international tax lawyers

Russian Taxation of Gifts to Nonresidents: Recent Changes

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Russian Ministry of Finance (“MOF”) recently issued Guidance Letter 03-04-06/64102 (dated October 31) regarding the taxation of gifts from Russian legal entities to nonresidents (i.e. the Russian taxation of gifts to nonresidents). This Letter will have a direct impact on the tax planning for Russians who are tax residents of the United States.

Russian Taxation of Gifts to Nonresidents: Russian-Source Gifts are Taxable

In the letter, the MOF stated that, under the Russian Tax Code Article 209, Section 2, the Russian-source income of individuals who are not tax residents of the Russian Federation is subject to the Russian income tax (the Russian tax residents are taxed on their worldwide income – i.e Russian-source and foreign-source income).

Furthermore, the MOF determined that gifts received by nonresidents from a Russian legal entity are considered to be Russian-source income. This means that these gifts are taxable beyond the exemption amount. According to Tax Code Article 217, section 28, the exemption amount is 4,000 Russian roubles per tax year. Hence, a gift from a Russian legal entity to a non-resident of Russia will be subject to the Russian individual income tax if it exceeds 4,000 rubles.

Russian Taxation of Gifts to Nonresidents: the Place of Gift Does Not Matter

It is important to emphasize that, in this situation, the sourcing of the gift is determined by the giftor – i.e. if the giftor is a Russian legal entity, the gift is considered as Russian-source income irrespective of the actual location of the place where the gift took place. For example, if a Russian legal entity gifts 10,000 rubles in Switzerland, the gift is still considered to be Russian-source income.

Russian Taxation of Gifts to Nonresidents: Tax Withholding Rules

The general rule is that the Russian legal entity who makes the gift to a nonresident is considered to be the withholding agent who is required to withhold from the gift and remit to the MOF the individual income tax due. However, the MOF specified that, if a gift is a non-monetary one or of such a nature that a tax cannot be withheld, then the entity must notify the Russian Federal Tax Service that it could not and did not withhold the tax (with the amount of the tax due). The nonresident would be responsible for the payment of the tax due in this case.

Impact of the Changes in the Russian Taxable of Gifts to Nonresidents on US Tax Residents

The Guidance Letter 03-04-06/64102 will have an important impact on the Russian tax and estate planning strategies with respect to US tax residents. One of the most common strategies for business succession and estate planning in Russia has been gifting of assets to children who were non-residents of Russia and US tax residents. The guidance letter directly impacts this strategy forcing the re-evaluation of the desirability of this entire course of action.

Form 872 Refund Claims | Foreign Accounts International Tax Lawyer

/0 Comments/in , /by

The subject of this article is the discussion of the Form 872 Refund Claims, particularly whether filing Form 872 can extend the time for the taxpayer to claim a refund for the relevant years. Stated broadly, the key question that this article seeks to explore is whether an extension of time for assessment of tax can effect the taxpayer’s ability to file a refund claim for the extended years.

Form 872 Refund Claims – Form 872 and Offshore Voluntary Disclosures

Form 872 is a form used by the IRS to obtain the consent from the taxpayer to extend the time to assess tax. This consent can be obtained for income tax, self-employment tax of FICA tax on tips.

The form is used in a great variety of cases, but, in the US international tax context, it is mostly known for its use in the IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) now closed. Form 872 is in fact obligatory in the OVDP due to the fact that the OVDP voluntary disclosure period is eight years whereas the standard statute of limitations is only three years (even with 25% gross income, there are still at least two years that cannot be opened by the IRS without claiming fraud). Moreover, Form 872 is also used to prevent the statute of limitations from expiring for the rest of the years while the OVDP case is pending.

Form 872 Refund Claims: Form 872 Extends the Statute of Limitations for Refund Claims

According to IRC §6511(c), if the taxpayer and the IRS agree to extend the time within which the IRS can assess a tax, the taxpayer receives a corresponding extension of the time within which he may file a credit or refund claim. Form 872 itself states in paragraph 4 that:

Without otherwise limiting the applicability of this agreement, this agreement also extends the period of limitations for assessing any tax (including penalties, additions to tax and interest) attributable to any partnership items (see section 6231 (a)(3)), affected items (see section 6231(a)(5)), computational adjustments (see section 6231(a)(6)), and partnership items converted to nonpartnership items (see section 6231(b)). Additionally, this agreement extends the period of limitations for assessing any tax (including penalties, additions to tax, and interest) relating to any amounts carried over from the taxable year specified in paragraph (1) to any other taxable year(s). This agreement extends the period for filing a petition for adjustment under section 6228(b) but only if a timely request for administrative adjustment is filed under section 6227. For partnership items which have converted to nonpartnership items, this agreement extends the period for filing a suit for refund or credit under section 6532, but only if a timely claim for refund is filed for such items.

Limitations on Form 872 Refund Claims

There is an important limitation on Form 872 Refund Claims. Form 872 Refund Claims will only be accepted if the extension agreement is entered into before the expiration of the claim period. See IRC §6511(c)(1). This means that, if Form 872 is entered into by the parties by the time that the statute of limitations had already expired, the taxpayer is unlikely to succeed in his Form 872 Refund Claims.

The Form 872 agreement becomes effective when signed by the taxpayer and the District Director or an Assistant Regional Commissioner (See Treas. Reg. § 301.6511(c)-1).

Let’s look at a basic example to understand this limitation on Form 872 Refund Claims better.  Let’s suppose that a taxpayer X filed his 2003 US tax return on April 15, 2004. In March of 2007, the IRS decided to audit X’s 2003 US tax return and Form 872 was entered into by both parties at that time. In this case, without an agreement (and absent other special circumstances such as foreign tax credit issues, 25% under-reporting of income, et cetera), the presumed expiration of the assessment period would be on April 15, 2007; similarly, X’s refund claim period would have expired on April 15, 2007. Since Form 872 was entered into by both parties in March of 2007 (i.e. prior to the expiration of the normal refund claim period), however, X can file his Form 872 refund claims during the period that covers the duration of the extension plus six months thereafter.

Time to File Form 872 Refund Claims

As it was hinted in the example above, the period within which a taxpayer may file a credit or refund claim arising from the tax liability covered by Form 872 is extended for the period of the extension plus an additional six months. See IRC §6511(c)(1).

What Can Be Claimed on Form 872 Refund Claims

With respect to timely Form 872 Refund Claims, the taxpayer can claim an amount limited to the amount that would have been allowable under the normal limitation rules if the claim had been filed on the date the agreement was executed AND any tax paid after the execution of the agreement but before the filing of the claim. IRC §6511(c)(2).

What is the amount allowable under the normal limitation rules? It varies widely based on for what the refund is claimed (i.e. the type of the claim) and what is the filing period. For example, if Form 872 Refund Claims are filed within the three-year filing period, the amount of the refund or credit is limited to the tax paid on the liability at issue within the three years immediately preceding the filing of the claim plus the period of any extension of time for filing the return. IRC §6511(b)(2)(A). On the other hand, Form 872 Refund Claims based on a foreign tax credit adjustment can be granted many years back because the statute of limitations is ten years.

Form 872 Cannot Reduce the Claim Period for Form 872 Refund Claims

One final point that should be mentioned is that Form 872 and any other agreement to extend the assessment period cannot reduce the refund and credit claim period. The law clearly states that, when an extension agreement is executed, the taxpayer’s claim period shall not expire before the expiration of the additional assessment period plus six months.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Your Form 872 Refund Claims

If you entered into a Form 872 agreement to extend the time to assess tax (whether as a result of OVDP, opt-out OVDP audit, FBAR Audit or regular audit) or any other type of agreement to extend the assessment period, contact Sherayzen Law Office for help with filing your Form 872 refund claims.

Totalization Agreement with Romania Progresses | Minnesota Tax Lawyer

/0 Comments/in , /by

On October 26, 2016, the Totalization Agreement with Romania entered a new stage – the government of Romania approved for signature a draft social security (also known as “Totalization”) agreement with the United States.

The Totalization Agreements are authorized by Section 233 of the Social Security Act. The United States currently has Totalization Agreements with 26 countries – Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary (the most recent addition), Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom

The purpose of a Totalization Agreement is to eliminate the burden of dual social security taxes. Such situation arise usually in the context of workers from one country working in another country while they are covered by the social security systems in both countries. In such cases, the Totalization Agreement protects the workers from paying social security taxes in both countries on the same earnings.

The Totalization Agreement with Romania is intended to benefit the Romanian workers who work in the United States and US workers who work in Romania. This is why any advance in the progress of the Totalization Agreement with Romania is of high interest to workers and businesses who work in both countries, United States and Romania.

Obviously, there is still a very long road to go for the Totalization Agreement with Romania. First, the Totalization Agreement with Romania has to be finalized (and it seems that this stage has been reached), then signed by both countries and, finally, ratified by both countries. This process, especially ratification, can take years especially if the US Congress and the new President do not see “eye to eye” on this issue. However, the obvious benefits of the Totalization Agreement with Romania should eventually pave the way to its ratification in both countries.

PATH Act and New January 31 Filing Deadline | Tax Attorney News

/0 Comments/in , /by

On October 28, 2016, the IRS reminded employers and small business owners of the new January 31, 2017 deadline as a result of the PATH Act.

PATH Act’s Impact on the Filing Deadlines for Forms W-2 and 1099-MISC

In the past, employers typically had until the end of February, if filing on paper, or the end of March, if filing electronically, to submit their copies of these forms. Starting 2017, the new strict W-2 filing deadline of January 31, 2017, will be enforced.

The reason for this change in the deadline is The Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act of 2015. According to PATH, the employers will now have one filing deadline on January 31 for both employee copies of Forms W-2 and the filing of Forms W-2 with the Social Security Administration.

Moreover the PATH Act also affects the filing deadline for certain Forms 1099-MISC, particularly those reporting amounts in Box 7, Nonemployee Compensation. These Forms 1099-MISC will now also have to be filed on January 31, 2017.

PATH Act’s Impact on Requesting Form W-2 Filing Extension

The PATH Act also has an impact on the availability of Form W-2 filing extensions. Starting 2017, only one 30-day extension to file Form W-2 will be available and this extension is no longer automatic. If an extension is necessary, a Form 8809 “Application for Extension of Time to File Information Returns” must be completed as soon as you know an extension is necessary, but no later than January 31.

PATH Act May Delay Some Refunds Until February 15

The other major impact of the PATH Act that will be felt by many Americans is the potential hold on their refunds until February 15. The PATH Act requirest the IRS to hold the refund for any tax return claiming either the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) or Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC); the IRS must hold the entire refund, not just the portion related to the EITC or ACTC.

PATH Act is Meant to Help IRS Fight Fraud and Spot Tax Return Errors

The PATH Act was enacted by Congress and signed into law in December of 2015 in order to make it easier for the IRS to detect and prevent fraud associated with tax refunds. The idea is to give the IRS more time to identify fraudulent refunds through accelerated W-2 filing deadline for employers and holding refunds (which are frequently subject to fraud) until February 15.

Of course, the additional time will allow the IRS to also spot any errors on the tax returns.

How IRS Can Get $718 Billion in Tax Revenue | International Tax Lawyer

/0 Comments/in , /by

On October 4, 2016, the US Public Interest Research Group, Citizens for Tax Justice, and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy issued a report called “Offshore Shell Games 2016: the Use of Offshore Tax Havens by Fortune 500 Companies”. The report calculates that eliminating all tax deferral on Fortune 500 US companies’ foreign earnings would allow the IRS to collect almost $718 Billion in additional US tax revenue.

Where does the Amount of $718 Billion Come From?

This amazing report targets the estimated $2.5 trillion in offshore earnings which are assumed to be mostly help by the US companies’ foreign subsidiaries in tax havens. The report calculates that the top 30 (meaning top 30 companies by the amount of offshore holdings) of the Fortune 500 companies account for two-thirds of the total, with Apple ($215 billion), Pfizer ($194 billion), and Microsoft ($124 billion) topping the list. It should be noted that some of the other estimates calculate the amount of total offshore earnings of US companies to be in excess of $5 trillion, i.e. double the amount used by the report.

The number of foreign subsidiaries owned by US multinationals is also impressive – the estimate runs as high as 55,000 subsidiaries owned just by Fortune 500 companies. The report states that, although many offshore subsidiaries do not show up in companies’ SEC filings, at least 367 of the Fortune 500 companies maintain subsidiaries in tax havens and the top 20 account for 2,509 of those entities. Subsidiaries of US multinationals reported profits of more than 100 percent of national GDP for five tax havens, including 1,313 percent for the Cayman Islands and 1,884 percent for Bermuda.

The most popular country for organizing the subsidiaries remains the Netherlands. However, Ireland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Bermuda and Cayman Islands closely follow Netherlands in terms of their popularity among US multinationals.

How is $718 Billion Calculated?

The report sets forth its methodology for the calculation of $718 Billion. In essence, the report focuses on the data from 58 Fortune 500 companies to estimate the additional tax all of the companies would owe upon repatriation of funds to the United States. The final tax rate amount to about 28.8% of the repatriated income; the rest (i.e. the difference between the 35% US statutory rate and the 28.8%) is assumed to be the foreign tax rate that the companies will be able to use as a foreign tax credit to offset their US tax liability. Once 28.8% rates is applied to $2.5 trillion, the total amount of additional tax due to the IRS by the Fortune 500 companies is estimated to be close to $718 Billion.

This methodology, however, is not without its flaws. First, as I already referenced above that the amount of funds in foreign subsidiaries may be substantially higher than the estimated $2.5 trillion. Second, the report’s assumption of 6.2% of foreign tax rate may be too generous, especially for foreign companies owned by US persons for generations; in reality, a lot of companies are able to escape all taxation on a substantial amount of their income. Hence, the $718 Billion amount may actually be an understatement.

How Does the Report Propose to Collect the $718 Billion?

The report offers three approaches to the problem of collecting the $718 billion. The first approach is deceptively simple – end all tax deferral. The problem that I see with this approach is that it essentially expands US tax jurisdiction to foreign entities (which are non-resident alien business structures) to the extent that these entities automatically become US persons as soon as any US person becomes an owner of all or any part of them. In addition to the obvious legal problems with such an approach, there is also a potential to create a real chilling effect to US activities overseas. At the very least, the proposed course of action should be modified to include only controlled foreign entities and large US corporations.

The second approach is less radical; the report suggests tighter anti-inversion rules, elimination of the check-the-box election and the elimination of aggressive tax planning through intellectual property transfers. While many of these rules may be effective to combat future aggressive tax planning, they are unlikely to influence the current IRS inability to collect the $718 billion in additional tax revenue.

Finally, the report also lends support to the Obama administration’s (which is actually not a resurrection of older proposals) tax proposal to treat as subpart F income excess profits earned by a controlled foreign corporation from US-developed intangibles. The administration’s proposal is to expand the definition of Subpart F income to all excess income taxed at 10% or less (later expanded to 15%) would be included in subpart F. While a sensible proposal, it also seems to fall short of the expected $718 billion in additional tax revenue.

Also, it seems strange that all of the proposals seems to put foreign companies owned by small US firms and those owned by large US firms on the same footing. This kind of seemingly non-discriminatory approach has had a disproportionally heavy impact on small US firms’ ability to conduct business overseas due to lower resources that small firms can devote to the same type of tax compliance as that required of the Fortune 500 companies.