Posts

EU Tax Harmonization Initiative Stalled by Ireland and Hungary | Tax News

/0 Comments/in , /by

The EU Tax Harmonization initiative faced a joint opposition of Ireland and Hungary in early January of 2018. Both countries are vehemently opposed to any effort that would “tie their hands” in terms of their corporate tax policies.

The EU Tax Harmonization Initiative

Tax Harmonization is basically a policy that aims to adjust the tax systems of various jurisdictions in order to achieve one tax goal. The adjustment usually implies equalization of tax treatment.

In the past, the EU tax harmonization efforts were mostly limited to Value-Added Tax (“VAT”) and certain parent-subsidiary taxation issues. Since at least 2016, however, the EU Tax Harmonization policy seeks to regulate corporate income taxes among its members in order to limit intra-EU tax competition.

In 2016, the European Commission released two proposed directives addressing the issues of a common corporate tax base and a common consolidated corporate tax base. Neither directive establishes a minimum corporate tax rate. Neither directive passed the internal EU opposition.

Irish and Hungarian Opposition to the EU Tax Harmonization of Corporate Taxation

Today, the EU internal opposition to the EU tax harmonization initiatives consists of Ireland and Hungary. Both Hungary and Ireland have very low (by EU standards) corporate tax rates. The Irish corporate tax rate is 12.5% and the Hungarian corporate tax rate is only 9% (the EU average corporate tax rate is about 22%).

In early January of 2018, the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar both stated that their countries have the right to set their corporate tax policies and that this area should not be subject to the EU tax harmonization efforts. “Taxation is an important component of competition. We would not like to see any regulation in the EU, which would bind Hungary’s hands in terms of tax policy, be it corporate tax, or any other tax,” Mr. Orbán said. He further added that “we do not consider tax harmonization a desired direction.”

Both countries view the aforementioned proposed 2016 European Commission directives as a threat, because harmonizing of the tax base could lead to corporate income tax rate harmonization.

Impact of Brexit on the EU Tax Harmonization Initiatives

The United Kingdom used to be in the same opposition camp as Ireland and Hungary. Given the size of its economy and its political influence, the United Kingdom was an almost insurmountable barrier to the proponents of greater EU unity (mainly France and Germany). In essence, the UK was enough of a counterweight to keep the balance of power within the European Union from tilting in favor of the EU unity proponents.

Everything has changed with Brexit. The exit of the United Kingdom from the EU automatically led to the shift of the balance of power in favor of Germany. Brexit also means that Ireland and Hungary are now alone in their resistance against the Franco-German efforts to achieve greater EU unity. The political pressure of these outliers is now enormous.

In fact, it appears that, rather than suspending the unanimity requirement by invoking the so-called “passerelle clauses” (which would be a highly controversial step), the proponents of the EU Tax Harmonization initiative will simply wait until this political pressure forces Ireland and Hungary to modify their positions on this issue.

Tax Cuts & Jobs Act: 2018 Standard Deduction and Exemptions

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 made dramatic changes that affected pretty much every US taxpayer. This is the first article of the series of articles on the Act. I will start this series with the discussion of simple US domestic issues (such as 2018 standard deduction and personal exemptions), then gradually turn to more and more complex US domestic and international tax issues, and finish with the examination of the highly complex issues concerning E&P income recognition for US owners of foreign corporations and the new type of Subpart F income.

Today, I will focus on the 2018 standard deduction and exemptions.

Standard Deduction for the Tax Year 2017

Standard deduction is the amount of dollars by which you can reduce your adjusted gross income (“AGI”) in order to lower your taxable income and, hence, your federal income tax. The standard deduction is prescribed by Congress. If you use standard deduction, you cannot itemize your deductions (i.e. try to reduce your AGI by the amount of actual allowed itemized deductions) – you have to choose between these two options.

Standard deduction varies based on your filing status (there is an additional standard deductions of individuals over the age of 65 or who are blind).

For the tax year 2017, the standard deduction are as follows: $6,350 for single taxpayers and married couples filing separately, $12,700 for married couples filing a joint tax return and $9,350 for heads of household.

2018 Standard Deduction and Exemptions

Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the 2018 standard deduction will virtually double in size: $12,000 for single taxpayers and married couples filing separately, $24,000 for married couples filing a joint tax return and $18,000 for heads of household. All of these amounts will be indexed for inflation.

It is important to point out, however, that these increased standard deduction amounts will only last until 2025. Then, the standard deduction should revert to the old pre-2018 law.

Personal Exemptions & Impact of 2018 Standard Deduction

Personal exemption is an additional amount of dollars by which the Congress will allow you to reduce your AGI (already reduced by either standard deduction or itemized deductions). When IRC Section 151 was enacted in 1954, the idea behind a personal exemption was to exempt from taxation a certain minimal amount a person needs to survive at a subsistence level.

Personal exemption can be claimed for you and your qualified dependents; in case of joint tax returns, each spouse is granted a personal exemption. However, a personal exemption for a spouse can be claimed even if the spouses are filing separate tax returns, but certain requirements have to be met.

For the tax year 2017, the personal exemption amount is $4,050. The exemption is subject to a phase-out at a certain level of income.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 repeals personal exemptions for the tax years 2018-2025. After 2025, the law reverts to the one that existed as of the tax year 2017. In other words, the increase in 2018 standard deduction will be at least partially offset by the elimination of 2018 personal exemption.

In some cases, where taxpayers claim many personal exemptions for their dependants, the elimination of personal exemptions may actually result in the increase in taxation (compared to the 2017 law) despite the increase of 2018 standard deduction. Of course, such an increase in taxation needs to take into account potential increase in child tax credit under the new law. Hence, in order to assess the full tax impact of the tax reform for large families, one needs to consider other factors in addition to just 2018 standard deduction.

Ordinary Business Care and Prudence Standard | International Tax Lawyer

/0 Comments/in , /by

Ordinary Business Care and Prudence Standard is a requirement that is present, explicitly or implicitly, in all reasonable cause defenses. In this article, I would like to explain what Ordinary Business Care and Prudence Standard means and what are the main factors for analyzing whether a taxpayer met the burden of proof required under the Ordinary Business Care and Prudence Standard.

Ordinary Business Care and Prudence Standard: General Requirements

The ordinary business care and prudence standard is an objective standard. There is no precise definition of this standard, because its application is fact-dependent. Nevertheless, the standard is generally satisfied as long as the taxpayer acted prudently, reasonably and in good faith (taking that degree of care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise) and still could not comply with the relevant tax requirement. IRM 20.1.1.3.2.2 (02-22-2008) adds that “ordinary business care and prudence includes making provisions for business obligations to be met when reasonably foreseeable events occur”.

Ordinary Business Care and Prudence Standard: Common Factors

While the determination under the ordinary business care and prudence standard is highly fact-dependent, there are certain common factors that the IRS will take into account. IRM 20.1.1.3.2.2 (02-22-2008) specifically lists four factors that must be reviewed by the IRS, but states that all available information should be considered. Let’s explore these common factors:

1. Compliance History

The main issue here is to see if this is the first failure to comply with US tax laws by the taxpayer or whether he already violated in the past the tax law provision in question IRM 20.1.1.3.2.2 (02-22-2008) states that “the same penalty, previously assessed or abated, may indicate that the taxpayer is not exercising ordinary business care”. The IRM urges the IRS agents to check at least three preceding tax years for payment patterns and the taxpayer’s overall compliance history.

If the violation was the first time a taxpayer exhibited noncompliant behavior, this will be a positive factor that will be considered with other reasons the taxpayer provided for reasonable cause. While a first-time noncompliance does not by itself establish reasonable cause, taxpayers who violated the same provision more than once will find it more difficult to establish that their behavior satisfied the ordinary business care and prudence standard.

2. Length of Time

At issue here is the time between the event cited as the reason for the initial tax noncompliance and subsequent compliance actions. IRM 20.1.1.3.2.2 (02-22-2008) requires the IRS agents to consider: “(1) when the act was required by law, (2) the period of time during which the taxpayer was unable to comply with the law due to circumstances beyond the taxpayer’s control, and (3) when the taxpayer complied with the law.”

Obviously, if the taxpayer did not discover his noncompliance until one year later and immediately tried to remedy the situation, it will add significant force to his argument that his behavior satisfied the ordinary business care and prudence standard. On the other hand, an unexplained delay between the time the taxpayer discovered his noncompliance and the time he attempted to remedy it will have a negative impact on the overall taxpayer’s argument.

Another highly important factor that plays a crucial role in offshore voluntary disclosures is whether, after discovering his prior noncompliance, the taxpayer voluntarily complied prior to being contacted by the IRS. In a voluntary disclosure context, if the IRS initiates an examination and contacts the taxpayer first, his voluntary disclosure options may be entirely foreclosed. On the other hand, the fact that a taxpayer voluntarily contacted the IRS with his amended tax return that corrected his prior tax noncompliance may play a highly positive role in convincing the IRS that the taxpayer’s prior behavior was consistent with the ordinary business care and prudence standard.

Hence, it is highly important for the taxpayer to explain what happened during the time between his prior noncompliance and his current effort to remedy the situation.

3. Circumstances Beyond the Taxpayer’s Control

The crucial issue here is whether the taxpayer could have anticipated the event that caused the noncompliance. If he could have done it, then his case might be materially weakened. On the other hand, if the taxpayer could not have anticipated the event, then, it might play a very important role in convincing the IRS that his behavior satisfied the ordinary business care and prudence standard.

A lot of sub-factors play a very important role here: the taxpayer’s education, his tax advisors, whether he has been previously subjected to the tax at issue, whether he has filed the tax forms in question before, whether there were any changes to the tax forms or tax law (which the taxpayer could not reasonably be expected to know), and so on. The level of complexity of the issue in question is also an important additional sub-factor.

The “circumstances beyond control” factor is necessarily tied to the “length of time” factor described above, because a taxpayer’s obligation to meet the tax law requirements is ongoing. Ordinary business care and prudence standard generally requires that the taxpayer continue to meet the requirements, even if is he late.

4. Taxpayer’s Reason for Prior Noncompliance

The taxpayer must provide and the IRS agent must consider an actual reason for the prior tax noncompliance whatever it may be and this reason must address the specific penalty imposed. It is the combination of this taxpayer’s reason together with other factors, including the common factors described above, that will form the basis for the taxpayer’s argument that his behavior satisfied the ordinary business care and prudence standard.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office to Contest IRS Penalties based on Reasonable Cause and Ordinary Business Care and Prudence Standard

Since 2005, Sherayzen Law Office has saved its clients millions of dollars in potential IRS penalties. If you wish to challenge the imposition of IRS penalties on your prior US domestic and/or international tax noncompliance, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. We will thoroughly review the facts of your case, determine the available defense strategies to reduce or eliminate IRS penalties (including the determination of whether your case satisfied the ordinary business care and prudence standard), implement these strategies and defend your case against the IRS.

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Serious Illness as Reasonable Cause | International Tax Lawyer

/0 Comments/in , /by

We are continuing our series of articles on Reasonable Cause. Today, we will discuss whether a serious illness can establish a reasonable cause for abatement of the IRS penalties. It is important to note that this discussion of serious illness as a reasonable cause is equally applicable to death and unavoidable absence of the taxpayer (in fact, the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) discusses all three circumstances – death, serious illness and unavoidable absence of taxpayer – at the same time in providing guidance on reasonable cause).

Serious Illness Can Constitute a Reasonable Cause

IRM 20.1.1.3.2.2.1 (11-25-2011) expressly states that serious illness can be used as a Reasonable Cause Exception: “death, serious illness, or unavoidable absence of the taxpayer, or a death or serious illness in the taxpayer’s immediate family, may establish reasonable cause for filing, paying, or depositing late… .” In this context, “immediate family” means spouse, siblings, parents, grandparents, or children.

In the business context, a reasonable cause may be established if death, serious illness or other unavoidable absence occurred with respect to a taxpayer (or his immediate family) who had the sole authority to execute the return, make the deposit, or pay the tax. The same rule applies to corporations, partnerships, estates, trusts and other legal vehicles for conducting business.

Taxpayer Has the Burden of Proof to Establish that Serious Illness Constitutes Reasonable Cause for His Prior Tax Noncompliance

Stating that a serious illness can constitute a reasonable cause for abatement of the IRS penalties with respect to prior tax noncompliance is not equivalent to stating that serious illness automatically establishes a reasonable cause.

On the contrary, the taxpayer has the burden of proof to establish that serious illness did indeed constitute reasonable cause with respect to his prior tax noncompliance. In other words, serious illness may not be sufficient to establish reasonable cause for various reasons (for example, in cases where it was not actually related to tax noncompliance).

Factors Relevant to Determination of Whether Serious Illness Is Sufficient to Establish Reasonable Cause Exception

IRM 20.1.1.3.2.2.1 (11-25-2011) provides a list of recommended factors to consider in evaluating a taxpayer’s request for abatement of penalties based on serious illness, death or unavoidable absence. I somewhat modified the list to fit in all factors expressly mentioned in the IRM. Here is the non-exclusive list of factors expressly referenced in the IRM:

1. the relationship of the taxpayer to the other parties involved;

2. the dates, duration, and severity of illness (in case of death, the date of death; in case of unavoidable absence, the dates and reasons for absence);

3. how the event prevented tax compliance;

4. how the event impaired other obligations (including business obligations);

5. if tax duties were attended to promptly when the illness passed (or within a reasonable period of time after a death or absence);

6. (in a business setting) in a situation where someone other than responsible person or the taxpayer was responsible for meeting the infringed business tax obligation, and why that person was unable to meet the obligation;

7. (in a business setting) if only one person was authorized to meet the tax obligation, whether such an arrangement was consistent with ordinary business care and prudence.

This is not an all-inclusive list of factors. The IRM foresees the possibility that any other relevant factors may be considered in the analysis of whether a Reasonable Cause Exception was established based on serious illness, death or unavoidable absence.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Experienced Help With Establishing A Reasonable Cause Defense, Including Based on Serious Illness

There is always a risk that the IRS may reject a taxpayer’s reasonable cause argument, often simply because the argument was never properly elaborated by the taxpayer. This is why it is important to maximize your chance of success by timely securing professional legal help.

Sherayzen Law Office is a highly experienced tax law firm that has helped its clients around the world to establish various reasonable cause defenses against IRS domestic and international tax penalties. We can help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

US Airspace and the Definition of the United States | US Tax Lawyers

/0 Comments/in , /by

This article is a continuation of a recent series of articles on the exploration of the definition of the United States. As it was mentioned in a prior article, the general definition of the United States found in IRC § 7701(a)(9) has numerous exceptions throughout the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”). The US airspace is another example of such exceptions. In this article, I would like to outline some of the ways in which the borders of the United States are defined in the context of the US airspace.

General Tax Definition of the United States Does Not Mention US Airspace

The general tax definition of the United States is found in IRC § 7701(a)(9). According to IRC § 7701(a)(9), the United States is comprised of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and the territorial waters. There is no mention of the US airspace.

This, of course, does not mean that US airspace never constitutes part of the United States. Rather, as I had explained it in a prior article, one needs to look at the specific tax provisions and determine if there is a special definition of the United States that applies to them.

Examples of Various IRC Provisions Including and Excluding US Airspace from the Definition of the United states

Indeed, there is a rich variety of treatment of US airspace that can be found within the IRC. Here, I will just mentioned three examples that demonstrate how differently the IRC provisions define the United States with respect to its airspace.

1. There is an esoteric but important IRC § 965 which deals with the Dividends Received deduction for repatriated corporate earnings. IRS Notice 2005-64 provides foreign tax credit guidance under IRC § 965 and specifically follows the general definition of the United States with the addition of the Continental Shelf. Then, the Notice states: “the term ‘United States’ does not include possessions and territories of the United States or the airspace over the United States and these areas”. Thus, the US airspace is excluded from the tax definition of the United States under IRC § 965.

2. The treatment of the US airspace is the opposite for the purposes of the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion (“FEIE”). Since FEIE allows a taxpayer to exclude only “foreign” earned income, the tax definition of the United States is crucial for this part of the IRC.

In general, the courts have ruled that the airspace over the United States is included within the definition of the United States with respect to IRC § 911. This means that, if you are flying over the United States, you are considered to be within the United States for the purposes of FEIE.

3. When we are dealing with the analysis of whether an individual is a US tax resident under the Substantial Presence Test, we are again back to the same situation as in example 1 – the US airspace is not included in the definition of the United States.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Legal and Tax Help

Sherayzen Law Office is a premier international tax law firm that helps individuals and businesses with US tax compliance, including Offshore Voluntary Disclosures. We can help you with any US international tax law issues.

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!