Posts

Oregon Streamlined Disclosure Lawyer | International Tax Attorney

/in , , /by

Oregon is a lovely state which hosts a number of immigrants from many different countries (especially in Portland, but also Salem and Eugene). Many of these new US taxpayers own assets in foreign countries and receive income generated by these assets. Unfortunately a number of these taxpayers are not in compliance with their US international tax obligations and want to participate in Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures (SDOP) or Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures (SFOP). These individuals often look for an Oregon streamlined disclosure lawyer for professional help, but they do not understand what this term really means. In this essay, I would like to explain the definition of Oregon streamlined disclosure lawyer and outline who belongs to this category of lawyers.

Oregon Streamlined Disclosure Lawyer: International Tax Attorney

From the outset, It is important to understand that all voluntary disclosures, including the Streamlined options, form part of US international tax law, because these options deal with US international tax compliance concerning foreign assets and foreign income. The knowledge that SDOP and SFOP are part of US international tax law makes you better understand what kind of lawyer you are looking for when you search for an Oregon streamlined disclosure lawyer. In reality, when you are seeking help with the SDOP and SFOP filings, you are searching for an international tax attorney.

Oregon Streamlined Disclosure Lawyer: Specialty in Offshore Voluntary Disclosures

As I stated above, SDOP and SFOP form part of a very specific sub-area of offshore voluntary disclosures. This means that not every international tax attorney would be able to conduct the necessary legal analysis required to successfully complete an offshore voluntary disclosure, including Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures and Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures. Only a lawyer who has developed expertise in a very narrow sub-field of offshore voluntary disclosures within US international tax law will be fit for this job.

This means that you are looking for an international tax attorney who specializes in offshore voluntary disclosures and who is familiar with the various offshore voluntary disclosure options. Offshore voluntary disclosure options include: SDOP (Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures), SFOP (Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures), DFSP (Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures), DIIRSP (Delinquent International Information Return Submission Procedures), IRS VDP (IRS Voluntary Disclosure Practice) and Reasonable Cause disclosures. Each of these options has it pros and cons, which may have tremendous legal and tax (and, in certain cases, even immigration) implications for your case.

Oregon Streamlined Disclosure Lawyer: Geographical Location Does Not Matter

While the expertise and experience in offshore voluntary disclosures is highly important in choosing your international tax lawyer, the geographical location (i.e. the city where the lawyer lives and works) does not matter. I already hinted at why this is the case above: offshore voluntary disclosure options were all created by the IRS and form part of US international (i.e. federal) law. In other words, the local law has no relation whatsoever to the SDOP and SFOP.

This means that you are not limited to Oregon when you are looking for a lawyer who can help you with your streamlined disclosure. Any international tax lawyer who specializes in this field may be able to help you, irrespective of whether this lawyer resides in Oregon or Minnesota.

Moreover, the development of modern means of communications has pretty much eliminated any communication advantages that a lawyer in Oregon might have had in the past over the out-of-state lawyers. This is especially true in today’s world where the pandemic greatly reduced the number of face-to-face meetings.

Sherayzen Law Office May Be Your Oregon Streamlined Disclosure Lawyer

Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. is a highly-experienced international tax law firm that specializes in all types of offshore voluntary disclosures, including SDOP, SFOP, DFSP, DIIRSP, VDP and Reasonable Cause disclosures. Our professional tax team, led by attorney Eugene Sherayzen, has successfully helped our US clients around the globe, including in Oregon, with the preparation and filing of their Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures disclosure. We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Foreign Real Estate US Taxpayer Definition | International Tax Lawyer

/in , /by

This essay seeks to identify those considered to be a “US Taxpayer” with respect to reporting foreign real estate or income from it to the IRS. In other words, today, I will discuss the foreign real estate US Taxpayer definition.

Foreign Real Estate US Taxpayer Definition: IRC §7701(a)

The definition of “US taxpayer” for the purposes of foreign real estate is equivalent to the definition of US tax resident or “US Person” in IRC §7701(a). “US Persons” are equivalent to “US taxpayers” for the purposes of this article.

Note that, under §7701(a)(1), a person “shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation”. In other words, a “person” may mean not only an individual, but also a business entity, trust or estate.

Foreign Real Estate US Taxpayer Definition: General Definition

Under §7701(a)(30), a “US Person” means a US citizen, US resident alien, domestic partnership, domestic corporation, any estate that is not a foreign estate and a trust that satisfies both conditions of §7701(a)(30)(E). Let’s discuss each of these categories of US Persons in more detail.

Foreign Real Estate US Taxpayer Definition: Individuals Who Are US Persons

As I stated above, all US citizens and US resident aliens are considered US Persons. In the vast majority of cases, it is fairly easy to determine who a US citizen is; most complications occur with respect to “accidental Americans” and Americans with only one parent who is a US citizen.

A US resident alien is a more complex term. It includes US Permanent Residents (i.e. “green card” holders) as well as all persons who satisfied the Substantial Presence Test (unless an exception applies) and all persons who declared themselves as US tax residents. This means that a person may be a US resident for tax purposes, but not for immigration purposes. This situation creates a lot of confusion among people who marry US persons or who come to the United States to work; many of them believe themselves to be Non-US Persons, but in reality they are US tax residents.

Foreign Real Estate US Taxpayer Definition: Domestic Corporations & Partnerships

Under §7701(a)(4), corporations and partnerships are considered US Persons if they are created or organized in the United States or under the laws of the United States or any of its states. In the case of partnerships, the IRS may issue regulations that provide otherwise, but the IRS has not done so yet. Conversely, a corporation or a partnership is a Non-US Person if it is not organized in the United States.

Pursuant to §7701(a)(9), the definition of the United States for the purposes of §7701(a)(4) includes only the 50 States and the District of Columbia. In other words, §7701(a)(9) excludes all US territories and possessions from the definition of the United States. For example, a corporation formed in Guam is a Non-US Person!

The biggest complication that one would encounter in this area of law is with respect to common-law partnerships. The determination of their US tax residency may be a lot more complex, because they are not officially organized under the laws of any state.

Foreign Real Estate US Taxpayer Definition: Domestic Trust

A trust is a US Person if it satisfies both tests contained in §7701(a)(30)(E). The first test is a “court test”: a court within the United States must be able to exercise primary supervision administration. The second test is a “control test”: one or more US persons must have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust. Failure to meet either test will result in the trust being a Non-US Person with huge implications for US tax purposes.

Foreign Real Estate US Taxpayer Definition: Domestic Estate

While all other definitions described above define a domestic entity and state that a foreign entity is not a domestic one, it is exactly the opposite with estates. Under §7701(a)(30)(D), an estate is a US Person if it is not a foreign estate described in §7701(a)(31).

§7701(a)(31)(A) defines foreign estate as estate “the income of which, from sources without the United States which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States, is not includible in gross income under subtitle A”.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help with Your Foreign Real Estate Reporting Obligations in the United States

If you are a US person who owns foreign real estate and you have questions concerning your US tax compliance concerning owning foreign real estate, selling real estate or reporting income generated by foreign real estate, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. We have helped US taxpayers around the world with their foreign real estate US tax obligations, and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

§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!

§318 Relationship Categories | International Business Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

In a previous article I discussed the importance of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) §318 constructive stock ownership rules. Today, I would like to introduce the readers to the various §318 relationship categories – i.e. what types of taxpayers are affected by this section’s constructive ownership rules.

§318 Relationship Categories: Related Persons

Congress created IRC §318 constructive ownership rules to prevent or minimize the possibility of using business transactions between related persons for tax avoidance purposes. In other words, in order for §318 to be relevant, there must be some type of a close relationship between persons engaged in a business transaction.

It is important to point out that one should not confuse §267 definition of related persons with the one described in §318. These are two completely separate sets of rules that apply to different situations.

§318 Relationship Categories: Six Main Categories

§318 deals specifically with six main categories of related individuals and entities. I will list them here with only a general description; in future articles, I will address each of these §318 relationship categories specifically.

  1. Family members: certain family members are treated as related persons for §318. Again, the §318 definition of “family” should not be confused with the §267 definition.
  2. Partnerships and partners: unlike §267, the constructive ownership rules of §318 are both “upstream” and “downstream”. In other words, the attribution of stock ownership works both ways: from partners to partnership and from partnership to partners. Additionally, one must remember that an S-corporation and its shareholders are treated respectively as a partnership and partners for the purposes of §318.
  3. Estates and beneficiaries: the IRS §318 constructive ownership rules with respect to estates and beneficiaries are quite unique and invasive. They also work downstream and upstream – i.e. the stocks owned by estate are attributed to its beneficiaries and vice-versa.
  4. Trusts and beneficiaries: again, the stock ownership attribution rules of §318 between a trust and its beneficiaries can be downstream and upstream. Stock owned, directly or indirectly, by or for a trust is considered owned by its beneficiaries in proportion to their actuarial interests in the trust. The upstream relationship is more complex: while generally all stocks owned directly or indirectly by a beneficiary of a trust is considered owned by the trust, there are important exceptions.
  5. Corporations and shareholders: surprisingly, §318 attribution rules between a corporation and its shareholders also contain both downstream and upstream provisions. The application of these rules, however, is limited to persons who own directly and indirectly 50% or more of the value of stocks in the corporation. Again, the corporate attribution rules under §318 apply only to C-corporations; S-corporations are treated as partnerships for the purposes of this section.
  6. Holders of stock options: unlike §267, the constructive stock ownership rules of §318 are expanded to options. §318(a)(4) classifies a holder of an option to acquire stock as the owner of that stock. There are detailed rules for defining what an “option” is for the §318 purposes. Interestingly, the stock option attribution rule supersedes the family member attribution rules (which often results in a more extensive constructive ownership).

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

US business tax law is incredibly complex. In fact, an ordinary taxpayer who attempts to decipher it on his own is likely to get himself into deep trouble; this is especially the case, if one deals with the international aspects of US business tax law.

This is why you need to contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. We have helped business owners around the world with their US tax planning and US tax compliance, and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

§267 Constructive Ownership Rules | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

In a previous article, I discussed the related person definition for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) §267. That article, however, focused on the definition itself rather than on a host of supplementary rules necessary to fully understand this definition. In this article, I would like to discuss one set of these rules – §267 constructive ownership rules.

§267 Constructive Ownership Rules: Purpose of §267(c)

During my initial discussion of the §267 related person definition, I focused only on the actual ownership by related persons. Congress, however, realized that the actual ownership limitations can be easily circumvented by utilizing individuals and entities closely connected to the related persons.

Hence, it enacted §267(c) and §267(e)(3) to expand the application of the related person definition to include the ownership by closely-connected individuals and entities. In other words, even where an individual or entity does not meet any of the §267(a) and (b) tests through his actual ownership, these tests may be met when his actual ownership is added to other persons’ ownership through the operation of §267(c) and §267(e) rules. These are the so-called §267 constructive ownership rules.

§267 Constructive Ownership Rules: Two Parts of the Rules

As explained in a previous article, the related person definition can be found in two different parts of §267 – thirteen categories of §267(b) and one category of §267(a)(2). Similarly, the constructive ownership rules are divided into two separate sections: §267(c) applies to the entire section and §267(e)(3) applies only to §267(a)(2).

§267 Constructive Ownership Rules: Three General Types of Ownership Attribution

§267(c) sets forth three general types of constructive ownership attribution rules:

  1. Entity-to-owner or beneficiary stock attribution – i.e. “stock owned, directly or indirectly, by or for a corporation, partnership, estate, or trust shall be considered as being owned proportionately by or for its shareholders, partners, or beneficiaries” §267(c)(1). I wish to emphasize there that §267(c)(1) applies to any type of an entity: corporations, partnerships, estates and trusts;
  2. Family member stock attribution – i.e. stocks owned by family members are treated as constructively owned by the related person (see §267(c)(2)). §267(c)(4) defines “family of an individual” to include: “only his brothers and sisters (whether by the whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal descendants”; and
  3. Partner-to-partner stock attribution – i.e. “an individual owning … any stock in a corporation shall be considered as owning the stock owned, directly or indirectly, by or for his partner” §267(c)(3). This is a unique rule which is rarely found among other constructive ownership rules of the Internal Revenue Code.

§267 Constructive Ownership Rules: Chain Ownership Attribution

Generally, a taxpayer who is deemed to own stock under the §267 constructive ownership rules is treated as the actual owner of the stock. In other words, the stock that he constructively owns can be used for further attribution of ownership to others – this is the so-called “chain ownership attribution”.

There are three exceptions to this rule. I will mention here only one: §267(c)(5) limits attribution of ownership through a chain of related persons in the case of family member or partnership attribution.

§267 Constructive Ownership Rules: Fourth Type of Ownership Attribution

§267(e)(3) sets forth special constructive ownership rules for determining ownership of a capital or profits interest in a partnership; as it was mentioned above, this rule applies only to the deduction limitation rules of §267(a)(2). This fourth type of ownership attribution is basically an exception to the first three types of §267(c).

§267(e)(3) states that, for the purposes of determining ownership of a capital interest or profits interest of a partnership, §267(c) constructive ownership rules apply except that: (1) partner-to-partner stock attribution of §267(c)(3) shall not apply, and (2) with respect to interest owned (directly and indirectly) by and for C-corporation “shall be considered as owned by or for any shareholder only if such shareholder owns (directly or indirectly) 5 percent or more in value of the stock of such corporation” §267(e)(3)(B).

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With US Tax Law

US tax law is extremely complex, especially US international tax law. 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!