Posts

Reasonable Cause Written Advice Standard | International Tax Lawyer

/in , /by

Reliance on a written advice of a tax practitioner (attorney, CPA, etc.) may provide the basis for a reasonable cause exception to imposition of IRS noncompliance or late filing penalties with respect to pretty much every single US international tax compliance requirement. In this short article, I will describe the reasonable cause written advice standard concerning how the written advice should be written in order to satisfy and strengthen your legal case before the IRS.

Reasonable Cause Written Advice Standard: What A Practitioner May Advise On

First of all, it is important to understand that a practitioner may provide a written advice pretty much on any US tax matter.  In other words, a taxpayer may obtain a written advice from a practitioner on any matter concerning the application and/or interpretation of any provision of the Internal Revenue Code, any provision of law impacting the taxpayer’s US tax obligations, any Treasury regulations and any other law or regulation that the IRS administers.

Reasonable Cause Written Advice Standard: What Written Advice Should Include

When he writes a tax advice, the practitioner should make sure that he complies with some important rules:

  1. The practitioner should consider all relevant facts and circumstances that the practitioner knows or would reasonably know. This means that two things must happen: (a) practitioner should conduct a reasonable investigation, including an interview with the taxpayer, to secure the necessary facts; and (b) the taxpayer must disclose all facts that he believes to be relevant and/or the practitioner asked him about. The disclosure of relevant facts by the taxpayer is absolutely crucial to the strength of the reasonable cause exception argument.
    At the same time, a failure by the practitioner to do a reasonable investigation of relevant facts may in of itself constitute a reasonable cause. He also should not rely on what he believes unreasonable, incorrect, incomplete and/or inconsistent representations, statements, findings, or agreements (including projections, financial forecasts, or appraisals) of the taxpayer or any other person.
  2. The practitioner should base his written advice on reasonable factual and legal assumptions (including assumptions of future events).
  3. The practitioner should apply the relevant law to the facts of the case. In other words, a written advice cannot simply state the law and assume that it should apply to the taxpayer’s case without the analysis of whether the facts of this particular case fit the relevant legal standard.

A failure to comply with all of these three rules may not necessarily be lethal to your legal case, but it may greatly affect its strength.

Reasonable Cause Written Advice Standard: Reliance on Advice from Third Parties

Sometimes, a practitioner may incorporate an advice from a third person into his own written advice.  He can do it only if the advice was reasonable in light of all facts and circumstances of the case.

The IRS is clear that such reliance on a third-party advice cannot be reasonable in three circumstances. First, the practitioner knows or reasonably should know that the opinion of the other person is not reliable. Second, the practitioner knows or reasonably should know that the other person does not have the necessary competence and necessary qualifications to provide the advice.  Finally, the practitioner knows or reasonably should know that the other person has a conflict of interest in violation of the IRS Circular 230.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office to Help With the Voluntary Disclosure of Your Prior US Tax Noncompliance

If you have not disclosed your foreign income and/or foreign assets to the IRS in violation of your US tax obligations, contact Sherayzen Law Office as soon as possible for professional help.  We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers to bring their tax affairs into compliance with US tax laws, including through a voluntary disclosure such as SDOP (Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures), SFOP (Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures), DFSP (Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures), DIIRSP (Delinquent International Information Return Submission Procedures), IRS VDP (IRS Voluntary Disclosure Practice) and Reasonable Cause disclosures. Mr. Eugene Sherayzen, an international tax attorney, can help you evaluate the strength of your legal case, including whether it meets the reasonable cause standard.  We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Denver FBAR Attorney | International Tax Lawyer Colorado

/in , /by

If you reside in Denver, Colorado and have unreported foreign bank and financial accounts, you may be looking for a Denver FBAR Attorney.  Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. (“Sherayzen Law Office”) is a leader in FBAR compliance and you should consider us in your search. Let’s understand why this is the case.

Denver FBAR Attorney: International Tax Lawyer

First of all, it is very important to understand that, by looking for Denver FBAR attorney, in reality, you are searching for an international tax lawyer who specializes in FBAR compliance.

The reason for this conclusion is the fact that FBAR enforcement belongs to a very special field of US tax law – US international tax law. FBAR is an information return concerning foreign assets, which necessarily involves US international tax compliance concerning foreign assets/foreign income. Moreover, ever since the FBAR enforcement was turned over to the IRS in 2001, the term FBAR attorney applies almost exclusively to tax attorneys.

Hence, when you look for an FBAR attorney, you are looking for an international tax attorney with a specialty in FBAR compliance.

Denver FBAR Attorney: Broad Scope of Compliance and Offshore Voluntary Disclosures

When retaining Denver FBAR attorney, consider the fact that such an attorney’s work is not limited only to the preparation and filing of FBARs. Rather, the attorney should be able to deliver a variety of tax services and freely operate with experience and knowledge in all relevant areas of US international tax law, including the various offshore voluntary disclosure options concerning delinquent FBARs.

Moreover, as part of an offshore voluntary disclosure, an FBAR Attorney often needs to amend US tax returns, properly prepare foreign financial statements according to US GAAP, correctly calculate PFICs, and complete an innumerable number of other tasks.

Mr. Sherayzen and his team of motivated experienced tax professionals of Sherayzen Law Office have helped hundreds of US taxpayers worldwide to bring their tax affairs into full compliance with US tax laws. This work included the preparation and filing of offshore voluntary disclosures concerning delinquent FBARs. Sherayzen Law Office offers help with all kinds of offshore voluntary disclosure options, including: SDOP (Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures), SFOP (Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures), DFSP (Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures), DIIRSP (Delinquent International Information Return Submission Procedures), IRS VDP (IRS Voluntary Disclosure Practice) and Reasonable Cause disclosures.

Denver FBAR Attorney: Out-Of-State International Tax Lawyer

Whenever you are looking for an attorney who specializes in US international tax law (which is a federal area of law, not a state one), you do not need to limit yourself to lawyers who reside in Denver, Colorado. On the contrary, consider international tax attorneys who reside in other states and help Denver residents with their FBAR compliance.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional FBAR Help

Sherayzen Law Office is an international tax law firm that specializes in US international tax compliance, including FBARs. While our office is in Minneapolis, Minnesota, we help taxpayers who reside throughout the United States, including Denver, Colorado.

Thus, if you are looking for a Denver FBAR Attorney, contact Mr. Sherayzen as soon as possible 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!

IRC §318 Family Attribution | International Tax Law Firm Minnesota

/in , /by

In a previous article, I outlined six main relationship categories of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) §318. In this article, I will focus on the first of these categories: the IRC §318 family attribution rules.

§318 Family Attribution: General Rule

§318(a)(1)(A) describes the §318 family attribution rule . It states that an individual is a constructive owner of shares owned (directly and indirectly) by his spouse, children, grandchildren and parents. While it appears to be simple, this general rule has a number of exceptions and complications.

§318 Family Attribution: Certain Exceptions for Spouses

Under §318(a)(1)(A)(i), ownership of stock held by a spouse who is legally separated under a decree of divorce or separate maintenance is not attributed to her spouse. However, based on the §318 legislative history and Commissioner v. Ostler, 237 F.2d 501 (9th Cir. 1956), it appears that an interlocutory decree of divorce would not prevent the attribution of stock ownership between spouses, because such decree is not final.

§318 Family Attribution: Special Cases Involving Children and Grandchildren

§318(a)(1)(B) expands the attribution of shares from children to shares held by legally adopted children. Without legal adoption, however, shares owned by a step-child cannot be attributed to step-parents and step-grandparents. Similarly, absent legal adoption of a step-child, there is no attribution from a step-parent to the step-child.

Treas. Reg. §1.318-2(b) also makes it clear that there is no attribution of shares owned by grandparents to their grandchildren. Only shares owned by grandchildren can be attributed to their grandparents. For example, if a grandfather and a grandson each own 100 shares of X, a C-corporation, the grandfather will be deemed to own 200 shares while the grandson’s stock ownership will be based only on his actual ownership of 100 shares.

Also, note that great-grandchildren are not listed under §318(a)(1). Hence, the shares owned by great-grandchildren are not attributed to great-grandparents; this is different from §267.

§318 Family Attribution: Other Relatives

The §318 definition of family excludes aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins; this treatment is identical to that of §267. Moreover, unlike §267(c)(4), there is no attribution of stock between siblings under §318(a)(1).

§318 Family Attribution: Prohibition of Double Attribution

Treas. Reg. §1.318-4(b) explains that §318 family attribution rules do not allow double attribution of stock among family members. Under §318(a)(5)(B), stock deemed owned through a family member under §318(a)(1)(A) may not be re-attributed to another family member under the family attribution rules of §318.

For example, let’s say that mother M, daughter D and son S each own one-third of the outstanding shares of X corporation; each of them owns 100 shares. Under §318(a)(1)(A), M owns 100 shares and is deemed to own her children’s 200 shares. On the other hand, D actually owns 100 shares and is deemed to own her mother’s 100 shares – i.e. 200 shares total; under §318(a)(5)(B), while M is deemed to own 100 of S, there is no re-attribution of S’ 100 shares to D. In other words, §318(a)(5)(B) prevents the attribution of brother’s stock to his sister through the deemed ownership of brother’s stock by their mother. Also, as explained above, there is no family attribution of stocks between siblings.

§318 Family Attribution: Special Rule Concerning §302(c)(2)

IRC §302(c)(2) relates to redemptions of corporate stock and contains a special rule concerning the waiver of §318 family attribution of stocks. This section permits the termination of attribution of stock from family members when a shareholder severs ties with the corporation. The purpose of this rule is to allow such a shareholder to report capital gains instead of dividends upon the redemption of corporate stock.

§318 Family Attribution: Multiple Control of Corporation Possible

The upshot of the §318 rules is the expansion of stock ownership to an extent where multiple related parties may be deemed to be in control of a corporation (and even be deemed as owners of all shares of the corporation) at the same time.

For example, let’s suppose that there are five family members: husband (H), wife (W), son (S), H’s mother (i.e. grandmother – M) and son of S (i.e. grandson – G). Each of them actually owns 100 shares of corporation Y; there are 500 shares outstanding in total. Let’s analyze each of these person’s actual and constructive ownership of shares under the §318 family attribution rules.

H owns all 500 shares under the §318 family attribution rules. He actually owns 100 shares; the rest of the shares are attributed to him from his mother, his wife, son and grandson.

W owns 400 shares under the §318 family attribution rules. She actually owns 100 shares and constructively owns 300 shares that belong to her husband, son and grandson. However, she does not own 100 shares owned by her mother-in-law and the re-attribution of ownership of these shares through her husband is prevented by §318(a)(5)(B).

M owns 300 shares under the §318 family attribution rules. She actually owns 100 shares and is deemed to own 100 shares owned by her son and 100 shares owned by her grandson. M, however, is not deemed to own stocks held by her daughter-in-law W and her great-grandson G.

S owns 400 shares under the §318 family attribution rules. He actually owns 100 shares and constructively owns 200 shares owned by his parents and 100 shares owned by his son. S, however, does not constructively own shares held by his grandmother.

Finally, G owns 200 shares under the §318 family attribution rules. He actually owns 100 shares and constructively owns 100 shares held by his father S. G, however, does not constructively own shares held by his grandparents H and M as well as his great-grandmother M.

Thus, even though each family member actually owns only 100 shares, four of them (out of the total five) are deemed to be in control of the corporation and H is deemed to own the entire corporation. If we transfer this scenario to US international tax law, we can immediately see that the application of §318 constructive ownership rules through family attribution may greatly increase the tax compliance burden for this family.

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

IRC §318 is but a tiny part of the incredible voluminous US domestic and international tax law. US international tax law is not only very complex, but it is also very severe with respect to noncompliant taxpayers. In other words, it is very easy to get yourself into trouble with respect to US international tax compliance and, once this happens, you may be subject to high IRS penalties.

In order to avoid such an undesirable result, you need the help of Sherayzen Law Office. We are a highly-experienced US international tax law firm that has helped clients from over 70 countries with their US international tax compliance. We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

§318 Relationship Categories | International Business Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

In a previous article I discussed the importance of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) §318 constructive stock ownership rules. Today, I would like to introduce the readers to the various §318 relationship categories – i.e. what types of taxpayers are affected by this section’s constructive ownership rules.

§318 Relationship Categories: Related Persons

Congress created IRC §318 constructive ownership rules to prevent or minimize the possibility of using business transactions between related persons for tax avoidance purposes. In other words, in order for §318 to be relevant, there must be some type of a close relationship between persons engaged in a business transaction.

It is important to point out that one should not confuse §267 definition of related persons with the one described in §318. These are two completely separate sets of rules that apply to different situations.

§318 Relationship Categories: Six Main Categories

§318 deals specifically with six main categories of related individuals and entities. I will list them here with only a general description; in future articles, I will address each of these §318 relationship categories specifically.

  1. Family members: certain family members are treated as related persons for §318. Again, the §318 definition of “family” should not be confused with the §267 definition.
  2. Partnerships and partners: unlike §267, the constructive ownership rules of §318 are both “upstream” and “downstream”. In other words, the attribution of stock ownership works both ways: from partners to partnership and from partnership to partners. Additionally, one must remember that an S-corporation and its shareholders are treated respectively as a partnership and partners for the purposes of §318.
  3. Estates and beneficiaries: the IRS §318 constructive ownership rules with respect to estates and beneficiaries are quite unique and invasive. They also work downstream and upstream – i.e. the stocks owned by estate are attributed to its beneficiaries and vice-versa.
  4. Trusts and beneficiaries: again, the stock ownership attribution rules of §318 between a trust and its beneficiaries can be downstream and upstream. Stock owned, directly or indirectly, by or for a trust is considered owned by its beneficiaries in proportion to their actuarial interests in the trust. The upstream relationship is more complex: while generally all stocks owned directly or indirectly by a beneficiary of a trust is considered owned by the trust, there are important exceptions.
  5. Corporations and shareholders: surprisingly, §318 attribution rules between a corporation and its shareholders also contain both downstream and upstream provisions. The application of these rules, however, is limited to persons who own directly and indirectly 50% or more of the value of stocks in the corporation. Again, the corporate attribution rules under §318 apply only to C-corporations; S-corporations are treated as partnerships for the purposes of this section.
  6. Holders of stock options: unlike §267, the constructive stock ownership rules of §318 are expanded to options. §318(a)(4) classifies a holder of an option to acquire stock as the owner of that stock. There are detailed rules for defining what an “option” is for the §318 purposes. Interestingly, the stock option attribution rule supersedes the family member attribution rules (which often results in a more extensive constructive ownership).

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

US business tax law is incredibly complex. In fact, an ordinary taxpayer who attempts to decipher it on his own is likely to get himself into deep trouble; this is especially the case, if one deals with the international aspects of US business tax law.

This is why you need to contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. We have helped business owners around the world with their US tax planning and US tax compliance, and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!