September 29, 2016

Projected Tax Expense – Can It Be Computed on the Back of Envelope?

September 29, 2016/ Web Admin

Tax advisers are often asked to project tax expense arising from an anticipated transaction by multiplying book income by the statutory tax rate. This seems like an easy task, but a reliable answer is anything but straightforward, as more jurisdictions enact alternative minimum tax (“A.M.T.”) regimes to protect the tax base. Galia Antebi, Kenneth Lobo, and Stanley C. Ruchelman explain how the A.M.T. works in the U.S. and how a comparable tax in Puerto Rico lead to a proposed 132% effective tax rate.

September 29, 2016

Usufruct, Bare Ownership, and U.S. Estate Tax: An Unlucky Trio

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

Splitting ownership into usufruct and bare ownership is a common estate planning technique in several civil law countries. However, this planning technique may have adverse tax consequences when the holder of the bare legal title resides in the U.S. Fanny Karaman and Stanley C. Ruchelman explain the civil law inheritance tax benefits and the pitfalls that are encountered in the U.S.

August 29, 2016

Tax 101: Foreign Settlors, U.S. Domestic Trusts, and U.S. Taxation

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

Non-U.S. tax advisers to high net worth individuals are familiar, to some degree, with U.S. tax rules involving trusts, settlors, and beneficiaries. While they may know that a grantor trust allows for income to be taxed to a grantor, they are not always conversant with the differences between U.S. income tax rules for grantors and the U.S. gift and estate tax rules that cause trust property to be included in the taxable estates of trust settlors. Fanny Karaman, Kenneth Lobo, and Stanley C. Ruchelman explore the way these rules exist side by side – highlighting the differences, in the context of a nonresident, non-citizen settlor establishing a U.S. domestic trust for the benefit of an adult U.S. child wishing to acquire an apartment in the U.S.

August 29, 2016

I.R.S. Issues Proposed Regulations Affecting Valuation Discounts for Gift and Estate Tax Purposes

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

For corporate tax purposes, the I.R.S. maintains the view that a transaction between a taxpayer and a disinterested party – meaning a person that does not have an adverse interest to a taxpayer because tax neither increases nor decreases as a result of a particular term agreed upon – is not the result of arm’s length bargaining and can be disregarded where appropriate. Now, the I.R.S. proposes to expand that approach to estate plans. The proposal is embedded in regulations issued under Code §2704. As a result, commonly used tools may no longer be available to reduce gift or estate tax. Minority ownership discounts and unilateral governance rights that disappear at death are valuation planning tools that are at risk because of the common goals of the participants. Fanny Karaman, Stanley C. Ruchelman, and Kenneth Lobo explain.

August 29, 2016

European Registration & French Tax Law Create Pitfalls for U.S. Trusts

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

Events that have taken place in the E.U. during July confirm that a U.S. person who establishes a U.S. domestic or foreign trust for the benefit of a European resident, may face significant pitfalls regarding confidentiality and tax. While trusts historically constitute a testamentary dispositive tool in common law countries, the recent UBS and Panama Papers scandals have shed a harsh light on these instruments. At the level of the E.U., enhancements to existing anti-money laundering provisions have been floated. The legislation would eliminate certain exceptions to reporting. In France, adverse tax rules already exist for trusts, settlors, and beneficiaries that fail to take into account fundamental differences among trust instruments. In addition, wealth tax issues and public disclosure issues must be considered. Fanny Karaman and Stanley C. Ruchelman explore these and other problem areas.

August 10, 2016

Contract Manufacturing in a US-Controlled Group→

August 10, 2016/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

First published by the Canadian Tax Foundation in (2016) 24:7 Canadian Tax Highlights.

June 30, 2016

French Life Insurance Policies: A U.S. Income Tax Perspective

June 30, 2016/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

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.

May 23, 2016

Insights Vol. 3. No. 5: B.E.P.S. Around The World

May 23, 2016/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

Kenneth 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.

April 29, 2016

Insights Vol. 3 No. 4: Updates & Other Tidbits

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

In 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.

April 29, 2016

Insights Vol. 3 No. 4: B.E.P.S. Around The World

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

Under 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.

March 31, 2016

2016 Model Treaty – Special Tax Regimes

March 31, 2016/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

On 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.

March 31, 2016

2016 Model Treaty – Introduction

March 31, 2016/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

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.

February 29, 2016

Insights Vol. 3 No. 2: Updates & Other Tidbits

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

This 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.

February 29, 2016

Field Procedures for Handling Foreign-Initiated “Specific” Requests Under E.O.I. Agreements

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

Once 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.

February 29, 2016

B.E.P.S. Initiative Spawns Unfavorable Permanent Establishment Court Decisions

February 29, 2016/ Web Admin

Two 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.

January 15, 2016

International Practice Unit: I.R.S. Releases Subpart F Sales and Manufacturing Rules

January 15, 2016/ Web Admin

Beate 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.

January 15, 2016

International Practice Unit: What the I.R.S. Looks for When Deciding if a U.S. Shareholder Has an Interest in a C.F.C.

January 15, 2016/ Web Admin

Rusudan 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.

January 15, 2016

Taxpayers Take Note: I.R.S. Publishes Audit Guides for International Examiners

January 15, 2016/ Web Admin

U.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.

January 15, 2016

I.R.S. Adopts O.E.C.D. Standard in New CbC Reporting Regulations

January 15, 2016/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

In 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.