Posts

January 28 2021 Inbound Transactions Seminar | US International Tax Lawyer

/in , /by

On January 28, 2021, Mr. Eugene Sherayzen, an international tax attorney and founder of Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd., co-presented with a business lawyer a seminar titled “Investing in US Businesses by Foreign Persons – Common Business and Tax Considerations” (the “Inbound Transactions Seminar”). The Inbound Transactions Seminar was sponsored by the International Business Law Section of the Minnesota State Bar Association. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the seminar was conducted online.

Mr. Sherayzen began his part of the Inbound Transactions Seminar with an explanation of the term “inbound transactions” and how it differs from “outbound transactions”. He then laid out a flowchart which represented the entire analytical tax framework for inbound transactions; the tax attorney warned the audience that, due to time restraints, the breadth of the subject matter only allowed him to generally highlight the most important parts of this framework.

Then, Mr. Sherayzen proceeded with an explanation of each main issue listed on the inbound transactions tax framework flowchart. First, he discussed the explanation of the concept of a US person and how it related to the flowcharted. The international tax attorney provided definitions for all four categories of US persons: individuals, business entities (corporations and partnerships), trusts and estates.

Then, Mr. Sherayzen focused on the second part of the flowchart – US income sourcing rules. After the general explanation of the significance of the income sourcing rules, the international tax attorney discussed in general terms the application of these rules to specific types of income: interest, dividends, rents, royalties, sales of personal property, sales of inventory, sales of real estate and income from services. Despite the time limitations, he was even able to provide a few examples of some of the most paradoxical outcomes of some of the US source-of-income rules.

The third part of the Inbound Transactions Seminar was devoted to the definition of “US trade or business activities”, an important tax term. Mr. Sherayzen provided a general definition and gave some specific examples, warning the audience that this is a highly fact-dependent issue.

In the next two parts of the seminar, the international tax attorney explained one of the most important terms in US taxation – ECI or Effectively Connected Income. Mr. Sherayzen not only went over all three ECI income categories but he also explained how ECI should be taxed. He also mentioned the affect of specific tax regimes (such as BEAT and branch taxes) on the taxation of ECI.

After finishing the left side of the flowchart (the part that was devoted to the analysis of the ECI of US trade and business activities), Mr. Sherayzen switched to the explanation of inbound transactions that do not involve US trade or business activities. In this last part of his presentation, the international tax attorney discussed the definition of FDAP income and the potential Internal Revenue Code and treaty exemptions from US taxation.

While the ongoing pandemic currently limits the number of options for conducting seminars, Mr. Sherayzen already plans future talks in 2021 on the subjects of US international tax compliance and US international tax planning.

Beware of Flat-Fee Lawyers Doing Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures

/in , /by

Recently, I received a number of phone calls and emails from people who complained about incorrect filing of their Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures (“SDOP”) packages by lawyers who took their cases on a flat-fee basis. In this article, I would like to discuss why a flat fee is generally not well-suited for a proper SDOP preparation and why clients should critically examine all facts and circumstances before retaining flat-fee lawyers.

A small disclosure: the analysis below is my opinion and the result of my prior experience with SDOPs. Moreover, I am only describing general trends and there are certainly exceptions which may be applicable to a specific case. Hence, the readers should consider my conclusions in this article carefully and apply them only after examining all facts and circumstances related to a specific lawyer before making their final decision on whether to retain him.

Flat-Fee Lawyers versus Hourly-Rate Lawyers

The two main business models that exist in the professional tax community in the United States with respect to billing their clients are the hourly-rate model and the flat-fee model. The hourly-rate model means that an attorney’s fees will depend on the amount of time he actually worked on the case. The flat-fee model charges one fee that covers a lawyer’s work irrespective of how much time he actually spends on a case.

Both billing models have their advantages and disadvantages. Generally, the chief advantage of an hourly-rate model is potentially higher quality of work. The hourly-rate model has a built-in incentive for attorneys to do as accurate and detailed work as possible, maximizing the quality of the final work product. An hourly-rate attorney is likely to take more time to explore the documents, uncover hidden problems of the case and properly resolve them.

The disadvantage of an hourly-rate model is that it cannot make an absolutely accurate prediction of what the legal fees will ultimately be. However, this problem is usually mitigated by estimates – as long as he knows all main facts of the case, an experienced attorney can usually predict the range of his legal fees to cover the case. Only a discovery of substantial unexpected issues (that were not discussed or left unresolved during the initial consultation) will substantially alter the estimate, because more time would be needed to resolve these new issues.

The chief advantage of the flat-fee model is the certainty of the legal fee – the client knows exactly how much he will pay. A secondary advantage of this model is the built-in incentive for flat-fee lawyers to complete their cases as fast as possible.

However, this advantage is undermined by several serious disadvantages. First, the flat-fee model provides a powerful incentive for lawyers to spend the least amount of time on a client’s case in order to maximize their profits; in other words, the flat-fee model has a potential for undermining the quality of a lawyer’s work product. Of course, it does not happen in every case, but the potential for such abuse is always present in the flat-fee model.

Second, closely-related to the first problem, the flat-fee model discourages lawyers from engaging in a thorough analysis of their clients’ cases. This may later result in undiscovered issues that may later expose a client to a higher risk of an unfavorable outcome of the case. Again this does not happen in every case, but I have repeatedly seen this problem occur in voluntary disclosures handled by flat-fee lawyers and CPAs.

Finally, a client may actually over-pay for a flat-fee lawyer’s services compared to an hourly-rate attorney, because a flat-fee lawyer is likely to set his fees at a high level to make sure that he remains profitable irrespective of potential surprises contained in the case. Of course, there is a risk for flat-fee lawyers that the reverse may occur – i.e. despite being set to a high level, the fee is still too small compared to issues involved in a case.

The effective usage of either one of these billing models differs depending on where they are applied. In situations where the facts are simple and legal issues are clear, a flat-fee model may be preferable. However, where one deals with a complex legal situation and the facts cannot all be easily established during an initial consultation, the hourly-rate model with its emphasis on thoroughness and quality of legal work is likely to be the best choice.

Flat-Fee Lawyers Can Be An Inferior Choice for Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures

In my opinion and based on the analysis above, in the context of an SDOP voluntary disclosure, a flat-fee engagement is particularly dangerous because of the nature of offshore voluntary disclosure cases.

Voluntary disclosures are likely to deal with complex US international tax compliance issues and unclear factual patterns. It may be difficult to identify all legal issues and all US international tax reporting requirements during an initial consultation. There are too many facts that clients may simply not have at their disposal during an initial consultation. Moreover, additional issues and questions are likely to arise after the documents are processed. I once had a situation where I discovered that a client had an additional foreign corporation with millions of dollars only several months after the initial consultation – the corporation was already closed and the client forgot about it.

For these reasons, SDOP and offshore voluntary disclosures in general require an individualized, detailed and thorough approach as well as a hard-to-determine (during an initial consultation) depth of legal analysis which is generally ill-fit for a flat-fee engagement. A flat-fee lawyer is unlikely to accurately estimate how much time is required to complete a client’s case and, hence, unlikely to accurately set his flat fee for the case.

This can cause a huge conflict of interest as the case progresses. I have seen a number of cases where, in an attempt to remain profitable, flat-fee lawyers did their analysis too fast and failed to properly identify all relevant tax issues; as a result, the voluntary disclosures (including SDOP disclosures) done by them had to amended later by my firm. This caused significant additional financial costs and mental stress to my clients.

In my opinion, this potential conflict of interest makes the flat-fee model unsuitable for the vast majority of the SDOP cases.

Beware of Some Flat-Fee Lawyers Including Unnecessary Services Into the Flat Fee

This applies only to a tiny minority of flat-fee lawyers. I have observed several times where flat-fee lawyers included irrelevant services that the client never used to increase the flat fee for the case (for example, audit fees for years not included in the SDOP). My recommendation is that, if you decide to go with a flat-fee arrangement, you should make sure that it includes only the services that you will likely use.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures

Sherayzen Law Office is a leader in SDOP disclosures. We have helped clients from over 70 countries with their offshore voluntary disclosures, including SDOPs. Our firm follows an hourly-rate billing model, because we value the quality of our work above all other considerations. Of course, we make every effort to make our fees reasonable and competitive, but our priority is the peace of mind of our clients who know that they can rely on the creativity of our legal solutions and the high quality of our work.

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

IRC 965 Tax: Introduction | US International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

The 2017 Tax Reform created the Internal Revenue Code Section 965, which requires US shareholders of foreign corporations to pay a new transition tax (hereinafter, “IRC 965 Tax”) in certain circumstances. In this short article, I will introduce the readers to the IRC 965 Tax.

IRC 965 Tax: Taxpayers Who Are Targeted by the New Tax

The IRC 965 Tax targets US shareholders of specified foreign corporations. In very general terms, a specified foreign corporation means either a controlled foreign corporation, as defined under the IRC Section 957 (“CFC”), or a foreign corporation (other than a passive foreign investment company (“PFIC”), as defined under the IRC Section 1297, that is not also a CFC) that has a US shareholder that is a domestic corporation.

The term “US shareholders” includes all individuals who are considered to be US tax residents, domestic corporations (including S-corporations), domestic partnerships (including LLC, LP, LLP and LLLP), domestic estates, domestic trusts, domestic cooperatives, REITs, RICs and even US tax-exempt organizations. All US shareholders of a CFC who previously filed a Form 5471 are in a particular danger of being subject to the IRC 965 Tax. Note, however, that even if you are a US shareholder who has not filed Form 5471 before, you may still be subject to the new tax.

IRC 965 Tax: What It Taxes and How

Generally, IRC 965 Tax imposes a special tax on untaxed foreign earnings of specified foreign corporations as if these earnings had been repatriated to the United States. In other words, if a specified foreign corporation has a positive accumulated Earnings & Profits (“E&P”), its US shareholders will have to pay the new tax on it unless the E&P had been already taxed under a different provision of the Internal Revenue Code.

The effective tax rates applicable to income inclusions are adjusted by way of a participation deduction set out in IRC Section 965©. A reduced foreign tax credit applies to the inclusion under the IRC Section 965(g). Interestingly, in certain situations, a US shareholder may reduce the amount of the income inclusion for the purposes of the new tax based on deficits in earnings and profits of other specified foreign corporations (of which he is a US shareholder as well).

The new tax applies to the last taxable year of a specified foreign corporations beginning before January 1, 2018; a US shareholder must include the new tax in the tax year in which the specified foreign corporation’s year ends (in other words, a US shareholder may need to pay the tax on his 2017 and/or 2018 US tax returns). If a US shareholder must pay the IRC 965 Tax, he may either pay it in full when he files the relevant US tax return or choose to do it in installments over an eight-year period.

IRC 965 Tax: IRS Closely Monitors Compliance with the New Tax

Any US taxpayers’ noncompliance with the IRC 965 Tax faces a high risk of IRS detection. The reason for it is the IRS pledge to closely monitor potential noncompliance with the new tax. In fact, the IRS even launched a special compliance campaign dedicated to the IRC Section 965 compliance.

IRC 965 Tax: What to Do if You Did Not Timely Pay the Tax

If you failed to properly comply with your reporting and payment obligations under the IRC Section 965, you will most likely face additional IRS tax penalties as well as the interest on the tax. If you also did not file the required Form 5471 and/or Form 8938 to disclose your interest in a foreign corporation, you are also at a high risk of being subject to Form 5471 penalties as well as Form 8938 penalties. Additional penalties may also apply, including the draconian FBAR criminal and civil penalties (for example, if you are the majority shareholder of a controlled foreign corporation and you did not disclose the foreign bank and financial accounts of this corporation on your FBAR).

Given the gravity of your situation, it is important that you immediately contact an international tax lawyer who specializes in US international tax compliance and offshore voluntary disclosures.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help If You Are Not in Compliance with the IRC 965 Tax

If you have not complied with your payment requirement with respect to IRC 965 Tax and other related US international tax forms, contact Sherayzen Law Office as soon as possible.

Sherayzen Law Office is an international tax law firm that specializes in US international tax compliance and offshore voluntary disclosures. We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers to resolve their past US tax noncompliance issues, and We Can Help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

July 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

On July 2, 2018, the IRS announced the creation of another five compliance campaigns. Let’s discuss these July 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns in more detail.

July 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: Background Information

The IRS compliance campaigns is the end result of a long period of planning by the IRS Large Business and International division (“LB&I”). The idea behind the IRS compliance campaigns is to concentrate the LB&I resources in a way that deals with the potential noncompliance area in the most efficient way. The first campaigns were announced by the IRS on January 31, 2017. Then, the IRS rapidly added new campaigns in November of 2017, March of 2018 and May of 2018. As of July 1, 2018, there were 35 campaigns outstanding.

Five New July 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns

Here are the new July 2018 IRS Compliance campaigns that should be added to the already existing thirty-five campaigns: Restoration of Sequestered AMT Credit Carryforward, S Corporation Distributions, Virtual Currency, Repatriation via Foreign Triangular Reorganizations and Section 965 Transition Tax.

Each of these campaigns was identified by the IRS through LB&I data analysis and suggestions from IRS employees.

July 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: Restoration of Sequestered AMT Credit Carryforward

This campaign deals with the complex issues concerning sequestered Alternative Minimum Tax (“AMT”) credit. Refunds issued or applied to a subsequent year’s tax, pursuant to IRC Section 168(k)(4), are subject to sequestration and are a permanent loss of refundable credits. Taxpayers may not restore the sequestered amounts to their AMT credit carryforward, but some are doing so in any case.

Given the complexity of the issues involved, the IRS decided to make soft letters as the primary treatment stream for this campaign. Soft letters will be mailed to taxpayers who are identified as making improper restorations of sequestered amounts. The IRS will then monitor these taxpayers to make sure that they correct the problem and stay in compliance. The idea is to educate taxpayers on the proper treatment of sequestered AMT credits so that they self-correct all problems.

July 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: S Corporation Distributions

This is a very important campaign that will affect a very large number of small business owners. It will focus on three major problem areas. The first issue is failure to report gain upon the distribution of appreciated property to a shareholder. The second issue is the proper classification of a corporate distribution (of cash and property) as a taxable dividend. Finally, the third issue concerns non-dividend distributions to shareholders in excess of their stock basis; such distributions are taxable. The IRS adopted a more severe approach to this campaign. The treatment streams for this campaign include issue-based examinations, tax form change suggestions and stakeholder outreach.

July 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: Virtual Currency

This campaign is the IRS attempt to catch up with modern technology and properly tax transactions that involve virtual currencies. IRS Notice 2014-21 classifies virtual currency as “property” for federal tax purposes. Hence, any sales or exchanges that involve virtual currencies will be taxable in the United States.

The fact that these transactions take place outside of the United States would not affect the taxability of foreign currencies as long as a US tax resident is involved in these transactions. As Sherayzen Law Office has pointed out numerous times in the past, US tax residents are subject to taxation on their worldwide income. This rule includes virtual currencies.

This campaign involves highly complex issues and requires flexible approach to compliance enforcement. This is why the IRS will address noncompliance related to the use of virtual currency through multiple treatment streams including outreach and examinations.

The IRS has expressly stated that its compliance enforcement activities will follow the general tax principles applicable to all transactions in property as outlined in Notice 2014-21. The IRS will also continue to consider and solicit taxpayer and practitioner feedback in education efforts, future guidance and development of Practice Units.

Interestingly enough, the IRS stated that it will not create a voluntary disclosure program specifically to address tax non-compliance involving virtual currency. Instead, the IRS urges taxpayers with unreported virtual currency transactions to self-correct their returns as soon as practical.

July 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: Repatriation via Foreign Triangular Reorganizations

This campaign focuses on enforcement of Notice 2016-73 (“the Notice”) which the IRS issued in December of 2016. The Notice curtails the claimed “tax-free” repatriation of basis and untaxed CFC earnings following the use of certain foreign triangular reorganization transactions. The goal of the campaign is to identify and challenge these transactions by educating and assisting examination teams in audits of these repatriations.

July 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: Section 965 Transition Tax

This is a highly important campaign that focuses on the issue that will continue to plague US taxpayers for a long time – 965 transition tax. IRC Section 965 requires US shareholders (a term of art) to pay a transition tax on the untaxed foreign earnings of certain specified foreign corporations as if those earnings had been repatriated to the United States. Taxpayers may elect to pay the transition tax as a lump-sum payment or in installments over an eight-year period. This means that some (and probably most) of these US shareholders should have paid some or all of the tax on their 2017 income tax return.

The LB&I already engaged in an outreach campaign in 2018 to reach trade groups, advisors and other outside stakeholders to raise awareness of filing and payment obligations concerning the 965 transition tax. The IRS even circulated an external communication on this subject through stakeholder channels in April of 2018.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Tax Help

If you have been contacted by the IRS as part of any of its campaigns, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world with their US tax compliance issues, and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

May 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

On May 21, 2018, the IRS announced the creation of another six compliance campaigns. Let’s explore these May 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns in more detail.

May 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: Background Information

After a long period of planning, the IRS Large Business and International division (“LB&I”) finalized its new restructuring plan in 2017. Under the new plan, LB&I decided to switch to issue-based examinations and IRS campaigns.

The idea behind the IRS compliance campaigns is to concentrate the LB&I limited resources where they are most needed – i.e. where there is the highest risk of noncompliance. The first campaigns were announced by the IRS on January 31, 2017. Then, the IRS introduced additional campaigns in November of 2017 and March of 2018. As of March 13, 2018, there were a total of twenty-nine campaigns outstanding.

Six New May 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns

On May 21, 2018, the LB&I introduced the following new campaigns: Interest Capitalization for Self-Constructed Assets; Forms 3520/3520-A Non-Compliance and Campus Assessed Penalties; Forms 1042/1042-S Compliance; Nonresident Alien Tax Treaty Exemptions; Nonresident Alien Schedule A and Other Deductions; and NRA Tax Credits. Each of these campaigns was selected by the IRS through the analysis of the LB&I data as well as from suggestions made by IRS employees.

It is also important to point out that each of these campaigns as well as the twenty-nine previous campaigns were reviewed by the IRS in light of the 2017 Tax Reform (which was enacted on December 22, 2017).

May 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: Interest Capitalization for Self-Constructed Assets

The first campaign focused on the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) Section 263A. Under this provision if a taxpayer engaged in certain production activities with respect to “designated property”, he is required to capitalize the interest that he incurs or pays during the production period with respect to this property.

IRC Section 263A(f) defined “designated property” as: (a) any real property, or (b) tangible personal property that has: (i) a long useful life (depreciable class life of 20 years or more), or (ii) an estimated production period exceeding two years, or (iii) an estimated production period exceeding one year and an estimated cost exceeding $1,000,000.

The IRS created this campaign with the goal of ensuring taxpayer compliance by verifying that interest is properly capitalized for designated property and the computation to capitalize that interest is accurate. Construction companies are likely to be the most immediate target of this campaign. Given the fact that Section 263A is not well-known, the IRS adopted varous treatment streams for this campaign, including issue-based examinations, education soft letters, and educating taxpayers and practitioners to encourage voluntary compliance.

May 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: Form 3520/3520-A Non-Compliance and Campus Assessed Penalties

This campaign reflects the increasing attention of the IRS to foreign trusts. This is a highly complex area of law. In order to deal with this complexity, the IRS stated that it will adopt a multifaceted approach to improving Form 3520 and Form 3520-A compliance. The treatment streams will include (but not limited to) examinations and penalties assessed by the campus when the forms are received late or are incomplete. The IRS will also use Letter 6076 to inform the trusts about their potential Form 3520-A obligations.

May 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: Form 1042/1042-S Compliance

Taxpayers who make payments of certain US-source income to foreign persons must comply with the related withholding, deposit and reporting requirements. This campaign targets Withholding Agents who make such payments but do not meet all of their compliance duties. The IRS will address noncompliance and errors through a variety of treatment streams, including examination.

May 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: Nonresident Alien Tax Treaty Exemptions

This campaign is intended to increase compliance in nonresident alien (NRA) individual tax treaty exemption claims related to both effectively connected income and Fixed, Determinable, Annual Periodical (“FDAP”) income. Some NRA taxpayers may either misunderstand or misinterpret applicable treaty articles, provide incorrect or incomplete forms to the withholding agents or rely on incorrect information returns provided by US payors to improperly claim treaty benefits and exempt US-source income from taxation. This campaign will address noncompliance through a variety of treatment streams including outreach/education and traditional examinations.

May 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: Nonresident Alien Schedule A and Other Deductions

This is another campaign that targets NRAs. In this case, the IRS focuses on the Form 1040NR Schedule A itemized deductions. NRA taxpayers may either misunderstand or misinterpret the rules for allowable deductions under the previous and new IRC provisions, do not meet all the qualifications for claiming the deduction and/or do not maintain proper records to substantiate the expenses claimed. The campaign will address noncompliance through a variety of treatment streams including outreach/education and traditional examinations.

May 2018 IRS Compliance Campaigns: NRA Tax Credits

This is yet another (third) campaign that targets NRAs; this time it concerns tax credits claimed by the NRAs. The IRS here targets NRAs who erroneously claim a dependent tax credit and who either have no qualifying earned income, do not provide substantiation/proper documentation, or do not have qualifying dependents. Furthermore, the IRS also wants to target NRAs who claim education credits (which are only available to U.S. persons) by improperly filing Form 1040 tax returns. This campaign will address noncompliance through a variety of treatment streams including outreach/education and traditional examinations.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Tax Help

If you have been contacted by the IRS as part of any of its campaigns, please contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world with their US tax compliance issues, and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!