Posts

Closer Connection Exception | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , , /by

The Closer Connection Exception is a very important provision in US international tax law, because it provides a potential way for individuals who meet the Substantial Presence Test to still be treated as nonresident aliens for US income tax purposes. This article explores the Closer Connection Exception, its requirements and its implications for US and foreign taxpayers.

Understanding the Closer Connection Exception

The Closer Connection Exception is found in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) §7701(b)(3)(B) and is further elaborated in Treasury Regulation §301.7701(b)-2. This exception allows an individual who would otherwise be considered a US tax resident under the Substantial Presence Test to be treated as a nonresident alien for income tax purposes if he can demonstrate a “closer connection” to a foreign country.

Key Requirements for the Closer Connection Exception

IRC § 7701(b)(3)(B) and Treas. Reg. § 301.7701(b)-2(a) lay out the Closer Connection Exception eligibility criteria that an an individual must meet:

1.The individual must be present in the United States for fewer than 183 days in the current calendar year;

2.The individual must maintain a tax home in a foreign country during the year;

3.The individual must have a closer connection to that foreign country than to the United States; and

4. An individual must be an eligible individual.

Let’s explore each of these three requirements in detail.

Closer Connection Exception: The 183-Day Rule

The first requirement of the Closer Connection Exception is fairly straightforward: the individual must be present in the United States for fewer than 183 days in the current calendar year. This is a hard limit. Even one additional day of presence will disqualify an individual from claiming this exception.

It is important to emphasize that this 183-day threshold is different from the count of days used in the Substantial Presence Test, which includes a lookback period. For the Closer Connection Exception, only days of physical presence in the United States in the current year are considered. Treas. Reg. §301.7701(b)-2(a)(1).

Closer Connection Exception: Foreign Tax Home Requirement

The second requirement for the Closer Connection Exception is that the individual must maintain a tax home in a foreign country during the year.  IRC §911(d)(3) defines the concept of “tax home” as an individual’s principal place of business.  “If the individual has no regular or principal place of business because of the nature of the business, or because the individual is not engaged in carrying on any trade or business within the meaning of section 162(a), then the individual’s tax home is the individual’s regular place of abode in a real and substantial sense.” Treas. Reg. §301.7701(b)-2(c)(1).  This is obviously a very fact-dependent definition of tax home, which requires exploration of all relevant circumstances (such as the location of the individual’s permanent home, family and even personal belongings).

The individual’s foreign tax home must be in existence for the entire current year. It must also be located in the same foreign country for which the individual is claiming to have the closer connection. Treas. Reg. §301.7701(b)-2(c)(2).

Closer Connection Exception: Closer Connection to Foreign Country

The third and often most complex requirement of the Closer Connection Exception is demonstrating a closer connection to a foreign country than to the United States.  Treasury Regulations state that this requires establishing “that the individual has maintained more significant contacts with the foreign country than with the United States”. Treas. Reg. §301.7701(b)-2(d).  

This analysis of course requires a detailed exploration of all relevant facts and circumstances. Treas. Reg. § 301.7701(b)-2(d)(1) provide the following non-exclusive list of key factors that one must consider in determining whether a closer connection to a foreign country exists:

1.The location of the individual’s permanent home;

2.The location of the individual’s family;

3.The location of personal belongings;

4.The location of social, political, cultural, or religious organizations with which the individual has a relationship;

5.The location where the individual conducts routine personal banking activities;

6.The location where the individual conducts business activities;

7.The location of the jurisdiction in which the individual holds a driver’s license;

8.The location of the jurisdiction in which the individual votes;

9.The country of residence designated by the individual on his forms and documents; and

10. The types of official forms and documents filed by the individual, such as Form 1078 (Certificate of Alien Claiming Residence in the United States), Form W-8 (Certificate of Foreign Status) or Form W-9 (Payer’s Request for Taxpayer ldentification Number).

Regarding the first factor, individual’s permanent home, it does not matter whether a permanent home is a house, an apartment or a furnished room. It also does not matter whether the individual owns or rents his home. “It is material, however, that the dwelling be available at all times, continuously, and not solely for stays of short duration.” Treas. Reg. §301.7701(b)-2(d)(1).

Closer Connection Exception: Multiple Foreign Countries

A question arises in this context: what if an individual has connections not to just one, but  two foreign countries? Can an individual have a tax home in two or more countries?

Generally, an individual can have a closer connection to only one foreign country. However, it is possible to have a closer connection to two foreign countries in a single year if the individual moved their tax home during the year. In such cases, the individual can have a closer connection to each country for the part of the year they maintained a tax home in that country.

Treas. Reg. §301.7701(b)-2(e) lays out a detailed legal test in this case of multiple foreign country connections.  In order for an individual to be able to claim the Closer Connection Exception in cases of close contacts with more than one foreign country, this individual must satisfy the following conditions:

(1) The individual maintains a tax home beginning on the first day of the current year in one foreign country;

(2) The individual changes his or her tax home during the current year to a second foreign country;

(3) The individual continues to maintain his or her tax home in the second foreign country for the remainder of the current year;

(4) The individual has a closer connection to each foreign country than to the United States for the period during which the individual maintains a tax home in that foreign country; and

(5) The individual is subject to taxation as a resident pursuant to the internal laws of either foreign country for the entire year or subject to taxation as a resident in both foreign countries for the period during which the individual maintains a tax home in each foreign country.

Closer Connection Exception: Eligible Individual

As stated above, the final condition for the Exception is that an individual must be an eligible individual. Ineligible individuals include: (a) individuals who have applied for status as a lawful permanent resident of the United States (i.e., applied for a green card), and (b) individuals who have an application pending for adjustment of status. IRC §7701(b)(3)(C). 

Treas. Reg. §301.7701(b)-2(f) specifically sets forth the following list of actions which would make an individual ineligible to claim the Closer Connection Exception:

“Affirmative steps to change status to that of a permanent resident include, but are not limited to, the following—

(1) The filing of Immigration and Naturalization Form I-508 (Waiver of Immunities) by the alien;

(2) The filing of Immigration and Naturalization Form I-485 (Application for Status as Permanent Resident) by the alien;

(3) The filing of Immigration and Naturalization Form I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) on behalf of the alien;

(4) The filing of Immigration and Naturalization Form I-140 (Petition for Prospective Immigrant Employee) on behalf of the alien;

(5) The filing of Department of Labor Form ETA-750 (Application for Alien Employment Certification) on behalf of the alien; or

(6) The filing of Department of State Form OF-230 (Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration) by the alien.”

Closer Connection Exception: Form 8840

To claim the Closer Connection Exception, eligible individuals must file Form 8840, Closer Connection Exception Statement for Aliens, with the IRS. This form must be filed by the due date of the individual’s nonresident alien income tax return (Form 1040-NR), including extensions. Form 8840 requires detailed information about the individual’s presence in the United States, tax home, and factors demonstrating a closer connection to a foreign country. Failure to timely file this form may result in the individual being unable to claim the exception. Treas. Reg. §301.7701(b)-8(c).

Closer Connection Exception: Interaction with Tax Treaties

It’s important to note that the Closer Connection Exception is separate from any residency determinations under tax treaties. An individual who does not qualify for the Closer Connection Exception may still be able to claim nonresident status under a tax treaty’s tie-breaker rules. Conversely, qualifying for the Closer Connection Exception may eliminate the need to rely on treaty provisions. See Treas. Reg. §301.7701(b)-7.

Closer Connection Exception: Implications for Other Reporting Requirements

While the Closer Connection Exception can significantly alter an individual’s US income tax obligations, it is very important to understand that it may not exempt the individual from all US reporting requirements, particularly information returns such as FBAR and Form 8938.

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

US international tax law is extremely complex.  The Closer Connection Exception and its potential impact on an individual’s tax status is just an example of this complexity. This is why, if you have assets in or income from foreign countries, you need to seek the professional help of Sherayzen Law Office.  We are a leading US international tax law firm which offers comprehensive support in US international tax compliance (including IRS offshore voluntary disclosures) and US international tax planning. Our deep understanding of and extensive experienced in US international tax law allows us to proffer a professional advice tailored to your specific circumstances.

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

§318 Sidewise Attribution Limitation | US International Tax Attorney

/in , /by

This article explores the third main limitation on the general IRC (Internal Revenue Code) §318 corporate stock re-attribution rules – §318 Sidewise Attribution Limitation.

§318 Sidewise Attribution Limitation: What is “Sidewise Attribution”?

A sidewise attribution occurs when corporate stock owned by an owner of a business entity (or a beneficiary of a trust or estate) is first attributed to this business entity (or estate or trust) and then re-attributed again to another owner of the same business entity (or another beneficiary of the same trust or estate). In other words, stock deemed to be owned by an entity due to the ownership of that stock by an owner or beneficiary of the entity is re-attributed “sidewise” to another owner or beneficiary of the same entity.

Sidewise attribution may have far-reaching income tax and tax reporting consequences, because it may result in a person with no real ownership of a corporation being treated as an owner of this corporation’s stock simply because a member of another entity (in which the first person also has an ownership interest) happens to own corporate stock of this corporation.

§318 Sidewise Attribution Limitation: §318(a)(5)(C) Prohibition

§318(a)(5)(C) describes the §318 Sidewise Attribution Limitation. Under §318(a)(5)(C), stock constructively owned by a partnership, estate, trust or corporation pursuant to §318(a)(3) is not treated as owned by this partnership, estate, trust or corporation for the purpose of treating a partner, beneficiary, or shareholder as owner of the stock. In other words, the sidewise attribution limitation prevents re-attribution of corporate stock to an owner of an entity where such stock is constructively-owned by an entity solely by virtue of ownership of this stock by another owner of the entity.

Let’s look at the following example to illustrate the §318 Sidewise Attribution Limitation: A and B are unrelated persons, they equally own a partnership P and A owns 100 shares of corporation X’s stock. In this situation, partnership P is a constructive owner of A’s 100 shares of X under §318(a)(3)(A). Without any sideways limitation, B would have been also treated as an owner of these 100 shares of X due to §318(a)(2)(A). Under §318(a)(5)(C), however, none of these stocks are attributed to B.

§318 Sidewise Attribution Limitation: Attribution from Actual Ownership Not Affected

It is important to emphasize that §318(a)(5)(C) applies only to the re-attribution of stock constructively owned as a result of the application of §318(a)(3). This prohibition does not affect the §318(a)(2) attribution of stock actually owned by an entity to its beneficiary, partner, or shareholder.

§318 Sidewise Attribution Limitation: Re-Attribution Under Other Rules

Additionally, stock constructively owned under §318(a)(3) may still be re-attributed under an attribution rule other than §318(a)(2). In other words, stock constructively owned under §318(a)(3) may still be re-attributed under the upstream corporate attribution rules or the option attribution rules of §318(a)(4) (see Treas. Reg. §1.318-4(c)(2)).

Moreover, re-attribution under the §318 family attribution rules still possible. A potential situation for such re-attribution would arise in a situation where corporate stock is attributed from an entity to its member and from this member to a qualified family member of the same entity. Berenbaum v. Commissioner, 369 F.2d 337 (10th Cir. 1966), rev’g T.C. Memo 1965-147.

Let’s look at a couple of examples to understand better the interaction between the §318 Sidewise Attribution Limitation and the re-attribution rules other than §318(a)(2).

Here is the first hypothetical fact pattern: A is a beneficiary of a trust T, B is another beneficiary of T, T is a beneficiary of an estate, and A owns 100 shares of a C-corporation X. Under §318(a)(3)(B), T is a constructive owner of 100 shares of X. Since T is a constructive owner of A’s shares of X, these shares are re-attributed to the estate under §318(a)(3)(A); §318(a)(5)(C) does not apply to this type of a re-attribution since it is not a sidewise attribution. On the other hand, the §318 Sidewise Attribution Limitation would prevent the re-attribution of A’s shares of X to B that otherwise would have occurred under §318(a)(2)(B).

Note, however, that, if B is A’s son (or other qualified relative under the §318 family attribution rules), then the re-attribution of A’s stocks of X to B is possible under §318(a)(1)(A).

Let’s now look at another fact pattern to understand the power of the option rule attribution vis-a-vis §318(a)(5)(C): A and B are beneficiaries of a trust T; T has an option to buy corporate stock from A. The most important point to understand here is the fact that T is considered here as an owner of A’s stock not under the upstream trust attribution rules of §318(a)(3)(B), but under the option attribution rules of §318(a)(4). Hence, the sidewise attribution limitation under §318(a)(5)(C) does not apply and B becomes a constructive owner of a his proportional part of A’s stock under the downstream trust attribution rules of §318(a)(2)(B).

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

US international tax law is incredibly complex and the penalties for noncompliance are exceptionally severe. This means that an attempt to navigate through the maze of US international tax laws without assistance of an experienced professional will most likely produce unfavorable and even catastrophic results.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with US international tax law. We are a highly experienced, creative and ethical team of professionals dedicated to helping our clients resolve their past, present and future US international tax compliance issues. We have helped clients with assets in over 70 countries around the world, and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Indian US Dollar Remittances | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

For some years now, India has remained at the top of all countries that receive remittances in US dollars. A lot of these funds flow from Indian-Americans and Indians who reside in the United States. The problem is that a lot of them are not in compliance with respect to their US international tax obligations that arise as a result of these Indian US dollar remittances.

Indian US Dollar Remittances: India Has Been the Top Recipient

For many years now, India has been one of the top countries in turn of US dollar remittances; lately it has occupied the number one spot. For example, in 2018, India received about $78.6 billion from overseas; China was a distant with only $67.4 billion followed by Mexico ($35.7 billion), the Philippines ($33.8 billion) and Egypt ($28.9 billion).

One of the biggest (if not the biggest) sources of these Indian US dollar remittances has been the United States. In fact, according to the World Bank, one of the reasons why Indian US dollar remittances were so high in 2018 was a better economic performance of the US economy. Hence, we can safely conclude that a large number of Indian-Americans and Indians who reside in the United States send a large portion of their US earnings back to India.

Indian US Dollar Remittances: US International Tax Compliance Issues

The biggest problem with Indian US dollar remittances is their potential for triggering various US international tax compliance requirements, because these remittances are made by US tax residents. Oftentimes, the repatriated funds are sitting in Indian bank accounts or they are invested in Indian stocks, bonds, mutual funds and structured products. Moreover, some of these funds are used to purchase real estate which is rented out to third parties. Still other funds are used to finance business ventures in India.

Such usage of repatriated funds may result in the obligation not only to report Indian income in the United States , but also to file numerous US information returns such as: Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FinCEN Form 114 better known as FBAR), Forms 8938, 8621, 5471 and others. Failure to report foreign income and file these information returns may result in the imposition of draconian IRS penalties and even a criminal prosecution.

Indian US Dollar Remittances: Unawareness Among Indians of US Tax Compliance Requirements

The high potential of Indian US dollar remittances to give rise to US tax compliance issues is combined with a widespread unawareness of these issues among Indians and Indian-Americans. Many of these taxpayers are not even aware of the fact that they are considered US tax residents. Others simply have never heard of the requirement to disclose foreign accounts and other foreign assets in the United States. Still others cling to erroneous ideas and various incorrect myths concerning US tax system.

The rise of various US tax compliance requirements as a result of remittances of funds to India and the widespread ignorance of these requirements among Indians is a bad combination, because it creates the potential for the imposition of the aforementioned draconian IRS penalties on Indians who are not even conscious of the fact that they need to report their worldwide income.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With US International Tax Compliance and Offshore Voluntary Disclosures Concerning Remittances of US Earnings to India

If you are an Indian who resides in the United States and you sent part of your US earnings to India, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. We have successfully helped hundreds of Indians and Indian-Americans to resolve their US international tax compliance issues, including conducting offshore voluntary disclosures (such as Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures and Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures) with respect to past US tax noncompliance. We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

§318 Upstream Estate Attribution | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

This article continues a series of articles concerning the constructive ownership rules of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) §318. Today’s focus is on the §318 upstream estate attribution rules.

§318 Estate Attribution Rules: Downstream Attribution vs. Upstream Attribution

There are two types of the IRC §318 estate attribution rules: downstream and upstream. In a previous article, I discussed the downstream attribution rules concerning attribution of ownership of corporate stocks held by an estate to its beneficiaries. This brief article focuses on the upstream attribution rules, which means rules governing the attribution to the estate of corporate stocks held by its beneficiaries.

§318 Upstream Estate Attribution: Main Rule

The IRC §318(a)(3)(A) states the general rule for the upstream estate attribution of beneficiaries’ corporate stock: irrespective of the proportion of his beneficiary interest in the estate, all corporate stocks owned directly or indirectly by a beneficiary are deemed to be owned by the estate.

Notice the difference here between the downstream and the upstream estate attribution rules. §318 downstream estate attribution rules attribute the ownership of corporate stock proportionately from an estate to its beneficiaries. The upstream attribution rules under §318, however, completely disregard the proportionality rule; instead, all of the stocks of a beneficiary are attributed to the estate even if he has only 1% interest in the estate.

For example, let’s suppose that W owns 100 shares in corporation X; then, H dies and leaves one-tenth of his property to W. Due to the fact that W is a beneficiary of H’s estate, the estate constructively owns all of W’s 100 shares in X.

§318 Upstream Estate Attribution: No Re-Attribution

I already stated this rule in another article on estate attribution, but it is also important to re-state it here. §318 estate attribution rules contain a prohibition on re-attribution of stocks. Under §318(a)(5)(C), a beneficiary’s stock constructively owned by an estate through the operation of the §318 estate attribution rules cannot be attributed to another beneficiary.

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

If you have questions concerning US business tax in general and US international business tax law specifically, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. We are a highly-experienced tax law firm that specializes in US international tax law, including offshore voluntary disclosures, US international tax compliance for businesses and individuals and US international tax planning.

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

IRC §318 Importance | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

It is difficult to overstate the significant role the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) §318 plays in US corporate tax law and US international tax law. In this article, I will explain the §318 importance and list out major IRC provisions which reference §318.

IRC §318 Importance: Fundamental Purpose

§318 sets forth the circumstances when the ownership of stock is attributed from one person or entity to another. This is one of the most important sections of the Internal Revenue Code, because it contains a set of constructive stock ownership rules which affect a bewildering variety of IRC tax provisions.

It is important to point out that §318 constructive ownership rules do not apply throughout the IRC. Rather, §318 applies only when it is expressly adopted by a specific tax section.

IRC §318 Importance: Non-Exclusive List of IRC Sections

The IRC §318 importance is extensive in both domestic and international tax provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. The CFC (controlled foreign corporation) rules, FIRPTA, FTC (foreign tax credit rules), BEAT, FATCA and so on – all of these US international tax laws adopted §318 for at least one purpose. The §318 importance can even be seen in the 2017 tax reform (for example, the FDII rules).

The following is a non-exclusive list of major IRC sections which adopted the §318 constructive stock ownership rules:

• §59A(g)(3) (related party under BEAT rules)
• §105(h)(5)(B)
• §168(h)(6)(F)(iii)(III)
• §250(b)(5)(D) (sales or services to related party under FDII rules by reference to §954(d)(3) and §958)
• §263A(e)(2)(B)(ii)
• §267A(b)(2) (related party amounts in hybrid transaction by reference to §954(d)(3) and §958)
• §269A(b)(2)
• §269B(e)(2)(B)
• §301(e)(2)
• §302(c) (stock redemptions)
• §304 (redemptions by related corporations)
• §306(b)(1)(A) (disposition or redemption of §306 stock)
• §338(h)(3)
• §355(d)(8)(A)
• §356(a)(2)
• §367(c)(2)
• §382(l)(3)(A) (net operating loss carryovers)
• §409(n)(1)
• §409(p)(3)(B)
• §414(m)(6)(B)
• §416(i)(1)(B) (key employee for top heavy plans)
• §441(i)(2)(B)
• §453(f)(1)(A)
• §465(c)(7)(D)(iii), §465(c)(7)(E)(i) (at-risk loss limitations)
• §469(j)(2)(B) (passive activity loss limitations)
• §512(b)(13)(D)(ii) (unrelated business taxable income from controlled entity)
• §856(d)(5) (REIT rental income)
• §871(h)(3)(C) (portfolio interest withholding tax exemption)
• §881(b)(3)(B) (portfolio interest withholding tax exemption)
• §897(c)(6)(C) (FIRPTA rules)
• §898(b)(2)(B) (adopting §958‘s modified §318 rules for determination of foreign corporation’s tax year)
• §904(h)(6) (foreign tax credit re-sourcing rules)
• §951(b) (U.S. shareholder of controlled foreign corporation (CFC) by reference to §958(b))
• §954(d)(3) (CFC related party rules by reference to §958)
• §958(b) (CFC rules)
• §1042(b)(2)
• §1060(e)(2)(B)
• §1061(d)(2)(A) (transfer of partnership interest received for performance of services)
• §1239(b)(2)
• §1372(b)
• §1471(e) (imposing FATCA reporting requirements on foreign financial institution members of an expanded affiliated group determined under §954(d)(3)’s control test, which adopts §958‘s modified §318 rules)
• §2036(b)(2)
• §6038(e)(2) (information reporting for controlled foreign corporations)
• §6038A(c)(5)
• §7704(d)(3)(B)

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

Trying to comply with the extremely complex provisions of US international tax law on your own is even worse than playing Russian roulette. In all likelihood, you will soon find yourself in the ever-deepening pit of legal problems and IRS penalties from which it will be very difficult to extricate yourself.

This is why, if you are US taxpayer with US international tax law issues, you need to contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the globe to bring themselves into full compliance with US tax laws, and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!