Members of Ruchelman P.L.L.C. contribute to publications throughout the world and the Firm’s monthly tax journal, Insights.
The world of available insurance policies on an individual’s life is broad and complex within the context of only one country. Add a foreign element, and one is faced with a legal and tax labyrinth. Fanny Karaman and Stanley C. Ruchelman explain how a typical French life insurance policy is taxed for a policy holder having contacts with both France and the U.S.
Read MoreKenneth Lobo and Stanley C. Ruchelman look at recent happenings in the world of B.E.P.S. Items covered include (i) recent decisions of the Canada Revenue Agency regarding tax rulings that will be exchanged automatically with other countries, (ii) I.R.S. consideration of accepting early CbC reports from U.S.-based groups, (iii) multilateral procedures to deal with the expected flood of mutual agreement requests arising from double taxation claims when B.E.P.S.-generated taxation claims begin to appear, and (iv) the emerging need for B.E.P.S. compliance officers in multinational groups.
Read MoreIn this month’s update, Sheryl Shah and Stanley C. Ruchelman look at the following recent developments: (i) one-time payments for off-the-shelf software are not considered to be royalties in India, (ii) offshore voluntary disclosure in Greece, (iii) the movement of Slovak companies to other jurisdictions, and (iv) the effect of the Panama Papers on CbC reporting in Europe.
Read MoreUnder political pressure from N.G.O. watchdogs, governments are striving to demonstrate their support for the B.E.P.S. Action Plan on a national level. Kenneth Lobo and Stanley C. Ruchelman look at implementation issues around the world. Included are issues in Germany related to exchanges of information, treatment of C.I.V.’s for income tax treaty purposes, and U.K. tax penalties for aggressive tax planning.
Read MoreOn February 17, 2016, the Treasury Department released its 2016 Model Treaty. The model serves as the baseline from which the U.S. initiates treaty negotiations. Various provisions are discussed in detail in this month’s Insights.
A new provision of the 2016 Model Treaty attacks special tax regimes. Treaty benefits are denied for payments to connected persons who benefit from such provisions. Patent box regimes and regimes that allow for notional interest deductions are specifically targeted. Christine Long and Stanley C. Ruchelman explain.
Read MoreOn February 17, 2016, the Treasury Department released its 2016 Model Treaty. The model serves as the baseline from which the U.S. initiates treaty negotiations. Various provisions are discussed in detail in this month’s Insights.
Stanley C. Ruchelman examines several provisions, pointing out various areas of super-complexity that are encountered in the 2016 Model Treaty in order to prevent double non-taxation. This shift in policy is a byproduct of the O.E.C.D.’s B.E.P.S. initiative.
Read MoreThis month, Insights looks at the latest development in the deferred prosecution agreement with Swiss banks, a property tax increase in Jerusalem for “ghost apartments,” Canadian procedures to exempt foreign employers from withholding tax on salaries paid to certain individuals that are resident outside of Canada but work in Canada from time to time, and the adverse effect outside the U.S. of deferred CbC reporting for U.S.-based multinationals.
Read MoreOnce again, Insights looks at the I.R.S.'s International Practice Units, this time focusing on how the I.R.S. deals with information exchanges at its field level. Sheryl Shah and Stanley C. Ruchelman explain the procedures followed by the Large Business & International (LB&I) division.
Read MoreTwo court cases in different parts of the world attack tax plans premised on the absence of a permanent establishment. Pertinent U.S. income tax treaties, with Japan and India respectively, were effectively ignored in each case. Taketsugu Osada, Christine Long, and Stanley C. Ruchelman explain.
Read MoreBeate Erwin, Kenneth Lobo, and Stanley C. Ruchelman explain how the branch rule works when a C.F.C. operates a manufacturing or selling branch in another country. While the concept is easy to explain, the computations are somewhat confusing. The article explains all.
Read MoreRusudan Shervashidze and Stanley C. Ruchelman explain the tests the I.R.S. applies to determine whether a foreign corporation is a C.F.C. and a U.S. person is a “U.S. Shareholder” potentially subject to tax under Subpart F. They explain the tax forms that examiners are encouraged to look for and the telltale signs of direct, indirect, and constructive ownership of shares by U.S. persons.
Read MoreU.S.-based companies facing an I.R.S. examination of international operations may secretly wish to obtain an advance look at how I.R.S. examiners plan to carry out the examination. After all, what better way to prepare for a test than to get the questions in advance? Surprise – the Large Business & International (LB&I) Division of the I.R.S. has published its training guides for examiners.
LB&I is responsible for examining tax returns reporting international transactions, and it is in the process of revising the method by which returns are chosen for examination and the the process by which those examinations are conducted. Several aspects of the guidance will be addressed through out this edition of Insights. Stanley C. Ruchelman explains.
Read MoreIn December, the I.R.S. released Prop. Treas. Reg. §1.60384 -15, which details the country-by-country (CbC) reporting that will be required of large U.S.-based business entities. The proposed regulations define the persons required to file the CbC report, companies that are to included in the report, information that must be reported, acceptable measurement methodologies to be used, and uses to which data may be put.
These regulations closely follow the model recommended by the O.E.C.D. B.E.P.S. report. Sheryl Shah and Stanley C. Ruchelman explain the I.R.S.’s reasons and request for input regarding national security exemptions not otherwise considered by the O.E.C.D.
Read MoreThe latest step in inversion controversy involving U.S. publicly traded corporations is the upcoming merger between pharmaceutical giants, Pfizer and Allergan, in a stock transaction estimated to be worth $160 billion. Kenneth Lobo and Stanley C. Ruchelman look at recent I.R.S. countermeasures attacking cross-border mergers that the I.R.S. views as inversions. Among other measures, rules are announced to limit planning alternatives using check-the-box entities to stuff assets into an acquirer without exposing those assets to tax in the jurisdiction of residence of the acquirer and use of parent-company stock as the consideration for the acquisition.
Read MorePublished in Taxes & Wealth Management by Thomson Reuters, Issue 8-4: November 2015.
Read MoreThe question of the proper treatment of a contract transferring exclusive rights to the use of a patent – as a sale or a license – is one that has been addressed many times in U.S. jurisprudence. It has recently popped up again in a case before the U.S. Tax Court involving the generic pharmaceutical giant Mylan Inc., a company that has been the subject of much negative publicity arising from its inversion and subsequent re-immersion as a U.S. domestic company. In September, the I.R.S. filed a memorandum in support of a motion for summary judgment. We explain the basis for the I.R.S. position and comment on its merits.
Read MoreFor many tax advisers, it is fashionable to complain about the O.E.C.D.’s B.E.P.S. project because it imposes an unrealistic standard of behavior on multinational groups. Then, along comes a case such as Russian Recovery Fund, Ltd. v. U.S. and one understands the problem of real base erosion. The case involved a distressed asset/debt (D.A.D.) transaction. Here, hubris and greed in the financial services sector team up to make the O.E.C.D. look good.
Read MorePublished in Journal of Taxation and Regulation of Financial Institutions, Volume 27, Number 5: May/June 2014. © Civic Research Institute. Authorized Reprint.
Read MorePublished in Journal of Taxation and Regulation of Financial Institutions, Volume 28, Number 4: March/April 2015. © Civic Research Institute. Authorized Reprint.
Read MorePublished in International Taxation, Volume 13, Issue 3: September 2015.
Read More
