S.T.A.R.S. Transactions – Interest Deduction Allowed but Foreign Tax Credit Disallowed

Read Publication

In a partial reversal of the I.R.S. position, a U.S. financial institution was allowed to deduct interest expense on borrowings that formed part of a S.T.A.R.S. transaction in Salem Financial, Inc. v. United States. While the Appeals Cout held that the taxpayer could not claim foreign tax credits for the U.K. taxes paid pursuant to the S.T.A.R.S. transaction, it allowed deductions for interest paid on a loan.

Branch Banking & Trust Corporation (“BB&T”), a North Carolina financial holding company, and Barclays Bank PLC (“Barclays”), a U.K. bank were the participants in a financial product transaction BB&T entered into a structured trust advantaged repackaged securities (“S.T.A.R.S.”) transaction with Barclays from August 2002 through April 2007. Generally, the economic benefit of a S.T.A.R.S. transaction is to increase yields on investments by affixing an interest expense deduction and a double dip of foreign tax credits to the total return of the investor. Barclays invented the S.T.A.R.S. transaction structure along with the international accounting firm based in the U.K., KPMG L.L.P.

Corporate Matters: One Clause that Should Be in Every Partnership Agreement

Read Publication

Our practice involves the drafting of many different types of partnership agreements and other agreements governing the relationship among individuals involved in a common enterprise. These agreements include general and limited partnership agreements, operating agreements or limited liability company agreements, and shareholder agreements for corporations. In this article, all these types of entities are referred to as “joint ventures.”

During the initial client discussions with respect to these agreements we highlight and discuss the usual laundry list of matters that co-investors should consider at the time of formation. One matter that we believe should be addressed in every joint venture agreement is what happens upon the death of a member of the joint venture. For obvious reasons, many do not want to focus on this point. However, the procedure to be followed when surviving spouses and heirs inherit an ownership interest is best handled at the beginning of the joint venture. While it may appear that all joint venture members have similar interests, relationships can change very quickly, and the bottom line is that while one may be very interested in being in partnership with a certain individual, the same interest may not attach to that person’s spouse.

Ten Year Throwback

Read Publication

Two years ago, a U.S. Senate investigation accused Ireland of granting Apple Inc. special tax treatment. This accusation sparked a seemingly never-ending investigation into the state aid granted by certain European countries to specific multinational companies. More recently, Apple, Starbucks, Fiat, and various other companies exposed in the “Luxembourg Leaks” scandal were accused of having paid substandard taxes as a result of agreements between those companies and the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Ireland, which constituted illegal state aid.

Now, the European Commission (the “Commission”) is looking into the penalties that should be levied upon the income earned through these agreements. The Commission’s investigations into these advance rulings and advance pricing agreements (“A.P.A.’s”) between E.U. member-states and major U.S. multinationals could lead to tax adjustments dating as far back as ten years.

STATE AID

State aid is defined as “an advantage in any form whatsoever conferred on a selective basis to undertakings by national public authorities.” This does not include subsidies or tax breaks available to all entities. A measure of state aid constitutes an intervention by a state, or through state resources, that gives specific companies or industry sectors an advantage on a selective basis, thereby distorting competition and affecting trade between E.U. member states.

Taxpayer Advocate Asks I.R.S. to Simplify Foreign Asset Reporting

Read Publication

On April 13, the Office of the National Taxpayer Advocate (“N.T.A.”) urged the Internal Revenue Service (“I.R.S.”) to reduce foreign asset reporting requirements magnified by the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“F.A.T.C.A.”). The N.T.A. is an independent organization within the I.R.S. that aids taxpayers in resolving issues with the I.R.S. It identifies issues and suggests changes to the I.R.S. and Congress to aid both the I.R.S. and all taxpayers.

Currently, U.S. persons with foreign bank accounts file two reports relating to such accounts: one report for the I.R.S. and the other report for the Treasury Department. In a recommendation to the I.R.S., the N.T.A. said on April 13 that taxpayers shouldn’t have to report assets on Form 8938, Statement of Foreign Financial Assets, if those assets are already reported or reflected on a Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) Report 114, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (“F.B.A.R.”).

Form 8938 has been expanded to reflect changes under F.A.T.C.A., which requires foreign financial institutions to report U.S.-owned accounts to the I.R.S. or face, in some cases, a 30% withholding tax on their U.S.-source income.

In addition, the N.T.A. urged the I.R.S. to reduce the burden on taxpayers with accounts abroad who are bona fide residents of the foreign countries in which they live, suggesting that it should not require banks organized under the laws of those countries to report such accounts under F.A.T.C.A.

A Foreign Taxpayer’s Refund or Credit Could Be Limited by Upcoming Regulations

Read Publication

In Notice 2015-10 (the “Notice”), issued on April 28, 2015, the I.R.S. stated that it was concerned about cases in which persons subject to withholding under Code §§1441-1443 (“Chapter 3”) or Code §§1471 and 1472 (“Chapter 4”) are making or will make claims for refunds or credits in circumstances where a withholding agent failed to deposit the amounts required to be withheld under §6302.

If a withholding agent fails to deposit an amount withheld under Chapters 3 or 4, or reported as withheld on Form 1042-S, and the I.R.S. issues a refund or credit for the amount, the I.R.S. may not be able to recover that amount because the claimant, and in some cases the relevant withholding agent, may be outside the United States. The new regulations aim to reduce the risk that the I.R.S. may issue improper refunds or credits for fictitious withholding or amounts that have not been deposited and are difficult to collect.

As will be seen below, the new regulations would limit a foreign taxpayer’s refund or credit to the amount deposited by the withholding agent. Though collecting undeposited amounts from withholding agents located outside the United States may be difficult for the I.R.S., one wonders about the fairness of limiting a foreign taxpayer’s refund or credit when the I.R.S. could use its greater resources to collect against the withholding agent.

“Trust” – A New Concept in Russia

Read Publication

In recent years, Russia has introduced several economic and political reforms, including a deoffshorization policy that some would say appears to be sound economic policy but others would say is more politically motivated by the centralization of power in the office of the President. In principle, the idea is to make Russian legislation friendly for Western investors, although the context suggests otherwise. Nonetheless, Russia is attempting to westernize its domestic laws and introduce economic concepts that are familiar to Western businessmen.

BACKGROUND

In 2014, the Russian government came out with a plan that would attack capital flight by residents. This was the so-called “deoffshorization” of investments. Among other things, this legislation increases the tax burden of many offshore holding companies by requiring payment of Russian taxes in the absence of any repatriation of profits. It also requires the disclosure of beneficial owners in the accounting statements of these holding companies. Again, these are concepts that are popular among policy makers in Western Europe, albeit in a different context.

Now, the Russian government is contemplating introduction of the “trust” into the Russian legal system. New laws are anticipated that are intended to formalize Russian arrangements where the nominal owner and the beneficial owner are separate individuals.

Moving Deductions into the U.S. as a Tax Planning Strategy

volume 2 no 4   /   Read article

By Stanley C. Ruchelman and Philip R. Hirschfeld

This month, our team delves into the Joint Committee Report addressing international tax reform in a series of articles. Taking a lead from the preceding article, the report discovers that a better tax result is obtained when deductible expenses are booked in high tax countries. Stanley C. Ruchelman and Philip R. Hirschfeld explain.  See more →

See all articles in this series →

Shifting Income and Business Operations

volume 2 no 4   /   Read article

By Stanley C. Ruchelman and Kenneth Lobo

This month, our team delves into the Joint Committee Report addressing international tax reform in a series of articles.The report discovers that a better tax result is obtained when income is booked in low tax countries. Stanley C. Ruchelman and Kenneth Lobo explain.  See more →

See all articles in this series →

Competitiveness of the U.S. Tax System

volume 2 no 4   /   Read article

By Stanley C. Ruchelman, Andrew P. Mitchel, and Sheryl Shah

This month, our team delves into the Joint Committee Report addressing international tax reform in a series of articles. The report compares the U.S. tax system with the systems of other countries. Stanley C. Ruchelman, Andrew P. Mitchel, and Sheryl Shah explain what the J.C.T. staff believes. It is not pretty.  See more →

See all articles in this series →

Repatriation of Foreign Earnings v. Related Party Indebtedness

Read Publication

On March 13, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the “Appeals Court”) reversed a decision of the United States Tax Court regarding the rules relating to the repatriation of earnings under Code §965.

Code §965 was a temporary statute permitting an 85% dividends received deduction in connection with the repatriation of earnings from a foreign subsidiary as long as the proper tests were satisfied. One test related to intercompany loans to foreign subsidiaries allowing them to pay the low-tax dividends. Even though the statute is not currently in effect, the reasoning of the Appeals Court suggests that substance will at times prevail, even if it works against the I.R.S.

BMC Software, Inc. (“BMC”) was a software developer that generated income from licensing operations. It had in effect a qualified joint cost-sharing agreement with a subsidiary. In 2002, the agreement was terminated and BMC began to pay royalties to the subsidiary in return for the transfer of rights back to BMC. In an I.R.S. examination, the arm’s length nature of the royalty amount was challenged and ultimately was resolved through two closing agreements entered into in 2007. The first determined that the amount of an arm’s length royalty was less than the amount paid. The second permitted BMC to treat the excess payment as a loan to the foreign subsidiary. This treatment, which has a long history in practice, was permitted under Rev. Proc. 99-32. As a result, the cash flow between BMC and its subsidiary was not changed but made to conform to the agreed amount of an arm’s length royalty, and the return of the cash would be tax-free but for some deemed interest.