Posts

IRS Increases Interest Rates for the Second Quarter of 2016

/0 Comments/in , /by

On March 16, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service announced that interest rates have increased for the second quarter of 2016, which began on April 1, 2016 and ends on June 30, 2016. The second quarter of 2016 IRS interest rates will be:

four (4) percent for overpayments [three (3) percent in the case of a corporation];
one and one-half (1.5) percent for the portion of a corporate overpayment exceeding $10,000;
four (4) percent for underpayments; and
six (6) percent for large corporate underpayments.

The increase in the IRS interest rates for the second quarter of 2016 is the first such increase since the fourth calendar quarter of 2010. The second quarter of 2016 interest rates are computed from the federal short-term rate determined during January 2016 and went into effect Feb. 1, 2016, based on daily compounding. The federal short-term rate has increased from 0% to 1%. This is the first change to the interest rates since the fourth calendar quarter of 2010 when the federal short-term rate decreased from 1% to 0%.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, the rate of interest for the second quarter of 2016 is determined on a quarterly basis. For taxpayers other than corporations, the overpayment and underpayment rate is the federal short-term rate plus 3 percentage points.

Generally, in the case of a corporation, the underpayment rate is the federal short-term rate plus 3 percentage points and the overpayment rate is the federal short-term rate plus 2 percentage points. The rate for large corporate underpayments is the federal short-term rate plus 5 percentage points. The rate on the portion of a corporate overpayment of tax exceeding $10,000 for a taxable period is the federal short-term rate plus one-half (0.5) of a percentage point.

It is important to note that the increase in the interest rates for the second quarter of 2016 directly affects the calculation of PFIC interest.

Outbound Foreign Trust: An Introduction

/0 Comments/in , /by

One of the most fundamental distinctions in US foreign trust law is the difference between an inbound foreign trust and an outbound foreign trust. This distinction was emphasized by the landmark piece of legislation “The Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996″ and should be clearly understood by US tax lawyers as well as US grantors and US beneficiaries of a foreign trust.

Definition of an Outbound Foreign Trust

In order for a foreign trust to be deemed “outbound”, two conditions must be satisfied. First, the trust was created through the transfer of assets by a US person. Second, the trust must be a foreign trust or a domestic trust that later became a foreign trust.

Obviously, a transfer by a foreign person of exclusively foreign assets to a foreign trust which has only foreign beneficiaries is completely irrelevant because there is no nexus with the United States (hence, the foreign trust is not subject to taxation in the United States).

Two Areas of Special Importance of an Outbound Foreign Trust

There are two particular areas of special interest for international tax lawyers with respect to an outbound foreign trust. First, the grantor trust rule under IRC (Internal Revenue Code) Section 679. In general, where a US grantor transfers property to a foreign trust, IRC Section 679 taxes the US grantor as the owner of any portion of a foreign trust attributable to the transferred property in any year in which the trust has a US beneficiary. This is a complex rule that deserves special treatment in a separate article.

The second area of special importance with respect to outbound foreign trusts is the taxation of the transfer of appreciated assets to a nongrantor foreign trust under IRC Section 684 and the excise tax under the already-repealed IRC Sections 1491-1494. Again, this is a topic that should be discussed in a separate article; I just wanted the readers to be aware of the existence of this rule.

Obviously, there are other highly important tax issues associated with an outbound foreign trust, but these issues are usually discussed in conjunction with an inbound foreign trust, taxation of foreign trusts in general, or they are similar to taxation of US domestic trusts.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Respect to US Taxation of an Outbound Foreign Trust

The US tax issues associated with foreign trusts in general and an outbound foreign trust in particular are immensely complex. This is why, if you are a US person who is considered to be an owner or a beneficiary of an outbound foreign trust, you should contact Sherayzen Law Office for help with your US tax compliance and planning with respect to this outbound foreign trust.

Contact US Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Minneapolis International Tax Attorney: Geography in Retainer Choice

/in , /by

If you were to search “Minneapolis international tax attorney”, Sherayzen Law Office, PLLC (which is based in Minneapolis) is likely to come out on the first page together with other Minneapolis international tax attorneys. The question is: should the geographical proximity of an attorney play a role in the retainer decision?

The answer depends on many factors. On the one extreme, if you are looking for a criminal law attorney in a murder case, then you may not have a choice but to find a local attorney. This is because local law and procedure would govern in this case, and only an attorney admitted to practice before the court of a local jurisdiction should handle the case. Of course, even in this case, there are exceptions because, sometimes, the unique qualities of an outside attorney are so desirable by the client that the court may accede in temporarily admitting this outside lawyer to practice just for one case.

If you are searching for a Minneapolis international tax attorney because you have undeclared offshore assets, then the pendulum swings to other extreme. Here, the knowledge of local law and procedure are likely to be of very little value. Instead, the experience and knowledge of an attorney in his area of practice (i.e. international tax law) will become the overriding factors in retaining an international tax attorney.

If you live in Minneapolis and you find a Minneapolis international tax attorney, then consider two other factors before hiring the attorney. First, international tax attorneys differ in their natural ability to identify problems and find solutions, creativity, advocacy and many other factors. Therefore, have a consultation with your Minneapolis international tax attorney before retaining him.

Second, in addition to differences in personal qualities, the experience of the international tax attorney in the international tax sub-area that you need and the ability to analyze the specific subject matter in the broader context are very important factors in retaining the attorney and should override the attorney’s particular geography.

Of course, the best outcome would be to find the international tax attorney in Minneapolis who you trust and who satisfies both issues above.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office Minneapolis International Tax Attorney for Help With International Tax Issues

If you have any international tax issues with respect to undeclared foreign assets, international tax compliance or international tax planning, contact the experienced international tax firm of Sherayzen Law Office for comprehensive legal and tax help.

Significance of Income Source Rules in International Tax Law

/in , /by

When dealing with the international transactions, the United States tax law usually divides income into two broad categories: foreign source income and the U.S. source income. The determination of whether the income is foreign or U.S. in origin depends on a set of rules – the source-of-income rules – created by Congress, elaborated by the U.S. Treasury regulations, refined in courts, and further modified by the international treaties. While jurisdictional in nature, the income source rules are fundamentally and critically important to the understanding and operation of international transactions, primarily because these rules generate real operational consequences that affect a variety of substantive U.S. tax provisions. For the purposes of this essay, these consequences may be classified according to the grouping of the affected taxpayers.

The first set of such taxpayers are U.S. citizens, residents and domestic corporations subject to foreign tax on their income. The income source rules are crucial for these taxpayers because the U.S. foreign tax credit is available only if the foreign taxes are paid on the foreign source income. Hence, foreign taxes paid on the U.S. source income are not available to offset U.S. income tax liability. For example, suppose that a U.S. corporation earns income in the United Kingdom, which under the U.S. tax rules and relevant treaties is considered to be U.S. source income. If the U.K. authorities tax this income, the U.S. corporation will not be able to credit these taxes against the U.S. tax liability. Thus, the unfortunate result in this situation is double-taxation of the same income (note, however, that a deduction may be available to the U.S. corporation).

The other set of affected taxpayers is comprised of the nonresident aliens and foreign corporations. For this group, the impact of income source rules is two-fold. First, with respect to the business income, only U.S. source income may be regarded as effectively connected income and subject to the U.S. taxation. Hence, if the income is not a U.S. source income, then it cannot be considered as effectively connected income, thereby avoiding taxation by the U.S. government, unless the exception under I.R.C. §871(c)(4) applies. Under this exception, where certain types of income (such as dividends, interest, rents, royalties, sale of personal property, et cetera) are attributed to the nonresident alien’s (or foreign corporation’s) U.S. office or other fixed place of business, the income is regarded as effectively connected income and may be subject to the U.S. taxation.

Second, in case of non-business (usually, investment) income, the 30 percent withholding tax may be imposed only on U.S. source income. If, however, the income is considered by the U.S. tax authorities to be foreign source income, then no such tax may be imposed. For example, if a French investor receives interest that is deemed not to be U.S. source income, then the withholding tax will not be imposed.

Thus, based on the analysis above, the enormous importance of the income source rules in structuring international transactions becomes apparent. Obviously, for the purposes of illustrating their significance, I simplified this discussion into a simple domestic versus foreign dichotomy. The reality may quickly become much more complex when one takes into account various variations with respect to U.S. territories, certain types of income and/or transactions, politically-motivated exceptions regarding some foreign countries, and modification of the rules by bilateral tax treaties.

It should be remembered, however, that while they contain many traps and dangers for the unwary, the income source rules may provide excellent opportunities for beneficial and responsible tax planning.