Posts

US Continental Shelf Definition of the United States | US Tax Attorney

/0 Comments/in , /by

The US continental shelf presents a unique problem to the tax definition of the United States. It is governed by a special tax provision that sets it apart from any other tax definition. If fact, the US continental shelf is only considered to be part of the United States with respect to specific taxpayers who are engaged in a particular activity on or over the continental shelf. In this article, I will explore certain features of the US continental shelf definition of the United States that distinguishes it from any other tax provision in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).

Definition of the US Continental Shelf

For the purposes of the US income tax, the IRC § 638(1) states that the United States “when used in a geographical sense includes the seabed and subsoil of those submarine areas which are adjacent to the territorial waters of the United States and over which the United States has exclusive rights, in accordance with international law, with respect to the exploration and exploitation of natural resources.” The opening clause of IRC § 638 specifically states that this definition of the United States applies only to the activities “with respect to mines, oil and gas wells, and other natural deposits.”

Analysis of the Definition of the US Continental Shelf

Two aspects need to be noted with respect to the definition above. First, the reference to international tax law means that the US government considers 200 miles of land underneath the ocean as its territory (the so-called “Exclusive Economic Zone” or “EEZ”). An interesting assumption that underlies IRC § 638 is that the continental shelf and the EEZ are the same.

Second, I want to emphasize that this is the definition that is tied to land only, not the water above the land – even more precisely, to certain activities on the ocean’s floor rather than in the water. This is a highly important aspect of IRC § 638, because it produces interesting results.

On the one hand, anyone (including foreign vessels and foreign contractors) drilling or exploring oil in the US continental shelf is considered to be engaged in a trade or business in the United States, which subjects these individuals and companies to US income tax. This also means that US tax withholding needs to be done with respect to foreign contractors. Moreover, even personal property (located over the US continental shelf) of a taxpayer engaged in the drilling or the exploration of the US continental shelf would most likely be classified as US personal property within the meaning of IRC § 956.

On the other hand, fishing in a boat in the same zone will not be considered as an activity within the United States, because it is not linked to mines, oil and gas wells, and other natural deposits.

This means that the application of the US Continental Shelf’s definition of the United States depends on the activity of the taxpayer, not just his location.

US Continental Shelf Rules and Foreign Countries

There is one more interesting aspect of the US continental shelf definition of the United States: its application to foreign countries. The first part of IRC § 638(2) states that the same definition of the continental shelf will also apply to foreign countries – i.e. the seabed and subsoil adjacent to the foreign country or possession and over which the country has EEZ rights.

At the end, however, IRC § 638(2) contains an interesting limitation: “ but this paragraph shall apply in the case of a foreign country only if it exercises, directly or indirectly, taxing jurisdiction with respect to such exploration or exploitation.” In other words, if a foreign country exercises its taxing jurisdiction over the continental shelf, then it is considered to be part of a foreign country. Otherwise, it will be considered as “international waters” (since it is also outside of the US continental shelf).

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help with US Tax Issues

The definition of the United States in the context of the US continental shelf is just one of many examples of the enormous complexity of US tax laws. While even US citizens with domestic assets only have to struggle with these issues, the complexity of US tax laws is multiplied numerous times when one deals with a foreign individual/company or even US taxpayers with foreign assets. It is just too easy to get yourself into trouble.

This is why you need the help of the professional international tax law firm of Sherayzen Law Office. Our firm specializes in helping US and foreign taxpayers with their annual tax compliance, tax planning and dealing with past US tax noncompliance.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Streamlined Disclosure Attorney Austin | FATCA OVDP Lawyer

/0 Comments/in , /by

If you are a resident of Austin, Texas, and you have undisclosed foreign accounts, it is highly likely that you have searched for Streamlined Disclosure Attorney Austin. Let’s analyze this search term – Streamlined Disclosure Attorney Austin – to understand exactly what kind of an attorney fits this search.

Streamlined Disclosure Attorney Austin Search Applies to SDOP and SFOP

Let’s first look into the search for “Streamlined Disclosure”. In reality, this is a search for an attorney who offers legal help with respect to two types of Streamlined Filing Compliance Procedures: SDOP (Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures) and SFOP (Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures).

Streamlined Disclosure Attorney Austin Search Applies to Attorneys Who Offer Legal Services in Austin

Now, we need to analyze the geographical aspect of this search – i.e. Austin. What does it mean when one says that he is looking for an Austin attorney? Obviously, it applies to attorneys who reside in Austin and who offer streamlined disclosure services in Austin.

Furthermore, this search for a Streamlined Disclosure Attorney Austin also applies to attorneys who reside outside of Austin but offer their legal services to the residents of Austin. The reason for this conclusion lies in the federal nature of the Streamlined Filing Compliance Procedures – this is purely an IRS program and it has no local input from Austin (except the IRS office in the city). Since this is federal law, the actual residence of your Austin attorney does not matter.

What really matters is whether he offers legal services in Austin and whether he is competent in the matters concerning Streamlined Filing Compliance Procedures. This leads to the final part of the search for Streamlined Disclosure Attorney Austin – what kind of a specialized “attorney” are you searching for?

Streamlined Disclosure Attorney Austin Search Applies Only to International Tax Attorneys

By searching for Streamlined Disclosure Attorney Austin, you are really trying to find a very specific kind of an attorney – an international tax attorney. SFOP, SDOP, OVDP and any other voluntary disclosure options are just IRS programs (though, important programs) within the framework of the much larger legal area of US international tax law practice.

Hence, a Streamlined Disclosure Attorney Austin search is an attempt to find an international tax attorney who not only understands Streamlined Filing Compliance Procedures, but who also possesses deep understanding of the US international tax system, its laws and regulations, and the place SDOP and SFOP occupies within this system. This understanding is crucial to an attorney’s ability to properly analyze the case and choose the best legal strategy for his client.

Sherayzen Law Office can be Your International Tax Attorney

Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. is an international tax law firm that specializes in all types of offshore voluntary disclosures, including OVDP, SDOP and SFOP. Our professional tax team, led by attorney Eugene Sherayzen, is highly experienced in helping US clients around the globe with their US international tax issues, including offshore voluntary disclosure. This is why Sherayzen Law Office should be your top candidate when you search for Streamlined Disclosure Attorney Austin.

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

EU Automatic Exchange of Banking and Beneficial Ownership Data Approved

/0 Comments/in , /by

On November 22, 2016, the European Parliament approved the automatic exchange of banking and beneficial ownership data across the European Union. The directive received an overwhelming support from the Parliament: 590 members voted “yes”, 32 – “no”, and 64 did not vote.

Since the original proposal was already approved by the EU Council on November 8, 2016, the only issue left before the directive will come into force will be the final adoption of the directive by EU Council. Once the directive on the automatic exchange of banking and beneficial ownership data is adopted by the Council, the member states will have until December 31, 2017, to implement it.

The directive represents a major undertaking with respect to the automatic exchange of banking and beneficial ownership data. Once it is adopted, the directive will allow tax authorities of every EU member state to automatically share the banking information such as account balances, interest income and dividends. Moreover, the directive also requires the EU member states to create registers recording the beneficial ownership of companies and trusts. This means that the tax authorities of all EU member states will finally acquire access to the information regarding the true beneficiaries of foreign trusts and opaque corporate structures.

The idea behind the new legislation on the automatic exchanges of banking and beneficial ownership data is to provide the EU member states with tools to fight cross-border fraud and tax evasion, preserving the integrity of their domestic tax systems.

However, it appears that there are still serious implementation issues with respect to the new directive. The most serious problem is that the directive merely allows the automatic exchange of banking and beneficial ownership date in the EU, but it does not obligate the member states to do so. Furthermore, the banking industry’s role in the facilitation of tax evasion is not addressed at all by the legislature.

After the directive on the automatic exchange of banking and beneficial ownership date is adopted, the European Parliament is going to take up the legislation to provide for a cross-border method for accessing the shared information.

An interesting question for US taxpayers is whether any of the information acquired through the EU sharing mechanism will be shared with the IRS through FATCA. The likelihood of this scenario is fairly strong and may further expose noncompliant US taxpayers to IRS detection.

Credinvest Bank Signs Non-Prosecution Agreement

/0 Comments/in , /by

On June 3, 2015, the US Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that Banca Credinvest SA (Credinvest Bank), together with Rothschild Bank, signed a Non-Prosecution Agreement that finalized Credinvest Bank’s participation in the DOJ Program for Swiss Banks.

Credinvest Bank History

Located in Lugano, Switzerland, Credinvest Bank started operations as a fully licensed bank in 2005. Credinvest Bank offered a variety of services that it knew could assist, and that did assist, U.S. clients in concealing assets and income from the IRS, including hold mail service and numbered accounts. Credinvest Bank did not set up any formalized internal reporting regarding U.S. clients and did not adopt any procedures to ascertain or monitor the compliance of its U.S. clients with their U.S. tax obligations. In late 2008, an external asset manager referred 11 accounts to Credinvest Bank, all of which were for U.S. clients who had left UBS. The bank delegated to that external asset manager the primary management of those accounts and failed to ascertain the compliance of those clients with their U.S. tax obligations. The bank thus aided and assisted those clients in concealing their accounts from U.S. authorities. Since August 1, 2008, Credinvest Bank had 31 U.S.-related accounts with just over $24 million in assets.

Credinvest Bank Penalty and Disclosures

As other banks in the DOJ Program for Swiss Banks, Credinvest Bank mitigated some of its penalties, but it will still have to pay a penalty of $3.022 million.

In addition, as part of its participation in the DOJ Program for Swiss Banks, Credinvest Bank made a complete disclosure of its cross-border activities, provided detailed information on an account-by-account basis for accounts in which US taxpayers have a direct or indirect interest, and provided detailed information regarding transferred funds to other banks. It is not known at this point if the IRS made any treaty requests to Credinvest Bank.

The most immediate impact of Rothschild Bank Non-Prosecution Agreement will be felt by US accountholders who wish to enter OVDP after June 3, 2015 – their penalty rate will go up from 27.5 percent of the highest value of their foreign accounts and other assets included in the OVDP penalty base to a whopping 50 percent penalty rate.

What Credinvest Bank Non-Prosecution Agreement Means to US Taxpayers

Credinvest Bank Non-Prosecution Agreement is likely to have three important consequences for US taxpayers with undisclosed accounts. First, US taxpayers with undisclosed accounts at Credinvest Bank will now face the higher 50% penalty rate in the OVDP program, instead of the regular 27.5% penalty rate.

Second, US taxpayers who attempted to conceal their Credinvest Bank accounts by closing them and transferring them to other banks will now face an increased risk of IRS detection due to the fact that the IRS now has the transfer information from Credinvest Bank. It is also possible that they may have received this information as part of another Swiss bank’s disclosure under the DOJ Program for Swiss Banks.

Finally, Credinvest Bank participation in the DOJ Program for Swiss Banks is one more reminder that, in this FATCA world, US taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts are playing a Russian roulette with their future by persevering in their non-compliance. The IRS may receive information regarding their accounts from various sources – DOJ Program is just one of them.

US Taxpayers With Undisclosed Foreign Accounts Should Explore Voluntary Disclosure

At this point, if you are a US taxpayer with undisclosed foreign accounts, please consult the experienced international tax team of Sherayzen Law Office. Our professional legal team has helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world and we can help you!

Contact US to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation Now!

Introduction to US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regimes

/0 Comments/in , /by

Despite their enormous importance to tax compliance, there is a shocking level of ignorance of the US international tax anti-deferral regimes that is being displayed by US taxpayers, foreign bankers, foreign accountants, foreign attorneys, US accountants and even many US tax attorneys. In this article, for educational purposes only, I would like to provide a brief overview of the history and features of the main US international tax anti-deferral regimes.

What is a US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regime?

A US international tax anti-deferral regime is a set of US tax laws designed to prevent US taxpayers from utilizing various offshore strategies to defer US taxation of their income for a period of time or indefinitely.

Three Main US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regimes

Since 1937, there have been three main US international tax anti-deferral regimes: Foreign Personal Holding Company (“FPHC”) rules, subpart F rules, and PFIC rules. Let’s review the brief history and main features of each of these US international tax anti-deferral regimes.

First US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regime: FPHC

In 1937, the Congress for the first time addressed the offshore investment strategy problems by enacting the FPHC regime, which were designed to contemporaneously (i.e. in the year the income was earned) tax certain types of foreign corporations. In particular, FPHC rules targeted foreign corporations that had substantial investment income (i.e. passive income) compared to active business income – i.e. the FPHC rules effectively treat certain corporations as pass-through companies for the purposes of certain categories of passive income..

The FPHC rules were triggered only if both conditions of the then-Code §552(a) were satisfied. First, at least 60% of a foreign corporation’s gross income from the taxable year had to consist of “foreign personal holding company income”. The FPHC income included interest income, dividends, royalties, gains from the sale of securities or commodities, certain rents and certain income from personal services provided by shareholders of the FPHC. This was called the “income test”.

The second condition of the §552(a) was known as the “ownership test”. The ownership test was satisfied if at least 50% of either the total voting power or total value of the stock of the foreign corporation was owned by 5 or fewer individuals who were citizens or residents of the United States.

Despite the appearances, the FPHC regime was not very effective. It was actually not very hard to work around the FPHC rules with careful and creative tax planning. This is why, after the enactment of the Subpart F rules and the PFIC rules (which addressed some of the main inefficacies of the FPCH rules and made them redundant as a US international tax anti-deferral regime), the FPHC regime was finally repealed in the year 2004.

Second US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regime: Subpart F Rules

The second US international tax anti-deferral regime, the Subpart F rules, was enacted in 1962 and, despite numerous amendments, forms the core of the anti-deferral rules with respect to Controlled Foreign Corporations (“CFCs”). It is definitely one of the most important and complex pieces of US tax legislation.

The most important feature of the Subpart F regime is that it greatly expands the scope of the former FPHC regime by expanding the contemporaneous (i.e. pass-through) taxation to a much broader range of income and activities, including many kinds of active business activities as well as passive investment activities of a foreign corporation. Obviously, the focus of this US international tax anti-deferral regime is still on passive income or attempts to disguise passive income as active income.

Third US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regime: PFIC Rules

The third US international tax anti-deferral regime consists of the passive foreign investment company (“PFIC”) rules that were adopted by US Congress in 1986. Perhaps because it is the youngest of all US international tax anti-deferral regimes, the PFIC regime is more aggressive and less forgiving than Subpart F rules or FPHC regime. A lot of innocent taxpayers have fallen victims to this severe law.

The PFIC rules impose a unique additional US income tax in two circumstances: where (1) there is a gain on the disposition of the PFIC stock by the US person; or (2) there are PFIC distributions that are considered “excess distributions”. The PFIC rules also impose an additional PFIC interest (calculated similarly to underpayment interest) on the PFIC tax.

The definition of a PFIC is in some ways reminiscent of FPHC rules, but the PFIC regime is a lot more aggressive. Generally, a PFIC is any foreign corporation if it meets either the income tax or the assets test. The income tax is met if 75% of a foreign corporation’s gross income is passive; the assets test is satisfied if at least an average of 50% of a foreign corporation’s assets produce passive income.

Notice that the PFIC rules apply irrespective of the US ownership percentage of the company. This elimination of the FPHC and Subpart F ownership rules makes PFIC rules a much more comprehensive US international anti-deferral tax regime, because it is very easy to trigger PFIC rules – a lot of US naturalized citizens and permanent residents fall into the PFIC trap by simply owning foreign mutual funds as part of their former home countries’ investment portfolio.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With Dealing with US International Tax Anti-Deferral Regimes

If you have an ownership interest in a foreign business or have foreign investments, you may be facing the extremely complex rules of US international tax anti-deferral regimes.

Please contact Mr. Eugene Sherayzen, an experienced international tax attorney at Sherayzen Law Office. Our international tax firm has helped hundreds of clients around the globe and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!