Posts

Orlando Foreign Trust Attorney | International Tax Lawyers Florida

/in , /by

If you live in Orlando, Florida, and you are an owner or a beneficiary of a foreign trust, you need to secure the help of a Orlando Foreign Trust Attorney to properly comply with US international tax laws.

You should consider retaining Sherayzen Law Office as your Orlando Foreign Trust Attorney. Sherayzen Law Office is a leading US international tax firm concerning US tax compliance of US beneficiaries and owners of a foreign trust. Our experience covers US taxpayers with a beneficiary and/or ownership interest in most of the countries that allow for the creation of a trust, including such important jurisdictions as: Australia, the Bahamas, Bermuda, Canada, Cook Islands, India, Japan, Jersey, New Zealand, Saint Kitts and Nevis, the United Kingdom and others. We also have an experience dealing with trusts organized in the United States that are treated as foreign trusts and, vice versa, trusts organized outside of the United States but treated as US trusts.

Orlando Foreign Trust Attorney: Foreign Trust Annual US Tax Compliance

Sherayzen Law Office is an experienced US international tax law firm that helps its clients to stay in full compliance with the US international tax reporting requirements concerning foreign trusts, including Forms 3520, 3520-A, 4970, 8938 and FBAR. This applies to both, US beneficiaries and US owners (including US grantors, US trustees and deemed US owners) of a foreign trust.

Orlando Foreign Trust Attorney: Foreign Trust Offshore Voluntary Disclosure

Sherayzen Law Office also helps its clients to remedy past noncompliance with respect to reporting of their beneficiary and/or ownership interests in a foreign trust as well as income from a foreign trust.  The primary legal vehicle for remedying such past tax noncompliance is an offshore voluntary disclosure.

Since 2005, Sherayzen Law Office has developed a profound expertise in all forms of offshore voluntary disclosures, including: Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures, Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures, Delinquent International Information Return Submission Procedures and Reasonable Cause voluntary disclosure (also known as “Noisy Disclosures” or “Statutory Disclosures”).   Due to its unique expertise, our firm is able to handle both, the legal and the accounting sides of an offshore voluntary disclosure; i.e. we prepare all of the legal documents and tax forms for you within one firm.

Orlando Foreign Trust Attorney: Foreign Trust Tax Planning

Sherayzen Law Office assists its clients with all aspects of US tax planning concerning foreign trusts.  Foreign trust tax planning can be very complex and involve multiple tax jurisdictions, but it remains one of the most effective tools to ethically and legally reduce your current income tax compliance burden.

Orlando Foreign Trust Attorney:  Challenging IRS Classification and IRS Penalties

Sherayzen Law Office represents its clients before the IRS with respect to challenging IRS classification of a foreign trust as well as high IRS penalties imposed for prior tax noncompliance concerning foreign trusts.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With Your US International Tax Compliance Concerning Your Beneficiary or Ownership Interest in a Foreign Trust

Timing is highly important in cases involving a foreign trust. Hence, if you have a beneficiary or ownership interest in a foreign trust, you contact us in order to maximize the positive impact of our involvement.

We can help You! Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

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!

Subsidiary vs. Branch | International Business Tax Lawyer Minneapolis

/in , /by

For the purposes of US international tax laws, it is very important to distinguish a subsidiary from a branch. Let’s define both terms in this short essay.

Subsidiary vs. Branch: Definition of a Branch

A branch is a direct form of doing business by a corporation in another country where the corporation retains the direct title of the assets used in the branch’s business. In other words, a branch is a direct extension of the corporation to another country.

Most importantly, there is no separate legal identity between a corporation’s branch in one country and its head office in another. It is all the same company doing business in two countries.

One of the practical advantages of a branch is that it usually requires a lot less effort to establish a branch than a subsidiary. However, it is not always the case – for example, in Kazakhstan, creation of a branch is a very formal process. Moreover, while the legal formalities may not be that complicated, the tax consequences of having a branch in another country may be far more complex.

Subsidiary vs. Branch: Definition of a Subsidiary

A subsidiary is a complete opposite of a branch. It is a separately-chartered foreign corporation owned by a US parent corporation. In other words, a subsidiary has its own legal identity separate from that of its parent US corporation. In the eyes of a local jurisdiction, the US corporation is merely a shareholder of its foreign subsidiary; the US corporation is not directly doing any business in the foreign jurisdiction.

Of course, a situation can be reversed: it can be a foreign parent corporation that organizes a US subsidiary. In this case, the foreign parent company will have its separate identity from its US subsidiary. It will be merely a shareholder of the US company in the eyes of the IRS.

As a separate legal entity, subsidiaries will usually have a host of legal and tax duties in the jurisdiction where they are organized.

Subsidiary vs. Branch: Forced Tax Similarities

Despite these legal differences, the US tax treatment of a subsidiary and a branch created some artificial similarities between these two forms of business. The reason for these similarities is the huge potential for tax deferral through subsidiaries.

The basic trend here is to minimize the advantages of a separate legal identity of a subsidiary, making it a lot more similar to a branch when it comes to tax treatment. The IRS has achieved this through the usage of a number of anti-deferral regimes, such as Subpart F rules and GILTI tax, as well as transfer pricing rules.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office to Determine Whether a Branch or a Subsidiary is Best for Your Business

Whether you are a US business entity who wishes to do business overseas or a foreign entity that wishes to do business in the United States, you can contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. We have helped domestic and foreign businesses with their US international tax planning concerning their inbound and outbound transactions, and we can help you!

Florida Streamlined Disclosure Lawyer | International Tax Attorney

/in , , /by

Florida is one of the most favorite destinations for immigrants as well as US citizens who do business overseas. Many of these taxpayers own assets in foreign countries and receive income generated by these assets. For this reason, Florida is also one of the leading states when it comes to individuals who wish to go through Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures (SDOP) or Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures (SFOP). These individuals often look for a Florida streamlined disclosure lawyer for professional help, but they do not understand what this term really means. In this essay, I will explain who would be included within the definition of Florida streamlined disclosure lawyer.

Florida Streamlined Disclosure Lawyer: International Tax Lawyer

From the outset, It is important to understand that both SDOP and SFOP are part of US international tax law, because these options deal with US international tax compliance concerning foreign assets and foreign income. In order to be more precise, I should say that SDOP and SFOP fall within a very specific sub-area of US international law – IRS offshore voluntary disclosures.

The knowledge that SDOP and SFOP are part of US international tax law makes you better understand what kind of a lawyer you are looking for when you search for a Florida streamlined disclosure lawyer. In reality, when you are seeking help with the SDOP and SFOP filings, you are searching for an international tax lawyer.

Florida Streamlined Disclosure Lawyer: Specialty in Offshore Voluntary Disclosures

As I stated above, SDOP and SFOP form part of a very specific sub-area of offshore voluntary disclosures. This means that not every international tax lawyer would be able to conduct the necessary legal analysis required to successfully complete an offshore voluntary disclosure, including Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures and Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures. Only a lawyer who has developed expertise in a very narrow sub-field of offshore voluntary disclosures within US international tax law will be fit for this job.

This means that you are looking for an international tax lawyer who specializes in offshore voluntary disclosure and who is familiar with the various offshore voluntary disclosure options. Offshore voluntary disclosure options include: SDOP (Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures), SFOP (Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures), DFSP (Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures), DIIRSP (Delinquent International Information Return Submission Procedures), VDP (IRS Voluntary Disclosure Practice) and Reasonable Cause disclosures. Each of these options has it pros and cons, which may have tremendous legal and tax (and, in certain cases, even immigration) implications for your case.

Florida Streamlined Disclosure Lawyer: Geographical Location Does Not Matter

While the expertise and experience in offshore voluntary disclosures are highly important in choosing your international tax lawyer, the geographical location (i.e. the city where the lawyer lives and works) does not matter. I already hinted at why this is the case above: offshore voluntary disclosure options were all created by the IRS and form part of US international (i.e. federal) law. In other words, the local law has no relation whatsoever to the SDOP and SFOP.

This means that you are not limited to Florida when you are looking for a lawyer who can help you with your streamlined disclosure. Any international tax lawyer who specializes in this field may be able to help you, irrespective of whether this lawyer resides in Florida or Minnesota.

Moreover, the development of modern means of communications has pretty much eliminated any communication advantages that a lawyer in Florida might have had in the past over out-of-state lawyers. This is especially true in our world today where the pandemic has greatly reduced the number of face-to-face meetings.

Sherayzen Law Office May Be Your Florida Streamlined Disclosure Lawyer

Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. is a highly-experienced international tax law firm that specializes in all types of offshore voluntary disclosures, including SDOP, SFOP, DFSP, DIIRSP, VDP and Reasonable Cause disclosures. Our professional tax team, led by attorney Eugene Sherayzen, has successfully helped our US clients around the globe, including in Florida, with the preparation and filing of their Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures disclosure. We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

§318 Partnership Attribution | International Corporate Tax Lawyers

/in , /by

This article continues a series of articles on the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) §318 constructive ownership rules. In this essay, we will discuss the §318 partnership attribution rules – i.e. attribution of ownership of shares from partnership to partners and vice versa.

§318 Partnership Attribution Rules: Two Types

There are two types of the IRC §318 partnership attribution rules: downstream and upstream. The downstream attribution rules attribute the ownership of corporate stocks owned by a partnership to its partners. The upstream attribution rules attribute the ownership of corporate stocks owned by partners to the partnership. Let’s explore both types of attribution rules in more detail.

§318 Partnership Attribution Rules: Attribution from Partnership to Partners

Pursuant to §318(a)(2)(A), corporate stocks owned, either directly or indirectly, by or on behalf of a partnership is deemed constructively owned by its partners proportionately. Interestingly, the attribution of corporate stock from a partnership to its partners continues to happen even if the partnership does not do any business or stops all of its operation. See Baker Commodities, Inc. v. Commissioner 415 F.2d 519 (9th Cir. 1969); Sorem v. Commissioner 40 T.C. 206 (1963), rev’d on other grounds, 334 F.2d 275 (10th Cir. 1964).

The biggest problem with applying §318(a)(2)(A) is determining what “proportionate attribution” means. Where a partner owns the same interest in capital, profits and losses of a partnership, the proportionality is easy to apply. However, in situations where a partner owns varying interests in capital, profits and losses, it is much more difficult.

Unfortunately, this problem is not addressed at all by the IRS or courts – the proportionality of attribution is not defined in any IRC provision, Treasury Regulations and even case law. Looking at Treas. Reg. §1.318-2(c) Ex. 1, however, it is likely that the IRS will accept a position where proportionality of attribution is based on the “facts-and-circumstances” test of §704(b).

§318 Partnership Attribution Rules: Attribution from Partners to Partnership

Under §318(a)(3)(A), a partnership constructively owns corporate stocks owned by a partner. There are no limitations on the attribution – all stocks held by a partner are deemed to be owned by the partnership irrespective of the percentage of an ownership interest in the partnership held by the partner. There is no de minimis rule that would apply to §318(a)(3)(A).

For example, assume that partner P (an individual) owns 25% in a partnership X. P also owns 100 shares out of the total 200 shares outstanding of Y corporation; X owns the remaining 100 shares. Under §318(a)(3)(A), X actually owns 100 shares of Y and constructively owns P’s 100 shares of Y; in other words, X owns 100% of Y.

§318 Partnership Attribution Rules: Certain Attributions Not Allowed

There are two special §318 rules concerning partnership attributions that I would like to mention in this article. First, there is no partner-to-partner attribution of stock under the §318 partnership attribution rules. In other words, stocks owned by a partner will not be owned by another partner simply by virtue of both partners having an ownership interest in the same partnership (however, this does not mean that stocks may not be attributed through another provision of §318).

Second, §318(a)(5)(C) prevents re-attribution of stocks that were already attributed from a partner to the partnership. This means that, where stocks are attributed from a partner to a partnership, they cannot be then re-attributed from the partnership to another partner.

§318 Partnership Attribution Rules: S-Corporations

Under §318(a)(5)(E), an S-corporation and its shareholders are respectively considered to be a partnership and its partners. Hence, corporate stocks owned by an S-corporation are attributed to its shareholders proportionately to each shareholder’s ownership of the S-corporation’s stock. Also, stocks owned by shareholders are deemed to be owned by the S-corporation.

It is important to emphasize that §318 partnership attribution rules do not apply to the stock of the S-corporation. Id. In other words, §318 does not treat shareholders in an S-corporation as being constructive owners of the stock of the S-corporation itself.

§318 Partnership Attribution Rules: Comprehensive Example

I would like to finish this article with a comprehensive example of how §318 partnership attribution rules work. Let’s suppose that A and B own Y partnership in equal portions (i.e. 50% each); Y owns 120 shares of X, a C-corporation, out of the total 200 outstanding shares; another 80 shares are owned by A.

Let’s analyze each parties’ actual and constructive ownership of X. A actually owns 80 shares and constructively owns half of Y’s ownership of X shares (60 shares) under §318(a)(2)(A) – i.e. he owns a total of 140 shares.

B constructively owns half of Y’s ownership of X shares – i.e. 60 shares. He does not constructively own any of A’s shares, because there is no partner-to-partner attribution of stocks and there is no attribution to B of A’s shares that were attributed to Y.

Finally, Y actually owns 120 shares and constructively owns all of A’s 80 shares. In other words, Y is deemed to be a 100% owner of X.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With §318 Partnership Attribution Rules

The constructive ownership rules of §318 are crucial to proper identification of US tax reporting requirements with respect domestic and especially foreign business entities. Hence, if you are a partner in a partnership that owns stocks in a domestic or foreign corporation, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with §318 partnership attribution rules.

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!