Posts

September 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney News

/in , /by

On September 10, 2018, the IRS Large Business and International division (“LB&I”) announced the creation of another five compliance campaigns. Let’s explore in more depth these September 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns.

September 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: Background Information

Since January of 2017, the IRS has been regularly adding more and more compliance campaigns. The compliance campaigns were created by the LB&I after extensive planning concerning the restructuring of its compliance enforcement activities. The IRS solution to the then existing enforcement problems was to move towards issue-based examinations and a compliance campaign process in which the IRS itself decides which compliance issues that present risk require a response in the form of one or multiple treatment streams to achieve compliance objectives. The idea is to concentrate the IRS resources where they are most need – i.e. where there is a substantial risk of tax noncompliance.

The new campaigns have been coming in batches. The IRS announced the initial batch of thirteen campaigns on January 31, 2017. Then, the IRS added another eleven campaigns in November of 2017, five in March of 2018, six in May of 2018 and five in July of 2018. The new campaigns announced on September 10, 2018, brings the total number of campaigns to forty five as of that date.

It is important to point out that the tax reform that passed on December 22, 2017, may impact some of these existing campaigns.

Five New September 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns

Here are the new September 2018 IRS Compliance campaigns that should be added to the forty campaigns that were announced prior to that date: IRC Section 199 – Claims Risk Review, Syndicated Conservation Easement Transactions, Foreign Base Company Sales Income – Manufacturing Branch Rules, Form 1120-F Interest Expense & Home Office Expense and Individuals Employed by Foreign Governments & International Organizations. All of these campaigns were selected by the IRS through LB&I data analysis and suggestions from IRS employees.

September 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: IRC Section 199 – Claims Risk Review

Public Law 115-97 repealed the Domestic Production Activity Deduction (“DPAD”) for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017. This campaign addresses all business entities that may file a claim for additional DPAD under IRC Section 199. The campaign objective is to ensure taxpayer compliance with the requirements of IRC Section 199 through a claim risk review assessment and issue-based examinations of claims with the greatest compliance risk.

September 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: Syndicated Conservation Easement Transactions

The IRS issued Notice 2017-10, designating specific syndicated conservation easement transactions as listed transactions requiring disclosure statements by both investors and material advisors. This campaign is intended to encourage taxpayer compliance and ensure consistent treatment of similarly situated taxpayers by ensuring the easement contributions meet the legal requirements for a deduction, and the fair market values are accurate. The initial treatment stream is issue-based examinations. Other treatment streams will be considered as the campaign progresses.

September 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: Manufacturing Branch Rules for Foreign Base Company Sales Income

In general, foreign base company sales income (“FBCSI”) does not include income of a controlled foreign corporation (“CFC”) derived in connection with the sale of personal property manufactured by such a corporation. There is an exception to this general rule. If a CFC manufactures property through a branch outside its country of incorporation, the manufacturing branch may be treated as a separate, wholly owned subsidiary of the CFC for the purposes of computing the CFC’s FBCSI, which may result in a subpart F inclusion to the US shareholder(s) of the CFC.

The goal of this campaign is to identify and select for examination returns of US shareholders of CFCs that may have underreported subpart F income based on certain interpretations of the manufacturing branch rules. The treatment stream for the campaign will be issue-based examinations.

September 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: 1120-F Interest Expense & Home Office Expense

Two of the largest deductions claimed on Form1120-F (US Income Tax Return of a Foreign Corporation) are interest expenses and home office expense. Treasury Regulation Section 1.882-5 provides a formula to determine the interest expense of a foreign corporation that is allocable to their effectively connected income. The amount of interest expense deductions determined under Treasury Regulation Section 1.882-5 can be substantial.

Similarly, Treasury Regulation Section 1.861-8 governs the amount of Home Office expense deductions allocated to effectively connected income. Through its data analyses, the IRS noted that Home Office Expense allocations have been material amounts compared to the total deductions taken by a foreign corporation.

This IRS campaign addresses both of these Form 1120–F deductions. The campaign compliance strategy includes the identification of aggressive positions in these areas, such as the use of apportionment factors that may not attribute the proper amount of expenses to the calculation of effectively connected income. The goal of this campaign is to increase taxpayer compliance with the interest expense rules of Treasury Regulation Section 1.882-5 and the Home Office expense allocation rules of Treasury Regulation Section 1.861-8. The treatment stream for this campaign is harsh – issue-based examinations only.

September 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: Individuals Employed by Foreign Governments & International Organizations

Foreign embassies, foreign consular offices and international organizations operating in the United States are not required to withhold federal income and social security taxes from their employees’ compensation nor are they required to file information reports with the Internal Revenue Service. This lack of withholding and reporting often results in unreported income, erroneous deductions and credits, and failure to pay income and Social Security taxes, because some individuals working at foreign embassies, foreign consular offices, and various international organizations may not be reporting compensation or may be reporting it incorrectly.

This campaign will focus on outreach and education by partnering with the Department of State’s Office of Foreign Missions to inform employees of foreign embassies, consular offices and international organizations. The IRS will also address noncompliance in this area by issuing soft letters and conducting examinations.

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

/in , /by

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!

South African Bank Accounts | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney Los Angeles California

/in , /by

Due to various waves of emigration from South Africa since early 1990s, there is a significant number of South Africans who live in the United States. Many of these new US taxpayers continue to maintain their South African bank accounts even to this very day. These taxpayers need to be aware of the potential US tax compliance requirements which may apply to these South African bank accounts. This is exactly the purpose of this article – I intend to discuss the three most common US tax reporting requirements which may apply to South African bank accounts held by US persons. These requirements are: worldwide income reporting, FBAR and Form 8938.

South African Bank Accounts: US Tax Residents, US Persons and Specified Persons

Prior to our discussion of these reporting requirements, we need to identify the persons who must comply with them. It turns out that this task is not that easy, because different reporting requirements have a different definition of “filer”.

The most common and basic definition is the one that applies to the worldwide income reporting requirement – US tax residency. A US tax resident is a broad term that covers: US citizens, US permanent residents, persons who satisfy the Substantial Presence Test and individuals who declare themselves as US tax residents. This general definition of US tax residents is subject to a number of important exceptions, such as visa exemptions (for example, an F-1 visa five-year exemption for foreign students) from the Substantial Presence Test.

FBAR defines its filers as “US Persons” and Form 8938 filers are “Specified Persons”. These concepts are fairly similar to US tax residency, but there are important differences. Both terms apply to US citizens, US permanent residents and persons who satisfy the Substantial Presence Test. The differences arise mostly with respect to persons who declare themselves as US tax residents. A common example are the treaty “tie-breaker” provisions, which foreign persons use to escape the Substantial Presence Test for US tax residency purposes.

Determination of your US tax reporting requirements is the primary task of your international tax lawyer. I strongly recommend that you do not even attempt to do this yourself or use an accountant for this purpose. It is simply too dangerous.

South African Bank Accounts: Worldwide Income Reporting

All US tax residents must report their worldwide income on their US tax returns. This means that US tax residents must disclose to the IRS on their US tax returns both US-source and foreign-source income. In the context of the South African bank accounts, foreign-source income means all bank interest income, dividends, royalties, capital gains and any other income generated by these accounts.

South African Bank Accounts: FBAR Reporting

FinCEN Form 114, the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (“FBAR”), requires all US Persons to disclose their ownership interest in or signatory authority or any other authority over South African (and any other foreign country) bank and financial accounts if the aggregate highest balance of these accounts exceeds $10,000. I encourage you to read this article (click on the link) concerning the definition of a “US Person”. You can also search our firm’s website, sherayzenlaw.com, for the explanation of other parts of the required FBAR disclosure.

The definition of “account”, however, deserves special attention here. The FBAR definition of an account is substantially broader than what this word generally means in our society. “Account” for FBAR purposes includes: checking accounts, savings accounts, fixed-deposit accounts, investments accounts, mutual funds, options/commodity futures accounts, life insurance policies with a cash surrender value, precious metals accounts, earth mineral accounts, et cetera. In fact, whenever there is a custodial relationship between a foreign financial institution and a US person’s foreign asset, there is a very high probability that the IRS will find that an account exists for FBAR purposes.

Finally, FBAR has a very complex and severe penalty system. The most feared penalties are criminal FBAR penalties with up to 10 years in jail (of course, these penalties come into effect in extreme situations). On the civil side, the most dreaded penalties are FBAR willful civil penalties which can easily exceed a person’s net worth. Even FBAR non-willful penalties can wreak a havoc in a person’s financial life.

Civil FBAR penalties have their own complex web of penalty mitigation layers, which depend on the facts and circumstances of one’s case. One of the most important factors is the size of the South African bank accounts subject to FBAR penalties. Additionally, since 2015, the IRS has added another layer of limitations on the FBAR penalty imposition. These self-imposed limitations of course help, but one must keep in mind that they are voluntary IRS actions and may be disregarded under certain circumstances (in fact, there are already a few instances where this has occurred).

South African Bank Accounts: FATCA Form 8938

Form 8938 is filed with a federal tax return and forms part of the tax return. This means that a failure to file Form 8938 may render the entire tax return incomplete and potentially subject to an IRS audit.

Form 8938 requires “Specified Persons” to disclose on their US tax returns all of their Specified Foreign Financial Assets (“SFFA”) as long as these Persons meet the applicable filing threshold. The filing threshold depends on a Specified Person’s tax return filing status and his physical residency. For example, if he is single and resides in the United States, he needs to file Form 8938 as long as the aggregate value of his SFFA is more than $50,000 at the end of the year or more than $75,000 at any point during the year.

The IRS defines SFFA very broadly to include an enormous variety of financial instruments, including foreign bank accounts, foreign business ownership, foreign trust beneficiary interests, bond certificates, various types of swaps, et cetera. In some ways, FBAR and Form 8938 require the reporting of the same assets, but these two forms are completely independent from each other. This means that a taxpayer may have to do duplicate reporting on FBAR and Form 8938.

Specified Persons consist of two categories of filers: Specified Individuals and Specified Domestic Entities. You can find a detailed explanation of both categories by searching our website sherayzenlaw.com.

Finally, Form 8938 has its own penalty system which has far-reaching income tax consequences (including disallowance of foreign tax credit and imposition of 40% accuracy-related income tax penalties). There is also a $10,000 failure-to-file penalty.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With the US Tax Reporting of Your South African Bank Accounts

If you have South African bank accounts, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with your US international tax compliance. We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers with their US international tax issues, and We can help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

FBAR United States Definition | FBAR Lawyer & Attorney Minneapolis MN

/in , /by

The United States is defined differently with respect to different parts (and, sometimes even within the same part) of the United States Code. There is a specific definition of the United States for FBAR Purposes. In this brief essay, I would like to discuss the FBAR United States Definition and explain its importance to FBAR compliance.

Importance of FBAR United States Definition to FinCEN Form 114

Before we discuss the FBAR United States Definition, we need to the context in which it is used and why it is important for US international tax purposes. FBAR is a common acronym for the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, FinCEN Form 114. It used to be known under a different name – TD F 90-22.1.

FBAR is part of Title 31, Bank Secrecy Act, but the IRS has administered FBAR since 2001. The IRS primarily uses FBAR not to fight financial crimes (which was its original purpose), but for tax enforcement. In particular, the IRS found that FBAR is an extremely useful tool for combating tax evasion associated with a strategy of hiding money in secret foreign bank accounts.

FBAR’s draconian penalties is what makes this form the favorite with the IRS, but much hated by US taxpayers. The penalties range from a jail sentence to civil willful penalties and even civil non-willful penalties which may exceed a taxpayer’s net worth.

It is precisely these penalties which make it absolutely necessary for US taxpayers to understand when they need to file FBARs. One of the aspects of this understanding is the FBAR United States Definition, which allows one to determine two things. First, the FBAR United States Definition is used to define the United States for the purposes of the Substantial Presence Test. Second, the FBAR United States Definition allows one to classify bank accounts as foreign or domestic for FBAR compliance purposes.

FBAR United States Definition

31 CFR 1010.100(hhh) contains the FBAR United States Definition. Under this provision, the United States is defined as: the States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Indian Lands (as defined in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act) and the territories and insular possessions of the United States. As of February 3, 2019, the US territories and insular possessions refer to: Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands and Northern Mariana Islands.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional FBAR Help

If you have undisclosed foreign accounts, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. We have successfully helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world with their FBAR issues, and We can help You! Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Broadcom Re-domiciliation Approved | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

On January 29, 2018, Broadcom Board of Directors approved the plan for Broadcom re-domiciliation in the United States. This move was expected after Broadcom’s November of 2017 pledge to president Trump that the company would return to the United States.

Broadcom Re-domiciliation: A Story of Tax Inversion and Tax Remorse

The story of the Broadcom re-domiciliation began fairly recently in February of 2016. At that time, Broadcom did what was very popular during the Obama administration – tax inversion. California-based Broadcom allowed itself to be acquired by Singapore’s Avago Technologies Limited with the result of creation of a single Singapore entity.

The real motivation for the inversion was lowering the corporate taxes. At that time, during the political climate that existed in the United States, Broadcom thought that it was a good move.

Now, Broadcom believes that the tax inversion might not have been such a great thing to do in light of the new developments and certain consequences that it did not seem to have anticipated prior to tax inversion. First of all, Broadcom’s business in the US has continued to expand as it stepped-up its acquisition strategy. Already in 2017, barely a year and a half after tax inversion, Broadcom has stated that the benefits of this business strategy outweigh the potential additional taxes it might have to pay when it returns to the United States (especially after the tax reform – see below).

Second and closely related to the first reason, as a foreign company based in Singapore, Broadcom is under constant scrutiny of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFI”). CFI focuses on the review of transactions that may result in control of a US business by a foreign person and the impact of such control on US national security. This is an irritating and expensive factor that continuously hinders Broadcom’s acquisition strategy in the United States.

Third, Broadcom apparently did not anticipate that the tax reform be so radical and so beneficial to corporations. There is one issue in particular that makes Broadcom re-domiciliation in the United States so important. At the time of its tax inversion, Broadcom established a deferred tax liability on its balance sheet with respect to integration of the company’s intellectual property (“IP”). Under the old law, this deferred tax liability would have become payable at 35% tax rate in the United States.

Now, under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (“TCJA”), this deferred liability will be recognized in fiscal year 2018 as deemed repatriated foreign earnings at a much lower tax rate. This means that Broadcom re-domiciliation in 2018 will save the company a huge amount in taxes; or, as the company itself put it: “a material reduction in the amount of other long-term liabilities on our balance sheet”.

Broadcom Re-domiciliation Approved Within One Month of TCJA

The tax motivation behind Broadcom re-domiciliation became especially evident in light of the fact that the Broadcom Board approved it within just one month of the passage of TCJA. Moreover, in its filings with SEC, Broadcom directly stated that, as a result of TCJA, the tax cost of being a US-based multinational company has decreased substantially.

Sherayzen Law Office will continue to observe the impact of the recent tax reform on the behavior of US companies that went through tax inversion.