Posts

Inbound Transactions: Non-US Person Definition | International Tax Attorney

/in , /by

In a previous article, I described the analytical framework for conducting tax analysis of inbound transactions. In this article, I will focus on the first issue of this framework – the Non-US Person definition.

Non-US Person Definition: Importance in the Context of Inbound Transactions

Before we delve into the issue of Non-US Person definition, we need to understand why this definition is so important in the context of inbound transactions.

The significance of this definition comes from the fact that the extent of exposure to US taxation depends on whether a person is classified as a US-Person or a Non-US Person. A US person is taxed on his worldwide income and may be subject to a huge array of US reporting requirements. A Non-US Person, however, may only be taxed by the IRS with respect to income earned from US investments or US businesses (even then, there are a number of exceptions). Hence, the classification of US Person versus Non-US Person may have a huge practical impact on a person’s US tax exposure.

Non-US Person Definition: Everyone Who Is Not a US-Person

There is no definition of “Non-US Person” in the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”); there is not even a definition of a “foreign person”.

Rather, one needs to look at the IRC §7701(a) to look for identification of categories of persons who are considered “domestic”. Anyone who is not a “domestic person” is a foreign person or, for our purposes, a Non-US Person.

Non-US Person Definition: What Does “Person” Mean

Before we analyze who is considered to be a “US Person”, we should first clarify who a “person” is. Under §7701(a)(1), a person “shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation”. In other words, a “person” may mean not only an individual, but also a business entity, trust or estate.

Non-US Person Definition: General Definition of US Person

Under §7701(a)(30), a “US Person” means a US citizen, US resident alien, domestic partnership, domestic corporation, any estate that is not a foreign estate and a trust that satisfies both condition of §7701(a)(30)(E). Almost each of these categories is highly complex and needs a special definition. I will not cover here every detail, but I will provide certain general definitions with respect to each category.

Non-US Person Definition: Individuals Who Are US Persons

As I stated above, all US citizens and US resident aliens are considered US Persons. In the vast majority of cases, it is fairly easy to determine who is a US citizen; most complications occur with “accidental Americans” and Americans with only one parent who is a US citizen.

A US resident alien is a more complex term. It includes not only US Permanent Residents (i.e. “green card” holders), but also all persons who satisfied the Substantial Presence Test and all persons who declared themselves as US tax residents. This means that a person may be a US resident for tax purposes, but not for immigration purposes. This situation creates a lot of confusion among people who marry US persons or who come to the United States to work; many of them believe themselves to be Non-US Persons, but in reality they are US tax residents.

Non-US Person Definition: Domestic Corporations & Partnerships

Under §7701(a)(4), corporations and partnerships are considered US Persons if they are created or organized in the United States or under the laws of the United States or any of its states. In the case of partnerships, the IRS may issue regulations that provide otherwise, but the IRS has not done so yet. Conversely, a corporation or a partnership is a Non-US Person if it is not organized in the United States.

Pursuant to §7701(a)(9), the definition of the United States for the purposes of §7701(a)(4) includes only the 50 States and the District of Columbia. In other words, §7701(a)(9) excludes all US territories and possessions from the definition of the United States. For example, a corporation formed in Guam is a Non-US Person!

Non-US Person Definition: Domestic Trust

A trust is a US Person if it satisfies both tests contained in §7701(a)(30)(E). The first test is a “court test”: a court within the United States must be able to exercise primary supervisorial administration. The second test is a “control test”: one or more US persons must have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust. Failure to meet either test will result in the trust being a Non-US Person with huge implications for US tax purposes.

Non-US Person Definition: Domestic Estate

While all other definitions described above define a domestic entity and state that a foreign entity is not a domestic one, it is exactly the opposite with estates. Under §7701(a)(30)(D), an estate is a US Person if it is not a foreign estate described in §7701(a)(31). §7701(a)(31)(A) defines a foreign estate as: “the income of which, from sources without the United States which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States, is not includible in gross income under subtitle A”.

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

Sherayzen Law Office is a leader in US international tax compliance. We have advised hundreds of clients around the globe with respect to their US international tax compliance, international tax planning (including investment into US companies) and offshore voluntary disclosures. We can help you!

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!

§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!

§318 Estate Beneficiary Definition | US International Tax Law Firm

/in , /by

The Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) §318 contains corporate stock attribution rules between an estate and its beneficiaries. In order to apply these rules correctly, one must understand how §318 defines “beneficiary” for the purposes of upstream and downstream estate attribution rules. This articles will introduce the readers to this §318 estate beneficiary definition.

§318 Estate Beneficiary Definition: General Rule

Treas. Regs. §1.318-3(a) defines “beneficiary” for the purposes of §318 attribution rules (on a separate note, pursuant to Rev. Rul. 71-353, the attribution rules for the personal holding company provisions, collapsible corporation provisions (now repealed), and affiliated group provisions also use this definition of a beneficiary).

Treas. Regs. §1.318-3(a) states that “the term beneficiary includes any person entitled to receive property of a decedent pursuant to a will or pursuant to laws of descent and distribution.” Hence, in order to be considered a beneficiary under §318 , a person must have a direct present interest in the property of the estate or in income generated by that property.

Moreover, a person entitled to property not subject to administration by the executor is not a beneficiary for purposes of the §318 estate attribution rules unless the property is subject to the executor’s claim for a share of the federal estate tax.

§318 Estate Beneficiary Definition: Certain Specific Cases

This definition of beneficiary produces interesting results in some specific cases which are actually quite common.

Let’s first see the result of the application of the §318 estate beneficiary definition to life estates. A person with a life estate in estate property is a beneficiary. On the other hand, if a person owns only a remainder interest (i.e. an interest that vests only after the death of the life tenant), then he is not a beneficiary.

A beneficiary of life insurance proceeds is not considered a beneficiary for the §318 estate attribution rule purposes. This is because this is not a property subject to administration by the executor.

Similarly, an executor or administrator is usually not a beneficiary simply by virtue of occupying either of these positions. The main exception to this rule is a situation where an executor or administrator is otherwise considered a beneficiary.

Finally, a residuary testamentary trust presents a very interesting and complex issue. Under Rev. Rul. 67-24, it may be treated as a beneficiary of an estate before the residue of the estate is actually transferred to it. Moreover, it appears that such a trust (in that case, it was an unfunded testamentary trust) needs to worry about the §318(a)(3)(B) trust attribution rules.

§318 Estate Beneficiary Definition: Cessation of Beneficiary Status

It is important to note that §318 estate attribution rules cease to operate with respect to a person who stops being a beneficiary. See Tres. Reg. §1.318-3(a). There is an exception to this rule though: pursuant to Rev. Rul. 60-18, a residuary legatee does not stop being a beneficiary until the estate is closed. “Residual legatee” is a person named in a will to receive any residue left in an estate after the bequests of specific items are made.

When does a person stop being a beneficiary for the purposes of §318? Treas. Reg. Reg. §1.318-3(a) sets forth the following criteria that must be met for a person to no longer be considered a beneficiary: (a) the person has received all property to which he is entitled; (b) ”when he no longer has a claim against the estate arising out of having been a beneficiary”; and (c) “when there is only a remote possibility that it will be necessary for the estate to seek the return of property or to seek payment from him by contribution or otherwise to satisfy claims against the estate or expenses of administration”.

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 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!