Posts

New IRS Regulations to Address Transactions to De-Control CFCs

/0 Comments/in , /by

On September 22, 2014, the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued Notice 2014-52, “Rules Regarding Inversions and Related Transactions” (“Notice”) in the wake of the recent wave of inversions. In a previous article, we covered the new regulations to be issued regarding Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) Section 956 so-called “Hopscotch loans” and related transactions. In this article, we will examine the new Treasury and IRS regulations to be issued to address transactions to de-control or significantly dilute controlled foreign corporations (“CFCs’”) under Notice Section 3.02.

This article is intended to provide explanatory material regarding the new inversion regulations as they relate to IRC Section Sections 954, 964, and 367 de-control aspects; the article does not convey legal or tax advice. Please contact the experienced international tax law practice of Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. for questions about your tax and legal needs.

Transactions to De-Control or Significantly Dilute CFCs

In general, foreign subsidiaries of acquired U.S. corporations will continue to hold CFC status following most expatriation transactions; such status makes these CFCs subject to U.S. taxation under the IRC subpart F provisions. Prior to the Notice, however, companies could structure inversions so that the newly-formed foreign parent would purchase sufficient stock in order to remove control (or “de-control”) of an expatriated foreign subsidiary away from the former U.S. parent company so that the foreign subsidiary would no longer be treated as a CFC.

By ceasing to be a CFC, as noted in the Notice, companies could thus “Avoid the imposition of U.S. income tax, so as to avoid U.S. tax on the CFC’s pre-inversion earnings and profits. For example, after an inversion transaction, a foreign acquiring corporation could issue a note or transfer property to an expatriated foreign subsidiary in exchange for stock representing at least 50 percent of the voting power and value of the expatriated foreign subsidiary. The expatriated foreign subsidiary would stop being a CFC, and the U.S. shareholders would no longer be subject to subpart F of the Code with respect to the expatriated foreign subsidiary…” Such an effect could also be achieved if the foreign acquiring corporation acquired enough stock to substantially dilute a U.S. shareholder’s ownership of the CFC; U.S. taxation of the CFC’s pre-inversion earnings and profits could be avoided if the CFC later redeemed on a non-pro rata basis, its stock held by the foreign acquiring corporation. (The Notice also provides other similar examples of pre-Notice tax avoidance strategies).

Regulations to Address Transactions to De-Control or Significantly Dilute CFCs

In response to the concerns addressed in the previous paragraphs, under Notice Section 3.02, Treasury and the IRS will issue regulations under IRC Section 7701(l) to “Recharacterize certain transactions that facilitate the avoidance of U.S. tax on the expatriated foreign subsidiary’s pre-inversion earnings and profits”, and they also intend to issue new regulations to modify the application of IRC Section 367(b) in order to require, “[I]ncome inclusion in certain nonrecognition transactions that dilute a U.S. shareholder’s ownership of a CFC.”

Under IRC Section 7701(l), Treasury and the IRS intend to issue regulations providing that a “specified transaction” will be recharacterized under the procedures of the Notice. A specified transaction is defined to be a, “[T]ransaction in which stock in an expatriated foreign subsidiary… is transferred (including by issuance) to a ‘specified related person.’” A specified person is defined to mean a, “[N]on-CFC foreign related person… a U.S. partnership that has one or more partners that if completed during is a non-CFC foreign related person, or a U.S. trust that has one or more beneficiaries that is a non-CFC foreign related person.”

Under the Notice, “if an expatriated foreign subsidiary issues specified stock to a specified related person, the specified transaction will be recharacterized as follows: (i) the property transferred by the specified related person to acquire the specified stock (transferred property) will be treated as having been transferred by the specified related person to the section 958(a) U.S. shareholder(s) of the expatriated foreign subsidiary in exchange for instruments deemed issued by the section 958(a) U.S. shareholder(s) (deemed instrument(s)); and (ii) the transferred property or proportionate share thereof will be treated as having been contributed by the section 958(a) U.S. shareholder(s) (through intervening entities, if any, in exchange for equity in such entities) to the expatriated foreign subsidiary in exchange for stock in the expatriated foreign subsidiary.” (See Notice for further information).

Further, under IRC Section 367(b), Treasury and the IRS also intend to amend the section’s regulations, in general, to require that “an exchanging shareholder described in §1.367(b)-4(b)(1)(i)(A) will be required to include in income as a deemed dividend the section 1248 amount attributable to the stock of an expatriated foreign subsidiary exchanged in a “specified exchange”. A specified exchange is defined to mean an exchange “in which a shareholder of an expatriated foreign subsidiary exchanges stock in the expatriated foreign subsidiary for stock in another foreign corporation pursuant to a transaction described in §1.367(b)-4(a).” Exceptions may be applicable in certain cases under the Notice. (See Notice for more details).

Effective Date for Notice Section 3.02(e)

The effective dates of Notice Section 3.02(e) will apply to specified transactions and specified exchanges (see definitions above) completed on, or after, September 22, 2014 (but only if the inversion transaction is completed on, or after, September 22, 2014). The Notice is currently in the comment period.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Complex International Tax Planning

With the new Treasury and IRS Notice, the need for successful international tax and legal planning will only increase. If you need legal and tax assistance, please contact Attorney Eugene Sherayzen at Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. for questions about your tax and legal needs.

Treatment of Business Profits under the Canada-US Tax Treaty

/0 Comments/in , /by

In this article we will briefly examine the treatment of the business profits of a resident of a contracting State under the Canada-US Income Tax Convention, and the important definition of a “permanent establishment” for purposes of determining the potential taxability of income of such profits.

This article is intended to provide informative material for US taxpayers involved with US-Canada cross-border businesses, and is not intended to constitute tax or legal advice. Please contact the experienced international tax law firm of Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. for issues involving the Canada-US Tax Treaty.

Business Profits under the Canada-US  Tax Treaty

Under the US-Canada Tax Treaty, the business profits of a resident of a Contracting State, “[S]hall be taxable only in that State unless the resident carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein.” (See the definition of “permanent establishment” in next section). Hence, if the resident of a Contracting State carries on, or has carried on, such business, then the business profits of the resident may be taxed in the other State but only to the extent attributable to the permanent establishment.

In determining the business profits of a permanent establishment, certain deductions incurred for the purposes of the permanent establishment, such as executive and general administrative expenses (whether in the State in which the permanent establishment is situated, or elsewhere) may be allowed. However, under the Canada-US Tax Treaty, a Contracting State is not required to allow the deduction of an expenditure which is not generally deductible under the taxation laws of such State.

Additionally, the Canada-US Tax Treaty states that “no business profits shall be attributed to a permanent establishment of a resident of a Contracting State by reason of the use thereof for either the mere purchase of goods or merchandise or the mere provision of executive, managerial or administrative facilities or services for such resident.”

Definition of Permanent Establishment under the Canada-US Tax Treaty

Article V of the Canada-US Tax Treaty provided the original definition of the term “permanent establishment”. As stated in the Canada-US Tax Treaty, the term is defined to mean “[a] fixed place of business through which the business of a resident of a Contracting State is wholly or partly carried on.” Under the Canada-US Tax Treaty, permanent establishment includes: (a) a place of management; (b) a branch; (c) an office; (d) a factory; (e) a workshop; and (f) a mine, an oil or gas well, a quarry or any other place of extraction of natural resources. Furthermore, a building site or construction or installation project constitutes a permanent establishment provided that it lasts more than 12 months. In addition, “A person acting in a Contracting State on behalf of a resident of the other Contracting State other than an agent of an independent status to whom paragraph 7 applies shall be deemed to be a permanent establishment in the first-mentioned State if such person has, and habitually exercises in that State, an authority to conclude contracts in the name of the resident.” (Please see Article V of the Canada-US Tax Treaty for more specific examples of a “permanent establishment”).

The Fifth Protocol (the “Protocol”) to the Canada-US Tax Treaty, signed in September of 2007 and entered into force on December 15, 2008, further modified the definition of permanent establishment. Under the Protocol (Article 3, Paragraph 2), an “enterprise of a Contracting State” that provides services in the other Contracting State may be deemed to have a permanent establishment if it meets at least one of the following conditions:

“(a) Those services are performed in that other State by an individual who is present in that other State for a period or periods aggregating 183 days or more in any twelve-month period, and, during that period or periods, more than 50 percent of the gross active business revenues of the enterprise consists of income derived from the services performed in that other State by that individual; or (b) The services are provided in that other State for an aggregate of 183 days or more in any twelve-month period with respect to the same or connected project for customers who are either residents of that other State or who maintain a permanent establishment in that other State and the services are provided in respect of that permanent establishment.”

Further, the diplomatic notes of Annex B to the Protocol added that, “[t]he principles of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines shall apply for purposes of determining the profits attributable to a permanent establishment”.

Elimination of Article XIV of the Canada-US Tax Treaty

The Protocal had further important impact with respect to services defined as “Independent Personal Services” – Article 9 of the Protocol eliminated Article XIV of the Canada-US Tax Treaty (“Independent Personal Services”). Under previous Article XIV a resident of a Contracting State performing independent personal services in the other Contracting State could be taxed if such “individual has or had a fixed base regularly available to him in that other State but only to the extent that the income is attributable to the fixed base.” The business profits rules explained above and the various definitions of permanent establishment now determine the taxability of such cases.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for legal help with respect to Canada-US Tax Treaty

Treaty interpretation, international tax resolution and international tax planning may involve very complex issues, and it is advisable to seek the assistance of an international tax attorney in this area. This is why it is advised that you contact Sherayzen Law Office to secure professional legal help involving issues related to Canada-US Tax Treaty.

Contact Us to Schedule a Confidential Consultation Now!

Letters from Swiss Banks: What Should You Do?

/in , /by

Since the last quarter of 2013, an increasing number of U.S. taxpayers with accounts in Swiss banks have received letters from Swiss Banks regarding participation in the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) The Program for Non-Prosecution Agreements or Non-Target Letters for Swiss Banks (the “Program”). It is very important to react to these letters in a thoughtful yet rapid manner.

Letters from Swiss Banks: What They Usually Say

In these letters from Swiss Banks, the taxpayers are typically advised (sometimes with the somewhat offensive phrase “as you almost certainly know”) of the fact that their Bank will participate in the Program and disclose the taxpayer’s accounts in Switzerland. Then, the letters typically discuss three issues (note: different banks would follow different format, but the essence is the same).

First, the letters from Swiss Banks ask the taxpayer to confirm whether he has already properly disclosed their Swiss bank accounts to the IRS. Some banks, like Banque Cantonale Vaudoise (“BCV”) even go as far as asking the taxpayers to confirm that other international tax compliance forms, such as Forms 5471, 3520 and, surprisingly, PFIC Form 8621, have also been filed with the IRS. Other banks just ask for some sort of documentation that everything has been properly declared to the IRS.

Then, the letters from Swiss Banks ask the taxpayers are asked to verify if his Swiss bank accounts were disclosed as part of the official IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (“OVDP”) now closed.

Finally, the letters from Swiss Banks inform the taxpayers with undisclosed Swiss Bank accounts about the existence of the OVDP and propose such actions for the readers as considering to enter into the OVDP, obtaining more information about the OVDP from the Bank, and, finally, offering to provide the necessary bank statements for the taxpayer to enter the OVDP. Some banks (for example, Nue Privat Bank) will even later offer to supply the tax information (though, these reports should be approached with a great deal of skepticism because these statements could contain a number of mistakes, such as failure to recognize the application of PFIC rules). Most letters from Swiss Banks also provide space for the taxpayers to express their consent to the disclosure of their undisclosed Swiss bank and financial accounts to the IRS.

Consequences for U.S. Taxpayers Who Received Letters from Swiss Banks

It is difficult to overstate the great impact that these letters from Swiss Banks may have on the taxpayer’s position. I want to concentrate on two most important effects of the letters from Swiss Banks. First and foremost, they provide notice to the taxpayer about the requirement to disclose their Swiss bank and financial accounts (and, in case of BCV and some other banks, other foreign assets such as business ownership) to the United States. Even if a taxpayer simply did not know about the FBAR requirement in the past, his behavior as a result of receiving these letters from Swiss Banks will now be subject to scrutiny – failure to act on these letters for a long time and willful disregard of them may change the taxpayer’s position from non-willful to willful, subjecting him to draconian FBAR willful penalties, including opening the possibility of criminal penalties to be applied.

Second, upon fulfilling the Notice requirement with these letters, the Swiss banks are free to disclose certain information to the IRS under the US-Swiss FATCA treaty. Once the IRS receives such information from the Swiss Banks, the exposed U.S. taxpayers most likely will not be able to participate in the OVDP.

Hence, once the taxpayers receive these letters, time becomes a crucial factor, because, if the decision to enter the OVDP is made by these taxpayers, it should be implemented as soon as possible.

What Should You Do Upon Receipt of Letters from Swiss Banks?

Your initial response to the letters from Swiss Banks may determine the entire course of your case.

1. Consult an International Tax Attorney

The first and most crucial step is not to panic and contact an international tax attorney who specializes in the voluntary disclosure of the foreign bank and financial accounts as well as other assets.

I want to emphasize that you need to contact an experienced international tax attorney, not an accountant. Offshore voluntary disclosure is a legal issue and its venue should be determined by an attorney, not an accountant. I have seen too many cases where accountants horribly mishandled their clients’ cases (on both strategic and tactical issues) because the accountants overstep the limitations of their profession and enter the world of legal advice.

The geographic location of your international tax attorney should not matter; a much more important factor should be the attorney’s experience in the case and you personal feeling of trust. If the attorney immediately advises you to enter the OVDP program without even considering the facts of your case, consider it a red flag and seek second opinion.

2. Try to Obtain As Much Information As Possible While Preparing for the Initial Consultation

During the initial consultation, the attorney will have no choice but to rely on you for the initial information required to assess the state of your case. So, try to get as much information as possible regarding your foreign bank accounts while preparing for the initial consultation.

3. Retain an International Tax Attorney to Handle Your Case According to the Proposed Strategy

After the initial consultation, you should have a pretty good idea of what your options are. Think about these options and the attorney’s recommendations, but not take too much time to do so (remember, time is of the essence in these cases). Make your decision and retain an international tax attorney that you like for your case.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional and Experienced Legal Help With the Voluntary Disclosure of Your Swiss Bank Accounts

As soon as you receive your letters from Swiss Banks, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional legal and tax help with your voluntary disclosure. Our experienced international tax law firm has helped numerous U.S. taxpayers with the voluntary disclosure of their Swiss bank and financial accounts as well as other foreign assets.

We can help you! Contact Us to Schedule a Confidential Consultation Now.