Posts

§318 Upstream Trust Attribution | US Foreign Trust Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

In a previous article, I discussed the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) §318 downstream trust attribution rules. Today, I would like to focus on the §318 upstream trust attribution rules.

§318 Upstream Trust Attribution: Downstream vs. Upstream

There are two types of §318 trust attribution: downstream and upstream. In a previous article, I already covered the downstream attribution rules which attribute the ownership of corporate stocks owned by a trust to its beneficiaries. The upstream attribution rules are exactly the opposite: they attribute the ownership of corporate stocks owned by beneficiaries to the trust. This article focuses just on the upstream attribution.

§318 Upstream Trust Attribution: Main Rule

Under §318(a)(3)(B)(i), all corporate shares owned directly or indirectly by a beneficiary of a trust are considered owned by the trust, unless the beneficiary’s interest is a remote contingent interest. Notice that the proportionality rule does not apply to upstream trust attribution under §318.

For example: if trust T owns 25 shares of X, a C-corporation, and A owns another 25 shares of X, as long as A has a beneficiary interest in T which is not a remote contingent interest, then T will constructively own all of A’s shares of X – i.e. T will own 50 shares of X.

§318 Upstream Trust Attribution: Contingent Interest

If a beneficiary’s interest in a trust is both, remote and contingent, then there is no attribution of stock ownership from the beneficiary to the trust. Hence, the key issue with respect to upstream trust attribution is classification of a beneficiary’s interest in the trust – is it a remote contingent interest or not? Let’s first define what a contingent interest is and then discuss when such an interest is considered remote.

A contingent interest is defined as interest that is not vested. This means that the beneficiary has no present right to trust property and has no present interest in a property with respect to future enjoyment of the trust property. In other words, this interest can only be activated by an occurrence of an intervening event.

§318 Upstream Trust Attribution: Remote Contingent Interest

A contingent interest is remote if “under the maximum exercise of discretion by the trustee in favor of such beneficiary, the value of such interest, computed actuarially, is 5 percent or less of the value of the trust property.” §318(a)(3)(B)(i).

Let’s use an example to demonstrate how this rule works. The fact scenario is as follows: trust T owns 40 shares in X, a C-corporation; A, an individual beneficiary, has a contingent (not vested) remainder in the trust which has a value computed actuarially equal to 3% of the value of the trust property; A also owns the remaining 60 shares of X (X issued a total of 100 shares).

In this situation, A’s beneficiary’s interest is contingent because it is not vested and it is remote because its value is less than 5% of the value of the trust property. Hence, no shares of X are attributed from A to T, because A has a remote contingent interest.

It should be noted that T’s shares in X are still attributed to A under the §318 downstream attribution rules; hence, A would constructively own 1.2 shares of X.

§318 Upstream Trust Attribution: Special Situations

I wish to conclude this article with a discussion of two special situations.

First, if beneficiaries are entitled to trust corpus, this is a vested interest. This is case even if the life tenant in the trust’s property has the right to exercise power of appointment in favor of others. Of course, if such right is actually exercised in favor of others, then the beneficiary will lose its vested interest in the trust.

Second, if a beneficiary interest is conditioned upon surviving a life interest, it is considered a contingent beneficiary interest. For example, in Rev. Rul. 76-213, the IRS stated that a beneficiary had a contingent interest, because his remainder interest in the trust would terminate if the beneficiary predeceased the life tenant.

§318 Upstream Trust Attribution: Grantor Trusts and Employee Trusts

While it is beyond the scope of this article to describe them in detail, there are special rules that apply to the attribution of stock from grantor trusts and employee trusts. I will discuss these rules in more detail in future articles.

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

The complexity and importance of US international tax law (in which §318 constructive ownership rules play an important role) makes it extremely risky for US taxpayers to operate without assistance from an experienced international tax lawyer.

Sherayzen Law Office is a highly experienced international tax law firm which specializes in US international tax compliance and offshore voluntary disclosures. We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers to successfully resolve their US international tax compliance issues, and We Can Help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Taxation of Liquidating Trusts

/0 Comments/in , /by

Liquidating trusts are common in today’s business environment and it is highly important to understand how they are taxed in the United States. This article is a continuation of a series of articles on the general overview of U.S. taxation of different types of foreign and domestic trusts with the focus on liquidating trusts.

Liquidating Trusts: Definition

Regs. §301.7701-4(d) states that a trust will be considered a liquidating trust “if it is organized for the primary purpose of liquidating and distributing the assets transferred to it, and if its activities are all reasonably necessary to, and consistent with, the accomplishment of that purpose”.

Liquidating Trusts: Tax Treatment

Generally, liquidating trusts are treated as trusts for U.S. tax purposes, but only as long as the trust’s business activities do not become so big as to obscure the trust’s liquidating function. Id. If the latter becomes the case (i.e. the trust’s business activities will obscure its liquidating purpose), then the trust will be treated as a partnership or an association taxable as a corporation.

As Regs. §301.7701-4(d) states, “if the liquidation is unreasonably prolonged or if the liquidation purpose becomes so obscured by business activities that the declared purpose of liquidation can be said to be lost or abandoned, the status of the organization will no longer be that of a liquidating trust.”

Presumptively, Regs. §301.7701-4(d) will treat the following entities as liquidating trusts: bondholders’ protective committees, voting trusts, and other agencies formed to protect the interests of security holders during insolvency, bankruptcy, or corporate reorganization proceedings are analogous to liquidating trusts. However, if they are “subsequently utilized to further the control or profitable operation of a going business on a permanent continuing basis, they will lose their classification as trusts for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code”. Id.

It should be mentioned that, in Rev. Proc. 94-45, the IRS stated that it will treat organizations created under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code as liquidating trusts as long as all of the IRS extensive requirements are satisfied. Rev. Proc. 94-45 described in detail eleven IRS requirements.

Liquidating Trusts: IRS Review

In general, during the examination of a taxpayer’s classification of the entity as a liquidating trust, the IRS will engage in a two-step analysis. First, it will focus on the trust’s documents, its stated purpose and the powers of the trustees. Second, the IRS will analyze the actual operations of the trust.

The powers of trustees deserve special attention in liquidating trusts. Generally, granting to a trustee incidental business powers to prevent the loss of the value of distributed assets will not turn a liquidating trust into a corporation. However, where trustees are granted extensive powers to conduct business for a relatively large period of time, there is a significant risk that the IRS will re-classify a liquidating trust as a corporation or a partnership.

Foreign Trust Classification

/0 Comments/in , /by

This article begins to explore one of the most obscure, yet highly important questions in U.S. international tax law – foreign trust classification and what law is relevant in the determination of such a classification. This area of law is very complex and I cannot hope for more than providing just some general contours of it in this essay.

Foreign Trust Classification: Relevant Law

In order for an entity to be classified as a foreign trust, one must establish that the entity is a “trust” and the entity is “foreign”. In this article, I will only discuss the definition of a trust and leave the subject of determining whether a trust is foreign for future discussion.

Both parts of this definition are determined by federal income tax law. The substantive trust law under which the trust was created, while often determinative of rights and duties of relevant parties (i.e. grantor, trustee and the trust’s beneficiaries), does not establish whether an entity should be treated as a trust. Nevertheless, the substantive trust law is still very important in order to establish the facts and context for federal income tax analysis.

The most important federal income tax law concerning foreign trusts can be found in Section 7701 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and relevant regulations. The IRS decisions and rulings (such as Private Letter Rulings) are also highly important in entity classification.

Foreign Trust Classification: General Definition of a Trust under Federal Law

Generally, at the simplest level, a trust is an arrangement where the title to property is held by a fiduciary – a person with the responsibility to conserve the property for a benefit of another person or person (called beneficiaries). As beneficiaries, these persons should not participate in any fiduciary responsibilities.

IRS Regulations in §301.7701-4(a) provide more details about what entity would be considered as a trust:

In general, the term “trust” as used in the Internal Revenue Code refers to an arrangement created either by a will or by an inter vivos declaration whereby trustees take title to property for the purpose of protecting or conserving it for the beneficiaries under the ordinary rules applied in chancery or probate courts. Usually the beneficiaries of such a trust do no more than accept the benefits thereof and are not the voluntary planners or creators of the trust arrangement. However, the beneficiaries of such a trust may be the persons who create it and it will be recognized as a trust under the Internal Revenue Code if it was created for the purpose of protecting or conserving the trust property for beneficiaries who stand in the same relation to the trust as they would if the trust had been created by others for them. Generally speaking, an arrangement will be treated as a trust under the Internal Revenue Code if it can be shown that the purpose of the arrangement is to vest in trustees responsibility for the protection and conservation of property for beneficiaries who cannot share in the discharge of this responsibility and, therefore, are not associates in a joint enterprise for the conduct of business for profit.

Foreign Trust Classification: Most Important Aspects of this Definition of a Trust

Two aspects of this long definition of a trust are especially relevant for foreign trust classification. First, the title to property has to be held by a fiduciary, not the beneficiary. This means that all arrangements outside of the United States will not fall under the foreign trust classification if the title is preserved by the beneficiary.

Second, for the purposes of foreign trust classification, the most important practical focus of the IRS has been on the separation of management of a foreign trust from the enjoyment of the benefits that the trust provides. Undoubtedly, such inquiry heavily depends on the particular facts of the case and would require a separate exploration beyond the scope of this article. It is worth mentioning, however, that, in situations where the beneficiary preserves the right to dispose of an asset supposedly held by a foreign trust, the IRS may rule that the arrangement does not fall within the boundaries of the foreign trust classification.

Foreign Trust Classification: Exceptions

In another article, I will explore certain exceptions to foreign trust classification. Here, I will simply state that not all trusts are treated as trusts even if the title belongs to the fiduciary. On the other hand, some arrangements will be treated as foreign trusts even in situations where one would not expect such classification (certain foreign pension arrangements, for example).

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Foreign Trusts

U.S. tax laws concerning foreign trust are highly complex and require substantial tax compliance. If you own a foreign trust or you are a beneficiary of a foreign trust, you need to contact Sherayzen Law Office as soon as possible for professional legal help. We have helped U.S. taxpayers around the world and we can help you!

Contact Us today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!