Posts

International Tax Planning Priorities for US Corporations

/in , /by

Sometimes, I encounter in my practice one particularly damaging belief concerning international tax planning for US corporations that engage in cross-border transactions and maintain a foreign subsidiary or a network of foreign subsidiaries. This is a belief that international tax planning for such corporations should only focus on the reduction of its US taxes above all other considerations. I reject this one-sided view and argue for balancing of international tax planning priorities for such US corporations. In this article, I will discuss the top priorities that are subject to balancing during proper international tax planning for US corporations who operate overseas.

International Tax Planning Priorities: Tax Planning Should Correspond to Dynamic Facts

Before we outline international tax planning priorities, we need to state a rule that seems very obvious but, unfortunately, is often overlooked – tax planning must correspond to the factual situation around which the planning is done. Since a factual situation of a business is prone to rapid changes, tax planning either needs to pro-actively respond to these dynamic facts or, in cases where it is not possible, adjust to these facts as soon as possible in order to avoid a negative tax impact in the future.

This means that engaging in business transactions that spread over multiple taxing jurisdictions requires continuous tax planning, continuous monitoring of the factual background in which these transactions take place and continuous assessment of tax consequences of these activities.

This rule also means that tax planning must respond to the facts generated by the required business transaction rather than create business transactions purely to save taxes. I should point out that such purely tax-motivated schemes are also unlikely to pass judicial review.

International Tax Planning Priorities: Lower US Tax Liability

There is no question that ethically lowering US tax liability based on the opportunities and incentives present in the Internal Revenue Code is one of the most important priorities of international tax planning. As I stated above, however, this is not the only priority.

International Tax Planning Priorities: Lower Foreign Tax Liability

It is not just the US tax liability of the head office that we should be concerned about. International tax planning should also seek to lower foreign tax liability of its subsidiaries. Moreover, if lowering US tax liability comes at the cost of increasing foreign tax liability or missing an opportunity to minimize it, this outcome may not be optimal for the overall corporate structure.

International Tax Planning Priorities: Maximizing Corporate Earnings

This is a key issue that many practitioners and business owners often miss in US international tax planning. Tax planning is not only about lowering taxes at any cost. If a business is continuously losing a significant amount of money (not strategically recognizing losses, but its profits are actually reduced) because of tax planning, then such tax planning may not be worth the effort.

Effective tax planning means that a tax practitioner should coordinate tax saving efforts with business priorities. Business planning will always see to utilize corporate cash and personnel in a way that maximizes profits. Moreover, business planning will also seek to creatively allocate and move excess cash flow between corporate subsidiaries (and the head office) for the same purpose.

It is precisely the latter function of business planning that requires the most attention of international tax attorneys, because it may result in significant tax costs (which may more than offset the benefit of business planning). At the same time, tax planning must be done in such a way as to minimize the damage it can do to the business’ ability to move cash across the entire corporate structure.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for International Tax Planning Help

At Sherayzen Law Office, we understand these priorities and the need to balance them before finalizing international tax planning. We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Partnership Related Party Loss Disallowance | Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

In a series of articles concerning Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) §267, I discussed various rules concerning related party loss disallowance. In this article, I would like to focus on special rules concerning partnership related party loss disallowance.

Partnership Related Party Loss Disallowance: Main IRC Provisions

Three IRC sections are most relevant to special rules of partnership related party loss disallowance. §707(b)(1) governs the disallowance of losses with respect to transactions between a partnership and its members as well as certain transactions between partnerships with common partners. §267(a)(1) contains the main rule concerning losses on sales or exchanges between a partnership and any person other than a member of the partnership (a third party), including another partnership. Finally, there are special provisions under §267(a)(2) which are applicable to partnerships. Let’s discuss each of these provisions in more detail.

Partnership Related Party Loss Disallowance: §707(b)(1)

§707(b)(1) disallows a loss from a direct or indirect sale or exchange of property (other than a partnership interest) when such sale or exchange occurs between: “(A) a partnership and a person owning, directly or indirectly, more than 50 percent of the capital interest, or the profits interest, in such partnership, or (B) two partnerships in which the same persons own, directly or indirectly, more than 50 percent of the capital interests or profits interests.”

It is important to note that the ownership the capital or profits interest in a partnership by a partner may be direct or indirect. For example, in TAM 201737011, the IRS disallowed the losses of a hedge fund upon its transfer of securities to trading accounts owned by taxpayer who held greater than 50% interest in capital or profits of hedge fund.

Furthermore, it should be noted that §707(b)(1) incorporates §267(d) in order to mitigate the impact of loss disallowance. This means that the transferee may offset future gain on a sale or exchange of the affected property by the disallowed loss.

Partnership Related Party Loss Disallowance: Expansion of §707(b)(1) to Related Persons

Prior to 1985, §707(b)(1) applied strictly to partners. In September of 1985, the IRS dramatically expanded the application of §707(b)(1) to certain persons related to partners by incorporating the constructive ownership rules of §267(c)(1), §267(c)(2), §267(c)(4) and §267(c)(5). “Under these rules, ownership of a capital or profits interest in a partnership may be attributed to a person who is not a partner as defined in section 761(b) in order that another partner may be considered the constructive owner of such interest under section 267(c).” Treas. Reg. §1.707-1(b)(3). Note, however, that §707(b)(1)(A) does not apply to a constructive owner of a partnership interest since he is not a partner as defined in §761(b). Id.

Treas. Reg. §1.707-1(b)(3) provides an illustration of this expansion of §707(b)(1):

“For example, where trust T is a partner in the partnership ABT, and AW, A’s wife, is the sole beneficiary of the trust, the ownership of a capital and profits interest in the partnership by T will be attributed to AW only for the purpose of further attributing the ownership of such interest to A. See section 267(c) (1) and (5). If A, B, and T are equal partners, then A will be considered as owning more than 50 percent of the capital and profits interest in the partnership, and losses on transactions between him and the partnership will be disallowed by section 707(b)(1)(A). However, a loss sustained by AW on a sale or exchange of property with the partnership would not be disallowed by section 707, but will be disallowed to the extent provided in paragraph (b) of § 1.267(b)-1.”

In this context, it should be noted that the validity of Treas. Reg. §1.267(b)-1(b)(1) is currently in question. There is definitely an unsettled conflict between these regulations and the expanded version of §707(b)(1).

Partnership Related Party Loss Disallowance: Transactions Between Partnerships and Third Parties

As it was mentioned above, the IRC §267(a)(1) contains a special rule concerning losses which occur between between a partnership and a third party (i.e. someone other than a partner). Under this rule, the transaction is treated as if it happened between the third party and individual members of the partnership; this is a type of a look-through rule.

The disallowance rules of §267 govern as long as the third party and a partner are considered to be related parties under any of the relationships described in §267(b). In other words, if 267(b) applies in this context, then no deductions will be allowed with respect to transactions between the third party and the partnership “ (i) To the related partner to the extent of his distributive share of partnership deductions for losses or unpaid expenses or interest resulting from such transactions, and (ii) To the other person to the extent the related partner acquires an interest in any property sold to or exchanged with the partnership by such other person at a loss, or to the extent of the related partner’s distributive share of the unpaid expenses or interest payable to the partnership by the other person as a result of such transaction.” Treas. Reg. §1.267(b)-1(b)(1).

Partnership Related Party Loss Disallowance: Transactions Between Certain Partnerships

As a result of the Tax Reform Act of 1984, §267(a)(1) rules were expanded to disallow loss realized on transactions between certain partnerships. “Certain partnerships” include two types of partnerships.

First, partnerships that have one or more common partners. A “common partner” is a partner who owns directly, indirectly, or constructively any capital or profits interest in each of the partnerships. Treas. Reg. §1.267(a)-2T(c) Q&A-2.

Second, a situation where a partner in one partnership and one or more partners in another partnership are related parties within the meaning of §267(b). Id.

The amount of the disallowed loss is generally the greater of: (1) either the amount that would have been disallowed if the transaction had occurred between the “selling partnership and the separate partners of the purchasing partnership (in proportion to their respective interests in the purchasing partnership)”; or (2) the amount that would have been disallowed if the transaction had occurred between “the separate partners of the selling partnership (in proportion to their respective interests in the selling partnership) and the purchasing partnership.” Id. There is an exception: there will be no disallowance of loss if the disallowed amount is less than 5% of the total loss from the sale or exchange. Id.

It should be noted that §267(a)(1) also applies to S-corporations. §267(a)(1) disallows losses realized in transactions between an S corporation and its shareholder holding more than 50%-in-value of the stock.

Partnership Related Party Loss Disallowance: Deferral of a Deductible Payment Under §267(a)(2)

The Tax Reform Act of 1984 affected not only §267(a)(1), but also expanded the deferral of an otherwise deductible payment between certain partnerships under §267(a)(2). These “certain partnerships” are the same as those described in the expanded rules of §267(a)(1): (i) partnerships that have one or more common partners and (ii) a partner in one partnership and one or more partners in another partnership are related parties within the meaning of §267(b) (without §267(e) modification). See Treas. Reg. §1.267(a)-2T(c) Q&A-3.

The amount of deferred deduction is the greater of: (1) the amount that would have been deferred if the transaction that gave rise to the otherwise allowable deduction had occurred “between the payor partnership and the separate partners of the payee partnership (in proportion to their respective interests in the payee partnership)”, or (2) the amount that would have been deferred if such transaction had occurred “between the separate partners of the payor partnership (in proportion to their respective interests in the payor partnership) and the payee partnership.” Id. Similarly to 267(a)(1), there is an exception: no deferral shall occur if the amount that would be deferred is less than 5% of the otherwise allowable deduction. Id.

It should be noted that the status of some provision of the expanded §267(a)(2) is unclear at this point, because §707(b)(1) was amended in 1986 specifically in reference to §267(a)(2) income-deduction matching rules. As amended, §707(b)(1) state that partnerships in which the same persons own more than 50% of the capital interest or profits interests are treated as related under §267(b). It appears that, with respect to such partnerships, §707(b)(1) overrides the rules described in Reg. §1.267(a)-2T(c) Q&A-3.

Partnership Related Party Loss Disallowance: Additional Deferrals Under §267(a)(2)

With respect to the §267(a)(2) limitations on deductions for payment to related persons, a partnership and its members are treated as related persons under §267(e). As already described above, §707(b)(1) (last sentence) extended this rule to transactions between commonly owned partnerships.

Additionally, under §§267(e)(1)(C) and §267(e)(1)(D), a partnership and a person owning any profits or capital interest in a partnership in which the partnership also holds such an interest (and any persons related to these parties within the meaning of §707(b)(1) or §267(b)) are also related persons.

Finally, §267(a)(2) also applies to S-corporations in an almost identical way as it applies to regular partnerships: the deduction for a payment to a related person is delayed until the recipient includes the payment in his gross income. As a result of the Tax Reform Act of 1984, §267(e) treats an S-corporation and any of its shareholders (regardless of amount of stock owned) as related persons.

§§267(e)(1)(C) and §267(e)(1)(D) further expand the definition of related persons to situations where a transaction occurs between an S-corporation and a person owning any profits or capital interest in a partnership in which the S-corporation also holds such an interest (and any persons related to these parties within the meaning of §707(b)(1) or §267(b)).

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With US Tax Law Concerning Partnerships and S-Corporations

US tax law concerning partnerships and S-corporations is incredibly complex. The rules concerning the partnership related party loss disallowance is just one example of this complexity.

This is why you need the professional help of the experienced tax law firm of Sherayzen Law Office. We have helped clients throughout the United States and the world with US tax laws concerning partnerships (domestic and foreign) and S-corporations. We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

IRS Issues Guidance on Tax Treatment of Cell Phones

/in , , /by

On September 14, 2011, the Internal Revenue Service issued guidance designed to clarify the tax treatment of employer-provided cell phones.

The guidance relates to Section 2043 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, Pub.L.No. 111-240 (enacted last fall) that removed cell phones from the definition of listed property, a category under tax law that normally requires additional recordkeeping by taxpayers.

Generally, a fringe benefit provided by an employer to an employee is presumed to be income to the employee unless it is specifically excluded from gross income by another section of the Code. (See Income Tax Regulations § 1.61-21(a)).

Pursuant to Notice 2011-72, the employer- provided cell phones are treated as an excludible fringe benefit. The Notice further provides that when an employer provides an employee with a cell phone primarily for noncompensatory business reasons, the business and personal use of the cell phone is generally nontaxable to the employee. The IRS will not require recordkeeping of business use in order to receive this tax-free treatment.

Simultaneously with the Notice, the IRS announced in a memo to its examiners a similar administrative approach that applies with respect to arrangements common to small businesses that provide cash allowances and reimbursements for work-related use of personally-owned cell phones. Under this approach, employers that require employees, primarily for noncompensatory business reasons, to use their personal cell phones for business purposes may treat reimbursements of the employees’ expenses for reasonable cell phone coverage as nontaxable. This treatment does not apply to reimbursements of unusual or excessive expenses or to reimbursements made as a substitute for a portion of the employee’s regular wages.

Under the guidance issued today, where employers provide cell phones to their employees or where employers reimburse employees for business use of their personal cell phones, tax-free treatment is available without burdensome recordkeeping requirements. The guidance does not apply to the provision of cell phones or reimbursement for cell-phone use that is not primarily business related, as such arrangements are generally taxable.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office NOW for Legal Help Regarding Your Business Tax Issues!

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this or any other business tax issues, contact Sherayzen Law Office. Our experienced tax firm will guide you through the complex issues of business taxation, help you deal with current business transactions, as well as create a comprehensive business tax plan that allows you to take advantage of the existing Tax Code’s provision and engage in proactive tax planning.