taxation law services

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. 

First Colombia-US Tax Treaty is Almost Ready | International Tax Lawyer

/0 Comments/in , /by

The first Colombia-US Tax Treaty nears the final stage of negotiations. This announcement was made on September 28, 2016, in Bogota, Colombia, by Colombian Finance Minister Mauricio Cardenas and U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew (the details of the meeting were published on the Colombian president’s website).

Despite the fact that United States and Colombia already signed a tax information exchange agreement on March 30, 2001, the two countries still do not have an income tax treaty that would protect its citizens and business from the effect of double-taxation.

There are a lot of expectations that the first Colombia-US Tax Treaty will benefit individuals and business in both countries. “La negociación de un tratado de doble tributación entre Colombia y Estados Unidos está cerca del fin, esperemos avanzar para lograr algo que los empresarios colombianos y los empresarios norteamericanos desean, al igual que muchos colombianos que dividen sus actividades entre los dos países”, said Mr. Cárdenas.

It is also possible that, upon ratification of the first Colombia-US Tax Treaty the Colombians who live in the United States and have businesses in Colombia will finally be able to benefit from the long-term capital gains tax rates that apply to qualified foreign dividends.

Of course, there is a still a long way to go for the first Colombia-US Tax Treaty. Even after the negotiations are successfully concluded and finalized, the first Colombia-US Tax Treaty will need to be signed and ratified by both countries before it enters into force. While it is reasonable to expect a relatively fast ratification in Colombia, the United States is a completely different story. Treaties can languish in the United States Senate for years before they are even considered.

Furthermore, Mr. Cárdenas and Mr. Lew may not have sufficient time to conclude the current negotiations. Before they may be done, a new president may be elected in the United States and he may take a different to negotiating with Colombia. If this happens, the conclusion of the negotiations and the ratification of the first Colombia-US Tax Treaty may be postponed even further into the future.

Sherayzen Law Office will continue to observe the situation surrounding the first Colombia-US Tax Treaty.

France Asks Switzerland for Names of UBS Accountholders

/0 Comments/in , /by

This is an international tax lawyer news update: on September 26, 2016, Swiss tax officials confirmed that France asked Switzerland to provide the names of the holders of more than 45,000 UBS bank accounts. The request covers years 2006-2008.

Le Parisien newspaper, which first published extracts from the French request that the combined balance in the affected accounts exceeded CHF 11 billion (around $ 11.4 billion.). Le Parisien, which did not disclose how it gained access to the letter, also said the French authorities were able to identify the holders of 4,782 accounts.

The French request came to light after, on September 12th 2016, the Swiss Supreme Court over-ruled the lower court’s rejection of a similar request from the Netherlands for financial details of Dutch residents with accounts at UBS. Despite the Netherlands’ success, doubts still remain about the viability of the French request due to the fact that article 28 of the France-Switzerland tax treaty of 1967, as modified in 2010, provides that accounts that were closed before 2010 are not covered by the agreement and, therefore, should not be subject to information exchange.

4th Quarter 2016 Underpayment and Overpayment Interest Rates

/0 Comments/in , /by

On September 14, 2016, the IRS announced that the 4th Quarter 2016 underpayment and overpayment interest rates will remain the same.  This means that, the 4th quarter 2016 IRS underpayment and overpayment interest rates will be as follows:

four (4) percent for overpayments (two (3) percent in the case of a corporation);
four (4) percent for underpayments;
six (6) percent for large corporate underpayments; and
one and one-half (1.5) percent for the portion of a corporate overpayment exceeding $10,000.

Under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), the interest rates are determined on a quarterly basis; for taxpayers other than corporations, the overpayment and underpayment rate is the federal short-term rate plus 3 percentage points. Generally, in the case of a corporation, the underpayment rate is the federal short-term rate plus 3 percentage points and the overpayment rate is the federal short-term rate plus 2 percentage points. The rate for large corporate underpayments is the federal short-term rate plus 5 percentage points. The rate on the portion of a corporate overpayment of tax exceeding $10,000 for a taxable period is the federal short-term rate plus one-half (0.5) of a percentage point.

The IRS underpayment rates are especially important for US taxpayers who participate in the OVDP or a voluntary disclosure under the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures. This is the case because the IRS underpayment rates are used to calculate the interest charged on any tax due as well as PFIC interest (default Section 1291 PFICs) on any excess distributions.

The IRS interest rates remained at 3% for from the 4th quarter of 2011 through the first quarter of 2016. However, in the second quarter of 2016, the IRS raised the interest rates from 3% to 4% following the increase of the federal short-term rate. The recent 4th Quarter 2016 IRS rates remain the same as in the second and third quarters of 2016. However, the situation may change in the 1st quarter of 2017 if the Federal Reserve raises its rates either in September or December of 2016.

Ignorance of the Law and Reasonable Cause Exception

/0 Comments/in , /by

Ignorance of the Law forms part of a much broader Reasonable Cause Exception which is almost a universal defense against the imposition of IRS civil penalties. Ignorance of the Law is often utilized as a defense against the US international tax information return penalties, including penalties envisioned under FBAR, Form 8938, Form 5471, Form 8865, et cetera. In this article, I would like provide a general description for the Ignorance of the Law defense.

It is important to remember that the application of the Ignorance of the Law defense depends on the specific circumstances of your case and nothing in this article should be interpreted as a legal advice. Rather, you need the help of an experienced tax attorney to determine whether the Ignorance of Law defense applies to your case.

Ignorance of the Law Defense Legal Test

Ignorance of the Law may provide the basis for an effective reasonable cause defense in situations where a taxpayer does no know about his obligations to comply with a tax requirement in question and/or pay taxes. However, the ignorance by itself is not sufficient to establish a reasonable cause; other circumstances must be reviewed in order to determine whether all or the requirements of this defense’s legal test are satisfied.

The legal test for the Ignorance of the Law defense requires that three requirements are satisfied in order the for taxpayer’s conduct to satisfy the reasonable cause exception:

1). The taxpayer was not aware of the tax requirement in question;

2). The taxpayer could not reasonably be expected to know of the requirement; and

3). The taxpayer’s conduct satisfied the “ordinary business care and prudence” standard.

Oftentimes, the second and the third requirement are blended into the same analysis. This is why I now turn to the examination of the ordinary business care and prudence standard for the purposes of the Ignorance of the Law defense.

Ignorance of the Law and Ordinary Business Care and Prudence Standard

Ordinary Business Care and Prudence Standard is a requirement present in all reasonable cause defenses. With respect to the Ignorance of the Law defense, the ordinary business care and prudence standard requires that a taxpayer acts in good faith, reasonably and attempts to determine his tax obligations. This means all of the relevant circumstances must be reviewed before the determination is made whether the taxpayer’s conduct satisfied the ordinary business care and prudence standard.

The precise circumstances that need to be considered depend on the particular facts of a case. Some of the common factors include: the taxpayer’s education, his tax advisors (including what information the taxpayer supplied to his tax advisors, whether he has been previously subject the tax at issue, whether he has filed the tax forms in question before, whether he has been penalized before with respect to the issue at hand, whether there any changes to the tax forms or tax law (which the taxpayer could not reasonably be expected to know), the level of complexity of the issue in question, et cetera.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help with Your Ignorance of the Law Reasonable Cause Defense

If you were penalized by the IRS with respect to a tax requirement and you did not know about this requirement, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional and experienced legal help. We have helped taxpayers around the world to successfully reduce and even entirely eliminate penalties based on the reasonable cause defense that often stemmed from our clients’ ignorance of relevant tax requirements. We can also help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!