Posts

EU Market Entry Seminar | US International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

On February 8, 2018, Mr. Eugene Sherayzen, an international tax lawyer, co-presented with three other attorneys in a seminar titled “EU Market Entry: Business and Tax Considerations” (the “EU Market Entry” seminar). The EU Market Entry Seminar was co-sponsored by the Business Law Section and International Business Law Section of the Minnesota State Bar Association. The three other speakers were a business lawyer from Germany, a tax lawyer from Lithuania and a business lawyer from the United States.

Mr. Sherayzen began his part of the EU Market Entry Seminar with the explanation of the main purpose of tax planning. He asserted that tax planning should not be done only to reduce costs, but to maximize the real profits of a business transaction.

Then, the tax attorney proceeded with the explanation of the main international tax planning strategies with respect to outbound business transactions. In particular, he discussed in detail the following strategies: (1) overseas profit tax reduction; (2) U.S. tax deferral; and (3) Prevention of double-taxation. Each of these strategies was accompanied by three to four relevant tactics. The tax attorney focused especially on U.S. tax deferral as the “heart” of the U.S. tax planning.

The next part of the EU Market Entry Seminar was devoted to the classification of international business transactions. Mr. Sherayzen grouped different types of international business transactions into three categories: (1) Export of Goods and Services; (2) Licensing & Technology Transfers; and (3) Foreign Investment Transactions (including Foreign Direct Investment and Foreign Portfolio Investment).

The final part of the EU Market Entry Seminar consisted of applying the aforementioned tax strategies to each of the three groups of international business transactions and determining which strategies were likely to perform better than others with respect to a particular group of international business transactions. For example, Mr. Sherayzen stated that overseas profit tax reduction and prevention of double-taxation were easier to implement for international business transactions that involved export of goods or services; the U.S. tax deferral would be much more difficult to implement in this context and it would require extensive tax planning.

Mr. Sherayzen concluded the EU Market Entry Seminar with an introduction to the audience the concepts of GILTI (Global Intangible Low-Tax Income), BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) rules, CbC (country-by-country) reporting and FDII (Foreign Derived Intangibles Income). These concepts were integrated within the discussion of the effectiveness of certain tax strategies with respect to the second and third categories of international business transactions. For example, the tax attorney discussed how the new GILTI rules affect the ability to achieve U.S. tax deferral.

International Personal Services Sourcing Rules | International Tax Lawyer

/in , /by

In a previous article, I explained that US tax law sources personal services to the place where these services are performed. What about a situation where such services are performed partially in the United States and partially outside of the United States (hereinafter, I will call such services “international personal services”)? In this article, I will address this situation and discuss the US international personal services sourcing rules.

I will specifically limit my discussion in this essay to international personal services sourcing rules concerning non-corporate independent contractors. In the future, I will discuss the income source rules for corporations and employees, including the source of income rules concerning fringe benefits and stock options.

International Personal Services Sourcing: Two Main Situations

The rules concerning the sourcing of international person services income depend on how a contracting agreement structures the payment for such services. In this context, there are two most common categories of contracts.

The first category of contracts specifically designates part of the payment to cover the services performed in the United States and part of the payment to compensate for services performed in a foreign country. In this situation, we can easily apply the general rule and source each part of the payment to the place where services are performed. In other words, the payment for US services will be US-source income and the payment for foreign services will be foreign-source income.

Unfortunately, contractors rarely structure their agreements in this way, because they often fail to retain an international tax lawyer to review their contracts for US international tax issues. Business lawyers also often make the same mistake, because they fail to see the need to involve a tax attorney.

Hence, most contracts fall within the second category of contracts, where a contract does not allocate the payment between services performed in the United States and those performed in a foreign country. The general rule is of little help for these contracts; hence, the IRS developed a supplementary legal process for income sourcing in this type of a situation.

International Personal Services Sourcing: the Two-Step Allocation Process

If the contract does not divide the payment between the countries where the services are performed, then the taxpayer will need to engage in a two-step process.

First, the taxpayer should determine if the terms of the contract allow to make an accurate allocation of payment between the United States and a foreign country. Sometimes, a contractor may perform services so specific to a country that the allocation of payment is obvious, even though the contract does not expressly allocate the payment to this country.

Second, if no such accurate allocation is possible, then the taxpayer should allocate the payment “on the basis that most correctly reflects the proper source of income on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Treas. Reg. §1.861-4(b)(1). This appears to be a very general rule that opens up possibilities for creative tax planning, but, once we look at the history of this rule, we will quickly realize that one method – the Time Rule (described below) – limits its flexibility.

The current flexible rule is in force only since 1976. Prior to that year, the IRS required the allocation of payment strictly based on the Time Rule. The impetus to changing to a more flexible rule was a 1973 case from the Tenth Circuit, Tipton & Kalmbach, Inc v US, 480 F2d 1118, 32 AFTR2d 73-5334 (10th Cir 1973). In that case, the IRS determined that a re-enlistment bonus was a compensation for services which the taxpayer performed on the day he re-enlisted. The paradoxical result was the fact that the location of the soldier on the day of his re-enlistment determined the sourcing of the entire re-enlistment bonus.

Hence, the IRS infused more flexibility into the Time Rule by adopting the language currently found in Treas. Reg. §1.861-4(b)(1). Nevertheless, given this history, there is no question that the Time Rule remains the most persuasive method of income allocation for non-corporate individual contractors.

It should be emphasized, however, that dominance of the Time Rule should not deter a taxpayer utilizing alternative methodology (for example, the value produced by specific services) if it is more accurate. In other words, the Time Rule is the default methodology which the IRS will use to allocate the payment between the countries, but a taxpayer may use other alternatives as long as he can persuade the IRS that his methodology represents a more accurate allocation of income.

International Personal Services Sourcing: the Time Rule

The time has come to define the Time Rule. According to Treas. Reg. §1.861-4(b)(2)(ii)(E), under the Time Rule, the amount of payment allocated to the United States “is the amount that bears the same relation to the individual’s total compensation as the number of days of performance of the labor or personal services by the individual within the United States bears to his or her total number of days of performance of labor or personal services.” Taxpayers should use fractions in determining the allocations.

Let’s use an example to demonstrate the application of the Time Rule. A US Corporation signs a contract with Mr. Hause, a tax resident of Germany, to provide professional advice concerning incorporation of German heavy machinery into a Chinese factory owned by the corporation. The total price paid is $900,000; the work is performed within 180 days. Out of these 180 days, Mr. Hause spends 60 days in the United States working on the implementation plans and 120 days in China overseeing the implementation process. Based on the Time Rule, Mr. Hause spent 1/3 of his time in the United States and 2/3 in China; hence, $300,000 will be considered US-source income and $600,000 will be sourced to China. Of course, if Mr. Hause can show that the value of his work in China was far more important to the contract than his work in the United states, he can use an alternative methodology (which may still have to survive the IRS scrutiny during an audit).

Based on this example, you can see why the IRS likes the Time Rule – it is a relatively straightforward, objective calculation that can be easily implemented in almost any case.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With International Personal Services Sourcing Rules and Other US International Tax Issues

Sherayzen Law Office can help you with all of your US international tax needs, including the international personal services sourcing rules. Our highly experienced international tax team has successfully helped US taxpayers around the globe to deal with their US international tax issues. We can help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Personal Services Income Sourcing | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

This article continues our series of articles on the source of income rules. Today, I will explain the general rule for individual personal services income sourcing. I want to emphasize that, in this essay, I will focus only on individuals and provide only the general rule with two exceptions. Future articles will cover more specific situations and exceptions.

Personal Services Income Sourcing: General Rule

The main governing law concerning individual personal services income sourcing rules is found in the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) §861 and §862. §861 defines what income is considered to be US-source income while §862 explains when income is considered to be foreign-source income.

The general rule for the individual personal services income is that the location where the services are rendered determines whether this is US-source income or foreign-source income. If an individual performs his services in the United States, then this is US-source income. §861(a)(3). On the other hand, if this individual renders his services outside of the United States, then, this will be a foreign-source income. §862(a)(3).

In other words, the key consideration in income sourcing with respect to personal services is the location where the services are performed. Generally, the rest of the factors are irrelevant, including the residency of the employee, the place of incorporation of the employer and the place of payment.

As always in US tax law, there are exceptions to this general rule. In this article, I will cover only two statutory exceptions; in the future, I will also discuss other exceptions as well as the rule with respect to situations where the work is partially done in the United States and partially in a foreign country.

Personal Services Income Sourcing: De Minimis Exception

IRC §861(a)(3) provides a statutory exception to the general rule above specifically for nonresident aliens whose income meet the de minimis rule. The de minimis rule states that the US government will not consider the services of a nonresident alien rendered in the United States as US-source income as long as the following four requirements are met:

1. The nonresident alien is an individual;

2. He was only temporarily in the United States for a period or periods of time not exceeding a total of 90 days during the tax year;

3. He received $3,000 or less in compensation for his services in the United States; AND

4. The services were performed for either of two persons:

4a. “A nonresident alien, foreign partnership, or foreign corporation, not engaged in trade or business within the United States”. §861(a)(3)(C)(i); OR

4b. “an individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States, a domestic partnership, or a domestic corporation, if such labor or services are performed for an office or place of business maintained in a foreign country or in a possession of the United States by such individual, partnership, or corporation.” §861(a)(3)(C)(ii).

Personal Services Income Sourcing: Foreign Vessel Crew Exception

The personal services income performed by a nonresident alien individual in the United States will not be deemed as US-source income if the following requirements are satisfied:

1. The individual is temporarily present in the United States as a regular member of a crew of a foreign vessel; and

2. The foreign vessel is engaged in transported between the United States and a foreign country or a possession of the United States. See §861(a)(3).

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help Concerning US International Tax Law, Including Personal Services Income Sourcing Rules

Sherayzen Law Office is a leading international tax law firm in the United States that has successfully helped hundreds of US taxpayers with their US international tax compliance issues. Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Uruguay-US Social Security Agreement Sent to Congress | Tax Lawyer

/in , /by

On March 19, 2018, President Trump sent the Uruguay-US Social Security Agreement to the US Senate. This is an important step toward the final ratification of the treaty that promises to benefit the citizens of both countries.

Uruguay-US Social Security Agreement: What is a Social Security Agreement?

A Social Security Agreement (also called a Totalization Agreement) is essentially a treaty between two countries that eliminates the burden of dual social security taxation for individuals and businesses who operate in both countries.

Typically, the potential for this type of double-taxation arises when a worker from country A works in Country B, but he is covered under the social security systems in both countries. In such situations, without a Social Security Agreement, the worker will have to pay social security taxes to both countries on the same earnings. A Social Security Agreement, on the other hand, allows the worker (and employers) to pay social security taxes only in one country identified in the treaty.

Social Security Agreements are authorized by Section 233 of the Social Security Act. Right now, only 26 Totalization Agreements are in force between the United States and another country: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Uruguay may become the 27th country to have a Social Security Agreement with the United States.

Uruguay-US Social Security Agreement: Recent History

The Uruguay-US Social Security Agreement has had a very favorable history so far. In fact, it may set the record for the fastest treaty ever negotiated by Uruguay. The countries first agreed to pursue a Social Security Agreement between them in May 2014, when the then Uruguayan president Jose Mujica was in Washington.

Amazingly, already in May of 2015, after just two rounds of talks held over a six-month period, the countries finished the negotiations of the Uruguay-US Social Security Agreement. Typically, it takes anywhere between two to three years to negotiate a Totalization Agreement.

On January 10, 2017, the Uruguay-US Social Security Agreement was signed in Montevideo. The United States was represented by its ambassador Mr. Kelly Kinderling. Uruguay was represented by its Foreign Minister Jose Luis Cancela and Labor and its Social Security Minister Ernesto Murro.

On October 3, 2017, the Uruguayan Senate approved the pending Uruguay-US Social Security Agreement, thereby completing the first part of the necessary ratification process. By sending the treaty to Congress for the required 60-day review period, President Trump started the US ratification process.

Uruguay-US Social Security Agreement: Benefits

According to Uruguay, the Uruguay-US Social Security Agreement will benefit some 60,000 Uruguayans working in the United States and up to 6,000 Americans living in Uruguay. The primary benefit is that the workers of both countries will be able to count the working years spent in both countries to be obtain eligibility for their home-country retirement, disability and survivor benefits.

Additionally, the Agreement will exempt US citizens sent by US-owned companies to work in Uruguay for five years or less from paying the Uruguayan social security taxes. Similarly, Uruguayan citizens sent to work temporarily in the United States by Uruguayan-owned companies will not need to pay social security taxes to the US government. Thus, employers in both countries will pay social security taxes only to their employees’ home countries.

Additionally, both countries hope that the Uruguay-US Social Security Agreement will boost trade between the countries. Currently, more than 200 American firms operate in Uruguay (mostly in the service sector).

Sherayzen Law Office will continue to monitor future developments with respect to this highly-beneficial treaty.

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.