Posts

§318 Downstream Estate Attribution | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

This article continues a series of articles on the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) §318 constructive ownership rules. Today, the topic is §318 estate attribution rules – i.e. attribution of ownership of corporate stock from estate to its beneficiaries and vice versa. Since this is a long topic, I will divide it into three articles. This article focuses on the §318 downstream estate attribution rules.

§318 Estate Attribution Rules: Two Types

There are two types of the IRC §318 estate attribution rules: downstream and upstream. The downstream attribution rules attribute the ownership of corporate stocks owned by an estate to its beneficiaries. On the other hand, the upstream attribution rules attribute the ownership of corporate stocks owned by beneficiaries to the estate. As I stated above, this article focuses on the first type – i.e. §318 downstream estate attribution rules.

§318 Downstream Estate Attribution: Attribution from Estate to Beneficiary

Under the IRS §318(a)(2)(A), corporate stock owned directly or indirectly by or on behalf of an estate is deemed to be owned proportionately by its beneficiaries. It is very important to understand that the actual disposition of estate property by the testator does not matter to the proportionate attribution of estate property between the beneficiaries. Thus, even if the will demands that all corporate stocks be inherited by only one beneficiary, the ownership of these stocks will be attributed to all beneficiaries in proportion to their respective interests in the estate.

Three questions arise with respect to the application of this §318 downstream estate attribution rule: (1) What stocks are considered to be owned by the estate? (2) Who is deemed to be a beneficiary of an estate? and (3) How does the proportionality rule work?

§318 Downstream Estate Attribution: Stocks Owned by Estate

Treas. Regs. §1.318-3(a) defines when an estate is deemed to be an owner of corporate stock for the §318 attribution purposes. It states that corporate stocks (as well as any other property) shall be considered as owned by an estate if “such property is subject to administration by the executor or administrator for the purpose of paying claims against the estate and expenses of administration.” This is the case even if the legal title to the stock vests immediately upon death in the decedent’s heirs, legatees, or devisees under local law. Id.

§318 Downstream Estate Attribution: Definition of a Beneficiary

I address the definition of a beneficiary for the §318 attribution purposes in more detail in another article. Here, I will only state the general rule.

Treas. Regs. §1.318-3(a) states that “the term beneficiary includes any person entitled to receive property of a decedent pursuant to a will or pursuant to laws of descent and distribution.” Hence, in order to be considered a beneficiary under §318, a person must have a direct present interest in the property of the estate or in income generated by that property.

§318 Downstream Estate Attribution: Proportionality

As in many other cases concerning attribution proportionality, there is very little guidance from the IRS and Treasury regulations concerning determination of a beneficiary’s proportionate interest in an estate. Hence, an attorney has a considerable freedom in determining the reasonable methodology with respect to the application of the proportionality requirement. It appears that one method may be particularly acceptable to the IRS: measuring the relative values of each beneficiary’s interest.

§318 Downstream Estate Attribution: No Re-Attribution

Similarly to many other IRC provisions concerning constructive ownership, §318 estate attribution rules contain a prohibition on re-attribution of stocks. Under §318(a)(5)(C), a beneficiary’s stock constructively owned by an estate through the operation of the §318 estate attribution rules cannot be attributed to another beneficiary.

§318 Downstream Estate Attribution: Example

Let’s conclude this article with an illustration of how the §318 downstream estate attribution rules actually work. The proposed hypothetical scenario is as follows: an estate owns 100 of the total 200 outstanding shares of X, a South Dakota C-corporation; A is entitled to 50% of the property of the estate and actually owns 24 shares of X; B owns 36 shares of X and has a life estate in the other 50% of the estate; and C owns 40 shares of X and only has a remainder interest in the estate after the death of B. Here is how the §318 estate attribution constructive rules would work in this case:

A actually owns 24 shares of X and constructively owns another 50 shares of X through his 50% beneficiary interest in the estate. In other words, A’s total ownership of X equals 74 shares.

B actually owns 36 shares of X and constructively owns another 50 shares of X through his life estate; his total number of shares of X equals 86.

Finally, C owns 40 shares of X only. He does not have any constructive ownership of any shares of X, because his remainder interest in the estate is not a present interest in the estate; hence, he is not a beneficiary of the estate.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With §318 Downstream Estate Attribution Rules

The constructive ownership rules of §318 are crucial to proper identification of US tax reporting requirements with respect domestic and especially foreign business entities. Hence, if you a beneficiary of an estate or an executor/administrator of an estate that owns stocks in a domestic or foreign corporation, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with §318 estate attribution rules.

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

The IRS Hiring Spree in 2019 and 2020 | Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

The IRS stated in December of 2019 that it hired about 9,500 people during the fiscal year 2019 and it is trying to add another about 5,300 employees as soon as possible. This new IRS hiring spree is meant to reverse the long-term declining trend in IRS employment.

The IRS Hiring Spree: 2009-2018 Trend

Between 2009 and 2017, the IRS suffered a spectacular loss in employees. From about 95,000 employees in 2009, the number of employees dropped to less than 75,000 in 2018. In other words, the IRS lost about 20,000 employees during these years. These losses were mostly due to budget cuts.

The IRS Hiring Spree: 2019-2020 Trend Change

While the IRS did not receive all of the funds it requested, the Trump administration was able to secure sufficient funds for the agency to start hiring again. The fiscal year 2019 saw a complete reversal in the trend with about 9,500 employees added. This is definitely not the end of the IRS hiring spree – the IRS is planning to add another 5,300 employees in early 2020.

The IRS Hiring Spree: What It Means to US Taxpayers

This huge hiring spree at the IRS will have a direct impact on US taxpayers. On the one hand, the IRS customer service should improve with the larger number of representatives.

On the other hand, such a huge inflow of future IRS agents means an inevitable rise in IRS enforcement efforts, particularly IRS audits. Reinforced by hundreds of additional examiners, the IRS will be able to expand audits everywhere, including international tax audits concerning FBAR and FATCA compliance.

US taxpayers with undisclosed foreign assets and foreign income should keep in mind this impending wave of IRS FBAR and FATCA audits. Rather than just wait for the IRS to discover their prior noncompliance with US tax laws, these taxpayers should explore their offshore voluntary disclosure options with an experienced international tax attorney as soon as possible.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help with IRS International Tax Audits

Mr. Eugene Sherayzen is a highly experienced international tax attorney and owner of international tax law firm, Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. He and his law firm have successfully helped hundreds of US taxpayers to resolve their prior noncompliance with US international tax laws. We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

§267 Family Attribution | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

In a previous article, I introduced the constructive ownership rules of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) §267. Today, I would like to discuss one of them in more detail – §267 family attribution.

§267 Family Attribution: General Rule

The §267 family attribution rule is described in §267(c)(2). It states that, for the purposes of determining whether an individual is a related party under §267, this individual is considered as a constructive owner of stocks owned, directly or indirectly, by or for his family.

§267 Family Attribution: Who is a Family Member

The critical question for §267(c)(2) is the definition of family. §267(c)(4) provides the answer to this question: “the family of an individual shall include only his brothers and sisters (whether by the whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal descendants.”

Under Treas. Reg. §1.267(c)-1(a)(4), if any such family relationship was formed through legal adoption, such adoption is given full legal force for the purposes of §267(c)(2). “Ancestors” here include parents and grandparents; it appears that great-grandparents should also be family members for the purposes of §267 family member attribution. Id. The term “lineal descendants” includes children and grandchildren. Id.

Neither §267 and relevant Treasury regulations contain any reference to aunts and uncles. There is, however, a reason to believe that aunts and uncles are not family members for the purpose of §267(c)(2). This argument is based on the fact that, prior to its repeal in 2004, the definition of family in §544(a)(2) (which was part of the foreign personal holding company provisions) was identical to that of §267(c)(4). The IRS held in Rev. Rul. 59-43 that aunts and uncles are not family members for the purposes of §544(a)(2); hence, the same logic should apply to §267(c)(2).

Furthermore, neither step-parents nor step-children are family members for the purposes of §267(c)(2) (see Rev. Rul. 71-50 and DeBoer v. Commissioner, 16 T.C. 662 (1951), aff’d per curiam, 194 F.2d 289 (2d Cir. 1952)). Based on Tilles v. Commissioner, 38 B.T.A. 545 (1938), aff’d, 113 F.2d 907 (8th Cir. 1940), nieces or nephews are also not family members. Nor are the in-laws.

§267 Family Attribution: Attribution and Limitations

Under the §267 family attribution rule, any family member will be the constructive owner of any other family member’s stocks. This will be the case even if the person to whom the stock ownership is attributed has no direct or even indirect ownership of stock in the corporation (see Reg. §1.267(c)-1(a)(2)).

On the other hand, §267(c)(5) prevents the double-attribution of stock. In other words, a stock constructively owned under the family attribution rules may not be owned by another person under §267(c)(2). For example, if stock ownership is attributed to an individual’s wife under §267(c)(2), §267(c)(5) prevents further attribution of stock ownership to the wife’s mother.

§267 Family Attribution: Other Doctrines Should Be Considered

It is important to emphasize that a lawyer should always be on the lookout for other doctrines which may intervene with the attribution under §267(c)(2). For example, where a wife transfers property to her husband in anticipation of the sale of that property by the husband to her brother, §267(c)(5) double-attribution limitation may be ignored by the application of the “substance over form” principle by a court. The “step transaction” doctrine should always be a concern in such transactions.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional 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!

IRS Appeals Video Conference | IRS Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

In May of 2019, Mr. Andrew Keyso, a deputy chief of the IRS Office of Appeals, stated that the Appeals Office is in the early stages of rolling out the technology to conduct video conferences as an option for Appeals conferences. This is great news for tax practitioners – an IRS Appeals video conference is a very convenient option for doing business with the IRS.

IRS Appeals Video Conference: WebEx Platform and Early Testing

The IRS Appeals video conference option will be based on WebEx video conferencing software developed by Cisco. It is secure and convenient, but some training is necessary to use it efficiently.

The IRS has already successfully tested WebEx software for appeals video conferences in early 2018. In October of 2018, IRS made the software more broadly available to its employees so that they can offer video conferences.

IRS Appeals Video Conference: IRS Wants Employees to Use It More

Unfortunately, not all IRS employees at the Appeals Office offer video conferences. Neither do many taxpayers seek them (undoubtedly due to lack of knowledge about them). Those who do so, however, find this option very attractive.

The IRS definitely wants its employees to use the IRS Appeals video conference option more. Speaking at the American Bar Association Section of Taxation conference in May of 2019, Diane Ogawa, an IRS appeals officer in Honolulu, stated: “We are trying to get more appeals officers training and on board with WebEx”. Sherayzen Law Office believes that, as more Appeals employees, taxpayers and tax practitioners become familiar with WebEx, the usage of the IRS Appeals video conference option should greatly increase.

IRS Appeals Video Conference: Positive Reaction from Tax Lawyers

The tax lawyers are generally in favor of using the IRS Appeals video conference option. They find it a convenient and effective way to conduct a hearing conference. There is also an additional benefit of reduced costs: there is no need to waste time and money on traveling to the IRS office.

IRS Appeals Video Conference: Potential Problems

This option, however, is not without potential problems. Besides the potential technical issues, the biggest problem is privacy. An unrepresented taxpayer may try to hold a video conference in a public place (like Starbucks) and the IRS will simply not agree to it. A represented taxpayer will not likely run into this problem, because his representative should know about these privacy issues.

The bigger privacy concern, though, comes from tax lawyers. They need to make sure that the prying eye of WebEx technology does not catch the other clients’ files, names and so on in the background of the WebEx video. Lawyers should strive to protect the attorney-client privileged information to the maximum extent possible.

Sherayzen Law Office Supports the IRS Video Conference Option and Hopes the IRS Expands It to Audit Interviews

As an international tax law firm, Sherayzen Law Office has clients throughout the United States and, indeed, the world. Flying to a meeting with an IRS agent is sometimes inconvenient for both, the taxpayer and the attorney; it is also expensive. Video conferencing is a perfect solution to this issue, and Sherayzen Law Office fully supports the current IRS video conferencing efforts.

Moreover, we encourage the IRS to apply video conferencing to other areas, such as IRS audit meetings.

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!