HIDE

Other Publications

Insights

Publications

Missed Opportunities – Tax Court Shows No Mercy for Indirect Partner

Missed Opportunities – Tax Court Shows No Mercy for Indirect Partner

In the U.S., there are several options to challenge an I.R.S. adjustment in the courts, including the U.S. District Court, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and the U.S. Tax Court.  Of the three options, only a challenge in the Tax Court can be pursued without first paying the tax.  Strict time limits are placed on filing a petition to the Tax Court.  If a taxpayer misses the deadline, it must first pay the tax and then sue for refund in either of the other courts.  The petition deadline is easy to determine when the I.R.S. proposes an adjustment to an individual or corporation, but when the adjustment is made to the income of a partnership – which yields tax exposure for partners – it is not always clear when the time limit has run out.  In a recent memorandum decision, the Tax Court ruled that an indirect partner was not able to challenge the tax liability of a partnership because the petition came too late.  In their review of the decision, Rusudan Shervashidze and Nina Krauthamer explain the strange facts involved and point out that the taxpayer did not have “clean hands.”

Read More

New York State Renews the Three-Year Clawback for Gifts

New York State Renews the Three-Year Clawback for Gifts

Generally, Federal estate and gift taxes are imposed on a person’s right to transfer property to another person during life or upon death.  State rules may differ from the Federal regime, imposing either an estate tax, inheritance tax, or gift tax or some combination of these taxes.  New York State limits its taxation to an estate tax on the transfer of property at the time of death.  There is no gift or inheritance tax.  But, as of April 1, 2014, gifts made by a N.Y. resident between April 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018, were clawed back into the taxable estate if the gifts were made within three years of death.  The clawback has been extended to cover gifts made through December 31, 2025.  Rusudan Shervashidze and Nina Krauthamer explain.

Read More

State and Local Tax Credit Programs – Businesses May Get What Individuals Cannot

State and Local Tax Credit Programs – Businesses May Get What Individuals Cannot

Since recent Federal tax law changes have capped the state and local tax deduction for individuals to $10,000, many states have been trying to implement solutions to help alleviate the effects of the change.  New York State has introduced two programs to get around the $10,000 limitation:  New Yorkers can make payments to state charitable programs and receive a credit against N.Y. income tax or, alternatively, use an Employer Compensation Expense Program. Nina Krauthamer and Rusudan Shervashidze look at the back and forth between N.Y. and Federal regulators.

Read More

New Jersey Provides G.I.L.T.I Guidance

New Jersey Provides G.I.L.T.I Guidance

Federal tax law has introduced a new type of gross income: Global Intangible Low Tax Income (“G.I.L.T.I.”).  The provisions are designed to stop U.S. companies from shifting their profits to offshore jurisdictions, and states are given a choice to incorporate parts of Federal law in one of three ways.  New Jersey has chosen “selective conformity.”  Nina Krauthamer and Rusudan Shervashidze explain what this means for the state and for taxpayers.

Read More

F.B.A.R.’s — What You Need to Know

F.B.A.R.’s — What You Need to Know

April 15 is almost here, and while most people know this date as the filing deadline for individual tax returns, it is important to another filing requirement: the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (“F.B.A.R.”).  Although the form has been around since the 1970’s, many people continue to profess ignorance of  its existence.  Others are simply confused about the requirements.  A recent Federal case illustrates the perils of failing to file a required F.B.A.R.  Rusudan Shervashidze and Nina Krauthamer explain that penalties are high, and courts are skeptical about claims of ignorance of the law, especially when taxpayers have accumulated several million dollars placed in an offshore account.

Read More

Who’s Got the B.E.A.T.? Special Treatment for Certain Expenses and Industries

Who’s Got the B.E.A.T.? Special Treatment for Certain Expenses and Industries

Code §59A imposes tax on U.S. corporations with substantial gross receipts when base erosion payments to related entities significantly reduce regular corporate income tax.  The new tax is known as the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (“B.E.A.T.”).  In the second of a two-part series, Rusudan Shervashidze and Stanley C. Ruchelman address (i) the coordination of two sets of limitations on deductions when payments are subject to B.E.A.T. and the Code §163(j) limitation on business interest expense deductions, (ii) the computation of modified taxable income in years when an N.O.L. carryover can reduce taxable income, (iii) application of B.E.A.T. to partnerships and their partners, and (iv) the application of the B.E.A.T. to banks and insurance companies. 

Read More

Who’s Got the B.E.A.T.? A Playbook for Determining Applicable Taxpayers and Payments

   Who’s Got the B.E.A.T.? A Playbook for Determining Applicable Taxpayers and Payments

Code §59A imposes tax on U.S. corporations with substantial gross receipts when base erosion payments to related entities significantly reduce regular corporate income tax. The new tax is known as the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (“B.E.A.T.”). In late December 2019, the I.R.S. proposed regulations that provide guidance for affected taxpayers. The proposed regulations provide a playbook for making required computations including (i) the gross receipts test to determine if the taxpayer meets the $500 million gross receipts requirement, (ii) the base erosion percentage test, (iii) how to apply the tests when a taxpayer is member of an Aggregate Group having members with differing year-ends, (iv) various computations to determine whether a non-cash transaction is considered to be a payment to a related party outside the U.S. or is outside the scope of the B.E.A.T., and (v) other exceptions from the B.E.A.T. In the first of a multi-part series, Rusudan Shervashidze and Stanley C. Ruchelman tell all.

Read More

Attorney-Client Privilege Extends to Accountants Retained by Legal Counsel

Attorney-Client Privilege Extends to Accountants Retained by Legal Counsel

Over time, the attorney-client privilege, which protects information disclosed by a client, has been extended to include certain client communications to accountants retained by legal counsel to provide input regarding the application of accounting rules. However, the privilege does not apply when a client retains the accountant prepare tax returns. In U.S. v. Adams, the I.R.S. challenged the extension of the privilege to an accountant who provided advice to the client’s defense counsel and later prepared U.S. tax returns for the client. The decision likely satisfies neither the I.R.S. nor the taxpayer. Rusudan Shervashidze and Stanley C. Ruchelman explain the I.R.S. challenge and the Solomon-like solution reached by the court.

Read More

Insights Vol. 6 No. 1: Updates & Other Tidbits

Insights Vol. 6 No. 1: Updates & Other Tidbits

This month, Rusudan Shervashidze and Stanley C. Ruchelman look at several interesting items, including (i) the publication of draft legislation by the Crown Dependencies of Guernsey, Jersey, and Isle of Man calling for the existence of economic substance for resident companies engaged in certain businesses and defining what that means, (ii) the denial of benefits incident to foreign earned income for a military contractor in Afghanistan who maintained a place of abode in the U.S., (iii) an increase in fees charged by the I.R.S. to issue residency certificates, (iv) the establishment of a working group to combat transnational tax crime through increased enforcement collaboration among tax authorities in several countries, and (v) changes to China’s residency rules and the sharing of taxpayer financial information under C.R.S. 

Read More

A Deep Dive into G.I.L.T.I. Guidance

A Deep Dive into G.I.L.T.I. Guidance

The I.R.S. has published proposed regulations on the global intangible low-taxed income ("G.I.L.T.I.") regime, which is applicable to those controlled foreign corporations that manage to operate globally without generating effectively connected income taxable to the foreign corporation or Subpart F Income taxable to its U.S. Shareholders. In a detailed article, Rusudan Shervashidze, Elizabeth V. Zanet, and Stanley C. Ruchelman examine the proposed regulations and all their complexity.

Read More

Transition Tax – Proposed Regulations Are Here

Transition Tax – Proposed Regulations Are Here

The I.R.S. has published proposed regulations on Code §965, which requires a U.S. Shareholder to pay income tax on a pro rata share of previously untaxed foreign earnings held in a C.F.C. and certain other foreign corporations. The tax is commonly referred to as the transition tax. It is designed to tax deferred foreign income prior to the transition to a participation exemption system for intercompany dividends from certain foreign corporations. A multi-step computation is required to (i) measure post-1986 E&P, (ii) allocate E&P deficits among affiliated foreign corporations, (iii) calculate the aggregate foreign cash position, (iv) compute allowed deductions, and (v) determine foreign tax credits. Elizabeth V. Zanet, Rusudan Shervashidze, and Beate Erwin detail the required steps as well as special rules applicable to individuals.

Read More

F.A.T.C.A. – Where Do We Stand Today?

F.A.T.C.A. – Where Do We Stand Today?

When F.A.T.C.A. was adopted in 2010, the hoopla from the U.S. Senate promoted the idea that the I.R.S. would become invincible in rooting out recalcitrant Americans not wanting to pay tax and the financial institutions willing to assist them. In principle, information in U.S. tax returns could be compared with F.A.T.C.A. reporting by foreign financial institutions to identify which taxpayers remained offside and which banks had insufficient reporting systems. A recent report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (“T.I.G.T.A.”) concluded that after spending nearly $380 million, the I.R.S. is still not prepared to enforce F.A.T.C.A. compliance. In their article, Rusudan Shervashidze and Nina Krauthamer summarize the principal shortfalls and possible solutions identified by T.I.G.T.A. and which suggested action plans the I.R.S. will contemplate.

Read More

Insights Vol. 5 No. 8: Updates & Other Tidbits

Insights Vol. 5 No. 8: Updates & Other Tidbits

This month, Rusudan Shervashidze, Neha Rastogi, and Nina Krauthamer look at several interesting updates and tidbits, including (i) potential tax reasons for Cristiano Ronaldo’s move to Italy, (ii) a law suit brought by high-tax states against the U.S. Federal government in connection with the T.C.J.A. limitations on deductions for state and local taxes, (iii) the finding of the European Commission that the aid given to McDonalds by the Luxembourg government did not constitute illegal State Aid, and (iv) a successful F.A.T.C.A. prosecution against a former executive of Loyal Bank Ltd.

Read More

Have You Inherited a P.F.I.C.? – What it Means to Be a U.S. Beneficiary

Have You Inherited a P.F.I.C.? – What it Means to Be a U.S. Beneficiary

In today’s global environment, it is not surprising to find that a beneficiary of a foreign estate or trust is living in the U.S. An interest in a foreign trust can be problematic for the beneficiary if the foreign trust invests through a foreign “blocker” corporation that holds passive assets (such as publicly traded stocks and securities) or a foreign mutual fund. These companies can stumble into P.F.I.C. categorization for U.S. tax purposes, which yields sub-optimal tax consequences for the U.S. beneficiary. Rusudan Shervashidze and Nina Krauthamer break down the U.S. tax rules that make a foreign corporation a P.F.I.C., the various ways in which a U.S. investor in a P.F.I.C. will be taxed, and the reporting obligations that are imposed on the U.S. investor in a P.F.I.C.

Read More

Vol. 5 No. 5: Updates and Other Tidbits

Vol. 5 No. 5: Updates and Other Tidbits

This month, Rusudan Shervashidze and Nina Krauthamer look at several interesting updates and tidbits, including (i) limited relief for transition tax, (ii) a new twist to phishing that involves fake I.R.S. calls, (iii) another twist on phony correspondence requesting W-8BEN information that is used to obtain persona information often used by banks to confirm identities of customers, and (iv) new FinCEN money transmitter rules that apply to I.C.O.’s.

Read More

A Comparative View of the Principal Purpose Test – U.S. Tax Court v. B.E.P.S.

A Comparative View of the Principal Purpose Test – U.S. Tax Court v. B.E.P.S.

In a post-B.E.P.S. world, aggressive tax planning is a mortal sin.  If a principal purpose or a main purpose of entering a transaction is tax avoidance, the tax benefits are lost.  A ruling in a recent pre-trial hearing in the U.S. Tax Court addressed a clearly abusive transaction aimed at importing high-basis, low-value assets into a U.S. partnership so that the U.S. investors could benefit from losses on nonperforming loans.  The I.R.S. moved for summary judgment in its favor, but the motion was denied.  Under applicable case law, a transaction can be respected even if it is tax motivated as long as economic substance is present.  Consequently, the taxpayer is entitled to a day in court, even if the prospect of victory is slim.  Rusudan Shervashidze and Stanley C. Ruchelman compare the approach followed by the U.S. Tax Court with the principal purpose test rules of the A.T.A.D. and B.E.P.S.

Read More

I.R.S. Offers Additional Guidance on Code §965 Transition Tax

I.R.S. Offers Additional Guidance on Code §965 Transition Tax

On the way toward a dividends received deduction for certain dividends paid by foreign subsidiaries, Congress enacted a one-shot income inclusion of all post-1986 earnings from C.F.C.’s and foreign corporations having 10% U.S. Shareholders that are corporations.  In March, the I.R.S. issued an F.A.Q. providing additional guidance on open issues for 2017 tax returns.  Rusudan Shervashidze and Stanley C. Ruchelman explain the mechanics of the income inclusion and an election to defer payments for eight years, sometimes more.

Read More

A New Opportunity for Nonresident Aliens - Ownership in an S-Corporation

A New Opportunity for Nonresident Aliens - Ownership in an S-Corporation

U.S. tax law allows a domestic corporation to elect pass-thru tax treatment of income by making an S-corporation election.  Several conditions must be satisfied before the election can be made, including a prohibition of any foreign ownership.  In an almost invisible provision of the T.C.J.A., U.S. tax law has been revised to allow an individual who is neither a citizen nor a U.S. resident to hold an indirect current interest in an S-corporation without causing an automatic termination of pass-thru treatment for the corporation.  The key is for the current interest to be held through an Electing Small Business Trust that qualifies as a domestic trust for U.S. tax purposes.  This may be a boon for Canadian-resident individuals who face mind and management issues when a U.S. L.L.C. is established to invest in a U.S. opportunity.  Rusudan Shervashidze and Stanley C. Ruchelman explain all.

Read More

Impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on U.S. Investors in Foreign Corporations

Impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on U.S. Investors in Foreign Corporations

International tax planning in the U.S. has been turned on its head by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“T.C.J.A.”).  This article looks at (i) the new dividends received deduction that eliminates U.S. tax on the receipt of direct investment dividends paid by a 10%-owned foreign corporation to a U.S. corporation, (ii) the repatriation of post-1986 net accumulated earnings of 10%-owned foreign corporations by U.S. persons and the accompanying deferred tax rules, (iii) changes to Code §367(a) that eliminate an exemption from tax on outbound transfers of assets that will be used in the active conduct of a foreign trade or business, and (iv) a broadening of the scope of Subpart F income by reason of a change to certain definitions.  Rusudan Shervashidze and Stanley C. Ruchelman address and comment on these revisions.

Read More

Art and the Estate Part II – Nonresidents

Art and the Estate Part II – Nonresidents

Foreign persons owning artwork physically located in the U.S. must be mindful of special income, estate, and gift taxes associated with that ownership.   In the second of a series, Rusudan Shervashidze and Nina Krauthamer look at issues such as use tax, which is the U.S. equivalent of a reverse charge of V.A.T., estate tax, and gift tax.

Read More