Posts

Main Worldwide Income Reporting Myths | International Tax Attorney St Paul

/in , /by

In a previous article, I discussed the worldwide income reporting requirement and I mentioned that I would discuss the traps or false myths associated with this requirement in a future article. In this essay, I will keep my promise and discuss the main worldwide income reporting myths.

Worldwide Income Reporting Myths: the Source of Myths

I would like to begin by reminding the readers about what the worldwide income reporting rule requires. The worldwide income reporting requirement states that all US tax residents are obligated to disclose all of their US-source income and foreign-source income on their US tax returns.

This rule seems clear and straightforward. Unfortunately, it does not coincide with the income reporting requirements of many foreign tax systems. It is precisely this tension between the US tax system and tax systems of other countries that gives rise to numerous false myths which eventually lead to the US income tax noncompliance. Let’s go over the four most common myths.

Worldwide Income Reporting Myths: Local Taxation

Many US taxpayers incorrectly believe that their foreign-source income does not need to be disclosed in the United States because it is taxed in the local jurisdiction. The logic behind this myth is simple – otherwise, the income would be subject to double taxation. There is a variation on this myth which relies on various tax treaties between the United States and foreign countries on the prevention of double-taxation.

The “local taxation” myth is completely false. US tax law requires US tax residents to disclose their foreign-source income even if it is subject to foreign taxation or foreign tax withholding. These taxpayers forget that they may be able to use the foreign tax credit to remedy the effect of the double-taxation.

Where the foreign tax credit is unavailable or subject to certain limitations, the danger of double taxation indeed exists. This is why you need to consult an international tax attorney to properly structure your transactions in order to avoid the effect of double-taxation. In any case, the danger of double taxation does not alter the worldwide income reporting requirement – you still need to disclose your foreign-source income even if it is taxed locally.

The tax-treaty variation on the local taxation myth is generally false, but not always. There are indeed tax treaties that exempt certain types of income from US taxation; the US-France tax treaty is especially unusual in this aspect. These exceptions are highly limited and usually apply only to certain foreign pensions.

Generally, however, tax treaties would not prevent foreign income from being reportable in the United States. In other words, one should not turn an exception into a general rule; the existence of a tax treaty would not generally modify the worldwide income reporting requirement.

Worldwide Income Reporting Myths: Territorial Taxation

Millions of US taxpayers were born overseas and their understanding of taxation was often formed through their exposure to much more territorial systems of taxation that exist in many foreign countries. These taxpayers often believe that they should report their income only in the jurisdictions where the income was earned or generated. In other words, the followers of this myth assert that US-source income should be disclosed on US tax returns and foreign-source income on foreign tax returns.

This myth is false. US tax system is unique in many aspects; its invasive worldwide reach stands in sharp contrast to the territorial or mixed-territorial models of taxation that exist in other countries. Hence, you cannot apply your prior experiences with a foreign system of taxation to the US tax system. With respect to individuals, US tax laws continue to mandate worldwide income reporting irrespective of how other countries organize their tax systems.

Worldwide Income Reporting Myths: De Minimis Exception

The third myth has an unclear origin; most likely, it comes from human nature that tends to disregard insignificant amounts. The followers of this myth believe that small amounts of foreign source income do not need to be disclosed in the United States, because there is a de minimis exception to the worldwide income reporting requirement.

This is incorrect: there is no such de minimis exception. You must disclose your foreign income on your US tax return no matter how small it is.

This myth has a special significance in the context of offshore voluntary disclosures. The Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures can only be used if there is no income noncompliance. Oftentimes, taxpayers cannot benefit from this voluntary disclosure option, because they failed to disclose an interest income of merely ten or twenty dollars.

Worldwide Income Reporting Myths: Foreign Earned Income Exclusion

Finally, the fourth myth comes from the misunderstanding of the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion (the “FEIE”). The FEIE allows certain taxpayers who reside overseas to exclude a certain amount of earned income on their US tax returns from taxation as long as these taxpayers meet either the physical presence test or the bona fide residency test.

Some US taxpayers misunderstand the rules of the FEIE and believe that they are allowed to exclude all of their foreign income as long as they reside overseas. A variation on this myth ignores even the residency aspect; the taxpayers who fall into this trap believe that the FEIE excludes all foreign income from reporting.

This myth and its variation are wrong in three aspects. First of all, even in the case of FEIE, all of the foreign earned income must first be disclosed on a tax return and then, and only then, would the taxpayer be able to take the exclusion on the tax return. Second, the FEIE applies only to earned income (i.e. salaries or self-employment income), not passive income (such as bank interest, dividends, royalties and capital gains). Finally, as I already stated, in order to be eligible for the FEIE, a taxpayer must satisfy one of the two tests: the physical presence test or the bona fide residency test.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With Your Worldwide Income Reporting

Worldwide income reporting can be an incredibly complex requirement despite its appearance of simplicity. In this essay, I pointed out just four most common traps for US taxpayers; there are many more.

Hence, if you have foreign income, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. Our highly-experienced tax team, headed by a known international tax lawyer, Mr. Eugene Sherayzen, has helped hundreds of US taxpayers to bring themselves into full compliance with US tax laws. We can help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

EU Market Entry Seminar | US International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

On February 8, 2018, Mr. Eugene Sherayzen, an international tax lawyer, co-presented with three other attorneys in a seminar titled “EU Market Entry: Business and Tax Considerations” (the “EU Market Entry” seminar). The EU Market Entry Seminar was co-sponsored by the Business Law Section and International Business Law Section of the Minnesota State Bar Association. The three other speakers were a business lawyer from Germany, a tax lawyer from Lithuania and a business lawyer from the United States.

Mr. Sherayzen began his part of the EU Market Entry Seminar with the explanation of the main purpose of tax planning. He asserted that tax planning should not be done only to reduce costs, but to maximize the real profits of a business transaction.

Then, the tax attorney proceeded with the explanation of the main international tax planning strategies with respect to outbound business transactions. In particular, he discussed in detail the following strategies: (1) overseas profit tax reduction; (2) U.S. tax deferral; and (3) Prevention of double-taxation. Each of these strategies was accompanied by three to four relevant tactics. The tax attorney focused especially on U.S. tax deferral as the “heart” of the U.S. tax planning.

The next part of the EU Market Entry Seminar was devoted to the classification of international business transactions. Mr. Sherayzen grouped different types of international business transactions into three categories: (1) Export of Goods and Services; (2) Licensing & Technology Transfers; and (3) Foreign Investment Transactions (including Foreign Direct Investment and Foreign Portfolio Investment).

The final part of the EU Market Entry Seminar consisted of applying the aforementioned tax strategies to each of the three groups of international business transactions and determining which strategies were likely to perform better than others with respect to a particular group of international business transactions. For example, Mr. Sherayzen stated that overseas profit tax reduction and prevention of double-taxation were easier to implement for international business transactions that involved export of goods or services; the U.S. tax deferral would be much more difficult to implement in this context and it would require extensive tax planning.

Mr. Sherayzen concluded the EU Market Entry Seminar with an introduction to the audience the concepts of GILTI (Global Intangible Low-Tax Income), BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) rules, CbC (country-by-country) reporting and FDII (Foreign Derived Intangibles Income). These concepts were integrated within the discussion of the effectiveness of certain tax strategies with respect to the second and third categories of international business transactions. For example, the tax attorney discussed how the new GILTI rules affect the ability to achieve U.S. tax deferral.

Japanese Bank Accounts : Main US Tax Obligations | FATCA Tax Lawyer

/in , /by

Despite the fact that FATCA has been implemented already in July of 2014, a lot of US taxpayers are still unaware of their obligation to disclose their Japanese bank accounts in the United States. In this essay, I will discuss the three most important US international tax requirements concerning Japanese bank accounts: worldwide income reporting, FBAR and FATCA Form 8938.

Japanese Bank Accounts: Japanese Income Must Be Disclosed on US Tax Returns

All US tax residents must disclose their worldwide income on their US tax returns. This requirement includes all income generated by the Japanese bank accounts. This obligation applies to all types of income: bank interest income, dividends, capital gains, et cetera.

In this context, it is important to reject two incorrect, but commonly-held beliefs concerning the reporting of Japanese-source income. First, a significant number of US taxpayers believe that Japanese income does not need to be reported if it never left Japan. This is completely false; it does not matter where the income is earned or held – as long as you are a US tax resident, you must disclose your Japanese income on your US tax returns whether or not it was ever transferred to the United States.

The second and most common myth is the belief that, if the income is subject to Japanese tax withholding, it does not need to be reported in the United States. Some taxpayers hold this belief because of their familiarity with the territorial system of taxation, while others assume that this is true due to the prohibition of double-taxation under the US-Japan tax treaty.

In either case, this myth is also completely false. All US tax residents must disclose their Japanese income on their US tax returns even if it is subject to Japanese tax withholding or reported on Japanese tax returns. However, you may be able to take advantage of the Foreign Tax Credit to reduce your US tax liability by the amount of taxes paid in Japan.

Japanese Bank Accounts: FBAR

The Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, FinCEN Form 114 (popularly known as “FBAR”) is one of the most important reporting requirements that applies to Japanese bank accounts. Generally, a US person is required to file FBAR if he has a financial interest in or signatory authority or any other authority over foreign bank and financial accounts which, in the aggregate, exceed $10,000 at any point during a calendar year.

FBAR has a severe penalty system for failure to file the form, failure to provide accurate information on the form and failure to maintain supporting documentation for the amounts reported on FBAR. The penalties range from criminal penalties (i.e. actual time in jail) to willful and non-willful civil penalties. The civil penalties are adjusted for inflation each year.

Given the fact that FBAR penalties may completely destroy one’s financial life, US taxpayers should strive to do everything in their power to make sure that they comply with this requirement.

Japanese Bank Accounts: FATCA Form 8938

In addition to FBAR, US tax residents with Japanese bank accounts may be required to file Form 8938. Form 8938 is the creation of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”). US tax residents must disclose their Specified Foreign Financial Assets (“SFFA”) on Form 8938 in each year their SFFA exceed the form’s filing threshold.

Form 8938 has a higher filing threshold than FBAR, but it is still relatively low, especially if the owner of Japanese bank accounts resides in the United States. For example, if a taxpayer resides in the United States and his tax return filing status is “single”, then he would only need to have $50,000 or higher at the end of the year or $75,000 or higher at any point during the year in order to trigger the Form 8938 filing requirement.

Moreover, SFFA is defined very broadly to include a lot of more financial assets than what is required to be reported on FBAR; hence, it is easier for US taxpayers to meet the Form 8938 filing Threshold. SFFA includes foreign bank and financials accounts, bonds, swaps, ownership interest in a foreign business, beneficiary interest in a foreign trust and many other types of financial assets. A word of caution: even when FBAR and Form 8938 cover the same assets, both forms must be filed despite the duplication of the disclosure.

The readers should also remember that Form 8938 has it own distinct penalty structure for failure to file the form or failure to comply with all of its requirements.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With Reporting of Your Japanese Bank Accounts in the United States

This essay broadly covered three most important and most common reporting requirements concerning Japanese bank accounts. There may be a lot more of these requirements depending on your particular fact pattern.

Sherayzen Law Office has extensive experience working with Japanese clients and their bank accounts. We can help you identify your US international tax requirements and prepare all of the tax documents necessary to comply with them. Moreover, if you did not comply with any of these US tax obligations in the past, we will help you with your offshore voluntary disclosure to minimize your IRS penalties and avoid IRS criminal prosecution.

We have successfully helped hundreds of US taxpayers to deal with their US international tax compliance, and We can help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

H.R. 7358 & Modified Residency-Based Taxation | International Tax News

/in , /by

On December 20, 2018, Congressman George Holding, a Republican from North Carolina and a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, introduced The Tax Fairness for Americans Abroad Act of 2018 (H.R. 7358). According to the analysis below, Sherayzen Law Office believes that H.R. 7358 seeks to modify it in a manner that moves it closer to something that can be described as a modified residency-based model of taxation. Yet, in no way should H.R. 7358 be viewed as an attempt to completely repeal the current citizenship-based model of taxation.

Current US Tax Law: Citizenship-Based Model of Taxation

Currently, all US citizens are obligated to report their worldwide income and pay US taxes on this income irrespective of their actual place of residence. In other words, even if a US citizen resides abroad, he is a US tax resident and must file a US tax return to report his worldwide income.

The current US tax law does allow such citizens to exclude a certain amount ($104,100 in 2018) through the operation of IRC Section 911, commonly known as the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion.

The United States and Eritrea are the only two countries in the world that tax their citizens in this manner. Everyone else taxes their citizens based only on their actual place of residence or under even more restrictive territorial model of taxation.

Lack of Residency-Based Taxation Results in Higher Tax Burden for Americans Who Live Abroad

The current law imposes an enormous burden on over nine million Americans who live abroad. Not only do they have to comply with all local tax laws, but they are also forced to comply with all US international tax laws, including the numerous US international tax reporting requirements.

Undoubtedly, the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion (“FEIE”) helps on the income side, but it only applies to earned income; US taxes must still be paid on all passive income. Moreover, the FEIE is limited to a certain threshold amount of earnings, which can easily be exceeded by the salaries normally paid to mid-level and upper echelon of corporate executives as well as small business owners.

Furthermore, the unincorporated American owners of small businesses may still be subject to US self-employment taxes (despite the income exclusion under the FEIE). Their income may also be disqualified from FEIE under the infamous 30% rule.

The Tax Fairness for Americans Abroad Act of 2018: Moving Current U.S. Tax System In the Direction of Modified Residency-Based Model of Taxation

H.R. 7358 seeks to alleviate the suffering of millions of Americans by modifying the current citizenship-based model of taxation. It proposes to move the US tax system to something that is reminiscent of a residency-based model of taxation.

If it passes, H.R. 7358 would create a new IRC Section 911A which would apply to the new category of taxpayers – qualified nonresident citizens. Such qualified nonresident citizens could exclude from their gross income the entire foreign earned income and foreign unearned income. In other words, nonresident citizens would only have to pay taxes on US-source income (with one exception concerning gains from sale of personal property).

Who would be a “qualified nonresident citizens”? Basically, in order to qualify for this designation, a citizen would have to be a nonresident citizen, not make an election under the IRC Section 911 and make an election under the IRC Section 911A.

A nonresident citizen would be a US citizen who: (a) has a “tax home” in a foreign country; (b) is in full compliance with US income tax laws for the three previous tax years; and (c) either physically resides in foreign country for at least 330 full days during the relevant tax year OR is a bona fide resident of a foreign country for the entire tax year.

Modified Residency-Based Taxation is Proposed by H.R. 7358

It is important to understand that, as it is written at this moment, H.R. 7358 proposes to modify the current tax system, not establish a true residency-based system of taxation. Even if today’s version of the bill passes, all nonresident US citizens will continue to be US tax residents while they reside in a foreign country. In other words, what is really proposed here is a major expansion of the FEIE, not a complete repudiation of the citizenship-based model of taxation.

This is a highly important legal conclusion, because it allows us to clearly see the limits of the relief offered by H.R. 7358. For example, since nonresident citizens will continue to be tax residents, they will still need to file their Forms 8938 and FBARs. Moreover, it does not appear that the bill would affect the obligation to file other international information returns, such as Forms 3520, 5471, 8865, et cetera.

Additionally, it is unclear what would happen to income recognized under the tax deferral regimes, such as Subpart F rules and the GILTI tax. If this income is excluded, H.R. 7358 will become a powerful incentive to residing outside of the United States for a certain period of time in order to implement certain tax planning strategies.

Thus, instead of eliminating citizenship-based taxation, the bill simply attempts to continue the modification of the US international tax system in a way similar to the 2017 tax reform introduced on the corporate side.

Obviously, this is just the initial version of the bill. It is possible that a more overt repudiation of the citizenship-based model of taxation will be enacted, including the elimination of FBAR and Form 8938 requirements for nonresident citizens. It is also possible, however, that this bill will not be enacted in any format at all.

EU Automatic Exchange of Banking and Beneficial Ownership Data Approved

/0 Comments/in , /by

On November 22, 2016, the European Parliament approved the automatic exchange of banking and beneficial ownership data across the European Union. The directive received an overwhelming support from the Parliament: 590 members voted “yes”, 32 – “no”, and 64 did not vote.

Since the original proposal was already approved by the EU Council on November 8, 2016, the only issue left before the directive will come into force will be the final adoption of the directive by EU Council. Once the directive on the automatic exchange of banking and beneficial ownership data is adopted by the Council, the member states will have until December 31, 2017, to implement it.

The directive represents a major undertaking with respect to the automatic exchange of banking and beneficial ownership data. Once it is adopted, the directive will allow tax authorities of every EU member state to automatically share the banking information such as account balances, interest income and dividends. Moreover, the directive also requires the EU member states to create registers recording the beneficial ownership of companies and trusts. This means that the tax authorities of all EU member states will finally acquire access to the information regarding the true beneficiaries of foreign trusts and opaque corporate structures.

The idea behind the new legislation on the automatic exchanges of banking and beneficial ownership data is to provide the EU member states with tools to fight cross-border fraud and tax evasion, preserving the integrity of their domestic tax systems.

However, it appears that there are still serious implementation issues with respect to the new directive. The most serious problem is that the directive merely allows the automatic exchange of banking and beneficial ownership date in the EU, but it does not obligate the member states to do so. Furthermore, the banking industry’s role in the facilitation of tax evasion is not addressed at all by the legislature.

After the directive on the automatic exchange of banking and beneficial ownership date is adopted, the European Parliament is going to take up the legislation to provide for a cross-border method for accessing the shared information.

An interesting question for US taxpayers is whether any of the information acquired through the EU sharing mechanism will be shared with the IRS through FATCA. The likelihood of this scenario is fairly strong and may further expose noncompliant US taxpayers to IRS detection.