Posts

Foreign Inheritance Tax Attorney Minneapolis | International Tax Lawyer Minnesota

/in , , /by

Receiving a foreign inheritance may open a litany of US international tax compliance obligations. Therefore, one of the first things you should do is to seek the help of an international tax attorney who specializes in foreign inheritance reporting.  If you reside in Minneapolis, Minnesota, you need to look for a Foreign Inheritance Tax Attorney Minneapolis. You will find that Sherayzen Law Office Ltd. is very likely to be the perfect fit for you.

Foreign Inheritance Tax Attorney Minneapolis: Why Foreign Inheritance is So Important to Your US international Tax Compliance

There are two main reasons why receiving a foreign inheritance may be a critical event for your US international tax compliance. First, receiving a foreign inheritance means that you have additional assets, income and transactions to report to the IRS.  The way that US international tax law works, it means that it is usually more than just one requirement is triggered. Rather, it may be a set of issues and reporting obligations that require an experienced international tax attorney to resolve them correctly. 

The multitude and complexity of issues can be fairly large: from the reporting of the foreign inheritance itself, income recognition, transfer of cash/assets to the United States to additional reporting requirements concerning newly acquired foreign assets and offshore voluntary disclosures involving prior noncompliance. You should keep in mind that noncompliance with these requirements may result in the assessment of high IRS penalties.

The second reason why a foreign inheritance is so important and so dangerous is the relative complacency with respect to and even complete nonrecognition of the potential US tax consequences of receiving a foreign inheritance with all of the multitude of issues to which I alluded above.  The problem is not just that many US taxpayers are completely ignorant of the fact that a foreign inheritance may require extensive US tax compliance. Even worse, many taxpayers erroneously but ardently believe that a foreign inheritance is something completely unrelated to the United States and should not have any US tax consequences. At best, they may focus on Form 3520 reporting while overlooking the complexity of the rest of the issues involved in receiving a foreign inheritance.

This is precisely why I highly recommend consulting an international tax lawyer with extensive experience in foreign inheritance US tax reporting, such as Sherayzen Law Office, if you have received or about to receive a foreign inheritance.

Foreign Inheritance Tax Attorney Minneapolis: International Tax Lawyer

I just mentioned that you need to seek the help of an international tax attorney rather than just a foreign inheritance tax attorney.  Why is that?

The answer is simple: a foreign inheritance attorney is first and foremost an international tax lawyer – i.e. a lawyer with profound knowledge of and extensive experience in US international tax law, particularly in the area of US international tax compliance. This means that a lawyer must be familiar with such common US international tax forms as Form 3520 (critically important for foreign inheritance reporting) and Form 8938.  He must also understand and be able to identify related US international tax compliance forms such as Forms 3520-A, 5471, 8858, 8865 cetera.  Of course, every US international tax lawyer must be very familiar with FinCEN Form 114 commonly known as FBAR.

In addition to these information returns, an international tax lawyer must be familiar with all types of foreign income reporting.  This requirement includes the knowledge of foreign rental income, PFIC compliance, GILTI income, capital gains concerning foreign real estate, et cetera.

Sherayzen Law Office is a highly experienced international tax law firm with respect to all of these income tax and information return requirements, including specifically all of the aforementioned forms.

Foreign Inheritance Tax Attorney Minneapolis: Tax Planning

It is highly prudent to engage in tax planning concerning a foreign inheritance. This is important not only for the purpose of limiting future tax burdens, but also to control future US tax compliance costs.  

Sherayzen Law Office has extensive experience in foreign inheritance US tax planning for its clients in Minneapolis and all over the world.  We also have a highly valuable experience of combining income tax planning with offshore voluntary disclosures.

Foreign Inheritance Tax Attorney Minneapolis: Offshore Voluntary Disclosures

Perhaps you learned late about your US international tax compliance requirements concerning foreign inheritance. In fact, this is a very common situation. In this case, you will find yourself in a very uncomfortable position of facing potentially multiple high IRS penalties for multiple violations of US international tax law.

For this reason, your foreign inheritance tax attorney must also have a profound understanding of the IRS voluntary disclosure options. In fact, in my experience, a discussion of a foreign inheritance often leads to the identification of past US international tax noncompliance and the immediate discussion of IRS offshore voluntary disclosure to remedy past noncompliance.

Offshore Voluntary Disclosures is a core area of our international tax practice at Sherayzen Law Office. We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers worldwide, including in Minneapolis, to bring their tax affairs into full compliance with US tax laws. This work included the preparation and filing of all kinds of offshore voluntary disclosures including: SDOP (Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures), SFOP (Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures), DFSP (Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures), DIIRSP (Delinquent International Information Return Submission Procedures), et cetera.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Foreign Inheritance Tax Help

Sherayzen Law Office is an international tax law firm that specializes in US international tax compliance, including foreign inheritance reporting.  We have helped numerous clients around the world with their foreign inheritance US tax compliance. We can help you! Hence, if you are looking for a Foreign Inheritance Tax Attorney Minneapolis, contact us now to schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

§318 Option Attribution | International Tax Lawyers United States

/in , /by

A previous article defined “option” for the purposes of the IRC (Internal Revenue Code) §318(a)(4). Today, I will discuss the main §318 option attribution rule.

§318 Option Attribution: Main Rule

Under §318(a)(4), “if any person has an option to acquire stock, such stock shall be considered as owned by such person.” For the purposes of §318 option attribution rules, an option to acquire an option to acquire stock is also considered an option to acquire stock. Id. It does not matter whether the option to acquire an option is granted by the corporation or by a shareholder.

Additionally, a series of options to acquire an option to acquire stock is considered an option to acquire stock Id.; in other words, the owner of a series of options is the constructive owner of the stock. That is the subject of this series.

Let’s use the following example to illustrate §318 option attribution: A and B each own 10 shares in X, a C-corporation; A has an option to acquire 5 shares of X owned by B; A also has an option to acquire an option to acquire B’s other 5 shares of X; finally, A has an option to acquire 5 unissued shares of X. The issue is: how many shares does A own?

By applying the rules above, A would actually and constructively own a total of 25 shares: 10 shares that he actually owns and 15 shares the he constructively owns under §318(a)(4) (all 10 shares of X owned by B plus 5 unissued shares of X).

§318 Option Attribution: Special Case of Convertible Debentures

Pursuant to Rev. Rul. 68-601, an owner of a convertible debenture (i.e. a debenture that can be converted into stock of a corporation) is deemed to be in the same position as a an option owner for the purposes of §318(a)(4) as long as he has the right to obtain the stock at his election. In other words, an owner of such a convertible debenture is a constructive owner of the stock into which the debenture can be converted.

Moreover, by drawing an analogy to the main §318 option attribution rule, an option to acquire a convertible debenture would be treated in the same manner under §318 as an option to acquire an option to acquire stock. Hence, the owner of an option to acquire a convertible debenture is a constructive owner fo the stock into which this debenture can be converted.

§318 Option Attribution vs. §318 Family Member Attribution

There are certain situations where stocks may be attributed to an individual under both, §318(a)(1) (i.e. family attribution rules) and the §318(a)(4) (i.e. option attribution rules). Since there are differences in legal effect, it is important to understand which rule governs in such situations.

Under §318(a)(5)(D), §318 option attribution supercedes the §318 family attribution. In other words, where an individual is deemed to be a constructive owner of shares under both rules, only the §318 option constructive ownership rules will apply to him.

This primacy of option attribution over family attribution may have a highly important tax impact in certain situations, such as the tax treatment of redemption of stock by a corporation. Let’s analyze an example to illustrate the disparate impact of these two attribution rules in the context of the §302(c)(2) waiver.

Let’s use the following hypothetical situation: W, an individual, owns 10 shares of X, a C-corporation; her husband, H, owns the remaining 40 shares of X; W has an option to purchase all of H’s shares of X. W redeems all l0 shares of X with the idea to establish a complete termination of her interest in the corporation once she waives the attribution of H’s shares to her by using the §302(c)(2) waiver (we assume here that she also fulfills all other requirements under §302). Will this strategy work in this case?

The answer is no. The problem is that the waiver under §302(c)(2) is available only for attribution from a family member. While it is true that W is a constructive owner of H’s 40 shares by the operation of family attribution rules, she is also the constructive owner of the same shares under the §318 option attribution rules. Since option attribution supercedes family attribution, she cannot use the §302 waiver. This means that W cannot establish a complete termination of her interest in X and the redemption of her 10 stocks will be treated as a dividend (with no cost-basis offset against the proceeds) as opposed to a sale.

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

If you own foreign assets, including foreign business entities, you have the daunting obligation to meet all of your complex US international tax compliance requirements; otherwise, you may have to face the wrath of the IRS in the form of high noncompliance penalties. In order to successfully meet your US international tax compliance obligations, you need the professional help of Sherayzen Law Office.

We are an international tax law firm that specializes in US international tax compliance and offshore voluntary disclosures. We have successfully helped hundreds of US taxpayers worldwide with their US international tax compliance, and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Noncompetition Agreement Income Sourcing | International Tax Lawyer

/in , /by

Oftentimes, as part of their noncompetition agreement, a taxpayer may receive income for restraining from competing with another party in certain areas. An issue often arises with respect to international noncompetition agreement income sourcing rules – i.e. should the income paid as part of such a noncompetition agreement be considered US-source income or foreign-source income? Let’s explore the answer to this question in this essay.

Noncompetition Agreement Income Sourcing: General Rule

The general rule with respect to income sourcing for noncompetition agreements was settled in the distant year 1943. In that year, the Tax Court held that the source of income from a noncompetition agreement is the location of the forbearance. Korfund Co., Inc. v. Commissioner, 1 T.C. 1180, 1187 (1943). In other words, income received from an agreement not to compete is deemed to be income earned in a place where the agreement prohibits the taxpayer from competing.

The reasoning of the Tax Court is clearly laid out in its opinion. The Court stated that the rights that a party enjoys from the noncompetition agreement “were interests in property in [the] country [of forbearance]. … The situs of the right was in the United States, not elsewhere, and the income that flowed from the privileges was necessarily earned and produced here. … These rights were property of value and the income in question was derived from the use thereof in the [country of forbearance].” Id.

In 1996, in its Field Service Advice, the IRS restated its commitment to the position adopted by the Tax Court in Korfund: “income from covenants not to compete covering areas outside of the United States is foreign source income because the income from a covenant covering areas outside the United States is from the use of a property right outside the United States.” 1996 FSA LEXIS 191, *5 (I.R.S. August 30, 1996).

Noncompetition Agreement Income Sourcing: Apportionment

What if a noncompetition agreement covers both, part of the United States and a foreign country? In this case, the IRS is likely to take a position that an apportionment of some sort is necessary. In other words, only part of the income will be deemed as US-source income, while the rest will be considered foreign-source income.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With Noncompetition Agreement Income Sourcing

If you are dealing with an international noncompetition agreement, you should contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with US international tax compliance. Our firm has helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world with their US international tax issues. We Can Help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Minsk Seminar Conducted by US International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

On June 9, 2017, Mr. Eugene Sherayzen, an international tax attorney and owner of Sherayzen Law Office, was the keynote speaker at a seminar “Introduction to U.S. Tax Compliance for U.S. Citizens and Green Card Holders Residing and Doing Business in Belarus” in Minsk, Republic of Belarus (the “Minsk Seminar”). The attorney conducted the entire Minsk Seminar in Russian, because he speaks this language fluently.

The Minsk Seminar was presented before the Minsk City Lawyer’s Association. It was a historic event, because it appears that this was the very first time that a practicing US international tax attorney conducted a seminar on this topic in Minsk. The Minsk Seminar was well-attended by close to 25-30 persons (despite the fact that it was conducted on a Friday afternoon); it appears that virtually all attendees were practicing lawyers in Minsk.

Mr. Sherayzen decided to make his presentation as broad as possible, but attended to details only as necessary. As a result, this more than two-hour presentation covered the main topics concerning US international tax reporting requirements of a U.S. citizen living and/or doing business in Belarus.

The tax attorney started the Minsk Seminar with the definition of a U.S. tax resident, emphasizing that a U.S. citizen and a U.S. Permanent Resident who reside in Belarus should be considered U.S. tax residents. Then, Mr. Sherayzen discussed the worldwide income reporting requirement and broadly covered various topics concerning specific income recognition.

The tax attorney continued the Minsk Seminar with an overview of the U.S. international information returns concerning individuals who have foreign assets, including an ownership interest in a foreign business. The severe FBAR penalties caused consternation among the attendees. As part of this discussion, he also explained the common-law concept of a “trust”.

The last part of the Minsk Seminar was devoted to the discussion of the U.S. anti-deferral regimes, such as Subpart F and PFIC rules. Mr. Sherayzen explained the potential tax consequences of income recognition under both of these regimes.

Throughout the Minsk Seminar, the Belarussian attorneys asked many questions and readily engaged in a lively comparison of the Belarussian tax rules to the U.S. tax rules. Overall, it was a very friendly seminar. Mr. Sherayzen looks forward to future presentations on this and other U.S. international tax topics in Eastern Europe.

Employment Income Sourcing | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

Employment income sourcing is a very important tax issue for employees of US corporations sent overseas, employees of foreign corporations stationed in the United States and employees who work in different countries during a tax year. For employees who are tax residents of a foreign country, this issue will determine whether their income will be taxed in the United States; whereas for US tax residents, the source of income rules will determine the amount of the allowable foreign tax credit. In this article, I will focus on the employment income sourcing rules concerning monetary compensation of employees.

Employment Income Sourcing: General Rules

The source of income rules concerning employees are very similar to the rules that apply to self-employment income, but there are some differences. The main rule is that the location where the services are rendered determines whether this is US-source income or foreign-source income. If an employee works in the United States, then his salary would be considered US-source income; if he works in a foreign country, his salary would be sourced to that country. See §§861(a)(3) and 862(a)(3).

If the employer pays for work partly performed in the United States and partly outside of the United States, then the salary needs to be allocated between the countries. Treas. Reg. §1.861-4(b)(2)(ii)(A). The key issue arises here – how does an employee allocate this income between the countries?

Employment Income Sourcing: Time Basis Allocation

The first methodology for allocation of income between the countries is stated directly within the regulations – time basis. Id. Here, the IRS offers two choices to the employees: allocation based on specific number of days working in the United States versus separate time periods.

Under the “number of days” variation, the employee adds together the number of days worked in the United States and the number of days worked in a foreign country, figures out the percentages for each country and sources the income according to the percentage allocation. Treas. Reg. §1.861-4(b)(2)(ii)(F).

Under the “time periods” variation, a tax year is split into distinct time periods: one where employee spends all of his time in the United States and one where employee spends all of his time in a foreign country. The compensation paid in the first period is allocated entirely to the United States, whereas the salary paid in the second time period is considered to be foreign-source income. Id.

Employment Income Sourcing: Multi-Year Compensation

An interesting situation occurs with respect to employees with multi-year compensation contracts. A multi-year contract in this context means a situation where the “compensation that is included in the income of an individual in one taxable year but that is attributable to a period that includes two or more taxable years.” Reg. §1.861-4(b)(2)(ii)(F).

Generally, the employment income sourcing in this case occurs in the following manner: (1) employee first aggregates his total contract compensation for the entire year; (2) then, the employee sums up all of the days worked in the United States and all of the days worked in a foreign country for the period covered by the multi-year contract; and (3) the employee sources the income to the United States based on the number of days worked in the United States vis-a-vis the total number of days worked under the contract; the rest of the income is considered foreign-source income. Id. While this approach is specifically described in the regulations, the regulations also generally refer to the “time basis” allocation. Hence, it appears that an employee may have a choice between the “number of days” approach that was just described and the “time periods” variation.

Employment Income Sourcing: Alternative Basis Sourcing

Employees have the right to disregard completely the time basis approach to employment income sourcing and adopt an alternative basis approach. Treas. Reg. §1.861-4(b)(2)(ii)(C)(1)(i).  An employee can do so as long as he is able to establish that “under the facts and circumstances of the particular case, the alternative basis more properly determines the source of the compensation than a basis described in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) or (B), whichever is applicable, of this section.” Id.

An employee is not the only person who has this right; the IRS also has the right to utilize an alternative basis for employment income sourcing “if such compensation either is not for a specific time period or constitutes in substance a fringe benefit.” Treas. Reg. §1.861-4(b)(2)(ii)(C)(1)(ii). The IRS can do so as long as the “alternative basis determines the source of compensation in a more reasonable manner than the basis used by the individual pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section.” Id.

A taxpayer does not need to obtain the IRS consent in order to use the alternative basis for employment income sourcing. He should, however, keep the records in order to be able to show how his method is better than the time basis approach. TD 9212, 70 FR 40663, 40665 (07/14/2005).

Special requirements apply to employees who received $250,000 or more in compensation and use the alternative basis for employment income sourcing. Not only must such employees answer the relevant questions on Form 1040, but they should also attach a detailed statement to their tax returns. Id. The statement must contain the following information: “(1) The specific compensation income, or the specific fringe benefit, for which an alternative method is used; (2) for each such item, the alternative method of allocation of source used; (3) for each such item, a computation showing how the alternative allocation was computed; and (4) a comparison of the dollar amount of the compensation sourced within and without the United States under both the individual’s alternative basis and the basis for determining source of compensation described in § 1.861-4(b)(2)(ii)(A) or (B).” Id.

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

If you are a US taxpayer who receives foreign-source income and/or has foreign assets, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. Our professional tax team, headed by international tax attorney, Mr. Eugene Sherayzen, has helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world with their US international tax issues. We can help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!