Posts

§318 Entity-Member Attribution Summary | International Tax Lawyer

In a previous article, I discussed the IRC (Internal Revenue Code) §318 sidewise attribution limitation. This limitation was the last piece in the jigsaw puzzle of the §318 entity-member attribution rules; now, we are ready to summarize these rules in light of this exception. This is the purpose of this article – state the §318 Entity-Member Attribution summary.

§318 Entity-Member Attribution Summary: Definition of Member

For the purpose of this §318 Entity-Member Attribution summary, I am using the word “member” to describe partners, shareholders and beneficiaries.

§318 Entity-Member Attribution Summary: Limitations

This summary of §318 entity-member attribution rules is limited only to situations where a member owns at 50% of the value of stock (in case of a corporation) and a beneficiary of a trust does not hold a remote and contingent interest in a trust. The readers need to keep these limitations in mind as they apply the summary below to a particular fact pattern.

Moreover, the readers must remember that this summary of the §318 Entity-Member attribution rules may be altered when one applies it within the context of a specific tax provision. Hence, the readers must check for any modification of these §318 attribution rules contained in that specific tax provision.

§318 Entity-Member Attribution Summary

Now that we understand the limitations above, we can state the following summary of the §318 Entity-Member attribution rules:

  1. All corporate stock is attributed to an entity from its member irrespective of whether the member owns this stock actually or constructively;
  2. If corporate stock is attributed from an entity to its member, such attribution will be done on a proportionate basis; and
  3. The following corporate stock is attributed from an entity to its member on a proportionate basis:
    (a). Corporate stock which the entity actually owns;
    (b). Corporate stock which the entity constructively owns under the option rules; and
    (c). Corporate stock which the entity constructively owns because it is a member of some other entity.

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.

This is why you should 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 Re-attribution: General Rule | International Tax Lawyers Miami

This article continues a series of articles on the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) §318 constructive ownership rules. Today, I would like to focus on the §318 re-attribution rule. In this article, I will explain the general §318 re-attribution rule and mention the exceptions. I will discuss the exceptions in more detail in future articles.

§318 Re-attribution: General Rule

Generally, under the IRC §318(a)(5)(A), stock constructively owned by a shareholder under any of the §318 attribution rule is deemed to be actually owned for the purposes of re-attribution to others. In other words, except for limitations mentioned below, the constructive ownership of stock can be further attributed to other persons.

For example, if a husband owns stocks in Corporation Y and his wife is deemed to owned these stocks under the family attribution rules of §318(a)(1)(A)(i), then these constructively-owned stocks can be further attributed from the wife to Corporation X under the shareholder-to-corporation rules of §318(a)(3)(C) if the wife owns 50% or more of the value of stocks issued by Corporation X.

§318 Re-attribution: Great Burden on Taxpayers

The breadth of the §318 re-attribution rule can present a huge challenge to taxpayers. Both individuals and entities must maintain correct ownership records to allow their tax attorneys to properly determine their ownership of stock under §318 and their consequent tax obligations.

The dangerous reach of the §318 re-attribution rule can be demonstrated by the following example. Let’s suppose that corporation X has 200 shares outstanding and all of the shares are owned as follows: H owns 100 shares, his wife W owns 60 shares and his son S owns 40 shares. Additionally, H owns 25% in partnership P.

Under the §318 family attribution rules, H actually owns 100 shares and constructively owns another 100 shares (i.e. his wife’s and his son’s shares) of X. Under §318(a)(5)(A), H’s constructive ownership of 100 shares is deemed to be actual ownership for the purposes of re-attribution of stock. Consequently, under the partner-to-partnership rules of §318(a)(3)(A), 100% ownership of X is now attributed to P.

This can get even worse. Assuming the same facts, what if P also actually owns 50% of the value of the stock of corporation Y? Then, under §318(a)(3)(C), Y would be a constructive owner of 100% of X, because these shares were attributed first to H and, then, from H to P.

§318 Re-attribution: Restrictions

It is obvious that, without any limitations, such an extensive re-attribution of stock can easily get out of hand and spread to cover persons who have no relationship to the original owners. For this purpose, the US Congress imposed certain restrictions on the re-attribution of stock under §318(a)(5)(A). Each provision §318(a)(5)(B)–§318(a)(5)(D) imposes limitations on re-attribution of stock where the relationship between the original owner and the person subject to stock re-attribution no longer justifies the assertion of constructive ownership. I will detail these restrictions in future articles.

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

If you own foreign assets, including foreign business entities, you have the daunting obligation to meet all of your complex US international tax compliance requirements; otherwise, you may have to face the wrath of the IRS in the form of high noncompliance penalties. In order to successfully meet your US international tax compliance obligations, you need the professional help of Sherayzen Law Office.

We are an international tax law firm that specializes in US international tax compliance and offshore voluntary disclosures. We have successfully helped hundreds of US taxpayers worldwide with their US international tax compliance, and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

§318 Upstream Corporate Attribution | International Tax Lawyers Florida

In a previous article, I discussed the rules for the downstream attribution of corporate stocks under the IRC (Internal Revenue Code) §318. Today, I would like to discuss the §318 upstream corporate attribution rules.

§318 Upstream Corporate Attribution: Two Types of Attribution

There are two types of §318 corporate attribution rules: downstream and upstream. Under the downstream corporate attribution rules, stocks owned by a corporation are attributed to this corporation’s shareholders. The upstream corporate attribution rules are exactly the opposite: stocks (in another corporation) owned by shareholders are attributed to the corporation. This article will focus on the upstream attribution rules.

§318 Upstream Corporate Attribution: Main Rule

Under §318(a)(3)(C), a corporation is deemed to be the constructive owner of all stocks owned directly or indirectly by its 50% shareholder. The 50% threshold is determined by value of the stock in the corporation. Id.

Of course, this rule applies only to stocks owned by shareholders in another corporation; a corporation can never be a constructive owner of its own stock under §318(a)(3)(C). Treas. Reg. §1.318-1(b)(1).

§318 Upstream Corporate Attribution: 50% Threshold

“In determining the 50-percent requirement of section 318(a)(2)(C) and (3)(C), all of the stock owned actually and constructively by the person concerned shall be aggregated.” Treas. Reg. §1.318-1(b)(3). In other words, for the purpose of upstream corporate attribution under §318, all actual and constructive ownership of a shareholder should be considered in order to determine whether th 50% value ownership threshold is met.

Let’s consider the following hypothetical to illustrate this rule: H owns 50% of value of the stock of X, a C-corporation, while his wife W owns 50% of the value of stock in Y, another C-corporation; the rest of Y’s stock is owned by unrelated third-parties. The question is how much of X’s stock ownership is attributed to Y.

We should begin our analysis by stating that, under the family attribution rules of §318(a)(1)(A), H’s shares in X are attributed to W; in other words, W is a constructive owner of 50% of the value of X’s stock. Since W is a 50% value-owner of Y’s stock, Y is deemed to own the stock actually and constructively owned by W under the operation of §318 upstream corporate attribution rules. This means that Y constructively owns 50% of X’s stock, even though W has no actual ownership of X.

§318 Upstream Corporate Attribution: S-Corporations

It should be emphasized that the §318 upstream corporate attribution rules do not apply to S-corporations with respect to attribution of corporate stock between an S-corporation and its shareholders. Rather, in such cases, S-corporation is treated as a partnership and its shareholders as partners. See §318(a)(5)(E). Hence, corporate stocks owned by a shareholder are fully attributed to the S-corporation irrespective of the value ownership of a shareholder in the S-corporation.

Keep in mind, however, that the usual constructive ownership rules for corporations and shareholders apply for the purpose of determination of whether any person owns stock in an S-corporation.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With US International Tax Law Concerning Foreign Corporations and Other Foreign Businesses

If you are an owner of a foreign corporation or any other foreign business entity, you are facing a very difficult task of working through the enormous complexity of US international tax compliance and trying to avoid the high IRS noncompliance penalties. In order to be successful in this matter, you need the professional help of Sherayzen Law Office.

We are an international tax law firm that specializes in US international tax compliance and offshore voluntary disclosures. We have successfully helped hundreds of US taxpayers worldwide with this issue, and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

July 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

On July 2, 2018, the IRS announced the creation of another five compliance campaigns. Let’s discuss these July 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns in more detail.

July 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: Background Information

The IRS compliance campaigns is the end result of a long period of planning by the IRS Large Business and International division (“LB&I”). The idea behind the IRS compliance campaigns is to concentrate the LB&I resources in a way that deals with the potential noncompliance area in the most efficient way. The first campaigns were announced by the IRS on January 31, 2017. Then, the IRS rapidly added new campaigns in November of 2017, March of 2018 and May of 2018. As of July 1, 2018, there were 35 campaigns outstanding.

Five New July 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns

Here are the new July 2018 IRS Compliance campaigns that should be added to the already existing thirty-five campaigns: Restoration of Sequestered AMT Credit Carryforward, S Corporation Distributions, Virtual Currency, Repatriation via Foreign Triangular Reorganizations and Section 965 Transition Tax.

Each of these campaigns was identified by the IRS through LB&I data analysis and suggestions from IRS employees.

July 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: Restoration of Sequestered AMT Credit Carryforward

This campaign deals with the complex issues concerning sequestered Alternative Minimum Tax (“AMT”) credit. Refunds issued or applied to a subsequent year’s tax, pursuant to IRC Section 168(k)(4), are subject to sequestration and are a permanent loss of refundable credits. Taxpayers may not restore the sequestered amounts to their AMT credit carryforward, but some are doing so in any case.

Given the complexity of the issues involved, the IRS decided to make soft letters as the primary treatment stream for this campaign. Soft letters will be mailed to taxpayers who are identified as making improper restorations of sequestered amounts. The IRS will then monitor these taxpayers to make sure that they correct the problem and stay in compliance. The idea is to educate taxpayers on the proper treatment of sequestered AMT credits so that they self-correct all problems.

July 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: S Corporation Distributions

This is a very important campaign that will affect a very large number of small business owners. It will focus on three major problem areas. The first issue is failure to report gain upon the distribution of appreciated property to a shareholder. The second issue is the proper classification of a corporate distribution (of cash and property) as a taxable dividend. Finally, the third issue concerns non-dividend distributions to shareholders in excess of their stock basis; such distributions are taxable. The IRS adopted a more severe approach to this campaign. The treatment streams for this campaign include issue-based examinations, tax form change suggestions and stakeholder outreach.

July 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: Virtual Currency

This campaign is the IRS attempt to catch up with modern technology and properly tax transactions that involve virtual currencies. IRS Notice 2014-21 classifies virtual currency as “property” for federal tax purposes. Hence, any sales or exchanges that involve virtual currencies will be taxable in the United States.

The fact that these transactions take place outside of the United States would not affect the taxability of foreign currencies as long as a US tax resident is involved in these transactions. As Sherayzen Law Office has pointed out numerous times in the past, US tax residents are subject to taxation on their worldwide income. This rule includes virtual currencies.

This campaign involves highly complex issues and requires flexible approach to compliance enforcement. This is why the IRS will address noncompliance related to the use of virtual currency through multiple treatment streams including outreach and examinations.

The IRS has expressly stated that its compliance enforcement activities will follow the general tax principles applicable to all transactions in property as outlined in Notice 2014-21. The IRS will also continue to consider and solicit taxpayer and practitioner feedback in education efforts, future guidance and development of Practice Units.

Interestingly enough, the IRS stated that it will not create a voluntary disclosure program specifically to address tax non-compliance involving virtual currency. Instead, the IRS urges taxpayers with unreported virtual currency transactions to self-correct their returns as soon as practical.

July 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: Repatriation via Foreign Triangular Reorganizations

This campaign focuses on enforcement of Notice 2016-73 (“the Notice”) which the IRS issued in December of 2016. The Notice curtails the claimed “tax-free” repatriation of basis and untaxed CFC earnings following the use of certain foreign triangular reorganization transactions. The goal of the campaign is to identify and challenge these transactions by educating and assisting examination teams in audits of these repatriations.

July 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: Section 965 Transition Tax

This is a highly important campaign that focuses on the issue that will continue to plague US taxpayers for a long time – 965 transition tax. IRC Section 965 requires US shareholders (a term of art) to pay a transition tax on the untaxed foreign earnings of certain specified foreign corporations as if those earnings had been repatriated to the United States. Taxpayers may elect to pay the transition tax as a lump-sum payment or in installments over an eight-year period. This means that some (and probably most) of these US shareholders should have paid some or all of the tax on their 2017 income tax return.

The LB&I already engaged in an outreach campaign in 2018 to reach trade groups, advisors and other outside stakeholders to raise awareness of filing and payment obligations concerning the 965 transition tax. The IRS even circulated an external communication on this subject through stakeholder channels in April of 2018.

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!

Noncompetition Agreement Income Sourcing | International Tax Lawyer

Oftentimes, as part of their noncompetition agreement, a taxpayer may receive income for restraining from competing with another party in certain areas. An issue often arises with respect to international noncompetition agreement income sourcing rules – i.e. should the income paid as part of such a noncompetition agreement be considered US-source income or foreign-source income? Let’s explore the answer to this question in this essay.

Noncompetition Agreement Income Sourcing: General Rule

The general rule with respect to income sourcing for noncompetition agreements was settled in the distant year 1943. In that year, the Tax Court held that the source of income from a noncompetition agreement is the location of the forbearance. Korfund Co., Inc. v. Commissioner, 1 T.C. 1180, 1187 (1943). In other words, income received from an agreement not to compete is deemed to be income earned in a place where the agreement prohibits the taxpayer from competing.

The reasoning of the Tax Court is clearly laid out in its opinion. The Court stated that the rights that a party enjoys from the noncompetition agreement “were interests in property in [the] country [of forbearance]. … The situs of the right was in the United States, not elsewhere, and the income that flowed from the privileges was necessarily earned and produced here. … These rights were property of value and the income in question was derived from the use thereof in the [country of forbearance].” Id.

In 1996, in its Field Service Advice, the IRS restated its commitment to the position adopted by the Tax Court in Korfund: “income from covenants not to compete covering areas outside of the United States is foreign source income because the income from a covenant covering areas outside the United States is from the use of a property right outside the United States.” 1996 FSA LEXIS 191, *5 (I.R.S. August 30, 1996).

Noncompetition Agreement Income Sourcing: Apportionment

What if a noncompetition agreement covers both, part of the United States and a foreign country? In this case, the IRS is likely to take a position that an apportionment of some sort is necessary. In other words, only part of the income will be deemed as US-source income, while the rest will be considered foreign-source income.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With Noncompetition Agreement Income Sourcing

If you are dealing with an international noncompetition agreement, you should contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with US international tax compliance. Our firm has helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world with their US international tax issues. We Can Help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!