Posts

§318 Downstream Trust Attribution | Foreign Trust Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

The attribution of stock ownership to constructive owners is a highly important feature of US domestic and international tax law. The Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) §318 contains complex constructive ownership rules concerning corporate stock; these rules vary depending on a specific §318 relationship. This article focuses on an important category of §318 relationships – trusts. Since these rules are very broad, I will discuss today only the §318 downstream trust attribution rules; the upstream rules and important exceptions to both sets of rules will be covered in later articles.

§318 Trust Attribution: Downstream vs. Upstream Attribution

Similarly to other §318 attribution rules, there are two types of §318 trust attribution: downstream and upstream. The downstream attribution rules 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. As I stated above, this article focuses on the downstream attribution.

§318 Downstream Trust Attribution: Attribution from Trust to Beneficiary

Under §318(a)(2)(B)(i), corporate stocks owned, directly or indirectly, by or for a trust are considered owned by the trust’s beneficiaries in proportion to their actuarial interests in the trust.

Notice that the size of the actuarial interest does not matter. Moreover, §318(a)(2)(B) will apply even if the beneficiary does not have any present interest in a trust, but only a remainder interest (also calculated on an actuarial basis). This rule is the exact opposite of the §318 estate attribution rules.

Furthermore, the decision to attribute shares based on the actuarial interest, rather than actual one, may result in a paradoxical result where stocks are attributed to a person who will never become the actual owner of the shares.

§318 Downstream Trust Attribution: Determination of Actuarial Interest

Treas. Reg. §1.318-3 stated that, in determining a beneficiary’s actuarial interest in a trust, the IRS will use the factors and methods prescribed (for estate tax purposes) in 26 CFR § 20.2031-7.

The attribution of shares from the trust to its beneficiary should be made on the basis of the beneficiary’s actuarial interest at the time of the transaction affected by the stock ownership.

§318 Downstream Trust Attribution: Unstable Proportionality

The adoption of the attribution of stock based on the actuarial interest in a trust creates a constant calculation problem for beneficiaries, because the actuarial interest of the beneficiary in a trust varies from year to year. The variation of actuarial interest means that the number of shares attributed from a trust to its beneficiary will change every year.

For example, the actuarial interest of a beneficiary with a life estate in a trust will decrease every year as he ages. On the other hand, the actuarial interest of the owner of the remainder interest in the trust will increase with each year. Hence, the number of stocks attributed to the life tenant will decrease each year, while the attribution of stocks to the holder of the remainder interest will increase each year.

§318 Downstream Trust Attribution: Special Presumption Concerning Power of Appointment

Based on 95 Rev. Proc. 77-37, §3.05 (operating rules for private letter rulings), the IRS has adopted a special presumption with respect to when children will be considered beneficiaries for the purpose of §318 trust attribution rules. In order to understand this rule, we need to describe the setting in which it will most likely apply.

Oftentimes, estate plans are set up where the surviving spouse will have a life interest in a trust’s income and a power of appointment over the trust corpus. In such situation, estate planners often insert a clause that, if a spouse fails to exercise the power of appointment, the trust corpus will automatically go to the children.

In this situation, the IRS stated that, absent evidence that the power of appointment was exercised differently, it is presumed that it was exercised in favor of the children. By adopting this presumption, the children are immediately considered beneficiaries for the purpose of the stock attribution rules under §318.

§318 Downstream Trust Attribution: Planning to Avoid Attribution

In order to prevent the application of the trust attribution rules under §318, a beneficiary must renounce his entire interest in the trust. See Rev. Rul. 71-211. Such renunciation is valid only if it is irrevocable and binding under local law.

§318 Downstream Trust Attribution: Special Case of Voting Trusts

Under Rev. Rul. 71-262 and CCA 200409001, §318(a)(2)(B) does not apply in the context of a voting trust (i.e. where trustee has the right to vote the stock held in trust, but the dividends are paid to the certificate holder). This is because the certificate holder is deemed to be the owner of the shares and there is no attribution of ownership from the trust.

§318 Downstream 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 the future.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With US Tax Issues Concerning Foreign Trusts

If you are considered an owner or a beneficiary of a foreign trust, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with your US tax compliance issues. Our firm is highly experienced in US international tax law, including foreign trust compliance. We have also helped taxpayers around the world with their offshore voluntary disclosures involving foreign trusts.

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Business Service Income Sourcing | Business Tax Lawyer & Attorney Delaware

/in , /by

Business service income sourcing is a highly important issue in US international tax law. In this article, I will explain the concept of business service income sourcing and discuss the general rules that apply to it. Please, note that this is a discussion of general rules only; there are important complications with respect to the application of these rules.

What is Business Service Income Sourcing?

Business service income sourcing refers to the classification of income derived from services rendered by a business entity as “domestic” or “foreign”. In other words, if a corporation performs services for another business entity or individual, should it be considered US-source income or foreign-source income?

Importance of Business Service Income Sourcing

The importance of business service income sourcing cannot be overstated. With respect to foreign businesses, these income sourcing rules determine whether the income derived from these services will be subject to US taxation or not. For US business entities, the sourcing of income will be a key factor in their ability to utilize foreign tax credit.

Moreover, in light of the 2017 tax reform, the sourcing rules are now important for qualification of various benefits that the new tax laws offer to US corporations.

Business Service Income Sourcing: General Rule

Now that we understand the importance of the business services income sourcing rules, we are ready to explore the General Rule that applies in these situations. Generally, the services are sourced to the country where the services are performed.

In other words, if the services are performed in the United States, then, the income generated by these services is considered US-source income. If the services are performed outside of the United States, then, the income is considered foreign-source income.

Business Service Income Sourcing: Services Performed Partially in the United States and Partially Outside of the United States

The general rule is clear, but what happens if services were only partially performed in the United States? Here, we are now getting into practical complications and we have to look at the Treasury Regulations.

The Regulations begin with the general proposition that the sourcing of income from services rendered by a corporation, partnership, or trust, should be “on the basis that most correctly reflects the proper source of the income under the facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Treas. Reg. §1.861-4(b)(1)(i). This is the so-called “facts and circumstances test”.

Then, the Regulations clarify that usually “the facts and circumstances will be such that an apportionment on the time basis, as defined in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(E) of this section, will be acceptable.” Id. In other words, the Time Basis Allocation will be the default method for business service income sourcing, but it is possible to use other tests where it is reasonable to do so.

Curiously, the Regulations provide only one example of business service income allocation that involves a corporation, and this example does not utilize the Time Basis Allocation method.

Business Service Income Sourcing: Time Basis Allocation

The Time Basis Allocation method offers two ways to source income: the “number of days” allocation and the “time periods” allocation. Under the “number of days” variation, the business entity adds together the number of days worked by its employees who worked in the United States and the number of days they worked in a foreign country, figures out the percentages for each country and sources the income according to the percentage allocation. See Treas. Reg. §1.861-4(b)(2)(ii)(F).

Under the “time periods” variation, a tax year is split into distinct time periods: one where the employees of a business entity spent all of their time in the United States and one where they spent all of their time in a foreign country. The compensation paid in the first period is allocated entirely to the United States, whereas the proceeds paid in the second time period is considered to be foreign-source income. Id.

The Time Basis Allocation methodology works better for specific employees rather than a business entity as a whole, particularly the “time periods” variation. Often, a business entity would have its employees working at the same time in the United States and outside of the United States making it very difficult to use the “time periods” allocation. Even the “number of days” allocation becomes fairly complex if one has a large number of employees working back and forth between the countries.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Your Business Service Income Sourcing

Sherayzen Law Office is a premier US international tax law firm that helps businesses and individuals with their US international tax compliance, including business service income sourcing. If you have employees who work in the United States and overseas, you need the professional help from our law firm.

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!