December 03, 2023

Christensen v. U.S. – Reducing the N.I.I.T. by Claiming an F.T.C.

December 03, 2023/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

In Christensen, the Federal Claims Court allowed U.S. citizen/French tax resident taxpayers to claim the foreign tax credit to reduce the net investment income tax (“N.I.I.T.”) using Article 24(2)(b) of the France-U.S. Income Tax Treaty. This approach countered the Code’s explicit disallowance of the foreign tax credit as a way to reduce the N.I.I.T. The Federal Claims Court decision built upon the Tax Court’s previous decision in Toulouse, where the Tax Court denied the foreign tax credit claimed against the N.I.I.T. by a U.S. citizen/French resident taxpayer. Michael Bennett explains that the disparity in outcomes did not stem from a conflict in reasoning. Rather, it resulted from the application of different provisions of the treaty.

November 29, 2021

Toulouse or Not Toulouse? N.I.I.T.-Picking the Reach of the U.S. Foreign Tax Credit

November 29, 2021/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

When is a tax that is based on income not an income tax? When are treaty provisions that provide for relief from double taxation properly ignored? The answer in the U.S. is when the tax is the Net Investment Income Tax, generally referred to as N.I.I.T. In the Toulouse case, the U.S. Tax Court refused to allow a U.S. citizen resident abroad to claim a foreign tax credit when it came to the N.I.I.T. In addition to the technical issue, the case is interesting because it illustrates the choice of procedures to be followed when challenging an I.R.S. increase in tax for reasons unrelated to the computation of income or the availability of a credit. One is the Collection Appeals Program (“C.A.P.”) and the other is the Collection Due Process program (“C.D.P.”). Here, the taxpayer chose the C.D.P., as it allowed the taxpayer an opportunity to challenge an adverse position of the I.R.S. by filing a petition in the U.S. Tax Court. Andreas Apostolides and Wooyoung Lee explain the rationale of the court in denying double tax relief. In particular, it points out that taxpayers who seek treaty relief in matters other than withholding tax rates do so at their peril.

June 01, 2015

The US Net Investment Income Tax→

June 01, 2015/ Web Developer

First published by the Canadian Tax Foundation in (2015) 23:6 Canadian Tax Highlights.

August 15, 2014

Insights Vol. 1 No. 7: Updates & Other Tidbits

August 15, 2014/ Web Developer

Read Publication

KENNETH WOOD NAMED ACTING DIRECTOR OF I.R.S. TRANSFER PRICING OPERATIONS

On July 24, the I.R.S. selected Kenneth Wood, senior manager in the Advance Pricing and Mutual Agreement Program, to replace Samuel Maruca as acting director of Transfer Pricing Operations. The appointment took effect on August 3, 2014. We previously discussed I.R.S. departures, including those in the Transfer Pricing Operations, here.

To re-iterate, it is unclear what the previous departures signify—whether the Large Business & International Division is being re-organized, or whether there are more fundamental disagreements on how the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“B.E.P.S.”) initiative affects basic tenets of international tax law as defined by the I.R.S. and Treasury. Although there is still uncertainty about the latter issue, Ken Wood’s appointment seems to signify that the Transfer Pricing Operations’ function will remain intact in some way.

CORPORATE INVERSIONS CONTINUE TO TRIGGER CONTROVERSY: PART I

President Obama echoed many of the comments coming from the U.S. Congress when he recently denounced corporate inversion transactions in remarks made during an address at a Los Angeles technical college. As we know, inversions are attractive for U.S. multinationals because as a result of inverting, non-U.S. profits are not subject to U.S. Subpart F taxation. Rather, they are subject only to the foreign jurisdiction’s tax, which, these days, is usually lower than the U.S. tax. In addition, inversions position the multinational group to loan into the U.S. from the (now) foreign parent. Subject to some U.S. tax law restrictions, interest paid by the (now) U.S. subsidiary group is deductible for U.S. tax purposes with the (now) foreign parent booking interest at its home country’s lower tax rate.

“Inverted companies” have been severely criticized by the media and politicians as tax cheats that use cross-border mergers to escape U.S. taxes while still benefiting economically from their U.S. business presence. This has been seen as nothing more than an unfair increase of the tax burden of middle-income families.

February 15, 2013

Year-End Review: Net Investment Income Tax

February 15, 2013/ Web Developer

Read Publication

The Net Investment Income Tax (“N.I.I.T.”) was added to the Code on March 30, 2010. It is imposed at a rate of 3.8% of certain net investment income (“Net Investment Income”) of individuals, estates and trusts having income above specified triggering amounts. For individuals who are calendar year taxpayers, the tax first became effective in 2013. Thus, the current tax return filing season will be the first time taxpayers feel the effect of the tax. In late 2013, the I.R.S. released final and proposed regulations for the N.I.I.T. These regulations clarify proposals that were issued on December 5, 2012. This article provides a summary of the N.I.I.T. and explains how the new regulations will affect taxpayers.

IN GENERAL

Applicable Thresholds

Individuals will owe the tax if they have Net Investment Income and also have modified adjusted gross income over the following thresholds:

Filing Status	Threshold Amount
Married Taxpayers (Joint Filing)	$250,000
Married Taxpayers (Separate Filing)	$125,000
Single	$200,000
Head of household (with qualifying person)	$200,000
Qualifying widow(er) with dependent child	$250,000