Posts

§318 Relationship Categories | International Business Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

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

§318 Relationship Categories: Related Persons

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

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

§318 Relationship Categories: Six Main Categories

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

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

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

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

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

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

§267 Entity-to-Member Attribution | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

In a previous article, I introduced the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) §267 constructive ownership rules. Today, I would like to focus specifically on the §267 entity-to-member attribution rule.

§267 Entity-to-Member Attribution: General Rule

§267(c)(1) describes the §267 entity-to-member attribution rule. It states that stocks owned by a corporation, partnership, estate or trust will be treated as owned proportionately by its shareholders, partners, or beneficiaries.

Let’s use an example to explain §267(c)(1). Let’s imagine that Peter and Mary (both US citizens who are not family members within the meaning of §267(c)(4)) own 70% and 30% respectively of shares of X, a C-corporation organized in South Dakota. X owns 100% of shares of N, a Nevada C-corporation.

In this situation, under §267(c)(1), Peter and Mary constructively own 70% and 30% of shares of N. Hence, pursuant to §267(b)(2), Peter is considered to be a related person with respect to X and N corporations due to actual constructive ownership of 70% of shares of both corporations (since this is higher than the 50%-of-value threshold demanded by §267(b)(2)).

Also, note that X and N are related persons, because, pursuant to §267(b)(3), they are members of the same controlled group. §267(b)(3) relies on §267(f) for the definition of the “controlled group”; §267(f), in turn, mostly adopts §1563 definition of controlled group (the main difference is that §267(f) reduces the required level of ownership to more than 50% of voting power and value of the stock as opposed to more than 80% demanded by §1563).

§267 Entity-to-Member Attribution: How Stock is Attributed

The §267(c)(1) is a downstream attribution rule. This means that the attribution of stock flows only in one direction – from entity to the shareholder, partner or beneficiary. There is no “upstream attribution” from shareholder, partner, or beneficiary to the corporation, partnership, estate or trust. Note that this differs from the attribution rules for many corporate transactions governed by §318.

Section 267(c)(1) fails to specify the manner in which attributed stock ownership should be apportioned. The most convincing authority for the apportionment of attributed stocks can be found in case law, particularly Hickman v. Commissioner, 30 T.C. Memo 1972-208. In that case, the Tax Court determined that stock would be attributed from a trust to its beneficiaries proportionately based on the fair market value without any discount for indirect ownership. Actuarial value apportionment was also rejected.

§267 Entity-to-Member Attribution: Chain Ownership

It is important to understand that stock constructively owned by a shareholder, partner, or beneficiary pursuant to §267(c)(1) is treated as actually owned for the purposes of further attribution. In other words, the constructive ownership of a shareholder, partner or beneficiary may be further attributed to others. Moreover, such attribution does not have to be under §267(c)(1); rather, any other attribution category can be used (for example, family member stock attribution).

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With US Tax Law

US tax law is extremely complex. An ordinary person will simply get lost in this labyrinth of tax rules, exceptions and requirements. Once you get into trouble with US tax law, it is much more difficult and expensive to extricate yourself from it due to high IRS penalties.

This is why it is important to contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with US tax law as soon as possible. We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world to successfully resolve their US tax compliance and US tax planning issues. We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Minneapolis MN International Tax Lawyer & Attorney | PLR 201922010

/in , /by

On May 31, 2019, the IRS released a Private Letter Ruling (“PLR”) on the extension of time to make an election to be treated as a disregarded entity for US tax purposes under Treas. Reg. Section 301.7701 (26 CFR 301.7701-3). Let’s explore this PLR 201922010 in more detail.

PLR 201922010: Fact Pattern

PLR 201922010 deals with a typical fact pattern for someone who is doing business overseas. A US citizen wholly owns a foreign corporation which wholly owns a foreign subsidiary. The foreign subsidiary wants to make an election to be classified as a disregarded entity for US tax purposes, but misses the deadline to do so timely. Hence, it files a request for the IRS to grant a discretionary extension of time to file Form 8832 pursuant to Treas. Reg. Sections 301.9100-1 and 301.9100-3.

PLR 201922010: Legal Analysis

The IRS began its legal analysis of the request by noting that, under Treas. Reg. Section 301.7701-3(a), a business entity that is not classified as a corporation under Treas. Reg. Section 301.7701-2(b)(1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) or (8) (hereinafter, an “eligible entity”) can elect its classification for federal tax purposes as provided in Treas. Reg. Section 301.7701-3. An eligible entity with at least two members can elect to be classified as either an association (and thus a corporation under the Treas. Reg. Section 301.7701-2(b)(2)) or a partnership. An eligible entity with a single owner, however, can elect to be classified as an association (i.e. a corporation) or to be disregarded as an entity separate from its owner.

The IRS then focused specifically on the classification of foreign entities relying on Treas. Reg. Section 301.7701-3(b)(2)(I). This provision states that, unless it elects otherwise, a foreign eligible entity is (A) a partnership if it has two or more members and at least one member does not have limited liability; (B) an association if all members have limited liability; or © disregarded as an entity separate from its owner if it has a single owner that does not have limited liability.

What does “limited liability” mean in this context? Treas. Reg. Section 301.7701-3(b)(2)(ii) answers this question by stating that a member of a foreign eligible entity has limited liability if the member has no personal liability for the debts of or claims against the entity by reason of being a member.

How does one make this classification election? Treas. Reg. Section 301.7701-3(c)(1)(I) provides, in part, that an eligible entity may elect to be classified other than as provided under Treas. Reg. Section 301.7701-3(b), or to change its classification, by filing Form 8832 with the service center designated on Form 8832.

Then, the IRS addressed the key issue for this PLR – when this classification election can be made. Treas. Reg. Section 301.7701-3(c)(1)(iii) provides that the election will be effective on the date specified by the entity on Form 8832 or on the date filed if no such date is specified on the election form. The effective date specified on Form 8832 can not be more than 75 days prior to the date on which the election is filed and can not be more than 12 months after the date on which the election is filed.

Is it possible to make a late election? The IRS answered this question by referring to Treas. Reg. Section 301.9100-1(c), which provides that the Commissioner may grant a reasonable extension of time to make a regulatory election, or a statutory election (but no more than six months except in the case of a taxpayer who is abroad), under all subtitles of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), except subtitles E, G, H, and I. Treas. Reg. Section 301.9100-1(b) defines “regulatory election” as an election whose due date is prescribed by a regulation published in the Federal Register, or a revenue ruling, revenue procedure, notice or announcement published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.

Treas. Reg. Section 301.9100-3 addresses extensions of time for making late regulatory elections. Treas. Reg. Section 301.9100-3(a) states that such requests for relief will be granted when the taxpayer provides the evidence (including affidavits described in Treas. Reg. Section 301.9100-3(e)) to establish to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the taxpayer acted reasonably and in good faith, and the grant of relief will not prejudice the interests of the Government.

PLR 201922010: IRS Granted Request for Extension to Time to Make the Election

Based on the information submitted and the representations made, the IRS concluded that the foreign entity satisfied the requirements of Treas. Reg. Sections 301.9100-1 and 301.9100-3. As a result, the IRS granted to the foreign entity an extension of time of 120 days from the date of PLR 201922010 to file a properly executed Form 8832 with the appropriate service center electing to be treated as a disregarded entity.

PLR 201922010: The Electing Foreign Entity Must Submit Form 8858 and All Other Returns

The IRS emphasized that its ruling was contingent on the electing foreign entity and its owner filing within 120 days from the date of the PLR all of the required federal income tax and information returns for all relevant years. The IRS specifically mentioned Form 8858 (Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Foreign Disregarded Entities).

Contact Sherayzen Law Office if You Need to File a PLR Request for Late Entity Classification Election Similar to PLR 201922010

If you need to ask the IRS to grant a late entity classification request, you can contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with drafting and submitting your request for a Private Letter Ruling.

The IRS Large Business and International Division Organizational Structure

/0 Comments/in , /by

Almost two years ago, the IRS Large Business and International Division announced long-term changes in its structure as well as its approach to tax enforcement. In the fall of 2015, the IRS completed the first phase of the structural changes in the Division – re-organization of its administrative structure. This structure exists intact today and we fully expect for it to last for a long while. Let’s discuss this current administrative structure of the IRS Large Business and International Division.

IRS Large Business and International Division: Areas of Responsibility

The IRS Large Business and International Division forms a huge part of the IRS. First, it is responsible for the tax compliance enforcement (US domestic and US international) with respect to all corporations, subchapter S corporations, and partnerships with assets greater than $10 million. Most of these businesses employ a large number of employees and their business affairs involve complex accounting principals and tax laws. Second, the Division deals with individual international tax compliance, including offshore voluntary disclosures.

Current Organization of the IRS Large Business and International Division

The IRS Large Business and International Division is currently organized into Support Areas (a smaller part of the Division) and Practice Areas.

The Support areas concentrate on supporting the Practice Areas through data analysis and integrated feedback loop (which is a highly important feature that was incorporated into the Division’s reorganization plan in 2015). The Support areas include Headquarters, Program and Business Solutions (including Technology and Program Solutions and Resource Solutions), Compliance Integration (including Data solutions and the highly-important Compliance Planning and Analytics) and Assistant Deputy Commissioner – International.

The second part of the IRS Large Business and International Division is divided into five Practice Areas and four Compliance Practice Areas. The Practice Areas include: (1) Cross Border Activities, (2) Enterprise Activity, (3) Pass-Through Entities, (4) Treaty and Transfer Pricing Operations and (5) Withholding and International Individual Compliance. US international tax compliance concerns are especially important in areas 1, 4 and 5.

The Compliance Practice Areas basically represent a geographical division of the United States into four tax enforcement areas: Central (which consists of North Central and South Central Fields), Eastern (which consists of Great Lakes and Southeast Fields), Northeastern (which includes North-Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic Fields) and, finally, Western (which includes West and Southwest Fields).

The IRS Large Business and International Division Reorganization Now Entered Into the Second Phase

Since January 31, 2017, the IRS Large Business and International Division reorganization commenced the second phase with the enaction of the first thirteen issue-based IRS Compliance Campaigns. These campaigns represent a new approach to tax enforcement that is believed to fit best the new administrative structure of the division. In the near future, Sherayzen Law Office will update its website with articles dedicated to this important new development.

US Airspace and the Definition of the United States | US Tax Lawyers

/0 Comments/in , /by

This article is a continuation of a recent series of articles on the exploration of the definition of the United States. As it was mentioned in a prior article, the general definition of the United States found in IRC § 7701(a)(9) has numerous exceptions throughout the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”). The US airspace is another example of such exceptions. In this article, I would like to outline some of the ways in which the borders of the United States are defined in the context of the US airspace.

General Tax Definition of the United States Does Not Mention US Airspace

The general tax definition of the United States is found in IRC § 7701(a)(9). According to IRC § 7701(a)(9), the United States is comprised of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and the territorial waters. There is no mention of the US airspace.

This, of course, does not mean that US airspace never constitutes part of the United States. Rather, as I had explained it in a prior article, one needs to look at the specific tax provisions and determine if there is a special definition of the United States that applies to them.

Examples of Various IRC Provisions Including and Excluding US Airspace from the Definition of the United states

Indeed, there is a rich variety of treatment of US airspace that can be found within the IRC. Here, I will just mentioned three examples that demonstrate how differently the IRC provisions define the United States with respect to its airspace.

1. There is an esoteric but important IRC § 965 which deals with the Dividends Received deduction for repatriated corporate earnings. IRS Notice 2005-64 provides foreign tax credit guidance under IRC § 965 and specifically follows the general definition of the United States with the addition of the Continental Shelf. Then, the Notice states: “the term ‘United States’ does not include possessions and territories of the United States or the airspace over the United States and these areas”. Thus, the US airspace is excluded from the tax definition of the United States under IRC § 965.

2. The treatment of the US airspace is the opposite for the purposes of the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion (“FEIE”). Since FEIE allows a taxpayer to exclude only “foreign” earned income, the tax definition of the United States is crucial for this part of the IRC.

In general, the courts have ruled that the airspace over the United States is included within the definition of the United States with respect to IRC § 911. This means that, if you are flying over the United States, you are considered to be within the United States for the purposes of FEIE.

3. When we are dealing with the analysis of whether an individual is a US tax resident under the Substantial Presence Test, we are again back to the same situation as in example 1 – the US airspace is not included in the definition of the United States.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Legal and Tax Help

Sherayzen Law Office is a premier international tax law firm that helps individuals and businesses with US tax compliance, including Offshore Voluntary Disclosures. We can help you with any US international tax law issues.

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!