Members of Ruchelman P.L.L.C. contribute to publications throughout the world and the Firm’s monthly tax journal, Insights.
This month, our team delves into the Joint Committee Report addressing international tax reform in a series of articles. Stanley C. Ruchelman leads with comments on the J.C.T. analysis of Subchapter N of today’s Code – the foreign provisions. See more →
Income tax planning for an individual preparing to immigrate to the U.S. involves both understanding the jurisdictional concepts of U.S. tax law and making intelligent life decisions to take advantage of the rules. In comparison to a business investment in the U.S., which involves the use of funds to accomplish a specific goal, individuals wishing to come to the U.S. make a series of personal changes that will affect all aspects of their lives. U.S. tax planning considerations are merely one part of the puzzle that must be solved. The key to the planning often requires a timely decision to accelerate or defer income, gain, or loss, so as to avoid unnecessary exposure to tax while in the U.S. In addition, it entails knowledge of the tax cost involved in the event an individual wishes to continue to live in an accustomed life style.
This article is the first in a series that will discuss the rules affecting individuals moving across borders. The series will address important considerations before, during, and after undergoing a period of U.S. tax residence, income tax planning opportunities for persons wishing to immigrate to the U.S., and ethical considerations that may apply when providing advice to the foreign individual. Departure taxes in other countries are beyond the scope of this article.
This installment discusses the tests by which a foreign individual is deemed to be a U.S. tax resident under domestic law and provisions for determining residence under income tax treaties. Domestic law applies the “Substantial Presence Test” and the “Green Card Test.” If an individual meets the conditions of either test, he or she will be considered to be a resident for income tax purposes.
A foreign individual becomes a resident with respect to a calendar year if he or she is a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. at any time during that calendar year. A lawful permanent resident is an individual who has been lawfully granted the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws.
The Discussion Draft on Action plan 14 (the “Draft”) received an overwhelming response. On January 19, 2015, the O.E.C.D. published over 400 pages of comments on how to make dispute resolution mechanisms more effective.
Many believe that as a result of the B.E.P.S. program, the number of treaty-related tax disputes will increase. To accommodate this surge in tax cases, it is crucial to develop an effective dispute resolution mechanism that will enhance cross-border trade.
The Draft reflects a lack of consensus regarding the Mutual Agreement Procedure (“M.A.P.”). Most of the comments support creating a M.A.P. that facilitates final and binding decisions within a set timeframe. It is seen as a step towards improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the B.E.P.S. project as a whole. Creating an efficient M.A.P. will demonstrate the O.E.C.D.’s commitment to creating a mechanism that will provide progress.
Making the M.A.P. mandatory may not be enough, as other issues come into play. Here is a sampling of comments that appear in the 400 pages that were released:
Comments on the O.E.C.D.’s public discussion draft to the follow-up work on B.E.P.S. Action 6 (the “Follow-Up Draft”) were released on January 12, 2015. Action 6 of the B.E.P.S. Action Plan focuses on preventing treaty abuse and treaty shopping, which the O.E.C.D. has identified as being one of the most important sources of B.E.P.S. concerns.
The Follow-Up Draft modifies the “Report on Action 6 (Prevent the granting of treaty benefits in appropriate circumstances)” and identifies 20 issues on which interested parties may provide comments. It focuses on matters related to the application of the limitation on benefits (“L.O.B.”) rule and principal purpose test (“P.P.T.”) as well as the treaty entitlement of collective investment vehicles (“C.I.V.’s”) and non-C.I.V. funds. The 20 issues identified by the Follow-Up Draft and addressed in the comments are as follows:
Issues Related to the L.O.B. Provision
Currently. the O.E.C.D. and E.U. are finalizing new rules for the design of acceptable tax regimes for intangible property (“I.P.”) box companies – a tax benefit that is seen by the E.U. as a form of illegal state aid. Germany, France, Spain, and Italy are seen as the champions of the new regulations. However, Italy recently introduced its own I.P. tax incentive plan, known as a “patent box regime.” Stanley C. Ruchelman and Kenneth Lobo examine Italy’s incentive program, in light of the O.E.C.D. and E.U. attacks on such regimes.
Read MorePublished by the Practising Law Institute (PLI).
Read MoreThe O.E.C.D. has continued to publish discussion drafts under its 15-part action plan (the “B.E.P.S. Action Plan”) for combatting base erosion and profit shifting (“B.E.P.S.”), with Action 14 being the most unique.
Action 14, entitled “Make Dispute Resolution Mechanisms More Effective,” provides as follows:
Develop solutions to address obstacles that prevent countries from solving treaty-related disputes under MAP, including the absence of arbitration provisions in most treaties and the fact that access to MAP and arbitration may be denied in certain cases.
While most components of the B.E.P.S. Action Plan address the problems caused by base erosion and profit shifting, the recently proposed discussion draft for Action 14 (“Discussion Draft” or “Draft”) addresses the mutual agreement procedures (“M.A.P.”) used to resolve treaty-related disputes. Action 14 addresses the current obstacles faced by taxpayers seeking M.A.P. relief to avoid economic double taxation and provides suggestions as to how to revise provisions in order to improve the integration of M.A.P. dispute resolution mechanisms. The O.E.C.D. describes it as a unique opportunity to overcome traditional obstacles and to provide effective relief through M.A.P. The Discussion Draft proposes complementary solutions that are intended to have a practical and measurable impact, rather than merely providing additional guidance which may not be followed.
Read Publication The discussion draft on Action 10 (the “Discussion Draft”) deals with transfer pricing issues in relation to commodities transactions and the potential for Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“B.E.P.S.”). The commodity sector constitutes major economic activity for developing countries and provides both employment and government revenue.
In seeking to create clear guidance on the application of transfer pricing rules to commodity transactions, the Discussion Draft identifies several problems and policy challenges and seeks to establish a transfer pricing outcome that is in line with value creation.
There has been another release on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“B.E.P.S.”) deliverables. B.E.P.S. refers to the tax planning that moves profits to a low-tax jurisdiction or a jurisdiction that allows a taxpayer to exploit gaps in tax rules. These deliverables have been developed to ensure the coherence of taxation at the international level. The aim of these deliverables is to eliminate double non-taxation. The measures have been developed throughout 2014, and they will be combined with the work that will be released in 2015.
In the December 16th release on Action 10 (the “Discussion Draft” or “Draft”), Working Party No. 6 on the Taxation of Multinational Enterprises (“M.N.E.’s.”) released various factual scenarios, posed questions and invited affected persons to suggest answers. The goals of the Draft are to assure that transfer pricing outcomes are in line with value creation and to determine whether it is more appropriate to apply the profit split method in some circumstance instead of a one-sided transfer pricing method.
The Draft identifies relevant issues in the posed scenarios, asks questions, and invites commentary as follows.
Value Chains
The term “global value chain” describes a wide range of activity, from the consumption of the product to the end use and beyond. Therefore, one particular method of transfer pricing may not be appropriate.
Action 4 of the B.E.P.S. Action Plan focuses on best practices in the design of rules to prevent base erosion and profit shifting using interest and other financial payments economically equivalent to interest. Its stated goal is described in the following Action:
Develop recommendations regarding best practices in the design of rules to prevent base erosion through the use of interest expense, for example through the use of related-party and third-party debt to achieve excessive interest deductions or to finance the production of exempt or deferred income, and other financial payments that are economically equivalent to interest payments. The work will evaluate the effectiveness of different types of limitations. In connection with and in support of the foregoing work, transfer pricing guidance will also be developed regarding the pricing of related party financial transactions, including financial and performance guarantees, derivatives (including internal derivatives used in intra-bank dealings), and captive and other insurance arrangements. The work will be coordinated with the work on hybrids and CFC rules.
On December 18, 2014, the O.E.C.D. issued a discussion draft regarding Action 4 (the “Discussion Draft”). The Discussion Draft stresses the need to address base erosion and profit shifting using deductible payments such as interest that can give rise to double non-taxation in both inbound and outbound investment scenarios. It examines existing approaches to tackling these issues and sets out different options for approaches that may be included in a best practice recommendation. The identified options do not represent the consensus view of the Committee on Fiscal Affairs, but are intended to provide stakeholders with substantive options for analysis and comment. This article discusses the Discussion Draft for Action 4 of the B.E.P.S. Action Plan.
In 2006, the I.R.S. created the International Collection program (“International Collection”), whereby collections officers are primarily responsible for collection of all delinquent taxes and tax returns of taxpayers located outside the U.S., but subject to the United States tax and reporting requirements. Since its inception, International Collection has undergone certain changes with the intention of developing a well-structured, long-term strategy to curb international tax noncompliance.
Significant emphasis now is placed on international tax compliance. The I.R.S. is concentrating on collecting delinquent payments, and through the three voluntary programs alone, it collected $6.5 billion from 45,000 participating taxpayers.
There are four types of international taxpayers that are of interest to the I.R.S.
In a recent opinion, C.J.E.U. Advocate General Juliane Kokott suggested that the terms used in the landmark Marks and Spencer decision should now be abandoned. Marks and Spencer involved U.K. group relief legislation that, among other things, allowed a U.K. group parent company to offset the losses of its U.K. subsidiaries against the parent’s profits. Stanley C. Ruchelman, Fanny Karaman, and Rusudan Shervashidze contemplate the future of U.K. group relief in light of the Advocate General's opinion and the E.U.’s freedom of establishment principle.
Read MoreAction Item 6 addresses abuse of treaties, particularly focusing on treaty shopping as one of the most important sources of B.E.P.S. The approach adopted amends the O.E.C.D. Model Convention that borrows from the U.S.'s approach to treaties but expands upon it in a way that can be very helpful to the U.S. and other developed countries if adopted by the C.F.E. next year in their final report. Among other measures, the report recommends inclusion of a Limitation on Benefits (“L.O.B.”) provision and a general anti-avoidance rule called the Principal Purpose Test (“P.P.T.”) to be included in the O.E.C.D. Model Convention. While it is expected the report will be finalized next year, whether countries will adopt the recommendations is the crucial factor that is still unclear.
The key recommendations can be found in Paragraph 14. It contains two basic recommendations:
The report also notes that special rules may be needed to address application of these rules to collective investment funds (“C.I.F.’s”). The provision should be supplemented by a mechanism that would deal with conduit arrangements not currently dealt with in tax treaties.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (“O.E.C.D.”) worked together with G20 countries to develop a 15-point action plan to deal with Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“B.E.P.S.”). The goal of the B.E.P.S. Action Plan is to develop a single global standard for automatic exchange of information and stop corporations from shifting profits to jurisdictions with little or no tax in order to ensure taxation in the jurisdiction where profit-generating economic activities are performed and where value is created.
B.E.P.S. occurs in situations where different tax laws interact in a way that creates extremely low global tax rates or results in double non-taxation. This kind of planning gives a competitive advantage to multinational entities that have substantial budgets to engage high-powered tax advisers and to implement their plans.
The O.E.C.D. published deliverables that intend to eliminate double non-taxation resulting from B.E.P.S. The final measures will be completed in 2015 and will be implemented either through domestic law or the existing network of bilateral tax treaties.
Harmful Tax Competition: An Emerging Global Issue
In 1998, the O.E.C.D. published the report Harmful Tax Competition: An Emerging Global Issue (“the 1998 Report”) with the intention of developing methods to prevent harmful tax practices with respect to geographically mobile activities. These methods have been adopted in the Forum on Harmful Tax Practice (“F.H.T.P.”) with some modifications. Significant attention is given to:
On the heels of the discussion drafts issued in March, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (“O.E.C.D.”) released the initial components of its plan to fight base erosion and profit shifting (the “B.E.P.S. Action Plan”). Action Item 2 addresses the effects of hybrid mismatch arrangements and proposes plans to neutralize the tax deficits caused.
These responses aim to tackle the following issues created by the hybrid mismatch arrangements:
This article introduces the different hybrid arrangements, looks at the proposed changes in both domestic law and international tax treaties, and discusses the ripple effect this could have if implemented.
A hybrid mismatch arrangement is one that exploits a difference in the way an entity or instrument is taxed under different jurisdictions to yield a mismatch in total tax liability incurred by the parties. The two possible mismatches that could result are either a “double deduction” (“DD”) or a deduction that is not offset in any jurisdiction by ordinary income (“D/NI”). These mismatches are brought about by the different interpretations afforded to the entities and transactions in relevantjurisdictions. The root cause of the hybrid mismatch is that an entity may be a “hybrid entity” and an instrument may be a “hybrid instrument.” Understanding the different hybrid arrangements is instrumental to understanding the plan proposed by the O.E.C.D.
The O.E.C.D.’s Action Plan adopted in Saint Petersburg in 2013 aims at tracking where economic activities generating taxable profits are performed and where value is created. It aims at ensuring that taxation follows the economic activities and the creation of value and not the other way around. Action Item 1 of the Action Plan (the “Action 1 Deliverable”) focuses on the tax challenges of the digital economy. Along with the 2014 Deliverable on Action 15 (Developing a Multilateral Instrument to Modify Bilateral Tax Treaties), the Action 1 Deliverable is a final report.
The Action 1 Deliverable published on September 16, 2014 mainly reiterates the March 2014 Public Discussion Draft on Action 1 (click here to access our article on the 2014 Public Discussion Draft). It restates that, while B.E.P.S. is exacerbated in the digital economy space, the digital economy cannot be ring-fenced from other sectors of the economy for B.E.P.S. purposes because the digital economy is an ever growing portion of the entire economy. The Action 1 Deliverable thus refers to other Actions to address common B.E.P.S. issues that are not specific to the digital economy. Action Item 1 also refers to the O.E.C.D.’s International V.A.T./G.S.T. Guidelines with regard to V.A.T. issues raised by the digital economy. Although the Action 1 Deliverable adds relatively little to the previously published Public Discussion Draft on Action Item 1, the benefit of a set of uniformly accepted rules should not be understated. With European countries struggling to raise tax revenue in order to close budget gaps, the risk of adverse unilateral action by one or more countries is real. During a symposium held in Rome at the beginning of the month, certain European countries, and especially Italy, pushed for unilateral action with regard to the taxation of the digital economy. If that action proceeds to enactment, digital tax chaos could be encountered.
The U.S. tax laws affecting foreign businesses with activity in the U.S. contain some of the more complex provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Examples include:
One can imagine that it is no easy task to identify income that is subject to tax, to identify the tax regime applicable to the income, and to quantify gross income, net income, and income subject to withholding tax. Nonetheless, the I.R.S. has identified withholding tax obligations of U.S. payers as a Tier I audit issue.
Published in Intertax, Volume 42, Issue 8&9: August 2014.
Read MoreWhen a U.S. company acquires foreign targets, the use of a holding company structure abroad may provide certain global tax benefits. The emphasis is on “global” because standard U.S. benefits such as deferral of income while funds remain offshore may not be available without further planning once a holding company derives dividends and capital gains. This article will discuss issues that should be considered when setting up a company overseas, particularly a foreign holding company, in order to maximize foreign tax credits despite the limitations under the U.S. tax rules, and to reduce the overall U.S. taxes paid. These issues include challenges to the substance of a holding company, recent trends in inversion transactions, the net investment income tax on investment income of U.S. individuals, and the significance of the O.E.C.D. Base Erosion and Profit Shifting report on tax planning structures.
If we assume the income of each foreign target consists of manufacturing and sales activities that take place in a single foreign country, no U.S. tax will be imposed until the profits of the target are distributed in the form of a dividend or the shares of the target are sold. This is known as “deferral” of tax. Once dividends are distributed, U.S. tax may be due whether the profits are distributed directly to the U.S. parent company or to a holding company located in another foreign jurisdiction. Without advance planning to take advantage of the entity characterization rules known as “check-the-box,” the dividends paid by the manufacturing company will be taxable in the U.S. whether paid directly to the parent or paid to a holding company located in a third country. In the latter case, and assuming the holding company is a controlled foreign corporation (“C.F.C.”) for U.S. income tax purposes, the dividend income in the hands of the holding company will be viewed to be an item of Foreign Personal Holding Company Income, which generally will be taxed to the U.S. parent company, or any other person that is treated as a “U.S. Shareholder” under Subpart F of the Internal Revenue Code.
After years of preparation and trepidation, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“F.A.T.C.A.”) will soon become effective. While F.A.T.C.A. was initially targeted to major commercial and investment banks aiding U.S. persons in avoiding paying tax on their income, F.A.T.C.A.’s effective scope is far broader, covering any foreign trust or family corporation. Starting on July 1, 2014, F.A.T.C.A. can impose a new 30% U.S. withholding tax on payments of interest, dividends and other amounts from the U.S. to any foreign person unless that person complies with F.A.T.C.A. regulations. If the foreign person is a foreign financial institution (“F.F.I.”), compliance is onerous. However, with the recent revisions to the regulations and careful planning, the foreign trust or family corporation may be considered a nonfinancial foreign entity (“N.F.F.E.”) and thus subject to far less burdensome requirements.
F.A.T.C.A. divides the world of non-U.S. investors into two categories: F.F.I.’s and N.F.F.E.’s. The crucial factor for any foreign person is to first determine its classification. As F.F.I. status results in a much greater burden for an entity and the deadlines for actions are fast approaching, obtaining N.F.F.E. status holds numerous advantages. For a typical foreign trust or family corporation that holds investments for its beneficiaries or shareholders, this determination had been clouded in uncertainty, until the I.R.S.’s recent issuance of temporary F.A.T.C.A. regulations.
