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!

Dividend Income Sourcing | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

One of the most important issues in US international tax law is the sourcing of income – i.e. the determination of whether the income is foreign or domestic for US tax purposes. In this article, I will introduce readers to US tax rules concerning dividend income sourcing (note, I will not be discussing substitute dividends and so-called “fast-pay” stocks as part of this article).

Dividend Income Sourcing: General Rule

Aside from limited exceptions, the source of dividend income is determined by whether the corporation that pays the dividends is foreign or domestic.

Dividend Income Sourcing: Domestic Corporations

Generally, if a US domestic corporation pays a dividend to its shareholders, the income is sourced in the United States. IRC §861(a)(2)(A).

There are three limited exceptions to this general rule, but only the first exception is really relevant at this point. The first exception is found in the complex rules concerning a Domestic International Sales Corporation (“DISC”). Basically, under IRC §861(a)(2)(D), dividends from a DISC are US-source income unless the dividends are attributable to “qualified export receipts”. In other words, if all of the gross income of a DISC satisfies the definition of qualified export receipts, then the entire gross income will be considered as derived from a foreign source. This is the basic rule and there are important exceptions and considerations that must be considered if one engages in a detailed analysis.

The second exception was a dividend paid by a Section 936 corporation. A Section 936 corporation was a special type of a domestic corporation that did business in the US possessions. At this point, the repeal of IRC §936 makes this section largely irrelevant.

Finally, the third exception existed mostly prior to 1987. At that time, if a taxpayer was able to show that 80% of the gross income of the payor corporation for the relevant period of time consisted of foreign-source income, then the dividend was also foreign-source even if it was paid by a domestic corporation. The relevant period of time for making this determination included the three fiscal years of the corporation preceding the year in which the dividend was declared (obviously, if the corporation existed for less than three years, then the period of time was reduced to the number of years the corporation had been in existence). Interestingly, with the exception of mergers and consolidations, the dividends were foreign-source even if the payor corporation filed a consolidated return with an affiliated group which did not meet what was known as the 80/20 rule.

This third exception became largely irrelevant as of January 1, 1987. However, the 80/20 corporations were exempted from tax withholding even as late as prior to 2010. At that time, the Congress finally repealed the 80/20 company rule, though it still left a grandfather clause for it.

Dividend Income Sourcing: Foreign Corporations

Dividend income sourcing with respect to foreign corporations is more complex. Generally, dividends from foreign corporations are considered to be foreign-source income unless 25% or more of the corporation’s gross income for the three years preceding the taxable year (in which the distribution occurred) was from income that was effectively connected with a trade or business in the United States. This is the so-called “25% exception”.

If the 25% threshold is satisfied, then the dividend is apportioned according to the percentage of the corporation’s income effectively connected to the United States versus foreign-source income. This rule obviously affects the ability of a US person to take full foreign tax credit.

Now, let’s look at the 25% exception from the perspective of a foreign person receiving a dividend from a foreign corporation. Again, if a foreign dividend was paid to a foreign person from a company that did not satisfy the 25% exception, then no part of the dividend was sourced to the United States. If, however, the 25% exception was satisfied, then a foreign person had US-source income according to the apportionment rule described above. In other words, a foreign dividend paid from a foreign company to a foreign individual may result in US-source income even though none of these persons are US tax residents!

Moreover, prior to 2005, such a foreign individual would have to declare this US-source income in the United States and, theoretically, pay tax on it. Obviously, this was unlikely to happen because either the foreign corporation was subject to the branch profits tax which offset the tax on dividends paid by the corporation or a tax treaty prevented the taxation of such dividend. Nevertheless, if neither exception applied, a foreign person could find himself in noncompliance with US tax laws (and there was even some litigation on this subject).

When it passed the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, the US Congress finally relented and exempted from US taxation all dividends that fell within the 25% exception and were paid to foreign persons on or after January 1, 2005. IRC §871(i)(2)(D).

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help with Dividend Income Sourcing

Sherayzen Law Office is a highly experienced international tax law firm that specializes in US international tax compliance, offshore voluntary disclosures and international tax planning. Our clients have greatly benefitted from our reliability, profound knowledge of international tax law (including dividend income sourcing), detailed and comprehensive approach to tax compliance and creative ethical tax planning (even during offshore voluntary disclosures). We can help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Nine Swiss AEOI Agreements in Force Since January 1 2017 | FATCA Lawyer

/0 Comments/in , /by

Switzerland has recently become one of the most active countries with respect to expanding its network of automatic exchange of information agreements (Swiss AEOI Agreements). In fact, since January 1, 2017, nine Swiss AEOI Agreements entered into force.

Nine Swiss AEOI Agreements

All of the Swiss AEOI Agreements were signed via exchange of notes in late 2016 and entered into force from January 1, 2017. All of the Swiss AEOI Agreements were signed based on the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters (Protocol 10) in accordance with OECD CRS (common reporting standard). OECD CRS is the OECD version of FATCA.

Let’s list out the countries with which Swiss AEOI Agreements were signed in late 2016. They can be divided into two groups: the October Group and the December group.

The October Group includes Guernsey, Iceland, Isle of Man, Jersey, Norway and South Korea. All of the agreements were signed via an exchange of notes dated October 26, 2016 and October 28 (Iceland), November 1 (Jersey), November 10 (Guernsey), November 16 (South Korea), December 5 (Isle of Man) and December 13 (Norway).

The December Group includes Japan-Switzerland agreement signed via exchange of notes on December 8, 2016; Australia-Switzerland agreement that was signed via an exchange of notes dated December 8, 2016, and December 14, 2016; and Canada-Switzerland AEOI that was signed via an exchange of notes dated December 9, 2016, and December 22, 2016.

Indirect Impact of Swiss AEOI Agreements on US Taxpayers

This expansion of the information exchange network through Swiss AEOI Agreements poses an additional danger of the IRS detection of tax noncompliance by US taxpayers.

Why? The answer is simple – each of the countries that signed Swiss AEOI Agreements must also comply with its FATCA obligations with respect to US taxpayers. As the information exchange traffic increases through Swiss AEOI Agreements, there is a higher probability that FATCA-related information may be accidentally uncovered and transmitted to one of the Parties to the Swiss AEOI Agreements. Then, this Party may turn over this information to the IRS through FATCA reporting or an automatic exchange of information agreement with the IRS (present or future).

Therefore, US taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts in Australia, Canada, Guernsey, Iceland, the Isle of Man, Japan, Jersey, Norway, South Korea and Switzerland are at an increased risk of the IRS detection and should immediately consult with an experienced international tax law firm with respect to their voluntary disclosure options.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With Offshore Voluntary Disclosures Concerning Foreign Assets and Foreign Income

If you have undisclosed foreign assets or foreign income, you should contact Sherayzen Law Office as soon as possible. Sherayzen Law Office is a highly experienced international tax law firm that has helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world to bring their tax affairs into full compliance with US tax laws, while reducing their noncompliance penalties and even lowering their tax liabilities (by utilizing missed opportunities for tax optimization in the years covered by voluntary disclosure). We can help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Taxation of Royalties Ceases Under Estonia-UK Tax Treaty | MN Tax Lawyer

/0 Comments/in , /by

On January 18, 2017, the HM Revenue & Customs announced that the withholding tax on royalties under the 1994 Estonia-UK tax treaty has been eliminated retroactively as of October 16, 2015.

Under the original Estonia-UK tax treaty, the rates had been 5 percent for industrial, commercial, and scientific equipment royalties and 10 percent in other cases. However, paragraph 7 of the Exchange Notes to the Treaty contains the Most Favoured Nation” (MFN) provision relating to royalties (Article 12). Under the MFN provision, UK tax residents only need to pay the lowest tax withholding rate ever agreed by Estonia in a Double-Taxation Treaty (DTA) it later agrees with an OECD member country that was a member when the UK-Estonia tax treaty was signed in 1994.

It turns that Switzerland was an OECD member country in 1994. In 2002, Estonia signed a tax treaty with Switzerland, but the treaty did not impact the UK withholding tax rate at that time. In 2014, however, Estonia and Switzerland signed an amending protocal to the 2002 Estonia-Switzerland tax treaty. Under the protocol, the treaty was revised to provide for only resident state taxation of royalties.

It was this provision in the 2014 protocol to the Estonia-Switzerland tax treaty that triggered the 1994 MFN provision of the Estonia-UK tax treaty. Therefore, when the 2014 protocol entered into force on October 16, 2015, it effectively eliminated tax withholding on royalties not only in Switzerland (wth respect to Estonia), but also in the United Kingdom. While the taxation of royalties under the Estonia-UK tax treaty ceased on October 16, 2015, the HM Revenue & Customs waited for more than a year to announce it on January 18, 2017.

It should be pointed out that MFN provisions, such as the one in Estonia-UK tax treaty, quite often have an important impact throughout the treaty network of a country. This ripple effect of the MFN provisions creates enormous opportunities for international tax planning that is often utilized by international tax lawyers, including US international tax law firms such as Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd.

2017 Tax Filing Season Begins January 23 & Tax Returns due April 18, 2017

/0 Comments/in , /by

On December 12, 2016, the IRS announced today that the 2017 tax filing season (for the tax year 2016) will begin on January 23, 2017. The 2017 tax filing season e-filings will be accepted by the IRS starting that date. The IRS again expects that more than four out of five tax returns will be prepared electronically using tax return preparation software.

2017 Tax Filing Season Deadline is on April 18, 2017

The filing deadline to submit 2016 tax returns will be April 18, 2017 (Tuesday), rather than the usual April 15. The delay is caused by the fact that April 16 falls on a Saturday which would usually move the deadline to the following Monday (April 17). However, April 17 is the Emancipation Day, which is a legal holiday in the District of Columbia, and the final deadline is pushed to April 18, 2017 (under the law, legal holidays in the District of Columbia affect the national filing deadlines).

Early Paper Filing Offers No Advantage in the 2017 Tax Filing Season

Many software companies and tax professionals will begin accepting tax returns before January 23 and then they will submit the returns when the IRS systems open. It is noteworthy to state, however, that the IRS will begin processing paper tax returns only on January 23. Hence, there is no advantage to filing paper tax returns in early January instead of waiting for the IRS to begin accepting e-filed returns.

Some of the 2017 Tax Filing Season Refunds Could Be Affected by the PATH Act

The IRS also reminded the taxpayers that the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act (the PATH Act) will have a direct impact on the timing of some refunds. In particular, the PATH Act requires the IRS to hold refunds that claim Earned Income Tax Credit (“EITC”) and the Additional Child Tax Credit (“ACTC”) until February 15. The hold applies to the entire refund, not just the portion associated with EITC and ACTC. Then, it will take several days for these refunds to be released and processed through financial institutions. With weekends and holidays, the IRS estimates that many taxpayers will not be able to access their refunds until after February 27, 2017.

The idea behind the new law is to protect the taxpayers by giving the IRS more time to detect and prevent tax fraud, which has become a huge headache for the IRS in the past few years.