Posts

SLO’s 2017 Seminar on Business Lawyers’ International Tax Mistakes

/in , /by

On February 23, 2017, Mr. Eugene Sherayzen, an international tax lawyer and owner of Sherayzen Law Office (“SLO”), conducted a seminar titled “Top 5 International Tax Mistakes Made by Business Lawyers”. The seminar was sponsored by the Corporate Counsel Section and International Business Law Section of the Minnesota State Bar Association.

Mr. Sherayzen commenced the seminar by asking a question about why business lawyers should be concerned with making international tax mistakes. After identifying the main answers, the tax attorney stated that he would focus on the strategic mistakes, rather than any specific U.S. international tax requirements.

Mr. Sherayzen first discussed the Business Purity Trap, a situation where business lawyers view a business transaction as something exclusively within the business law domain and with no relation whatsoever to U.S. tax law. The tax attorney stated that all business transactions have tax consequences, even if the effect is not immediate and there is no actual income tax impact.

Then, Mr. Sherayzen discussed the Tax Dabble Trap. This trap describes a situation where a business lawyer attempts to provide an advice on an international tax issue. The tax attorney explained why business lawyers often fall into this trap and the potentially disastrous consequences this trap may have for the business lawyers’ clients.

The Tax Law Uniformity Trap was the third trap discussed by the tax attorney. One of the most common international tax mistakes that business lawyers (and also many accountants) make is to believe that U.S. domestic tax law and U.S. international tax law are similar. Mr. Sherayzen also pointed out that there is a variation on this trap with respect to foreign owners of U.S. entities.

The discussion of the fourth trap, the Tax Professional Equality Trap, turned out be very fruitful. Mr. Sherayzen drew a sharp distinction between the role played by a general accountant versus the role of an international tax attorney. He also specifically focused on the potentially disastrous consequences the reliance on a domestic accountant may have in the context of offshore voluntary disclosures.

Finally, Mr. Sherayzen discussed the Foreign Exceptionalism Trap. This trap deals with a false belief that certain foreign transactions that occur completely outside of the United States have no tax consequences for the U.S. clients involved in these transactions. Mr. Sherayzen also pointed out that danger of relying solely on foreign accountants and lawyers in this context.

He concluded the seminar with a short examination of another “bonus” tax trap called the Linguistic Uniformity Trap. The description of all tax traps was accompanied by real-life examples from Mr. Sherayzen’s international tax law practice.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional U.S. International Tax Advice to Avoid Costly International Tax Mistakes

If you are a business lawyer who deals with international business transactions or transactions involving tax residents of a foreign country, please contact Sherayzen Law Office to avoid costly international tax mistakes. Our law firm has worked with many business lawyers, helping them to properly structure international business transactions in a way that avoids making international tax mistakes. Remember, it is much easier and cheaper to avoid making international tax mistakes than fixing them later.

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Indian Bank Accounts : Key US Tax Obligations | International Tax Lawyer

/in , /by

Due to ongoing implementation of FATCA as well as the tax reform in India, more and more Indian Americans and US tax residents of Indian nationality are learning that they are required to disclose to the IRS their Indian bank accounts. Yet, there are still many more US taxpayers left who are either completely unaware of this requirement or they are confused with respect to what is required to be disclosed and how. This essay intends to clarify who is required to report their Indian bank accounts to the IRS and explain the most common US international tax requirements applicable to Indian bank accounts.

Indian Bank Accounts: Who Needs to Report Them to the US Government?

All US tax residents with Indian bank accounts need to disclose them to IRS. Warning: “US tax resident” is not equivalent to the immigration concept of “US Permanent Resident”. The confusion over these two concepts is a frequent cause of US tax noncompliance, because many Indian immigrants who come to the United States on a work visa assume that they are not US tax residents since they do not have the status of a US Permanent Resident. This assumption is completely false.

The definition of US tax residency includes US permanent residents, but it is much broader. In general, this term includes: US citizens, US Permanent Residents, any person who satisfied the Substantial Presence Test and any person who declared himself as a tax resident. There are exceptions to this rule, but you will need to consult with an international tax lawyer before making use of any of these exceptions.

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

All US tax residents must comply with the numerous US tax reporting requirements, including the worldwide income reporting requirement. All Indian-source income generated by the Indian bank accounts of US tax residents must be disclosed on their US tax returns.

The worldwide income reporting requirement applies to any kind of income: bank interest income, dividends, capital gains, et cetera. This income should be reported on US tax returns even if it was already disclosed on Indian tax returns or subject to Indian tax withholding. This income should be disclosed in the United States even if it never left India.

Indian Bank Accounts: FBAR

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

FBAR has an extremely severe penalty system, and US taxpayers should strive to do everything in their power to make sure that they comply with this requirement.

Indian Bank Accounts: FATCA Form 8938

US tax residents are also required to disclose their Indian bank accounts on Form 8938. The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”) led to the creation of Form 8938; US taxpayers should have filed their first Forms 8938 with their 2011 US tax returns.

Form 8938 requires US tax residents to report all of their Specified Foreign Financial Assets (“SFFA”) as long as the Form’s filing threshold is met. SFFA includes a very diverse set of financial instruments, including 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. In other words, with the exception of signatory authority accounts, Form 8938 not only duplicates FBAR, but covers a much broader range of financial instruments that would not be required to be reported on FBAR.

It should be pointed out that, even when FBAR and Form 8938 cover the same assets, both forms must be filed despite the duplication of the disclosure.

While Form 8938 has a much higher filing threshold than FBAR, it may still be easily exceeded, especially by taxpayers who reside 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. A lot of US taxpayers with Indian bank accounts easily exceed this threshold, especially if they are helping their parents or buying properties in India.

Finally, it should be remembered that Form 8938 has its own penalty structure for failure to file the form. Furthermore, Form 8938 forms an integral part of a federal tax return; this means that a failure to file the form may extend the IRS Statute of Limitations for an IRS audit indefinitely for the entire return.

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

In this essay, I just listed the most common US tax reporting requirements that may apply to US owners of Indian bank accounts. There is a plethora of other requirements that may apply to these taxpayers.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with your US tax compliance. We have worked extensively with our Indian clients with respect to reporting of their Indian bank accounts, including offshore voluntary disclosure for late filings.

The stakes in international tax compliance are high, and you need to be able to rely on the knowledge, experience and professionalism of Sherayzen Law Office in order to make sure that you protect yourself from draconian IRS tax penalties. 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!

Personal Services Income Sourcing | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

This article continues our series of articles on the source of income rules. Today, I will explain the general rule for individual personal services income sourcing. I want to emphasize that, in this essay, I will focus only on individuals and provide only the general rule with two exceptions. Future articles will cover more specific situations and exceptions.

Personal Services Income Sourcing: General Rule

The main governing law concerning individual personal services income sourcing rules is found in the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) §861 and §862. §861 defines what income is considered to be US-source income while §862 explains when income is considered to be foreign-source income.

The general rule for the individual personal services income is that the location where the services are rendered determines whether this is US-source income or foreign-source income. If an individual performs his services in the United States, then this is US-source income. §861(a)(3). On the other hand, if this individual renders his services outside of the United States, then, this will be a foreign-source income. §862(a)(3).

In other words, the key consideration in income sourcing with respect to personal services is the location where the services are performed. Generally, the rest of the factors are irrelevant, including the residency of the employee, the place of incorporation of the employer and the place of payment.

As always in US tax law, there are exceptions to this general rule. In this article, I will cover only two statutory exceptions; in the future, I will also discuss other exceptions as well as the rule with respect to situations where the work is partially done in the United States and partially in a foreign country.

Personal Services Income Sourcing: De Minimis Exception

IRC §861(a)(3) provides a statutory exception to the general rule above specifically for nonresident aliens whose income meet the de minimis rule. The de minimis rule states that the US government will not consider the services of a nonresident alien rendered in the United States as US-source income as long as the following four requirements are met:

1. The nonresident alien is an individual;

2. He was only temporarily in the United States for a period or periods of time not exceeding a total of 90 days during the tax year;

3. He received $3,000 or less in compensation for his services in the United States; AND

4. The services were performed for either of two persons:

4a. “A nonresident alien, foreign partnership, or foreign corporation, not engaged in trade or business within the United States”. §861(a)(3)(C)(i); OR

4b. “an individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States, a domestic partnership, or a domestic corporation, if such labor or services are performed for an office or place of business maintained in a foreign country or in a possession of the United States by such individual, partnership, or corporation.” §861(a)(3)(C)(ii).

Personal Services Income Sourcing: Foreign Vessel Crew Exception

The personal services income performed by a nonresident alien individual in the United States will not be deemed as US-source income if the following requirements are satisfied:

1. The individual is temporarily present in the United States as a regular member of a crew of a foreign vessel; and

2. The foreign vessel is engaged in transported between the United States and a foreign country or a possession of the United States. See §861(a)(3).

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help Concerning US International Tax Law, Including Personal Services Income Sourcing Rules

Sherayzen Law Office is a leading international tax law firm in the United States that has successfully helped hundreds of US taxpayers with their US international tax compliance issues. 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.