Posts

Substantial Presence Test | US International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

The substantial presence test is one of the most important legal tests in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), because it determines whether a person is a US tax resident solely by virtue of his physical presence in the United States.  Additionally, this Test is essential to the determination of whether a person is a “US Person” for FBAR and Form 8938 purposes. In this article, I will explain the substantial presence test and highlight its main exceptions.

Substantial Presence Test: The Main Rule

In reality, there are two substantial presence tests; if either test is met, a person is considered to be a US tax resident unless an exception applies.

The first substantial presence test is met if a person is physically present in the United States for at least 183 days during the calendar year. 26 USC §7701(b)(3).  

The second substantial presence test (the so-called “lookback test”) is satisfied if two conditions are met: (1) the person is present in the United States for at least 31 days during the calendar year; and (2) the sum of the days on which this person was present in the United States during the current and the two preceding calendar years (multiplied by the fractions found in §7701(b)(3)(A)(ii)) equals to or exceeds 183 days. 26 USC 7701(b)(3)(A).  

Let’s discuss how exactly the lookback test works.  The way to determine to determine whether the 183-day test is met is to add: (a) all days present in the United States during the current calendar year (i.e. the year for which you are trying to determine whether the Substantial Presence Test is met) + (b) one-third of the days spent in the United States in the year immediately preceding the current year + (c) one-sixth of the days spent in the United States in the second year preceding the current calendar year. See 26 USC §7701(b)(3).

Substantial Presence Test: Presence

As one can easily see, a critical issue in the substantial presence test is to determine during which days a person is considered to be “present in the United States”. Pursuant to 26 USC §7701(b)(7)(A), a person is considered to be present in the United States if he is physically present in the United States at any time, however short, during the day, including the days of arrival and departure.

There are limited exceptions under 26 USC §§7701(b)(7)(B) and 7701(b)(7)(C) for: commuters from Canada and Mexico, foreign vessel crew members and persons who travel between two foreign countries with a less than a 24-hour layover in the United States.

Substantial Presence Test: Exempt Persons

In addition to the exceptions above, the Internal Revenue Code contains a large number of categories of persons exempt from the Substantial Presence Test. 26 USC §§7701(b). In other words, the days that these “exempt persons” spend in the United States do not count toward the Substantial Presence Test. Here is a most common list of exempt persons:

Foreign government-related individuals and their immediate family (26 USC §7701(b)(5)(B))

Teachers and trainees and their immediate family (26 USC §7701(b)(5)(C))

Foreign students on F-, J-, M- or Q-visas (26 USC §7701(b)(5)(D))

Professional athletes temporarily in the US for charitable sporting events (26 USC §7701(b)(5)(A)(iv))

Individuals unable to leave the US due to medical conditions (26 USC §7701(b)(3)(D)(ii))

A couple of notes on these categories. First, for the “professional athletes who are temporarily present in the United States to compete in a charitable sporting event” category, the sports event must meet the following requirements for the exemption to apply: (1) it must be organized primarily to benefit §503(c)(3) tax-exempt organization; (2) the net proceeds from the event must be contributed to the benefitted tax-exempt organization; and (3) the event must be carried out substantially by volunteers.

Second, concerning the last category “foreign aliens who are unable to leave the United States because of a medical condition”, Rev. Proc. 2020-20 expanded this medical condition exception to include “COVID-19 Medical Condition Travel Exception” for eligible individuals unable to leave United States during “COVID-19 Emergency Period”. The term COVID-19 Emergency Period is a single period of up to 60 consecutive calendar days selected by an individual starting on or after February 1, 2020 and on or before April 1, 2020 during which the individual is physically present in the United States on each day. An Eligible Individual may claim the COVID-19 Medical Condition Travel Exception in addition to, or instead of, claiming other exceptions from the substantial presence test for which the individual is eligible.

Substantial Presence Test: “Closer Connection” Exception

In addition to exceptions and exemptions listed above, there is one more highly important exception to the Substantial Presence Test called the “Closer Connection” Exception. Under 26 USC §§7701(b)(3)(C), a person is exempt from the application of the Substantial Presence Test if the following four conditions are met:

1) the person is present less than 183 days in the United States during the current year;

2) the person can establish that, during the current year, he had a tax home in a foreign country (obviously, “tax home” is a term of art that has its special significance for the purposes of the “closer connection” exception;

3) the person has a “closer connection” to that foreign country than to the United States; and

4) the person has not applied for a lawful permanent residency status in the United States.

I have addressed the Closer Connection Exception in detail here.

Substantial Presence Test:  Tax Treaty Exception

Tax treaties provide another exception. IRC §7701(b)(6) and Treas. Reg. §301.7701(b)-7 provide that an individual who meets the substantial presence test but is a resident of a treaty country under a tie-breaker provision of an income tax treaty may elect to be treated as a nonresident alien for US tax purposes. This election is made on Form 8833, Treaty-Based Return Position Disclosure.

It’s important to note that while this treaty election can significantly affect an individual’s US tax obligations, it does not negate the fact that the individual met the substantial presence test. This distinction is crucial for certain reporting requirements, such as FBAR and Form 8938.

Substantial Presence Test: Closer Connection Exception and Treaty Election vs. FBAR

One of the most common pitfalls of US international tax compliance relates to a situation where the substantial presence test is met but either a closer connection exception is claimed or an election is made to be taxed as a resident of another country.  In such a situation, even many practitioners incorrectly conclude that the taxpayer is not required to file FBAR.  This is not the case; even where a tax treaty foreign tax residency election or a closer connection exception claim is made, the taxpayer may still need to file an FBAR. 76 Fed. Reg. 10,234, 10,238; IRM 4.26.16.2.1.2(6) (11-06-15).

I will discuss this FBAR exception to the closer connection and tax treaty exceptions in another article.

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

Understanding the nuances of the US international tax law, including the Substantial Presence Test with its numerous exceptions and its implications for both tax residency and FBAR reporting, is essential for individuals who spend significant time in the United States. Given the complexity of these rules and their potential US tax impact, you need qualified professional help to properly navigate these complex rules.

This is why you need to contact Sherayzen Law Office.  Our international tax team is highly knowledgeable and experienced in this area of law. We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers to determine their US tax residency status, 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!

Form 8938 Filing Thresholds | FATCA Tax Lawyer and Attorney Update

/0 Comments/in , /by

Form 8938 is one of the most important US international tax forms with its own sophisticated penalty structure. Hence, taxpayers should strive to understand when they are required to file the form. In this context, I would like to focus in this essay on the Form 8938 Filing Thresholds.

General Relevant Criteria in the Determination of the Form 8938 Filing Thresholds

There are three most relevant criteria for determining the Form 8938 filing threshold that may apply to a taxpayer: (1) whether the taxpayer is a Specified Individual or a Specified Domestic Entity; (2) the taxpayer’s tax return filing status; and (3) whether the taxpayer resides in the United States or outside of the United States.

I have already described in other articles the criteria for determining whether a taxpayer is a Specified Individual or a Specified Domestic Entity. Hence, for the purposes of this essay, I will assume that the taxpayer satisfies the requirements of one of these categories. Therefore, I will focus solely on the Form 8938 filing thresholds based the filing status and the place of residence.

Form 8938 Filing Thresholds for Unmarried Taxpayers

If a taxpayer files his US tax returns with an unmarried filing status (i.e. “single” or “head of household”) and resides in the United States, he will satisfy the Form 8938 reporting threshold if the total value of the taxpayer’s Specified Foreign Financial Assets (“SFFA”) is more than $50,000 on the last day of the tax year or more than $75,000 at any time during the tax year.

If the unmarried taxpayer resides outside of the United States, then the values would go up to more than $200,000 on the last day of the tax year or more than $300,000 at any time during the tax year.

Form 8938 Filing Thresholds for Taxpayers Whose Filing Status is “Married Filing Jointly”

If a taxpayer files his US tax returns as “married filing jointly” and resides in the United States, he will satisfy the Form 8938 reporting threshold if the total value of his SFFA exceeds $100,000 on the last day of the tax year or more than $150,000 at any time during the tax year. If this taxpayer resides outside of the United States, then the Form 8938 reporting thresholds will increase to more than $400,000 on the last day of the tax year or more than $600,000 at any time during the tax year.

Form 8938 Filing Thresholds for Taxpayers Whose Filing Status is “Married Filing Separately”

If a taxpayer files his US tax returns as “married filing separately”, then his Form 8938 reporting thresholds are going to be the same as those of an unmarried taxpayer.

Form 8938 Filing Thresholds for Specified Domestic Entities

Finally, a Specified Domestic Entity has the same Form 8938 Filing Thresholds as those of an unmarried taxpayer who resides in the United States – i.e. SFFA value must be more than $50,000 on the last day of the tax year or more than $75,000 at any time during the tax year.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With Form 8938

If you were required to file Forms 8938 in the previous years and you have not done so, you may be subject to Form 8938 penalties. In order to avoid or mitigate your Form 8938 penalties, you need to explore your offshore voluntary disclosure options as soon as possible.

Sherayzen Law Office can help You! We are an international tax law firm that specializes in offshore voluntary disclosures of unreported foreign assets and foreign income. We have successfully helped clients from close to 70 countries. You can be next!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Guilty Pleas for Secret Swiss-Israeli Bank Accounts | FATCA Lawyer

/0 Comments/in , /by

On January 18, 2017, three US taxpayers pleaded guilty for hiding millions of dollars in their secret Swiss and Israeli bank accounts (hereinafter “Swiss-Israeli Bank Accounts”) and failing to report these Swiss-Israeli Bank Accounts on their FBARs.

Facts of the Case Involving Secret Swiss-Israeli Bank Accounts

All three defendants are relatives – Mr. Dan Farhad Kalili and Mr. David Ramin Kalili are brothers while Mr. David Shahrokh Azarian is their brother-in-law. They are all residents of Newport Coast, California.

According to the documents filed with the court and statements made in connection with the defendants’ guilty pleas, between May 1996 and 2009, Mr. Dan Kalili opened and maintained several undeclared offshore bank accounts at Credit Suisse and UBS in Switzerland. Similarly, Mr. David Kalili opened and maintained several undeclared accounts at Credit Suisse from February 1999 through at least 2009. He also owned several undeclared accounts at UBS from October 1993 through at least 2008. The brothers also maintained joint undeclared Swiss bank accounts at both UBS and Credit Suisse beginning in 2003 and 2004, respectively.

At the same time, Mr. Azarian opened and maintained several undeclared accounts at Credit Suisse from May 1994 through at least 2009. He also owned several accounts at UBS in Switzerland from April 1997 through at least 2008.

In 2006, we had the appearance of the now famous Ms. Beda Singenberger, a Swiss citizen who owned and operated a financial advisory firm called Sinco Truehand AG. She was indicted in New York on July 21, 2011. The charges were: conspiring to defraud the United States, evade U.S. income taxes, and file false U.S. tax returns. Ms. Singenberger remains a fugitive as of the time of this writing.

In July of 2006, Mr. Dan Kalili, with the assistance of Ms. Singenberger, opened an undeclared account at UBS in the name of the Colsa Foundation, a Liechtenstein entity. As of May 2008, the Colsa Foundation account at UBS held approximately $4,927,500 in assets.

In light of the increased IRS tax enforcement and the UBS case, all three defendants attempted to partially hide their prior ownership of Swiss accounts by moving the assets from one account to another. At the same time, they also tried to legitimize partial ownership of their assets.

Mr. Dan Kalili opened an undeclared account at Swiss Bank A in the name of the Colsa Foundation and in May 2008 and transferred his assets from the UBS Colsa Foundation account to Swiss Bank A. He then made partial disclosure of the Swiss Bank A Colsa account on his individual income tax returns. In 2009, Mr. Dan Kalili opened undeclared accounts at Israeli Bank A and at Bank Leumi, both in Israel. He then closed his joint (with his brother) Credit Suisse account and his own undeclared account and transferred all funds to Israel.

At that time of its closure, the undeclared joint account of Dan and David Kalili at Credit Suisse held approximately $2,561,508 in assets. As of December 2009, Dan Kalili’s undeclared account at Israeli Bank A had the approximate value of $1,569,973 and his undeclared account at Bank Leumi was valued at approximately $2,497,931.

Mr. David Kalili followed almost the same pattern. In August of 2008, he opened an account at Israeli Bank A in Israel and transferred to this account all of his funds from his UBS accounts. He later partially declared the Israeli Bank A account on his individual income tax returns. As of August 2009, Mr. David Kalili’s undeclared account at Israeli Bank A held assets valued at approximately $1,369,489.

Finally, Mr. Azarian also opened an account at Israeli Bank A in Israel in August of 2008. In May of 2009, he closed his Credit Suisse account and transferred all funds to his Israeli account. At the time of its closure, Mr. Azarian’s undeclared account at Credit Suisse held assets valued at approximately $1,903,214.

Neither of the three defendants ever filed an FBAR for their secret Swiss-Israeli Bank Accounts on their FBARs during any of the years 2006-2009.

Criminal and Civil Penalties Imposed For Failure to Declare Foreign Income and Swiss-Israeli Bank Accounts

According to the plea agreements, the criminal and civil penalties were severe. Mr. Dan Kalili, Mr. David Kalili and Mr. Azarian each face a statutory maximum sentence of five years in prison, a period of supervised release and restitution for 2003-2009 tax loss and monetary penalties. The defendants also admitted to committing civil fraud, which exposes them to additional civil fraud penalty.

In addition, each defendant agreed to pay a willful FBAR civil penalty in the amount of 50% of the highest balances of their undeclared Swiss-Israeli Bank Accounts. Mr. Dan Kalili agreed to pay the FBAR penalty of $2,674,329, Mr. David Kalili agreed to pay the FBAR penalty of $1,325,121 and Mr. Azarian agreed to pay the FBAR penalty of $951,607.

Lessons to Be Learned from the Defendants’ Handling of Their Undeclared Swiss-Israeli Bank Accounts

This case is a classical example of what not to do if one wishes to avoid criminal prosecution. Let’s point out five main mistakes which exposed the taxpayers to the IRS criminal prosecution.

The first mistake is obvious – the defendants willfully failed to declare their Swiss-Israeli bank accounts on their FBARs and the income generated by these accounts on their US tax returns.

The deleterious impact of the first mistake was magnified by the usage of an offshore shell corporation to hide the ownership of the Swiss-Israeli bank accounts (while the entity was concerned mostly with Swiss accounts, it was also used to hide the source of funds on the defendants’ Israeli bank accounts).

Third, the defendants engaged in the evasive pattern of opening and closing foreign accounts in various banks in order to hide them from the IRS. The defendants obviously underestimated the IRS ability to track these accounts and ended up giving the IRS additional powerful indirect evidence of intent to evade taxes and the willfulness of their failures to file FBARs.

Fourth, the taxpayers engaged in partial voluntary disclosure outside of any actual voluntary disclosure program. By doing partial disclosure, the taxpayers provided additional evidence to the IRS of their knowledge of the requirement to report foreign income and properly complete Schedule B. At the same time, the fact that their disclosure was only partial further emphasized the willfulness of their prior failure to disclosure foreign income and foreign assets. The readers should remember that a voluntary disclosure must always be accurate and complete; otherwise, the taxpayers simply give the IRS more evidence of willfulness of their tax noncompliance.

Finally, it does not appear that the taxpayers ever considered doing a true voluntary disclosure which could have limited their penalties and prevented the IRS criminal prosecution. One of the first thing that the taxpayers should always consider once they find out about their noncompliance or the possibility of the IRS detection of such noncompliance is to retain an international tax lawyer to review their voluntary disclosure options. The taxpayers failed to do so in this case and paid a very high price.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help with the Voluntary Disclosure of Your Foreign Income and Foreign Assets, including Swiss-Israeli Bank Accounts

If you have undisclosed foreign income and foreign assets, you should contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help as soon as possible. Our international tax law firm has successfully helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world to bring their tax affairs into full compliance with US laws and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

US Income Tax Obligations of Green Card Holders: General Overview

/0 Comments/in , /by

There is a common misconception among Green Card Holders (a common name for US permanent residents) that their US income tax obligations are limited in nature in comparison to US citizens. In this article, I seek to dispel this erroneous myth and provide some general outlines of the US income tax obligations of Green Card Holders.

US Income Tax Obligations of Green Card Holders: Worldwide Income Reporting

I receive a lot of phone calls from Green Card holders who believe that their US income tax reporting obligations are limited only to US-source income (sourcing of income, by the way, is also a very complex subject and I often see egregious mistakes committed even by experienced accountants).

This is not correct. In fact, US permanent residents and US citizens are both considered to be “tax residents of the United States.” US tax residents are required to report their worldwide income on US tax returns and pay US income taxes on foreign-source income (and, obviously, US-source income).

Thus, if you have a Green Card and you have foreign assets (such as foreign bank and financial accounts, foreign businesses, foreign trusts, et cetera), you must report the income from such foreign assets on your US tax returns.

Be careful! You must remember that all foreign income must be reported in US dollars and according to US tax laws. Leaving aside the issue of currency conversion (which is a topic for another article), the reporting of foreign income under US tax laws may be extremely challenging because foreign tax laws may treat this income in a different manner. Let me emphasize this point – the treatment of income under foreign local tax rules may not actually be the same as the treatment of the same income under US tax rules.

For example, Assurance Vie accounts in France may be completely tax-exempt if certain conditions are met. However, the annual income from these accounts must be reported on US tax returns.

Moreover, to make matters worse, these accounts may contain PFIC (Passive Foreign Investment Company) investments which are treated in a very complex and generally unfavorable manner under US tax laws. The calculation of US tax liability in this case may be extremely complex (especially since the French banks are not required to keep the kind of information that is necessary to properly calculation PFIC tax and interest).

US Income Tax Obligations of Green Card Holders: Reporting of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts

As US tax residents, the Green Card holders are also required to disclose their ownership of certain foreign bank and financial accounts to the IRS. Many US permanent residents are shocked to learn about these requirements and the draconian penalties associated with failure to file the required information reports.

The top two bank and financial account reporting requirements are FinCEN Form 114 (known as “FBAR” – the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts) and Form 8938 (which was born out of FATCA). Other forms, such as Form 8621, may apply.

It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss these requirements in detail. However, it is impossible to overstate their importance, especially the FBAR, due to potentially astronomical non-compliance penalties (including criminal penalties). You can find more information about these requirements at sherayzenlaw.com.

US Income Tax Obligations of Green Card Holders: Reporting of Foreign Business Ownership

Many US permanent residents are surprised to find out that they may be required to provide detailed reports about their foreign businesses – corporations, partnerships and disregarded entities. Indeed, Green Card holders may be subject to burdensome and expensive US reporting requirements on Forms 5471, 8865, 926, 8938, et cetera. These forms may require Green Card holders to provide foreign financial statements translated under US accounting standards, including US GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practices).

Again, you can find more information about these requirement at sherayzenlaw.com.

US Income Tax Obligations of Green Card Holders: Reporting of Foreign Trusts

Another complex trap for Green Card Holders is reporting of an ownership or a beneficiary interest in a foreign trust (generally, on Form 3520). This complicated topic is beyond the scope of this article, but you can find more information about these requirements at sherayzenlaw.com.

US Income Tax Obligations of Green Card Holders: Other Reporting Requirements

There are numerous other US income tax obligations of Green Card Holders that may apply. Moreover, US has multiple income tax treaties with various countries which may modify your particular tax situation. In order to fully determine your US tax obligations as a Green Card holder, it is best to consult with an experienced international tax attorney.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Your US Income Tax Obligations

Sherayzen Law Office is a specialized international tax law firm which is highly experienced in helping US Permanent Residents with their US income tax obligations and reporting requirements. One of the unique features of our firm is that our tax team provides both legal and accounting services to our clients throughout the world.

Contact Us Now To Secure Professional Help and Avoid (or Rectify) Costly Mistakes!