas for my clients. In this article, I will focus on the three most important US tax reporting requirements that may be applicable to US taxpayers with Indian mutual funds – FBAR, FATCA Form 8938 and Form 8621.

Indian Mutual Funds: FBAR Reporting

The first and most important requirement that applies to US taxpayers with Indian mutual funds is FinCEN Form 114, the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, commonly known as “FBAR”. As long they meet the filing threshold, US taxpayers are required to disclose all of their Indian mutual funds on FBAR.

FBAR is a very dangerous form. On the one hand, it is very easy to fall into noncompliance with this form due to its very low filing threshold – just $10,000. Moreover, this threshold is determined by taking the calendar-year highest balances of all of the taxpayer’s foreign accounts (even if these accounts are located in another country in addition to India) and adding them all up. Sometimes, this results in significant over-reporting of a person’s actual balances, which easily satisfies the FBAR reporting threshold.

On the other hand, FBAR has the most severe noncompliance penalties among all information returns concerning foreign asset disclosure. Its penalties range from non-willful penalties (i.e. potentially a situation where a person simply did not know about FBAR’s existence) to extremely high civil willful penalties and even criminal penalties. In other words, in certain circumstances, FBAR noncompliance may result in actual jail time.

Indian Mutual Funds: FATCA Form 8938

When it comes to the FATCA Form 8938 compliance, a taxpayer with Indian mutual funds will find it fairly easy as long as he correctly files his Forms 8621 (see below) and indicates on Form 8938 how many of these forms were filed with the tax return. This ease of reporting is meant to alleviate double-reporting of foreign mutual funds on a US tax return.

It is important to emphasize three points with respect to Form 8938 compliance for taxpayers with Indian mutual funds. First, even if you file Forms 8621, Form 8938 must still be attached to your tax return as long as you meet the relevant filing threshold (and the assets listed on Forms 8621 must be counted toward the threshold). Failure to file a Form 8938 may still draw a penalty in these circumstances and keep the statute of limitations open on your entire US tax return.

Second, Form 8938 and Form 8621 compliance does not in any way affect your obligation to file FBARs. This is the case even if this means that the same assets are reported three times.

Third, unlike FBAR, Form 8938 comes with a third-party FATCA verification mechanism. Under FATCA, the IRS should receive foreign-account information not only from taxpayers who file Forms 8938, but also from their foreign financial institutions. This means that it is much easier for the IRS to identify Form 8938 (and thereby Form 8621) noncompliance than that of FBAR. It also means that a Form 8938 noncompliance may have a higher chance to be investigated and penalized by the IRS.

Indian Mutual Funds: Form 8621 PFIC Reporting

We now come to the most critical difference in US tax compliance between foreign mutual funds and most other foreign assets. All foreign mutual funds, including the funds incorporated in India, are classified as PFICs or Passive Foreign Investment Companies under US international tax law.

While I will not explain here the complex PFIC calculations and the various PFIC elections that may be available to a US taxpayer with foreign mutual funds, I wish to discuss four most important points concerning PFIC compliance.

First, pursuant to the worldwide income reporting requirement, all US tax residents must calculate and disclose their PFIC income on their US tax returns. This is a significant compliance burden as PFIC calculations can be very complex and expensive. The professional fees for PFIC calculations may easily outstrip all other professional fees related to other aspects of your US tax compliance.

Second, since PFIC tax and PFIC interest are calculated independent of a taxpayer’s actual tax bracket, a taxpayer with Indian mutual funds may see a significant rise in his US tax liability. It may occur even in a situation where a taxpayer may not otherwise owe any tax to the IRS. This fact may be especially significant in a voluntary disclosure context.

Third, the actual disclosure of PFIC income occurs on Form 8621 before it is entered into your personal or business tax return. This information return must be filed with your US tax return. Unfortunately, since the vast majority of tax software programs (consumer and professional) do not support Form 8621 compliance, it is very likely that you will not be able to e-file your US tax return; rather, you may have to mail it.

Finally, Form 8621 is a very obscure requirement known mostly to a handful of US tax professionals who specialize in US international tax compliance (such as Sherayzen Law Office). This means that the majority of US taxpayers are not even aware of the fact that they need to comply with their Form 8621 reporting obligations. In other words, they believe themselves to be in compliance with US tax laws even though, in reality, they are not. Thus, the obscurity and complexity of Form 8621 pushes many US taxpayers into tax noncompliance.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With US Tax Reporting of Your Indian Mutual Funds

If you are a US taxpayer with Indian mutual funds, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers with foreign mutual funds, including Indian mutual funds, to resolve their past FBAR, FATCA and PFIC noncompliance, and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

The Tinkov Case: Concealment of Foreign Assets During Expatriation

/in , /by

On March 5, 2020, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that Mr. Oleg Tinkov was arrested in London in connection with an indictment concerning concealment of about $1 billion in foreign assets and the expatriation income in connection with these assets. Let’s discuss the Tinkov case in more detail.

The Tinkov Case: Alleged Facts

According to the indictment, Oleg Tinkov was the indirect majority shareholder of a branchless online bank that provided its customers with financial and bank services. The indictment alleges that, as a result of an initial public offering (IPO) on the London Stock Exchange in 2013, Tinkov beneficially owned more than $1 billion worth of the bank’s shares. He allegedly owned these shares through a British Virgin Island (“BVI”) structure.

The indictment further alleges that three days after the IPO, Mr. Tinkov renounced his U.S. citizenship or expatriated. Expatriation is a taxable event subject to the expatriation tax. As a an expatriated individual, Mr. Tinkov should have reported to the IRS the gain from the constructive sale of his worldwide assets and pay the expatriation tax on such a gain to the IRS. Yet, he allegedly never did it.

Instead, Mr. Tinkov filed an allegedly false 2013 tax return with the IRS that reported income of less than $206,000. Moreover, the IRS further alleges that he filed a false 2013 Initial and Annual Expatriation Statement reporting that his net worth was $300,000.

The Tinkov Case: Potential Noncompliance Penalties

If convicted, Mr. Tinkov faces a maximum sentence of three years in prison on each count. He also faces a period of supervised release, restitution, and monetary penalties. Other penalties (including Form 5471, Form 8938 and FBAR penalties) may be imposed.

The Tinkov Case: Presumption of Innocence

The readers should remember that an indictment is a mere allegation that crimes have been committed. The defendant (in this case, Mr. Tinkov) is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Tinkov Case: Lessons from This Case

The Tinkov Case offers a number of useful lessons concerning US international tax compliance, particularly U.S. expatriation tax laws. Let’s concentrate on the three most important lessons.

First, a U.S. citizen or a long-term U.S. permanent resident must carefully consider all tax consequences of expatriation. Such a taxpayer must engage in careful, detailed tax planning prior to expatriation. Mr. Tinkov did not do such planning and renounced his U.S. citizenship merely three days before the IPO. By that time, the value of his assets was already easily established beyond reasonable dispute.

Second, one must be very careful and accurate with one’s disclosure to the IRS. Mr. Tinkov’s 2013 U.S. tax return and the Expatriation Statement contained information vastly different from the one that the IRS was able to acquire during its investigation. It is no wonder that the IRS concluded that he willfully filed false returns to the IRS, especially since it does not appear that his submissions to the IRS attempted to explain the gap between the returns and the information that IRS had or acquired later during an investigation.

Finally, expatriation cases involving sophisticated tax structures, especially those incorporated in an offshore tax-free jurisdiction, are likely to face a closer scrutiny and even a criminal investigation by the IRS. We have seen the confirmation of this fact in many cases already. In this case, Mr. Tinkov’s BVI corporation, which protected his indirect ownership of his online bank, was a huge red flag. His attorneys should have predicted that this structure alone would invite an IRS investigation of his expatriation.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With Your U.S. International Tax Compliance and Offshore Voluntary Disclosures

If you are a U.S. taxpayer with assets in a foreign country, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with your U.S. international tax compliance. If you have already violated U.S. international tax laws concerning disclosure of your foreign assets, foreign income or expatriation, then you need to secure help as soon as possible to conduct an offshore voluntary disclosure to lower your IRS penalties.

We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the globe with their U.S. international tax compliance and offshore voluntary disclosures. We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

§318 Entity-Member Attribution Summary | International Tax Lawyer

/in , /by

In a previous article, I discussed the IRC (Internal Revenue Code) §318 sidewise attribution limitation. This limitation was the last piece in the jigsaw puzzle of the §318 entity-member attribution rules; now, we are ready to summarize these rules in light of this exception. This is the purpose of this article – state the §318 Entity-Member Attribution summary.

§318 Entity-Member Attribution Summary: Definition of Member

For the purpose of this §318 Entity-Member Attribution summary, I am using the word “member” to describe partners, shareholders and beneficiaries.

§318 Entity-Member Attribution Summary: Limitations

This summary of §318 entity-member attribution rules is limited only to situations where a member owns at 50% of the value of stock (in case of a corporation) and a beneficiary of a trust does not hold a remote and contingent interest in a trust. The readers need to keep these limitations in mind as they apply the summary below to a particular fact pattern.

Moreover, the readers must remember that this summary of the §318 Entity-Member attribution rules may be altered when one applies it within the context of a specific tax provision. Hence, the readers must check for any modification of these §318 attribution rules contained in that specific tax provision.

§318 Entity-Member Attribution Summary

Now that we understand the limitations above, we can state the following summary of the §318 Entity-Member attribution rules:

  1. All corporate stock is attributed to an entity from its member irrespective of whether the member owns this stock actually or constructively;
  2. If corporate stock is attributed from an entity to its member, such attribution will be done on a proportionate basis; and
  3. The following corporate stock is attributed from an entity to its member on a proportionate basis:
    (a). Corporate stock which the entity actually owns;
    (b). Corporate stock which the entity constructively owns under the option rules; and
    (c). Corporate stock which the entity constructively owns because it is a member of some other entity.

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

US international tax law is incredibly complex and the penalties for noncompliance are exceptionally severe. This means that an attempt to navigate through the maze of US international tax laws without assistance of an experienced professional will most likely produce unfavorable and even catastrophic results.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with US international tax law. We are a highly experienced, creative and ethical team of professionals dedicated to helping our clients resolve their past, present and future US international tax compliance issues. We have helped clients with assets in over 70 countries around the world, and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Family Re-Attribution Limitation Under §318 | International Tax Lawyers

/in , /by

This article explores the second limitation on the IRC (Internal Revenue Code) §318 re-attribution rule – family re-attribution limitation.

Family Re-Attribution Limitation: General §318 Re-Attribution Rule

The general §318 re-attribution rule states that a constructively-owned corporate stock should be treated as actually owned for the purpose of further re-attribution of stock to other persons. §318(a)(5)(A). This re-attribution should occur with respect to other persons considered related persons under §318.

As I stated in another article, unless checked, the general §318 re-attribution rule may ultimately cause persons completely unrelated to the actual owners of corporate stock to be considered as constructive owners of this stock. For this reason, the IRS imposed a number of limitations on this re-attribution rule. One of the limitations concerns specifically §318 family attribution rules.

Family Re-Attribution Limitation: No Family Re-Attribution

Under §318(a)(5)(B), corporate stock constructively owned by a person pursuant to the §318 family attribution rules is not considered as owned by this person for the purpose of re-attributing stock ownership to another family member.

This rule is clear: stock attributed to one family member cannot be re-attributed for the second time to another family member. The idea of this rule is also very clear – to prevent re-attribution of stock to remote family members.

Family Re-Attribution Limitation: Examples

Let’s look at a couple of hypothetical examples to gain deeper understanding of the family re-attribution limitation.

First hypothetical: grandfather GF owns 100 shares of X corporation. Under the family attribution rules, this ownership is attributed to GF’s son, A. However, due to §318(a)(5)(B), this constructively-owned stock cannot be attributed for the second time to A’s wife and A’s son.

Second hypothetical: X, a C-corporation has 200 shares outstanding; A owns 100 shares, S (A’s son) owns 40 shares and D (A’s daughter) owns 60 shares. Under §318(a)(1)(A)(ii): A actually owns 100 shares and constructively owns his children’s 100 shares; S actually owns 40 shares and constructively owns his mother’s 100 shares; D actually owns 60 shares and constructively owns her mother’s 100 shares.

However, due to the re-attribution limitations under §318(a)(5)(B), the shares A constructively owns are not re-attributed from one child to another. Hence, 40 shares of S are not re-attributed to D through their father’s constructive ownership of shares actually owned by S. Similarly, D’s 60 shares are not re-attributed to S through A’s constructive ownership of D’s shares.

Family Re-Attribution Limitation: Interaction with the §318 Option Attribution Rule

It is important to understand that §318(a)(5)(B) does not per se prohibit the re-attribution of stock to another family member. Rather, this re-attribution limitation only applies to stock constructively owned under the §318 family attribution rules. However, the stock may still be re-attributed to another family member through the operation of another rule such as the §318 option attribution rule.

The most prominent example of such a situation is situations where ownership of stock is imputed under both §318 family attribution rule and §318 option attribution rule at the same time. Under §318(a)(5)(D), if a stock is attributed under both, §318 family attribution rules and §318 option attribution rules, then the option rules take priority. This means that, if both rules apply, the option rule governs and the person is deemed to own stock under the option rule rather than under the family rule.

In situations where corporate stock is deemed to be owned under both, family and option attribution rules, the option rule will allow the re-attribution of stock to another family member. In such cases, §318(a)(5)(B) is powerless to stop the application of re-attribution due to the precedence of the option rules.

Family Re-Attribution Limitation: Example of the Option Rule Family Re-Attribution

Let’s look at an example to illustrate the §318 option attribution rule and the §318 family attribution rules interaction with respect to family re-attribution limitation. Let’s suppose that S, son of F, directly owns 100 shares of X, a C-corporation; F has an option to buy all 100 shares from S; D, F’s daughter and S’ sister, does not actually own any shares of X or a contract to buy any shares of X. The issue is whether D is deemed to own any shares of X.

F constructively owns all of his son’s shares of X under the family attribution rules and the option attribution rules. Normally, no shares would be attributed to D due to the family re-attribution limitations, but, in this case, F actually owns an option to buy all 100 shares. The option attribution rule holds preeminence over the family re-attribution limitation. Hence, F is deemed to own S’ shares under the option rule first and foremost; as a consequence, these shares are then re-attributed to D. Thus, D is treated as an owner of all of S’ 100 shares of X.

Family Re-Attribution Limitation: Advanced Summary of Family Attribution Rules

Now that we have a more advanced understanding of the family attribution rules and the limits placed on the family re-attribution limitations, we can modify our earlier definition of the §318 family attribution rules in the following manner: where A and B are family members within the meaning of §318(a)(1), A is deemed to own: (1) all corporate stocks actually owned by B; (2) all corporate stocks constructively owned by B under the §318 option attribution rules; and (3) all stocks constructively owned by B pursuant to §318(a)(2) – i.e. due to the fact that he is a beneficiary of a trust, a partner in a partnership or a shareholder of a corporation.

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

US international tax law is incredibly complex and the penalties for noncompliance are severe. This means that an attempt to navigate through the maze of US international tax laws without assistance of an experienced professional will most likely produce unfavorable and even catastrophic results.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with US international tax law. We are a highly experienced, creative and ethical team of tax professionals dedicated to helping our clients resolve US international tax compliance issues. Led by our founder, Mr. Eugene Sherayzen (an international tax attorney), we have helped hundreds of clients with assets in over 70 countries around the world, and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!