October 03, 2023

Code §367 and Unassuming Outbound Transfers

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

U.S. tax law provides for the deferral of taxation for a person transferring assets in connection with certain tax-free corporate reorganizations or transactions. However, the same may not be true when the reorganization or transaction involves a U.S. person who transfers shares to a foreign corporation. In these situations, the Code causes gain to be triggered for the U.S. person unless the transferred assets consist solely of shares of stock of a target corporation and certain arrangements are made by the U.S. transferor to grant the I.R.S. the right to collect deferred tax on a retroactive basis in the event of a future (i) retransfer of those shares by the foreign corporation or (ii) a transfer by the target corporation of its underlying assets. These rules appear in Code §367(a) – which imposes tax – and I.R.S. regulations related to a gain recognition agreement (“G.R.A.”) – which allows tax deferral for the original transfer. Not all transfers that are subject to the rules of Code §367(a) are obvious. To illustrate, a U.S. person that is a passive investor in a foreign partnership may face U.S. tax immediately by reason of Code §367(a) when that partnership transfers shares of stock to a foreign corporation in return for shares of that corporation in a transaction that ordinarily is tax-free under Code §351 or 368(a)(1)(B). While the transaction is effected between two foreign entities, the transferor foreign partnership is tax transparent in the U.S., meaning that the partner is deemed to have made an indirect transfer of assets. In his article, Michael Bennett describes the tax issue and explains how a G.R.A. is a simple way to obtain the benefit of deferral.

September 26, 2018

Tax Considerations of I.P. When Expanding a Business Offshore

September 26, 2018/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

If a client asks a U.S. tax adviser about the U.S. tax cost of contributing intangible property (“I.P.”) to a foreign corporation for use in an active business, the response can be a dizzying array of bad tax consequences beginning with a deemed sale in a transaction that results in an ongoing income stream. While that is a correct answer, it need not be the only answer. Elizabeth V. Zanet and Stanley C. Ruchelman explore alternatives to a capital contribution of I.P. to a foreign corporation, including (i) the use of a foreign hybrid entity and (ii) licensing the I.P. to a foreign entity in order to benefit from the F.D.I.I. tax deduction. Each alternative may provide interesting tax results, but attention to detail will be required.

January 26, 2018

New U.S. Tax Law Adopts Provisions to Prevent Base Erosion

January 26, 2018/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

Following the lead of the O.E.C.D. and the European Commission (“E.C.”), the T.C.J.A. adopts several provisions designed to end tax planning opportunities. In some instances, the new provisions closely follow their foreign counterparts. In others, the provisions that are specific to U.S. tax law. Among these changes are (i) the introduction of the G.I.L.T.I. minimum tax on the use of foreign intangible property by C.F.C.’s, (ii) the total revamp of Code §163(j) so that it reflects an interest ceiling rather than an earnings stripping provision, (iii) the restriction of tax benefits derived from the use of hybrid entities and transactions, (iv) the broadened scope of Subpart F through definitional changes, (v) legislative reversals of judicial decisions in which I.R.S. positions in transfer pricing matters were successfully challenged, and (vi) legislative reversals of a judicial decision invalidating Rev. Rul. 91-32 regarding the sale of partnership interests by foreign partner. Sheryl Shah and Stanley C. Ruchelman discuss these provisions and place them in context.

January 26, 2018

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

January 26, 2018/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

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.

September 20, 2017

Tax 101: Deemed Annual Royalty on Outbound Transfers of I.P. to Foreign Corporations

September 20, 2017/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

U.S. tax law contains provisions that attempt to discourage the outbound migration of intangible assets including specific rules that target transfers affected through corporate inversions. Elizabeth V. Zanet and Stanley C. Ruchelman discuss the history and current standing of those provisions, while pointing out an alternative that is currently available to limit ongoing tax liability in the context of a start-up operation.

April 28, 2017

Tax Concerns on Outbound I.P. Transfers: Pitfalls & Planning in Light of I.R.S. Defeat in Amazon Case

April 28, 2017/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

In the 21st century, the method of apportioning income from intangible property (“I.P.”), between the various jurisdictions in which the I.P. is developed, owned, and used or consumed, is contentious. This was evidenced in a recent Tax Court case, Amazon.com, Inc. & Subsidiaries v. Commr., which dealt with transfer pricing rules applicable to an outbound transfer of I.P. and a related cost sharing agreement. Philip R. Hirschfeld discusses the case in the context of Code §367(d), which relates to outbound transfers of I.P., and Treas. Reg. §1.482-7, which addresses qualified cost sharing agreements.

April 29, 2016

Outbound Transfers of Stock in Code §351 “Tax-Free” Exchanges

April 29, 2016/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

The U.S. has extensive rules regarding tax-free reorganizations in a domestic context. When the transaction involves cross-border exchanges, these rules are supplemented by Code §367(a). Rusudan Shervashidze and Andrew P. Mitchel explain how the rules work when shares of a U.S. corporation are transferred to a foreign corporation in a §351 exchange.

December 15, 2014

Expansion of Non-Willful Standard for Relief From Non-Filing of Gain Recognition Agreement Reduces Compliance Burdens

December 15, 2014/ Web Admin

Read Publication

BACKGROUND

Outbound transfers (as defined) of stock or assets, as well as reorganization transactions that involve a foreign party to the reorganization, are subject to Code §367 and the regulations thereunder. Code §367(a) deals with outbound transfers of stock or assets and attempts to prevent the removal of appreciated property from U.S. taxing jurisdiction before its sale or other disposition. Code §367(b) applies to certain inbound and foreign-to-foreign reorganization transactions and is aimed at preserving the ability of the United States to tax, either currently or at a future date, the accumulated earnings and profits of a foreign corporation attributable to the stock of that corporation held by U.S. shareholders.

In the case of an outbound transfer of assets consisting of tangible property for use by the transferee, a foreign corporation in the active conduct of a trade or business outside of the United States, no gain under §367(a)(1) is triggered. Otherwise, gain under Code §367(a) equal to the fair market value in excess of tax basis is triggered. Code §367(a)(2) and Treas. Reg. §1.367(a)-3, in pertinent part, provide for exceptions to the general Code §367(a) gain recognition for outbound transfers of stock or securities. These sections provide for non-recognition of gain where appropriate, upon entering into a gain recognition agreement (a “G.R.A.”).

Under a G.R.A., gain recognition under §367(a) generally can be avoided on the condition that a G.R.A. is entered into by any U.S. transferor who owns at least 5% of the transferee foreign corporation immediately after transfer. The 5% threshold for requiring a G.R.A. is determined based on the greater of vote or value, taking into consideration attribution rules. A U.S. shareholder who does not own 5% or more of the stock does not have to sign a G.R.A. in order to claim non-recognition treatment for their exchange of stock for stock. The foreign parent corporation that issues stock or securities to these U.S. transferors is treated as the transferee foreign corporation for purposes of applying the G.R.A. provisions.