Posts

IRC §318 Importance | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

It is difficult to overstate the significant role the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) §318 plays in US corporate tax law and US international tax law. In this article, I will explain the §318 importance and list out major IRC provisions which reference §318.

IRC §318 Importance: Fundamental Purpose

§318 sets forth the circumstances when the ownership of stock is attributed from one person or entity to another. This is one of the most important sections of the Internal Revenue Code, because it contains a set of constructive stock ownership rules which affect a bewildering variety of IRC tax provisions.

It is important to point out that §318 constructive ownership rules do not apply throughout the IRC. Rather, §318 applies only when it is expressly adopted by a specific tax section.

IRC §318 Importance: Non-Exclusive List of IRC Sections

The IRC §318 importance is extensive in both domestic and international tax provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. The CFC (controlled foreign corporation) rules, FIRPTA, FTC (foreign tax credit rules), BEAT, FATCA and so on – all of these US international tax laws adopted §318 for at least one purpose. The §318 importance can even be seen in the 2017 tax reform (for example, the FDII rules).

The following is a non-exclusive list of major IRC sections which adopted the §318 constructive stock ownership rules:

• §59A(g)(3) (related party under BEAT rules)
• §105(h)(5)(B)
• §168(h)(6)(F)(iii)(III)
• §250(b)(5)(D) (sales or services to related party under FDII rules by reference to §954(d)(3) and §958)
• §263A(e)(2)(B)(ii)
• §267A(b)(2) (related party amounts in hybrid transaction by reference to §954(d)(3) and §958)
• §269A(b)(2)
• §269B(e)(2)(B)
• §301(e)(2)
• §302(c) (stock redemptions)
• §304 (redemptions by related corporations)
• §306(b)(1)(A) (disposition or redemption of §306 stock)
• §338(h)(3)
• §355(d)(8)(A)
• §356(a)(2)
• §367(c)(2)
• §382(l)(3)(A) (net operating loss carryovers)
• §409(n)(1)
• §409(p)(3)(B)
• §414(m)(6)(B)
• §416(i)(1)(B) (key employee for top heavy plans)
• §441(i)(2)(B)
• §453(f)(1)(A)
• §465(c)(7)(D)(iii), §465(c)(7)(E)(i) (at-risk loss limitations)
• §469(j)(2)(B) (passive activity loss limitations)
• §512(b)(13)(D)(ii) (unrelated business taxable income from controlled entity)
• §856(d)(5) (REIT rental income)
• §871(h)(3)(C) (portfolio interest withholding tax exemption)
• §881(b)(3)(B) (portfolio interest withholding tax exemption)
• §897(c)(6)(C) (FIRPTA rules)
• §898(b)(2)(B) (adopting §958‘s modified §318 rules for determination of foreign corporation’s tax year)
• §904(h)(6) (foreign tax credit re-sourcing rules)
• §951(b) (U.S. shareholder of controlled foreign corporation (CFC) by reference to §958(b))
• §954(d)(3) (CFC related party rules by reference to §958)
• §958(b) (CFC rules)
• §1042(b)(2)
• §1060(e)(2)(B)
• §1061(d)(2)(A) (transfer of partnership interest received for performance of services)
• §1239(b)(2)
• §1372(b)
• §1471(e) (imposing FATCA reporting requirements on foreign financial institution members of an expanded affiliated group determined under §954(d)(3)’s control test, which adopts §958‘s modified §318 rules)
• §2036(b)(2)
• §6038(e)(2) (information reporting for controlled foreign corporations)
• §6038A(c)(5)
• §7704(d)(3)(B)

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

Trying to comply with the extremely complex provisions of US international tax law on your own is even worse than playing Russian roulette. In all likelihood, you will soon find yourself in the ever-deepening pit of legal problems and IRS penalties from which it will be very difficult to extricate yourself.

This is why, if you are US taxpayer with US international tax law issues, you need to contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the globe to bring themselves into full compliance with US tax laws, and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

§267 Entity-to-Member Attribution | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

In a previous article, I introduced the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) §267 constructive ownership rules. Today, I would like to focus specifically on the §267 entity-to-member attribution rule.

§267 Entity-to-Member Attribution: General Rule

§267(c)(1) describes the §267 entity-to-member attribution rule. It states that stocks owned by a corporation, partnership, estate or trust will be treated as owned proportionately by its shareholders, partners, or beneficiaries.

Let’s use an example to explain §267(c)(1). Let’s imagine that Peter and Mary (both US citizens who are not family members within the meaning of §267(c)(4)) own 70% and 30% respectively of shares of X, a C-corporation organized in South Dakota. X owns 100% of shares of N, a Nevada C-corporation.

In this situation, under §267(c)(1), Peter and Mary constructively own 70% and 30% of shares of N. Hence, pursuant to §267(b)(2), Peter is considered to be a related person with respect to X and N corporations due to actual constructive ownership of 70% of shares of both corporations (since this is higher than the 50%-of-value threshold demanded by §267(b)(2)).

Also, note that X and N are related persons, because, pursuant to §267(b)(3), they are members of the same controlled group. §267(b)(3) relies on §267(f) for the definition of the “controlled group”; §267(f), in turn, mostly adopts §1563 definition of controlled group (the main difference is that §267(f) reduces the required level of ownership to more than 50% of voting power and value of the stock as opposed to more than 80% demanded by §1563).

§267 Entity-to-Member Attribution: How Stock is Attributed

The §267(c)(1) is a downstream attribution rule. This means that the attribution of stock flows only in one direction – from entity to the shareholder, partner or beneficiary. There is no “upstream attribution” from shareholder, partner, or beneficiary to the corporation, partnership, estate or trust. Note that this differs from the attribution rules for many corporate transactions governed by §318.

Section 267(c)(1) fails to specify the manner in which attributed stock ownership should be apportioned. The most convincing authority for the apportionment of attributed stocks can be found in case law, particularly Hickman v. Commissioner, 30 T.C. Memo 1972-208. In that case, the Tax Court determined that stock would be attributed from a trust to its beneficiaries proportionately based on the fair market value without any discount for indirect ownership. Actuarial value apportionment was also rejected.

§267 Entity-to-Member Attribution: Chain Ownership

It is important to understand that stock constructively owned by a shareholder, partner, or beneficiary pursuant to §267(c)(1) is treated as actually owned for the purposes of further attribution. In other words, the constructive ownership of a shareholder, partner or beneficiary may be further attributed to others. Moreover, such attribution does not have to be under §267(c)(1); rather, any other attribution category can be used (for example, family member stock attribution).

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With US Tax Law

US tax law is extremely complex. An ordinary person will simply get lost in this labyrinth of tax rules, exceptions and requirements. Once you get into trouble with US tax law, it is much more difficult and expensive to extricate yourself from it due to high IRS penalties.

This is why it is important to contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with US tax law as soon as possible. We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world to successfully resolve their US tax compliance and US tax planning issues. We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Attribution Rules: Introduction | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

One of the most popular tax reduction strategies is based on shifting an ownership interest in an entity or property to related persons or related entities. In order to prevent the abuse of this strategy, the US Congress has enacted a large number of attribution rules. In this brief essay, I will introduce the concept of attribution rules and list the most important attribution rules in the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”).

Attribution Rules: Definition and Purpose

The IRC attribution rules are designed to prevent taxpayers from shifting an ownership interest to related persons or entities. They achieve this result through a set of indirect and constructive ownership rules that shift the ownership interest assigned to third parties back to the taxpayer. In other words, the rules disregard the formal assignment of an ownership interest to a related third party and re-assign the ownership interest back to the assignor for specific determination purposes.

For example, in the context of determining whether a foreign corporation is a Controlled Foreign Corporation, all shares owned by the spouse of a taxpayer are deemed to be owned by the taxpayer if both spouses are US persons.

Attribution Rules: Design Similarities and Differences

The IRC contains a great variety of attribution rules. All of them are very detailed and have achieved a remarkable degree of specificity. Behind this specificity, all of the rules are always concerned with the substance of a transaction rather than its form. Hence, there always lurks a general question of whether there was a tax avoidance motive when a taxpayer entered into a transaction.

In spite of the fact that they share similar goals, the rules differ from each other in design. Most of these differences can be traced back to legislative history.

List of Most Important Attribution Rules

Here is a list of the most important attribution rules in the IRC (all section references are to the IRC):

1. The constructive ownership rules of §267, which apply to disallow certain deductions and losses incurred in transactions between related parties;

2. The constructive ownership rules of §318, which apply in corporate-shareholder transactions and other transactions, including certain foreign transactions expressly referenced in §6038(e).

3. The constructive ownership rules of §544; these are the personal holding company rules which apply to determine when a corporation will be subject to income tax on undistributed income.

3a. While they are now repealed, the foreign personal holding company rules of §554 are still important. In the past, they applied to determine whether US shareholders of a foreign corporation would be taxed on deemed distributions which were not actually made;

4. Highly important Subpart F constructive ownership rules of §958, which apply to determine when US shareholders of a Controlled Foreign Corporation should be taxed on deemed distributions which are not actually made;

5. The PFIC constructive ownership rules of §1298, which apply to determine whether a US shareholder is subject to the unfavorable rules concerning certain distributions by a PFIC and sales of PFIC stock; and

6. The controlled group constructive ownership rules of §1563 which determine whether related corporations are subject to the limitations and benefits prescribed for commonly controlled groups.

This is not a comprehensive list of all attribution rules, there are other rules which apply in more specific situations.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With the Attribution Rules

The rules of ownership attribution are highly complex. A failure to comply with them may result in the imposition of high IRS penalties.

This is why you need to contact the highly experienced international tax law firm of Sherayzen Law Office. We have helped US taxpayers around the globe to deal with the US tax rules concerning ownership attribution, and We Can Help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Legal Entity Identifiers: Introduction to LEI | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

The Legal Entity Identifiers (“LEI”) is a method to identify legal entities that engage in financial transactions. Let’s discuss LEI in more detail.

LEI: Background Information

The establishment of LEI was driven by the recognition by regulators around the world that there is a complete lack of transparency with respect to identifying parties to international transactions. Each business entity is registered at the national level, but another country’s authorities would have great difficulty identifying this entity in an international transaction, including whether this entity has taken consistent tax positions in both countries.

Establishment of LEI; Additional Initiatives

Hence, on the initiative of the largest twenty economies of the world (“G-20“), the Financial Stability Board (“FSB”) developed the framework of Global LEI System (“GLEIS”). FSB was created in 2009 in the aftermath of the financial crisis (it replaced the Financial Stability Forum or “FSF”).

Additionally, in January of 2013, a LEI Regulatory Oversight Committee (“ROC”) was created. ROC is a group of over 70 public authorities from member-countries and additional observers from more than 50 countries. The job of the ROC is coordination and oversight of the worldwide LEI framework.

On May 9, 2017, the ROC announced that it has launched data collection on parent entities in the Global Legal Entity Identifiers System – this is the so-called “relationship data”. The member countries (especially in the European Union (“EU”)) will use this data in a number of regulatory initiatives. For example, as of 2018, the EU uses the relationship data for the purposes of commodity derivative reporting.

How LEI Works

The LEI is a 20-character, alpha-numeric code, to uniquely identify legally distinct entities that engage in financial transactions. The code incorporates the following information:

1.the official name of the legal entity as recorded in the official registers;
2.the registered address of that legal entity;
3.the country of formation;
4.codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions;
5.the date of the first Legal Entity Identifier assignment; the date of last update of the information; and the date of expiration, if applicable.

Here is how the numbering system works:

•Characters 1–4: A four-character prefix allocated uniquely to each LOU.
•Characters 5–6: Two reserved characters set to zero.
•Characters 7–18: Entity—specific part of the code generated and assigned by LOUs according to transparent, sound, and robust allocation policies.
•Characters 19–20: Two check digits as described in the ISO 17442 standard.

Jurisdictions With Rules Referring to LEI

Over 40 jurisdictions have rules that refer to Legal Entity Identifiers: Argentina, Australia, Canada, 31 members of the European Union and European Economic Area, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Mexico, Russia, Singapore, Switzerland, and the United States. IGOs such as Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and International Organization of Securities Commissions also use Legal Entity Identifiers.

Could LEI Be Used for CRS and FATCA Purposes?

Sherayzen Law Office, like many other commentators, believes that there is a possibility that the LEI would be a better alternative than Global Intermediary Identification Number (GIIN) for CRS and FATCA purposes. First of all, it would be more efficient to have one identification system across all compliance terrains. Second, Legal Entity Identifiers are actually more popular than GIINs. As of December 7, 2017, there were 830,477 LEIs issued versus a mere less than 300,000 GIINs.

FDII Export Incentive | Foreign Business Income Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “2017 tax reform” or “TCJA”) enacted a highly-lucrative incentive for US corporations to export directly from the United States – the Foreign-Derived Intangible Income (“FDII”) regime. In this article, I would like to introduce the readers in a general manner to the FDII export incentive contained in the TCJA.

FDII Export Incentive: TCJA

The creation of the participation exemption system posed a problem for the drafters of the TCJA – how does one stop US corporations from running all of their foreign business through a foreign corporation since foreign corporate profits may actually be transferred to the United States tax-free? Among other provisions of this complex law, the drafters utilized two powerful incentives for US corporations to export directly overseas.

The first one was a “stick” – the Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income or GILTI. The GILTI regime established what can be best described as a global minimum tax on the earnings of foreign subsidiaries of a US business entity.

The second approach was a “carrot” – the FDII export incentive. The FDII regime creates a powerful incentive for US corporations to export goods and services from the United States by creating a deemed deduction of a large percentage of corporate export income. In other words, the effective corporate tax rate is reduced through the FDII regime because a portion of a corporation’s export income is being deducted and never subject to US taxation.

FDII Export Incentive: General Description of the Deemed Deduction

The deemed deduction applies only to a US corporation’s FDII. FDII is basically a certain portion of corporate income from foreign sources determined by a formula established by Congress.

The formula requires a multi-step process. The first steps involve the determination of the Deduction-Eligible Income (DEI), Qualified Business Asset Investment (“QBAI”), Foreign-Derived Deduction-Eligible Income (“FDDEI”). Once all of these items are calculated, then the Deemed Intangible Income (“DII”) is figured out.

FDII is calculated last. The basic formula for FDII is: DII times the ratio of FDDEI over DEI.

The last step is to calculate the tax liability which involves the reduction of FDII by 37.5%. Thus, the effective tax rate for a corporate taxpayer (assuming the current 21% corporate tax rate stays the same) with respect to its FDII is only 13.125%.

It should be mentioned that the current deemed deduction will stay at 37.5% only through December 31, 2025. For the years after December 31, 2025, the deemed deduction will go down to 21.875%. This means that the effective tax rate on FDII will be 16.406%. Unless the law changes (which is possible), non-FDII corporate income will continue to be taxed at 21%.

FDII Export Incentive: Net Impact of the Deemed Deduction

Based on even just this general analysis of FDII, we can understand why the FDII export incentive is such an important part of the US corporate tax law. First, in most cases, the FDII deduction is a disincentive to shift foreign-source income from a US corporation to a controlled foreign corporation (“CFC”). A CFC may be subject to taxation under two different anti-deferral regimes, Subpart F or GILTI tax. Subpart F income will just force the recognition of foreign income by the CFC right away without any deemed deduction (i.e. this would be the worst-case scenario).

If the Subpart F rules do not apply, then the corporation may be subject to the GILTI tax. It is true that the effective corporate tax rate for GILTI, after its current 50% deemed reduction is only 10.5%. Nevertheless, FDII”s effective tax rate of 13.125% significantly reduces the difference from that what it would have been otherwise (i.e. between 10.5% and 21%). Moreover, when one factors in the additional administrative, US tax compliance and local tax compliance expenses, this difference may become nonexistent.

Second, the FDII deemed deduction makes US corporations more competitive worldwide, because they may now realize a higher profit margin even if they lower the prices for their products and services sold overseas.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With FDII Calculations and International Business Tax Planning

If your business engages in selling products or services overseas, there are opportunities for international business tax planning from US perspective. Contact Sherayzen Law Office to take advantage of these opportunities through professional, creative and ethical tax help.

Contact Us today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!