Posts

Establishing Cost-Basis in Foreign Real Estate | IRS Audit Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , , /by

One of the most challenging issues during an IRS audit is establishing cost-basis in foreign real estate.  This issue most frequently comes up in the context of real estate that was obtained through inheritance or gift many years ago.  In this article, based on my IRS audit experiences, I would like to discuss the main challenges and case strategies associated with establishing the cost-basis in foreign real estate in a manner that would satisfy the IRS during an audit.

An important note: I will not be discussing this issue in the context of an IRS audit of an offshore voluntary disclosure and how it would affect the calculation of an Offshore Penalty.  This essay is strictly limited to an IRS audit that involves US international tax issues without the taxpayer ever going through a voluntary disclosure.

Another important note: this article is written more for the benefit of other international tax lawyers, not the general public.

Establishing Cost-Basis in Foreign Real Estate: Importance

Before we discuss the problems associated with establishing the cost-basis in foreign real estate, we need to first understand why this issue is so important.  There are three main consequences to establishing cost-basis in the context of an IRS audit. 

First, the income tax impact of failure to establish cost-basis in a foreign property on the audited taxpayer may be truly disastrous.  Obviously, if you cannot prove any cost-basis in a property (or you can only convince the IRS that there was minimal cost-basis), you will have to recognize all proceeds from the sale of this property as capital gains (or potentially subpart F income if you owned a property though a foreign corporation).

Second, there is a very important psychological impact on the entire audit if you have a large unreported gain from sale of foreign real estate.  The IRS agent in charge of an audit is likely to take a more aggressive position not only on this issue, but also on other issues irrespective of whether they are directly related to unreported gain.   The most frequent victims of this hardened attitude of an IRS agent are the legal arguments in support of a reasonable cause.

Finally, a large gain from a sale of foreign real estate is likely to encourage the IRS to dig deeper and even expand the audit to more years.  In one of my audit cases, an IRS agent initially believed that there was a large capital gain and expanded the audit to five prior years; however, he reversed this decision once I was able to show that the sold real property had a much higher cost-basis due to numerous improvements that were made by my client over a number of years.

In other words, establishing cost-basis in a sold real estate property may be one of the most crucial issues in an IRS audit.

Establishing Cost-Basis in Foreign Real Estate: Top 3 Challenges

The challenges to establishing cost-basis in foreign real estate are highly dependent on the facts of the case.  However, there are three main themes that usually appear in one form or another in every IRS audit case.

The first challenge is absence of documentation.  This is by far the most common and most important battleground between the IRS and the taxpayer during the vast majority of IRS audits in this area, especially if the direct documentation is absent due to passage of time.

The second challenge is the potential opposition from the IRS to proving cost-basis indirectly through usage of circumstantial evidence and third-parties.

The third challenge is establishing the credibility of evidence. For example, in one of my cases, the IRS initially refused to accept a valuation report prepared by a local professional valuation expert because the report lacked a proper explanation of how he arrived at the proposed values.

Establishing Cost-Basis in Foreign Real Estate: Top 4 Strategies for Overcoming Challenges

There are numerous strategies to deal with the cost-basis establishment challenges. Your choice among them should depend on the facts and circumstances of your case.  Sometimes, you will even come up with a brand-new strategy tailored specifically to the unique challenges of your case.

Nevertheless, there are four common themes to the strategies used in overcoming the aforementioned challenges.  First, you need to recreate the logical history of the property and capital improvements to the property in order to convince the IRS that the valuation your client supplied is logical and reasonable.

Second, demonstrate to the IRS agent in charge of your client’s audit that you are a reliable source of information.  The more objective you appear (and you actually are), the more the IRS sees that you will not allow false facts or statements to enter the record, the more the IRS sees that your client shares both of these traits, the more likely the IRS agent will accept your position or be willing to achieve a compromise with you (see below).

Third, utilize indirect and circumstantial evidence as well as third-party affidavits/testimony to support the valuation of the property.  In other words, if you have no ability to directly establish the cost-basis of a property, then you need to find creative ways to build the necessary records and establish their credibility through usage of supporting documents and/or testimony. 

For example, in one of my previous audits, the client had no documentation whatsoever except one isolated receipt to prove the substantial improvements made to her foreign real estate over the past almost forty (!) years.  My solution to this problem was to first get an affidavit from my client fully stating all improvements made with approximate cost based purely on her memory.  Then, I obtained additional signed statements from neighbors largely supporting the estimates as well as the fact that these improvements were indeed made. Finally, I obtained a statement from a local construction company owner who stated that he recalled these improvements and confirmed the estimated amounts.  Additionally, all of the improvements were properly explained by the history of how the property was obtained, for what purpose and why so many improvements were needed.  All of these facts and circumstances were explained in a letter to the IRS agent together with the legal basis (i.e., case law) showing how courts have accepted similar evidence in the past. Under the weight of this substantial record (and some other circumstances of this case), the IRS finally agreed to accept all improvements as part of an overall compromise.

Finally, use creative legal strategies to convince the IRS to accept a different cost-basis in a property through operation of tax rules.  This is a very complex strategy, but it is more commonly employed than one may believe.  For example, in one of my prior audit cases, the IRS agreed to disregard the foreign corporation that owned the foreign property allowing the stepped-up basis for this inherited property.

Contact Sherayzen Law office for Professional Help with IRS Audits Involving Foreign Real Estate

If you have foreign assets and you are audited by the IRS, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help.  We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world to bring their tax affairs in full compliance with US tax laws, including during IRS audits.  We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule a Confidential Consultation!

Tax Residency Starting Date | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

In situations where a person was not classified as a resident alien at any time in the preceding calendar year and he became a resident alien at some point during current year, a question often arises concerning the tax residency starting date of such a person. This article seeks to provide a succinct overview of this question in three different contexts: US permanent residence, substantial presence test and election to be treated as a tax resident.

Tax Residency Starting Date: General Rule for Green Card Holders

Pursuant to IRC (Internal Revenue Code) §7701(b)(2)(A)(iii), the starting tax residency date for green card holders is the first day in the calendar year in which he or she is physically present in the United States while holding a permanent residence visa.  However, if the green card holder also satisfies the Substantial Presence Test prior to obtaining his green card, the tax residency is the earliest of either the green card test described in the previous sentence or the substantial presence test (see below).

Tax Residency Starting Date: General Rule for the Substantial Presence Test

Generally, under the substantial presence test, the tax residence of an alien starts on the first day of his physical presence in the United States in the year he met the substantial presence test. See IRC §7701(b)(2)(A)(iii).  For example, if an alien meets the requirements of the Substantial presence test in 2022 and his first day of physical presence in the United States was March 1, 2022, then his US tax residency started on March 1, 2022.

Tax Residency Starting Date: Nominal Presence Exception & the Substantial Presence Test

A reader may ask: how does the rule described above work in case of a “nominal presence” in the United States. IRC §7701(b)(2)(C) provides that, for the purposes of determining the residency starting date only, up to ten (10) days of presence in the United States may be disregarded, but only if the alien is able to establish that he had a “closer connection” to a foreign country rather than to the United States on each of those particular ten days (i.e., all continuous days during a visit to the United States may be excluded or none of them). There is some doubt about the validity of this rule, but it has never been contested in court as of the time of this writing.

This rule may lead to a paradoxical result.  For example, if X visits the United States between March 1 and March 10 and leaves on March 10; then later comes back to the United States on May 1 of the same year and meets the substantial presence test, then he may exclude the first ten days in March and his US tax residency will start on May 1.  If, however, X prolongs his visit and leaves on March 12, then none of the days will be excluded (since March 11 and 12 cannot be excluded under the rules) and his US tax residency will commence on March 1.

I want to emphasize that the nominal presence exception only applies in determining an alien’s residency starting date. It is completely irrelevant to the determination of whether a taxpayer met the Substantial Presence Test; i.e. the days excluded under the nominal presence exception are still counted toward the Substantial Presence Test calculation.

Tax Residency Starting Date: Additional Requirements for Nominal Presence Exception & Penalty for Noncompliance

The IRS has imposed two additional requirements concerning claiming “nominal presence” exclusion (again, both of them have questionable validity as there is nothing in the statutory language about them).  First, the alien must show that he had a “tax home” in the same foreign country with which he has a closer connection.

Second, Treas. Regs. §301.7701(b)-8(b)(3) requires that an alien who claims the nominal presence exception must file a statement with the IRS as well as attach such statement to his federal tax return for the year in which the termination is requested. The statement must be dated, signed, include a penalty of perjury clause and contain: (a) the first day and last day the alien was present in the United States and the days for which the exemption is being claimed; and (b) sufficient facts to establish that the alien has maintained his/her tax home in and a closer connection to a foreign country during the claimed period. Id.

A failure to file this statement may result in an imposition of a substantial penalty: a complete disallowance of the nominal presence exclusion claim.  Since IRC §7701(b)(8) does not contain the requirement to file any statements with the IRS to claim the nominal presence exception, the penalty stands on shaky legal grounds.  However, as of the time of this writing, there is no case law directly on point.

Additionally, as almost always in US international tax law, there are exceptions to this rule.  First, if the alien shows by clear and convincing evidence that he took: (a) “reasonable actions” to educate himself about the requirement to properly file the statement and (b) “significant affirmative actions” to comply with this requirement, then the IRS may still allow the nominal presence exclusion claim to proceed. Treas. Regs. 301.7701(b)-8(d). 

Second, under Treas. Regs. §301.7701(b)-8(e), the IRS has the discretion to ignore the taxpayer’s failure to file the required nominal presence statement if it is in the best interest of the United States to do so.

Tax Residency Starting Date: Election to Be Treated as a US Tax Resident

In situations where a resident alien elects to be treated as a US tax resident (for example, by filing a joint resident US tax return with his spouse), the tax residency date starts on the first day of the year for which election is made.  See Treas. Regs. §7701(b)(2)(A)(iv).

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help with US International Tax Law, Including the Determination of the Tax Residency Starting Date

If you have foreign assets or foreign income or if you are trying to determine your tax residency status in the United States, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help.  Our law firm is a leader in US international tax compliance; we have helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Austin Streamlined Disclosure Lawyer | International Tax Attorney

/in , /by

Austin is a fast-growing city which attracts a large number of immigrants with assets in foreign countries. These assets may also generate foreign income which their owners must disclose on their US tax returns. Unfortunately many of these new residents of Austin have not correctly reported their foreign assets and foreign income to the IRS. Once they realize it, they have to grapple with a fact that their noncompliance may have exposed them to large IRS penalties. Since the majority of these persons are non-willful in their prior noncompliance, they naturally seek help from an Austin streamlined disclosure lawyer to participate in Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures (SDOP) or Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures (SFOP), but they do not fully know what the term “Austin streamlined disclosure lawyer” truly means.

In this essay, I will explore the definition of an Austin streamlined disclosure lawyer and explain why out-of-state lawyers and law firms, such as Sherayzen Law Office, should be included in the definition of this term.

Austin Streamlined Disclosure Lawyer: International Tax Attorney

From the outset, It is important to understand that all voluntary disclosures, including the Streamlined options, form part of US international tax law, because these options deal with US international tax compliance concerning foreign assets and foreign income. 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 Austin streamlined disclosure lawyer. In reality, when you are seeking help with the SDOP and SFOP filings, you are searching for an international tax attorney.

Austin 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 attorney 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 attorney 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), IRS 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.

Austin 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 Austin 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 Austin or Minnesota.

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

Sherayzen Law Office May Be Your Austin 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 Austin, with the preparation and filing of their Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures disclosure. We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Factual Basis & Tax Planning | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

In a previous article, I discussed the necessity of balancing international tax planning priorities in order to obtain an optimal tax result. In this article, I will explain why international tax planning should be based on a carefully-studied factual basis.

Factual Basis as the Foundation for International Tax Planning

Young inexperienced lawyers often come up with a particular tax strategy and then they try to implement it independent of the actual facts on the ground. Irrespective of how brilliant such a strategy would be in the abstract, it is almost always doomed to become a failure.

Why? The answer is very simple: these lawyers turn international tax planning on its head. They build the second level of a house without ever building a foundation for it. No matter how well they plan out a strategy, it will fall apart almost immediately when it comes in conflict with the facts – how the business is run, its capital structure, its needs, its goals, its cash flow source, its operating model, its E&P, its foreign tax credit and numerous other important considerations.

Hence, the starting point of any tax planning should be a careful factual study of the business.

Studying Factual Basis as a Way to Uncover Potential Opportunities

In my practice, I have found that a careful study of a business may generate a number of potential planning opportunities that may have otherwise been ignored. For example, during a study of a company’s loan structure, one can sometimes find opportunities to treat these loans as equity investments and utilize much better currency exchange rates to build up the client’s basis in the company (potentially even resulting in a reversal of an entire capital gain upon the sale of this company).

Factual Basis: Four Most Important Components

While an attorney should study all relevant facts, there are four main components that he must cover. The components are: (1) organizational chart and capital structure; (2) operating model; (3) tax status and characteristics; and (4) analysis of financial statements. Let’s analyze each component in more detail.

Factual Basis Components: Organizational Chart and Capital Structure

You should start your factual analysis by building the organizational chart of the business and understanding its capital structure. What you need to do is to understand each entity within the corporate structure and the place it occupies in the overall business structure, identify the tax status of each business, understand the sources of cash and where it is used, create a diagram of debt and equity instruments (including whether these are related or unrelated party instruments), study how the business operates across the entire corporate structure, uncover which currencies are used in business (as well as any currency hedging) and review the withholding tax exposure/compliance.

This first component is likely to help you to identify the tax inefficiencies of the existing corporate structure and seek structural alternatives. I recommend that at this stage you plan for creating a more tax-efficient financing of foreign affiliates to maximize foreign country deductions, minimize tax imposed on interest income, reduce withholding tax and assure sufficient cash flow throughout the structure.

Factual Basis Components: Operating Model

The second component of your factual analysis (though it will probably come at about the same time as you start working on the first component) is the operating model of the business. In other words, what type of a business is it: manufacturing, sales, services or IP (development, ownership and/or usage of IP)? How does the business operate: local country manufacturing, local distributing/franchising, global service contracts, et cetera?

I recommend that you especially focus here (as a goal of your tax planning strategy) on: tax-efficient structuring of current and anticipated foreign operations to maximize tax deferral, tax-efficient financing of capital needs and development of strategy concerning IP development and licensing.

Factual Basis Components: Tax Characteristics

The third component is the one that tax attorneys are likely to like the most, because it is very close to their training and professional interest – the study of the tax characteristics of the corporate structure: income/losses, NOL, AMT, foreign tax credit position (carryovers), E&P, transfer pricing, local tax position and PTI (previously taxed income through Subpart F, 965 tax, GILTI tax, et cetera).

The focus of your tax planning goals here are centered around foreign tax credit, repatriation of earnings, minimizing Subpart F income and transfer pricing (i.e. allocation of profits between the US head office and its foreign affiliate companies).

Factual Basis Components: Financial Statements

Finally, the fourth component of your factual basis study consists of the financial statement analysis. You need to carefully review the financial statement with the focus on: Effective Tax Rate (“ETR”) reconciliation, deferred tax analysis, reinvestment, valuation and foreign currency. The focus of your tax planning goals here should be on low-tax deferral structures (for example, through indefinite reinvestment outside of the United States at a lower tax rate) and the most optimal foreign tax credit utilization.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With International Tax Planning

If your US company conducts business outside of the United States, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with your international business tax planning. We have helped companies plan their inbound and outbound transactions for US and foreign companies, and we can help you!

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!