international tax lawyer New York Archives - Page 3 of 8

Posts

§318 Entity-Member Attribution Summary | International Tax Lawyer

In a previous article, I discussed the IRC (Internal Revenue Code) §318 sidewise attribution limitation. This limitation was the last piece in the jigsaw puzzle of the §318 entity-member attribution rules; now, we are ready to summarize these rules in light of this exception. This is the purpose of this article – state the §318 Entity-Member Attribution summary.

§318 Entity-Member Attribution Summary: Definition of Member

For the purpose of this §318 Entity-Member Attribution summary, I am using the word “member” to describe partners, shareholders and beneficiaries.

§318 Entity-Member Attribution Summary: Limitations

This summary of §318 entity-member attribution rules is limited only to situations where a member owns at 50% of the value of stock (in case of a corporation) and a beneficiary of a trust does not hold a remote and contingent interest in a trust. The readers need to keep these limitations in mind as they apply the summary below to a particular fact pattern.

Moreover, the readers must remember that this summary of the §318 Entity-Member attribution rules may be altered when one applies it within the context of a specific tax provision. Hence, the readers must check for any modification of these §318 attribution rules contained in that specific tax provision.

§318 Entity-Member Attribution Summary

Now that we understand the limitations above, we can state the following summary of the §318 Entity-Member attribution rules:

All corporate stock is attributed to an entity from its member irrespective of whether the member owns this stock actually or constructively;
If corporate stock is attributed from an entity to its member, such attribution will be done on a proportionate basis; and
The following corporate stock is attributed from an entity to its member on a proportionate basis:
(a). Corporate stock which the entity actually owns;
(b). Corporate stock which the entity constructively owns under the option rules; and
(c). Corporate stock which the entity constructively owns because it is a member of some other entity.

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

US international tax law is incredibly complex and the penalties for noncompliance are exceptionally severe. This means that an attempt to navigate through the maze of US international tax laws without assistance of an experienced professional will most likely produce unfavorable and even catastrophic results.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with US international tax law. We are a highly experienced, creative and ethical team of professionals dedicated to helping our clients resolve their past, present and future US international tax compliance issues. We have helped clients with assets in over 70 countries around the world, and we can help you!

July 15 Deferral: More Deadlines Affected | US International Tax News

On April 9, 2020, the IRS announced additional relief to taxpayers by moving the due date for more deadlines to July 15, 2020. Let’s discuss this additional July 15 Deferral in more detail.

July 15 Deferral: Background Information

On March 13, 2020, in response to the 2019 coronavirus (also called “COVID-19″) pandemic, President Trump issued an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. This declaration instructed the Treasury Department to provide relief from tax deadlines to Americans who have been adversely affected by the COVID-19 emergency pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §7508A(a).

Section 7508A of the Internal Revenue Code provides the Secretary of the Treasury with authority to postpone the time for performing certain acts under the internal revenue laws for a taxpayer determined by the Secretary to be affected by a federally-declared disaster as defined in section 165(i)(5)(A). Pursuant to section 7508A(a), a period of up to one year may be disregarded in determining whether the performance of certain acts is timely under the internal revenue laws.

On March 18, 2020, the IRS issued Notice 2020-17 to postpone April 15 tax payment deadlines from April 15 to July 15, 2020. A few days later, on March 21, 2020 (the actual relief occurred even earlier on March 20, 2020), among other measures, the IRS announced a new notice 2020-18 for the extension of all April 15 deadlines to July 15, 2020. This extension applied only to the April 15 deadlines.

Later, on March 27, 2020, the IRS issued Notice 2020-20, which amplified the earlier notice 2020-18 and postponed certain federal gift tax return filings and payments to July 15, 2020.

July 15 Deferral: More Deadlines Affected

On April 9, 2020, the IRS took another decisive step forward and issued Notice 2020-23. This notice extends to July 15 all tax deadlines that fall on or after April 1, 2020 and July 14, 2020. This deferral applies to all tax filing and tax payment deadlines.

The July 15 deferral of deadlines applies to all taxpayers – individuals, trusts, estates, corporations and other non-corporate tax filers.

July 15 Deferral: Taxpayers Residing Abroad

Americans who reside abroad usually get an automatic extension to file their tax returns until June 15, but they are required to pay taxes due by April 15. Notice 2020-23 defers the tax payment and the tax filing deadlines from April 15 and June 15 respectively to July 15, 2020.

July 15 Deferral: Individual Tax Returns

Notice 2020-23 applies to the following types of individual tax returns and tax payments:

Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, 1040-SR, U.S. Tax Return for Seniors;
1040-NR, U.S. Nonresident Alien Income Tax Return;
1040-NR-EZ, U.S. Income Tax Return for Certain Nonresident Aliens With No Dependents;
1040-PR, Self-Employment Tax Return – Puerto Rico; and
1040-SS, U.S. Self-Employment Tax Return (Including the Additional Child Tax Credit for Bona Fide Residents of Puerto Rico);

July 15 Deferral: Corporate Tax Returns

Notice 2020-23 applies to the following types of corporate tax returns and tax payments (irrespective of whether they are calendar-year or fiscal-year taxpayers):

Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return;
1120-C, U.S. Income Tax Return for Cooperative Associations;
1120-F, U.S. Income Tax Return of a Foreign Corporation;
1120-FSC, U.S. Income Tax Return of a Foreign Sales Corporation;
1120-H, U.S. Income Tax Return for Homeowners Associations;
1120-L, U.S. Life Insurance Company Income Tax Return;
1120-ND, Return for Nuclear Decommissioning Funds and Certain Related Persons;
1120-PC, U.S. Property and Casualty Insurance Company Income Tax Return;
1120-POL, U.S. Income Tax Return for Certain Political Organizations;
1120-REIT, U.S. Income Tax Return for Real Estate Investment Trusts;
1120-RIC, U.S. Income Tax Return for Regulated Investment Companies;
1120-S, U.S. Income Tax Return for an S Corporation; and
1120-SF, U.S. Income Tax Return for Settlement Funds (Under Section 468B).

July 15 Deferral: Partnership Tax Returns

Notice 2020-23 applies to the following types of partnership calendar-year and fiscal-year tax returns:

Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income; and
Form 1066, U.S. Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC) Income Tax Return.

July 15 Deferral: Estate, Gift and Trust Tax Returns

Notice 2020-23 applies to the following types of estate, gift and trust tax returns (including all tax payments required to be made under these returns):

Form 1041, U.S. Income Tax Return for Estates and Trusts;
1041-N, U.S. Income Tax Return for Electing Alaska Native Settlement Trusts;
1041-QFT, U.S. Income Tax Return for Qualified Funeral Trusts;
Form 706, United States Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return (for estate of a citizen or resident of the United States), including for filings pursuant to Revenue Procedure 2017-34;
706-NA, United States Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return (for estate of a nonresident not a citizen of the United States);
706-A, United States Additional Estate Tax Return;
706-QDT, U.S. Estate Tax Return for Qualified Domestic Trusts;
706-GS(T), Generation-Skipping Transfer Tax Return for Terminations;
706-GS(D), Generation-Skipping Transfer Tax Return for Distributions;
706-GS(D-1), Notification of Distribution from a Generation-Skipping Trust (including the due date for providing such form to a beneficiary);
Form 8971, Information Regarding Beneficiaries Acquiring Property from a Decedent and any supplemental Form 8971, including all requirements contained in section 6035(a) of the Code; and
Estate tax payments of principal or interest due as a result of an election made under sections 6166, 6161, or 6163 and annual recertification requirements under section 6166 of the Code.

July 15 Deferral: Tax-Exempt Tax Returns

Notice 2020-23 applies to Form 990-T, Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return (and proxy tax under section 6033(e) of the Code).

July 15 Deferral: Excise Taxes

Notice 2020-23 applies to excise tax payments on investment income and return filings on Form 990-PF, Return of Private Foundation or Section 4947(a)(1) Trust Treated as Private Foundation as well as excise tax payments and return filings on Form 4720, Return of Certain Excise Taxes under Chapters 41 and 42 of the Internal Revenue Code.

July 15 Deferral: Quarterly Estimated Tax Payments

Notice 2020-23 applies to various types of quarterly estimated income tax payments calculated on or submitted with the following forms:

990-W, Estimated Tax on Unrelated Business Taxable Income for Tax-Exempt Organizations,
1040-ES, Estimated Tax for Individuals;
1040-ES (NR), U.S. Estimated Tax for Nonresident Alien Individuals;
1040-ES (PR), Estimated Federal Tax on Self Employment Income and on Household Employees (Residents of Puerto Rico);
1041-ES, Estimated Income Tax for Estates; and Trusts; and
1120-W, Estimated Tax for Corporations.

July 15 Deferral: Certain Other Affected Taxpayers and Elections; Tax Court Deadlines

Notice 2020-23 also applies to any person performing a time-sensitive action listed in either § 301.7508A-1(c)(1)(iv) – (vi) of the Procedure and Administration Regulations or Revenue Procedure 2018-58, 2018-50 IRB 990 (December 10, 2018), which is due to be performed on or after April 1, 2020, and before July 15, 2020 (“Specified Time-Sensitive Action”). For purposes of this notice, the term Specified Time-Sensitive Action also includes an investment at the election of a taxpayer due to be made during the 180-day period described in the IRS §1400Z-2(a)(1)(A).

Affected Taxpayers also have until July 15, 2020, to perform all Specified Time-Sensitive Actions, that are due to be performed on or after April 1, 2020, and before July 15, 2020. This relief includes the time for filing all petitions with the Tax Court, or for review of a decision rendered by the Tax Court, filing a claim for credit or refund of any tax, and bringing suit upon a claim for credit or refund of any tax. This notice does not provide relief for the time period for filing a petition with the Tax Court, or for filing a claim or bringing a suit for credit or refund if that period expired before April 1, 2020.

July 15 Deferral: Schedules, Elections and Other Forms

Notice 2020-23 applies not only to the aforementioned forms (hereinafter “Specified Forms), but also to schedules, returns, and other forms that are filed as attachments to the Specified Forms or are required to be filed by the due date of the Specified Forms. For example, this affects Schedule H and Schedule SE.

Moreover, elections that are made or required to be made on a timely filed Specified Form (or attachment to a Specified Form) shall be timely made if filed on such Specified Form or attachment, as appropriate, on or before July 15, 2020

July 15 Deferral: International Information Returns and 965 Tax Payments

Notice 2020-23 applies to all US international information returns including forms 3520, 5471, 5472, 8621 (including PFIC elections), 8858, 8865, and 8938. Furthermore, the Notice applies to installment payments under section 965(h) due on or after April 1, 2020, and before July 15, 2020.

This is highly important to Sherayzen Law Office clients’ because almost all of our clients must file these forms and many are required to make 965 installment tax payments.

July 15 Deferral: 2016 Unclaimed Refunds

For 2016 tax returns, the normal April 15 deadline to claim a refund has also been extended to July 15, 2020. The law provides a three-year window of opportunity to claim a refund. If taxpayers do not file a return within three years, the money becomes property of the U.S. Treasury. Notice 2020-23 requires taxpayers to properly address, mail and ensure the tax return is postmarked by the July 15, 2020, date.

July 15 Deferral: IRS Audits, IRS Appeals and Amended Tax Returns

Notice 2020-23 provides a 30-day postponement for “Affected Taxpayers” with respect to “Time-Sensitive IRS Actions” if the last date for performance of the action is on or after April 6, 2020, and before July 15, 2020.

Notice 2020-23 defines “Affected Taxpayers” as:

Persons who are currently under examination (including an investigation to determine liability for an assessable penalty under subchapter B of Chapter 68);
Persons whose cases are with the Independent Office of Appeals; and
Persons who, during the period beginning on or after April 6, 2020 and ending before July 15, 2020, file written documents described in section 6501(c)(7) of the Code (amended returns) or submit payments with respect to a tax for which the time for assessment would otherwise expire during this period.

Notice 2020-23 defines “Time Sensitive IRS Action” as actions described in § 301.7508A-1(c)(2).

July 15 Deferral: Extension of time to file beyond July 15

It is still possible to request an extension of time beyond July 15, 2020 (to October 15, 2020). In order to do it, individual taxpayers must file Form 4868 and business taxpayers must file Form 7004. Both forms should be filed by July 15, 2020.

Taxpayers should keep in mind that an extension to file is not an extension to pay taxes. Taxpayers must estimated their tax liability and pay any taxes owed by July 15, 2020, even if they request an extension to file forms.

§318 Downstream Corporate Attribution | Corporate Tax Lawyer & Attorney

January 31, 2020/in FBAR Lawyers, international tax lawyer, Legal Notes /by Manager

This article continues a series of articles on the constructive ownership rules of the IRC (Internal Revenue Code) §318. Today, we will discuss corporate attribution rules, even more specifically the §318 downstream corporate attribution rules.

§318 Downstream Corporate Attribution: Two Types of Attribution

There are two types of §318 corporate attribution rules: downstream and upstream. Under the downstream corporate attribution rules, stocks owned by a corporation are attributed to this corporation’s shareholders. The upstream corporate attribution rules are exactly the opposite: stocks (in another corporation) owned by shareholders are attributed to the corporation. As stated above, this article will focus on the downstream attribution rules; the upstream attribution rules will be covered in a future article.

§318 Downstream Corporate Attribution: Main Rule

Under §318(a)(2)(C), if a person owns, directly and indirectly, 50% or more in value of the stock “such person shall be considered as owning the stock owned, directly or indirectly, by or for such corporation, in that proportion which the value of the stock which such person so owns bears to the value of all the stock in such corporation.”

There are two critical parts of this downstream attribution rule: 50% threshold and proportionality. Let’s discuss each part in more detail.

§318 Downstream Corporate Attribution: 50% Threshold

A person must own directly or indirectly 50% or more of the stock value of a corporation in order for the §318 corporate attribution rules to apply. Under Treas. Reg. §1.318-1(b)(3), in determining whether the 50% threshold is satisfied, one must aggregate all stocks that the person actually and constructively owns.

The valuation of stocks should be determined in reference to the relative rights of the outstanding stock of a corporation. All restrictions, such as limitations on transferability, should be considered. On the other hand, the presence or absence of control of the corporation is irrelevant. This means that the value of stocks may differ from the voting power associated with these stocks.

Let’s use the following fact scenario to demonstrate the potential complexity of stock valuation: C, a C-corporation, has two classes of stocks – 100 shares of common stock with a value of $1 each and 50 shares of preferred stock with a value of $1 each (i.e. the total value of common stock is $100 and the total value of preferred stock is $50) – with only common stocks having voting rights; A owns 60 shares of common stock and 10 shares of preferred stock (i.e. his common stock is worth $60 and his preferred stock $10); C owns all of the outstanding shares of another corporation, X. The issue is how many shares of X should be attributed to A?

The answer is none. A does not constructively own any of X’s shares because his total value of C’s stocks is below 50% (the value of his stocks is $60 + $10 = $70, but the total value of C’s stocks is $100 + $50 = $150). The fact that A controls C through his 60% voting power is irrelevant.

§318 Downstream Corporate Attribution: Proportionality

As it was stated above, if the 50% corporate ownership threshold is met, then the shareholder will be considered a constructive owner of shares owned by the corporation in another corporation in proportion to the value of his stock.

While this looks like a straightforward rule, there is one problem. Whether the 50% threshold is satisfied should be determined by the combination of actual and constructive stock ownership. Does it mean that the attribution of corporate stocks under §318 should be in proportion to the value of both actual and constructive ownership combined? Or, does the proportionality of attribution based solely on the actual stock ownership in the holding corporation?

As of the time of this writing, the IRS still has not issued any guidance on this problem. Hence, taking either position is fine by an attorney as long as it is reasonable under the facts.

§318 Downstream Corporate Attribution: S-Corporations

It should be emphasized that the §318 downstream corporate attribution rules do not apply S-corporations with respect to attribution of corporate stock between an S-corporation and its shareholders. Rather, in such cases, the S-corporation is treated as a partnership and its shareholders as partners. See §318(a)(5)(E). Hence, generally, corporate stocks owned by an S-corporation are attributed on a proportionate basis even to shareholders who own less than 50% of the value of the S-corporation stock.

Keep in mind, however, that the usual constructive ownership rules for corporations and shareholders apply for the purpose of determination of whether any person owns stock in an S-corporation.

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

US tax law is incredibly complex, and this complexity increases even more at the international level. US taxpayers who deal with US international tax law without assistance of an experienced international tax lawyer run an enormous risk of violating US tax laws and incurring high IRS penalties.

Sherayzen Law Office is a highly experienced international tax law firm which specializes in US international tax compliance and offshore voluntary disclosures. We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers to successfully resolve their US international tax compliance issues, and We Can Help You!

§318 Downstream Estate Attribution | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

January 20, 2020/in international tax lawyer, Legal Notes /by Manager

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.

§318 Partnership Attribution | International Corporate Tax Lawyers

January 18, 2020/in business tax lawyers minneapolis, Legal Notes /by Manager

This article continues a series of articles on the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) §318 constructive ownership rules. In this essay, we will discuss the §318 partnership attribution rules – i.e. attribution of ownership of shares from partnership to partners and vice versa.

§318 Partnership Attribution Rules: Two Types

There are two types of the IRC §318 partnership attribution rules: downstream and upstream. The downstream attribution rules attribute the ownership of corporate stocks owned by a partnership to its partners. The upstream attribution rules attribute the ownership of corporate stocks owned by partners to the partnership. Let’s explore both types of attribution rules in more detail.

§318 Partnership Attribution Rules: Attribution from Partnership to Partners

Pursuant to §318(a)(2)(A), corporate stocks owned, either directly or indirectly, by or on behalf of a partnership is deemed constructively owned by its partners proportionately. Interestingly, the attribution of corporate stock from a partnership to its partners continues to happen even if the partnership does not do any business or stops all of its operation. See Baker Commodities, Inc. v. Commissioner 415 F.2d 519 (9th Cir. 1969); Sorem v. Commissioner 40 T.C. 206 (1963), rev’d on other grounds, 334 F.2d 275 (10th Cir. 1964).

The biggest problem with applying §318(a)(2)(A) is determining what “proportionate attribution” means. Where a partner owns the same interest in capital, profits and losses of a partnership, the proportionality is easy to apply. However, in situations where a partner owns varying interests in capital, profits and losses, it is much more difficult.

Unfortunately, this problem is not addressed at all by the IRS or courts – the proportionality of attribution is not defined in any IRC provision, Treasury Regulations and even case law. Looking at Treas. Reg. §1.318-2(c) Ex. 1, however, it is likely that the IRS will accept a position where proportionality of attribution is based on the “facts-and-circumstances” test of §704(b).

§318 Partnership Attribution Rules: Attribution from Partners to Partnership

Under §318(a)(3)(A), a partnership constructively owns corporate stocks owned by a partner. There are no limitations on the attribution – all stocks held by a partner are deemed to be owned by the partnership irrespective of the percentage of an ownership interest in the partnership held by the partner. There is no de minimis rule that would apply to §318(a)(3)(A).

For example, assume that partner P (an individual) owns 25% in a partnership X. P also owns 100 shares out of the total 200 shares outstanding of Y corporation; X owns the remaining 100 shares. Under §318(a)(3)(A), X actually owns 100 shares of Y and constructively owns P’s 100 shares of Y; in other words, X owns 100% of Y.

§318 Partnership Attribution Rules: Certain Attributions Not Allowed

There are two special §318 rules concerning partnership attributions that I would like to mention in this article. First, there is no partner-to-partner attribution of stock under the §318 partnership attribution rules. In other words, stocks owned by a partner will not be owned by another partner simply by virtue of both partners having an ownership interest in the same partnership (however, this does not mean that stocks may not be attributed through another provision of §318).

Second, §318(a)(5)(C) prevents re-attribution of stocks that were already attributed from a partner to the partnership. This means that, where stocks are attributed from a partner to a partnership, they cannot be then re-attributed from the partnership to another partner.

§318 Partnership Attribution Rules: S-Corporations

Under §318(a)(5)(E), an S-corporation and its shareholders are respectively considered to be a partnership and its partners. Hence, corporate stocks owned by an S-corporation are attributed to its shareholders proportionately to each shareholder’s ownership of the S-corporation’s stock. Also, stocks owned by shareholders are deemed to be owned by the S-corporation.

It is important to emphasize that §318 partnership attribution rules do not apply to the stock of the S-corporation. Id. In other words, §318 does not treat shareholders in an S-corporation as being constructive owners of the stock of the S-corporation itself.

§318 Partnership Attribution Rules: Comprehensive Example

I would like to finish this article with a comprehensive example of how §318 partnership attribution rules work. Let’s suppose that A and B own Y partnership in equal portions (i.e. 50% each); Y owns 120 shares of X, a C-corporation, out of the total 200 outstanding shares; another 80 shares are owned by A.

Let’s analyze each parties’ actual and constructive ownership of X. A actually owns 80 shares and constructively owns half of Y’s ownership of X shares (60 shares) under §318(a)(2)(A) – i.e. he owns a total of 140 shares.

B constructively owns half of Y’s ownership of X shares – i.e. 60 shares. He does not constructively own any of A’s shares, because there is no partner-to-partner attribution of stocks and there is no attribution to B of A’s shares that were attributed to Y.

Finally, Y actually owns 120 shares and constructively owns all of A’s 80 shares. In other words, Y is deemed to be a 100% owner of X.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With §318 Partnership 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 are a partner in a partnership that owns stocks in a domestic or foreign corporation, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with §318 partnership attribution rules.

Tag Archive for: international tax lawyer New York