Posts

§318 Double-Inclusion Prohibition | International Tax Lawyers Tampa FL

/in , /by

In a previous article, I discussed the IRC (Internal Revenue Code) §318 general rule on the re-attribution of corporate stock; in that context, I mentioned that there are certain restrictions on §318 re-attribution. Today, I would like to discuss one of such restrictions – §318 double-inclusion prohibition.

§318 Double-Inclusion Prohibition: General Re-Attribution Rule

Before we discuss the §318 double-inclusion prohibition, let’s recall the general §318 re-attribution rule. Under §318(a)(5)(A), stock constructively owned by a shareholder under any of the §318 attribution rules is deemed to be actually owned for the purposes of re-attribution to others.

The problem with this rule is that it can allow the re-attribution of stock to spread uncontrollably to include persons who have little to no relationship to the actual stock owners. This is precisely why Congress chose to impose certain limitations on the general rule so that the §318 re-attribution applies only to related persons with a real connection to the actual owners. One of these limitations is the prohibition on double-inclusion.

§318 Double-Inclusion Prohibition: Re-Attribution is Counted Only Once

Under Treas. Reg. §1.318-1(b)(2), corporate stock held by any one person will be included only once in the computation of ownership. This is the §318 double-inclusion prohibition rule.

It is important to note, however, that even though the stock ownership is counted only once, it should be counted “in the manner in which it will impute to the person concerned the largest total stock ownership”. Id.

§318 Double-Inclusion Prohibition: Example

The best way to understand the §318 double-inclusion prohibition is to look at the following example. Assume that husband and wife, H and W, equally own a partnership P (i.e. 50% each); H also owns 100% of the outstanding stocks of a C-corporation X.

Under §318(a)(1)(A)(i), W constructively owns all of her husband’s shares of X. Since H and W are partners of P, under the partnership upstream attribution rules, all stock owned by them is attributed to P. Since each spouse owns 100% of X (one actually and one constructively), does it mean that P owns 200% of X? No, this absurd result is prevented by Treas. Reg. §1.318-1(b)(2), which limits the attribution of X’s shares from H and W to P to a total of 100%.

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.

This is why you should 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!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

§318 Option Definition | US International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

This article continues our series of articles on the IRC (Internal Revenue Code) §318 constructive ownership rules. In this article, I would like to introduce the readers to the infamous §318 option attribution rules. Before we delve into the discussion of the constructive ownership rules for options, however, it is important to understand what “option” actually means for the purpose of §318. Hence, today, I will focus on the §318 option definition.

§318 Option Definition: Main Rule

An option is a right to obtain stock at a certain price and date. I want to emphasize that option is not an obligation, it is a right which a taxpayer may or may not ever exercise.

Such a broad §318 option definition includes a great variety of options: options to purchase stock, option to acquire unissued stocks (as long as a shareholder has the right to obtain stock at his election – see Rev. Rul. 68-601), certain warrants and debentures that may be converted into stocks (as long as there are no contingencies, other than time, that must be met before the conversions rights can be exercised – see FSA 200244003), et cetera.

§318 Option Definition: Rights Not Considered Options

Not all rights to acquire stock, however, are considered options for the purposes of §318 option definition. There is a large number of exceptions, but all of them are centered around the concept of some type of restrictions on the exercise of the option. I will list below the five most popular exceptions which are not considered options under §318(a)(4):

First, a right to acquire stock is not an option if the optionee does not have control over the exercise of the option. For example, if there are many contingencies which can prevent exercise of an option, then this is not an option of the purposes of §318(a)(4). See FSA 199915007.

Second, a corporation’s right to buy back its own stocks is not an option for the purposes of §318. Rev. Rul. 69-562.

Third, a right of first refusal is not an option for the purposes of §318. For example, if the right to purchase stock is contingent on the obligor’s decision to sell, then this is not an option under §318(a)(4). TAM 8106008. We can even broaden the rule not only to a right of first refusal, but to almost all situations where the exercise of option depends on the other party’s decision to sell.

Fourth, certain stock appreciation rights are not options if they only entitle the owner of these rights to cash benefits, but do not permit acquisition of stock. Of course, if contract entitles the owner to the right to acquire stocks, then such stock appreciation rights may actually be options §318. See PLR 9341019.

Finally, the right to acquire stocks is not an option under §318 if such transfer is restricted and requires consent. For example, the IRS held in TAM 9410003 that such an arrangement (i.e. restriction on the transfer of shares without other shareholders’ consent) combined with the right of first refusal did not constitute an option to acquire those shares.

§318 Option Definition: Exceptions to Restrictions

I would like to warn the readers, however, that not all restrictions on exercise of an option automatically exclude a right to acquire a stock from the §318 option definition. We can outline two broad exceptions to restrictions here.

First, where the control over the decision to exercise the option rests with the holder of the right to purchase a stock, such a restriction is insufficient to prevent this arrangement to be treated as an option. See Rev. Rul. 68-601.

Second, where the restriction is fixed in time. For example, under FSA 200244003, a warrant is an option if there are no contingencies or limitations on the right to exercise other than time limitation. Similarly, if the right to acquire shares can only be exercised on a fixed date, it is an option. Rev. Rul. 89-64.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With US International Tax Law Concerning Foreign Corporations

If you are an owner of a foreign corporation, you are facing a very difficult task of working through the enormous complexity of US international tax compliance requirements and trying to avoid the high IRS noncompliance penalties. In order to be successful in this matter, you need the professional help of Sherayzen Law Office.

We are an international tax law firm that specializes in US international tax compliance and offshore voluntary disclosures. We have successfully helped hundreds of US taxpayers worldwide with this issue, and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Indian US Dollar Remittances | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

For some years now, India has remained at the top of all countries that receive remittances in US dollars. A lot of these funds flow from Indian-Americans and Indians who reside in the United States. The problem is that a lot of them are not in compliance with respect to their US international tax obligations that arise as a result of these Indian US dollar remittances.

Indian US Dollar Remittances: India Has Been the Top Recipient

For many years now, India has been one of the top countries in turn of US dollar remittances; lately it has occupied the number one spot. For example, in 2018, India received about $78.6 billion from overseas; China was a distant with only $67.4 billion followed by Mexico ($35.7 billion), the Philippines ($33.8 billion) and Egypt ($28.9 billion).

One of the biggest (if not the biggest) sources of these Indian US dollar remittances has been the United States. In fact, according to the World Bank, one of the reasons why Indian US dollar remittances were so high in 2018 was a better economic performance of the US economy. Hence, we can safely conclude that a large number of Indian-Americans and Indians who reside in the United States send a large portion of their US earnings back to India.

Indian US Dollar Remittances: US International Tax Compliance Issues

The biggest problem with Indian US dollar remittances is their potential for triggering various US international tax compliance requirements, because these remittances are made by US tax residents. Oftentimes, the repatriated funds are sitting in Indian bank accounts or they are invested in Indian stocks, bonds, mutual funds and structured products. Moreover, some of these funds are used to purchase real estate which is rented out to third parties. Still other funds are used to finance business ventures in India.

Such usage of repatriated funds may result in the obligation not only to report Indian income in the United States , but also to file numerous US information returns such as: Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FinCEN Form 114 better known as FBAR), Forms 8938, 8621, 5471 and others. Failure to report foreign income and file these information returns may result in the imposition of draconian IRS penalties and even a criminal prosecution.

Indian US Dollar Remittances: Unawareness Among Indians of US Tax Compliance Requirements

The high potential of Indian US dollar remittances to give rise to US tax compliance issues is combined with a widespread unawareness of these issues among Indians and Indian-Americans. Many of these taxpayers are not even aware of the fact that they are considered US tax residents. Others simply have never heard of the requirement to disclose foreign accounts and other foreign assets in the United States. Still others cling to erroneous ideas and various incorrect myths concerning US tax system.

The rise of various US tax compliance requirements as a result of remittances of funds to India and the widespread ignorance of these requirements among Indians is a bad combination, because it creates the potential for the imposition of the aforementioned draconian IRS penalties on Indians who are not even conscious of the fact that they need to report their worldwide income.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With US International Tax Compliance and Offshore Voluntary Disclosures Concerning Remittances of US Earnings to India

If you are an Indian who resides in the United States and you sent part of your US earnings to India, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. We have successfully helped hundreds of Indians and Indian-Americans to resolve their US international tax compliance issues, including conducting offshore voluntary disclosures (such as Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures and Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures) with respect to past US tax noncompliance. We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

§318 Partnership Attribution | International Corporate Tax Lawyers

/in , /by

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.

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!