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!

The IRS Hiring Spree in 2019 and 2020 | Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

The IRS stated in December of 2019 that it hired about 9,500 people during the fiscal year 2019 and it is trying to add another about 5,300 employees as soon as possible. This new IRS hiring spree is meant to reverse the long-term declining trend in IRS employment.

The IRS Hiring Spree: 2009-2018 Trend

Between 2009 and 2017, the IRS suffered a spectacular loss in employees. From about 95,000 employees in 2009, the number of employees dropped to less than 75,000 in 2018. In other words, the IRS lost about 20,000 employees during these years. These losses were mostly due to budget cuts.

The IRS Hiring Spree: 2019-2020 Trend Change

While the IRS did not receive all of the funds it requested, the Trump administration was able to secure sufficient funds for the agency to start hiring again. The fiscal year 2019 saw a complete reversal in the trend with about 9,500 employees added. This is definitely not the end of the IRS hiring spree – the IRS is planning to add another 5,300 employees in early 2020.

The IRS Hiring Spree: What It Means to US Taxpayers

This huge hiring spree at the IRS will have a direct impact on US taxpayers. On the one hand, the IRS customer service should improve with the larger number of representatives.

On the other hand, such a huge inflow of future IRS agents means an inevitable rise in IRS enforcement efforts, particularly IRS audits. Reinforced by hundreds of additional examiners, the IRS will be able to expand audits everywhere, including international tax audits concerning FBAR and FATCA compliance.

US taxpayers with undisclosed foreign assets and foreign income should keep in mind this impending wave of IRS FBAR and FATCA audits. Rather than just wait for the IRS to discover their prior noncompliance with US tax laws, these taxpayers should explore their offshore voluntary disclosure options with an experienced international tax attorney as soon as possible.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help with IRS International Tax Audits

Mr. Eugene Sherayzen is a highly experienced international tax attorney and owner of international tax law firm, Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. He and his law firm have successfully helped hundreds of US taxpayers to resolve their prior noncompliance with US international tax laws. We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

September 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney News

/in , /by

On September 10, 2018, the IRS Large Business and International division (“LB&I”) announced the creation of another five compliance campaigns. Let’s explore in more depth these September 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns.

September 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: Background Information

Since January of 2017, the IRS has been regularly adding more and more compliance campaigns. The compliance campaigns were created by the LB&I after extensive planning concerning the restructuring of its compliance enforcement activities. The IRS solution to the then existing enforcement problems was to move towards issue-based examinations and a compliance campaign process in which the IRS itself decides which compliance issues that present risk require a response in the form of one or multiple treatment streams to achieve compliance objectives. The idea is to concentrate the IRS resources where they are most need – i.e. where there is a substantial risk of tax noncompliance.

The new campaigns have been coming in batches. The IRS announced the initial batch of thirteen campaigns on January 31, 2017. Then, the IRS added another eleven campaigns in November of 2017, five in March of 2018, six in May of 2018 and five in July of 2018. The new campaigns announced on September 10, 2018, brings the total number of campaigns to forty five as of that date.

It is important to point out that the tax reform that passed on December 22, 2017, may impact some of these existing campaigns.

Five New September 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns

Here are the new September 2018 IRS Compliance campaigns that should be added to the forty campaigns that were announced prior to that date: IRC Section 199 – Claims Risk Review, Syndicated Conservation Easement Transactions, Foreign Base Company Sales Income – Manufacturing Branch Rules, Form 1120-F Interest Expense & Home Office Expense and Individuals Employed by Foreign Governments & International Organizations. All of these campaigns were selected by the IRS through LB&I data analysis and suggestions from IRS employees.

September 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: IRC Section 199 – Claims Risk Review

Public Law 115-97 repealed the Domestic Production Activity Deduction (“DPAD”) for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017. This campaign addresses all business entities that may file a claim for additional DPAD under IRC Section 199. The campaign objective is to ensure taxpayer compliance with the requirements of IRC Section 199 through a claim risk review assessment and issue-based examinations of claims with the greatest compliance risk.

September 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: Syndicated Conservation Easement Transactions

The IRS issued Notice 2017-10, designating specific syndicated conservation easement transactions as listed transactions requiring disclosure statements by both investors and material advisors. This campaign is intended to encourage taxpayer compliance and ensure consistent treatment of similarly situated taxpayers by ensuring the easement contributions meet the legal requirements for a deduction, and the fair market values are accurate. The initial treatment stream is issue-based examinations. Other treatment streams will be considered as the campaign progresses.

September 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: Manufacturing Branch Rules for Foreign Base Company Sales Income

In general, foreign base company sales income (“FBCSI”) does not include income of a controlled foreign corporation (“CFC”) derived in connection with the sale of personal property manufactured by such a corporation. There is an exception to this general rule. If a CFC manufactures property through a branch outside its country of incorporation, the manufacturing branch may be treated as a separate, wholly owned subsidiary of the CFC for the purposes of computing the CFC’s FBCSI, which may result in a subpart F inclusion to the US shareholder(s) of the CFC.

The goal of this campaign is to identify and select for examination returns of US shareholders of CFCs that may have underreported subpart F income based on certain interpretations of the manufacturing branch rules. The treatment stream for the campaign will be issue-based examinations.

September 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: 1120-F Interest Expense & Home Office Expense

Two of the largest deductions claimed on Form1120-F (US Income Tax Return of a Foreign Corporation) are interest expenses and home office expense. Treasury Regulation Section 1.882-5 provides a formula to determine the interest expense of a foreign corporation that is allocable to their effectively connected income. The amount of interest expense deductions determined under Treasury Regulation Section 1.882-5 can be substantial.

Similarly, Treasury Regulation Section 1.861-8 governs the amount of Home Office expense deductions allocated to effectively connected income. Through its data analyses, the IRS noted that Home Office Expense allocations have been material amounts compared to the total deductions taken by a foreign corporation.

This IRS campaign addresses both of these Form 1120–F deductions. The campaign compliance strategy includes the identification of aggressive positions in these areas, such as the use of apportionment factors that may not attribute the proper amount of expenses to the calculation of effectively connected income. The goal of this campaign is to increase taxpayer compliance with the interest expense rules of Treasury Regulation Section 1.882-5 and the Home Office expense allocation rules of Treasury Regulation Section 1.861-8. The treatment stream for this campaign is harsh – issue-based examinations only.

September 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: Individuals Employed by Foreign Governments & International Organizations

Foreign embassies, foreign consular offices and international organizations operating in the United States are not required to withhold federal income and social security taxes from their employees’ compensation nor are they required to file information reports with the Internal Revenue Service. This lack of withholding and reporting often results in unreported income, erroneous deductions and credits, and failure to pay income and Social Security taxes, because some individuals working at foreign embassies, foreign consular offices, and various international organizations may not be reporting compensation or may be reporting it incorrectly.

This campaign will focus on outreach and education by partnering with the Department of State’s Office of Foreign Missions to inform employees of foreign embassies, consular offices and international organizations. The IRS will also address noncompliance in this area by issuing soft letters and conducting examinations.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Tax Help

If you have been contacted by the IRS as part of any of its campaigns, you should contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world with their US tax compliance issues, and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Sherayzen Law Office Successfully Completes 2019 April 15 Tax Season

/in , /by

Hundreds of filed complex tax forms and FBARs is the supreme evidence of the successful completion of the 2019 April 15 tax season by Sherayzen Law Office. Sherayzen Law Office is an international tax law firm that specializes in offshore voluntary disclosures and US international tax compliance.

Annual compliance occupies a special place in the firm’s practice. This part of our practice consists of almost entirely clients who were so satisfied with our services that they wanted us to handle their annual tax compliance. It is a proud testimony of the high quality, efficiency and professionalism of Sherayzen Law Office’s work.

Since there are more and more clients every year who wish to retain our services for annual compliance, this has been a very dynamic area of growth. It also means that, with each year, the deadline pressure is rising.

The 2019 April 15 tax season was no exception. A record number of clients placed their utmost confidence in our work and asked us to prepare their 2018 income tax returns, information returns and FBARs. Moreover, the tremendous complexity of the 2017 tax reform has further added to the difficulty of the 2019 April 15 tax season.

Mr. Eugene Sherayzen, the founder and owner of Sherayzen Law Office, recognized very early that this tax season is going to be the most difficult one yet in the firm’s existence. This why he expanded and trained additional workforce at the beginning of 2019, engaged in proper tax season planning, addressed ahead of time the needs of the ongoing audit and offshore voluntary disclosure clients and established aggressive deadlines for the firm.

Thanks to all of this work by Mr. Sherayzen and the firm’s employees, all of the annual compliance deadlines were successfully completed. Moreover, Sherayzen Law Office was also able to finalize the filings for all of the offshore voluntary disclosure clients according to the already-created (by Mr. Sherayzen) customized plans of offshore voluntary disclosure.

We are not planning, however, to simply enjoy the laurels of another success. We look forward to helping hundreds of new clients with their offshore voluntary disclosures, IRS audits and international tax planning. We also already started our preparation for June 15, September 15 and October 15 tax seasons.

If you are looking for an international tax firm to which you entrust your case, you should retain the services of Sherayzen Law Office! We are a team of highly-experienced US international tax specialists who have helped hundreds of US taxpayers with their US international tax compliance and offshore voluntary disclosures. We Can Help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

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!