Current Tax Court Litigation Illustrates Intangible Property Transfer Pricing and Valuation Issues

Read Publication

MOVING INTANGIBLE PPROPERTY ASSETS OVERSEAS PRESENTS BOTH BUSINESS AND TAX ISSUES

The movement of intangible property (“I.P.”) offshore by U.S. multinational corporations has always been subject to high levels of I.R.S. scrutiny. This remains true in the current tax environment. It is a given that U.S. multinational companies are subject to a high level of U.S. corporate income tax at federal and state levels and their non-U.S. business operations are typically subject to lower tax rates abroad. As a result, U.S. multinationals can lower their global tax expense by transferring I.P. to an offshore subsidiary company (“I.P. Company”), when it is appropriate and consistent with the conduct of their international business operations.

In a typical arrangement within a group, the I.P. Company licenses the use of the I.P. to other members. Royalties paid by the other group members (including the U.S. parent, if total ownership of the I.P. is assumed by the I.P. Company) is claimed as a deduction in the tax jurisdictions of each member that is a licensee. If an I.P. Box Company arrangement is in place or a special ruling obtained, the royalties received by the I.P. Company will be subject to a low tax rate. Assuming that arrangements are in place to remove the royalty income from the category of Foreign Personal Holding Company Income for purposes of Subpart F, the net result is reduced tax for book and tax purposes. This yields greater profits for the multinational group and increased value for its shareholders.

Two cases that are currently in litigation illustrate the I.R.S. scrutiny given to transfers of I.P. to an I.P. Company and the resulting U.S. tax issues that are encountered. The cases involve Zimmer Holdings and Medtronic.

Tax 101: Updates to Procedures Relating to Withholding Foreign Partnership or Trust Agreements as a Result of F.A.T.C.A.

Read Publication

Chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code requires withholding on payments of certain types. These include “fixed or determinable annual or periodic income” (“F.D.A.P.”) to foreign persons, disposition of U.S. real property interests by foreign persons, and U.S. effectively connected income attributable to foreign partners of a partnership engaged in a U.S. trade or business. Historically, withholding agreements allowed a foreign partnership or trust to become a Withholding Foreign Partnership (“W.P.”) or a Withholding Foreign Trust (“W.T.”) and to assume the withholding and reporting responsibilities of a withholding agent under Chapter 3.

Chapter 4 of the Internal Revenue Code (regarding F.A.T.C.A.) generally requires foreign financial institutions (“F.F.I.’s”) to provide information to the Internal Revenue Service (“I.R.S.”) with regard to account holders who are U.S. persons. Chapter 4 also requires certain non-financial foreign entities (“N.F.F.E.’s”) to provide information on their substantial U.S. owners to withholding agents. Chapter 4 imposes a withholding tax on certain payments to F.F.I.’s and N.F.F.E.’s that fail to comply with their F.A.T.C.A. obligations. (For a more detailed discussion of F.A.T.C.A., please see our Insights monthly F.A.T.C.A. 24/7 column.)

On August 8, 2014, the I.R.S. released Rev. Proc. 2014-47, which provides guidance on entering into W.P. and W.T. agreements and for renewing such agreements under F.A.T.C.A., thereby essentially integrating the two reporting systems. Rev. Proc. 2014-17 permits a W.P. and W.T. to assume the withholding and reporting responsibilities of a withholding agent under both Chapter 3 and Chapter 4. Rev. Proc. 2014-47 publishes revised W.P. and W.T. agreement procedures, which apply to W.P. and W.T. agreements effective on or after June 30, 2014. Additionally, existing W.P. and W.T. agreements are updated to coordinate with the withholding and reporting requirements of F.A.T.C.A.

Inbound Investment in German Real Estate

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION

Investments in German real estate are attractive to international investors. Low interest rates and positive economic conditions exist in Germany. The demand for commercial and residential rental properties has increased in urban centers such as Berlin, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Cologne, Munich, and Stuttgart. In these circumstances, it is expected that Germany will remain an attractive market for real estate investments.

Germany provides reliable political conditions, which are advantageous for a successful investment. However, there is an increasing complexity to the general legal conditions, and the success of a real estate investment strongly depends on proper structuring of the investment in a tax-efficient way.

This article provides an overview of the tax consequences of inbound investments in German real estate.

Different investment structures are compared:

• Holding the property directly,
• Holding shares in a property company, and
• Holding interests in a property partnership.

In addition to income tax, German real estate transfer tax aspects are discussed, and planning opportunities to reduce or eliminate German trade tax are explored.

Corporate Inversions Transactions: Tax Planning as Treason or a Case for Reform?

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION

Anyone may soarrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.

– Judge Learned Hand
Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d 809, 810-11 (2d Cir. 1934).

To invert or not to invert: That seems to be the question many U.S. corporations are deliberating today, particularly in the context of acquisitions of non-U.S. businesses. Although the level of the political and public outcry on the “evils” of inversion transactions is a recent phenomenon, inversion transactions are not new to the U.S. business community. This article provides a perspective on the issue of U.S. companies incorporating in other jurisdictions by means of inversion transactions. It will discuss the historical context, the legislative and regulatory responses, and current events including proposed legislative developments as of the date of publication. Finally, we will offer our suggestions for a reasonable approach to the inversion issue designed to balance the governmental and the private sector concerns.

INVERSIONS: DEFINITION AND HISTORY

What is an Inversion?

An inversion transaction is a tax-motivated corporate restructuring of a U.S.-based multinational corporation or partnership in which the U.S. parent corporation or U.S. partnership is replaced by a foreign corporation, partnership, or other entity, thereby converting the U.S. entity into a foreign-based entity. In a “self-inversion,” the U.S. entity effects an internal reorganization by re-domiciling in another jurisdiction. In an “acquisition-inversion,” a U.S. entity migrates to a foreign jurisdiction in connection with the purchase of a foreign-incorporated M&A target corporation. In this latter type of inversion, the target and the U.S. entity often can be combined under a new holding company in a lower-tax foreign jurisdiction.

Insights Vol. 1 No. 7: Updates & Other Tidbits

Read Publication

KENNETH WOOD NAMED ACTING DIRECTOR OF I.R.S. TRANSFER PRICING OPERATIONS

On July 24, the I.R.S. selected Kenneth Wood, senior manager in the Advance Pricing and Mutual Agreement Program, to replace Samuel Maruca as acting director of Transfer Pricing Operations. The appointment took effect on August 3, 2014. We previously discussed I.R.S. departures, including those in the Transfer Pricing Operations, here.

To re-iterate, it is unclear what the previous departures signify—whether the Large Business & International Division is being re-organized, or whether there are more fundamental disagreements on how the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“B.E.P.S.”) initiative affects basic tenets of international tax law as defined by the I.R.S. and Treasury. Although there is still uncertainty about the latter issue, Ken Wood’s appointment seems to signify that the Transfer Pricing Operations’ function will remain intact in some way.

CORPORATE INVERSIONS CONTINUE TO TRIGGER CONTROVERSY: PART I

President Obama echoed many of the comments coming from the U.S. Congress when he recently denounced corporate inversion transactions in remarks made during an address at a Los Angeles technical college. As we know, inversions are attractive for U.S. multinationals because as a result of inverting, non-U.S. profits are not subject to U.S. Subpart F taxation. Rather, they are subject only to the foreign jurisdiction’s tax, which, these days, is usually lower than the U.S. tax. In addition, inversions position the multinational group to loan into the U.S. from the (now) foreign parent. Subject to some U.S. tax law restrictions, interest paid by the (now) U.S. subsidiary group is deductible for U.S. tax purposes with the (now) foreign parent booking interest at its home country’s lower tax rate.

“Inverted companies” have been severely criticized by the media and politicians as tax cheats that use cross-border mergers to escape U.S. taxes while still benefiting economically from their U.S. business presence. This has been seen as nothing more than an unfair increase of the tax burden of middle-income families.

Insights Vol. 1 No. 7: F.A.T.C.A. 24/7

Read Publication

FOREIGN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS: WHO DEALS WITH THE I.R.S. ON F.A.T.C.A.?

On August 1, the Internal Revenue Service (“I.R.S.”) clarified in its F.A.T.C.A. Frequently Asked Questions (“F.A.Q.”) that the I.R.S.’s main contact with a foreign financial institution (“F.F.I.”) will be the “responsible officer” identified under Question 10 of the registration form (i.e., Form 8957, which should be completed on the I.R.S. F.A.T.C.A. portal and not in paper form). However, the I.R.S. reiterated that the responsible officer can authorize as many as five additional points of contact to receive F.A.T.C.A.-related information regarding the F.F.I. and to take other F.A.T.C.A.-related actions on behalf of the F.F.I.

Additionally, the responsible officer will receive an automatic e-mail notification to check the F.F.I.’s F.A.T.C.A. message board when certain messages are posted. For example, when the F.F.I.’s registration status changes, the responsible officer will receive an e-mail notification. Such e-mail notifications will include the last several characters of the F.F.I.’s F.A.T.C.A. identification number so that the officer can identify which F.A.T.C.A. account is being referred to. If no e-mail notifications are received, the responsible officer must verify that the e-mail address entered in Question 10 of the registration form is correct, as well as ensure that their spam blocker is not preventing e-mail notifications from getting through. Note that the responsible officer can only list one e-mail address on Question 10 of the registration form.

I.R.S. LIST OF REGISTERED F.F.I.’S

On August 1, the I.R.S. also updated its F.A.Q. on the list of registered F.F.I.’s. (“F.F.I. List”). The I.R.S. stated that it is possible that an F.F.I. that appears in the search tool on the I.R.S.’s website will not appear in a downloaded F.F.I. List in C.S.V. format.

Because some C.S.V.-compatible spreadsheet and database applications may only display a maximum number of records, an F.F.I. that is located on the list beyond that maximum limit may not be seen. To address this problem, the I.R.S. suggests that taxpayers try to use another spreadsheet and database application or text editor to open the downloaded C.S.V. file.

Corporate Matters: Convertible Note Financing

Read Publication

We have seen an increased number of term sheets for convertible note financings lately and thought it might be helpful to discuss some of the terms and conditions of these notes. In an earlier issue of Insights, we discussed angel investing and the risks (and rewards) of that strategy. Convertible note financings are used for seed financing and are a very economical and efficient way for start-up companies to obtain seed capital without losing control of the early-stage company.

CONVERTIBLE NOTE

A convertible note financing is short-term debt that automatically converts into shares of preferred stock upon the closing of a Series A financing round. This method of financing is favored by company founders because it can be completed very quickly, is somewhat simple, and is relatively inexpensive in terms of legal costs. A convertible note purchase agreement and note can be a few pages long and prepared and closed in a few days.

While start-up companies can issue common stock to early investors, there are a variety of reasons why the founders may be reluctant to do so. These include the difficultly in putting a value on an early stage company and potential tax issues for founders issued stock at nominal values. Because convertible notes are debt not equity, their issuance puts off the valuation matter until the later round of financing – by which time the company may have developed to an extent where more and better information is available on which to base a valuation.

Tax 101: Tax Planning and Compliance for Foreign Businesses with U.S. Activity

Read Publication

I. INTRODUCTION

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:

• Effectively connected income,
• Allocation of expenses to that income,
• Income tax treaties,
• Arm’s length transfer pricing rules,
• Permanent establishments under income tax treaties,
• Limitation on benefits provisions in income tax treaties that are designed to prevent “treaty shopping,”
• State tax apportionment,
• F.I.R.P.T.A. withholding tax for transactions categorized as real property transfers,
• Fixed and determinable annual and periodical income, and
• Interest on items of portfolio debt.

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.

U.S.-Based Pushback on B.E.P.S.

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION

In addition to the aggressive actions by some foreign countries to levy more taxes on U.S. taxpayers before a consensus has been reached, the process established by the O.E.C.D. raises serious questions about the ability of the United States to fully participate in the negotiations.

Ultimately, we believe that the best way for the United States to address the potential problem of B.E.P.S. is to enact comprehensive tax reforms that lower the corporate rate to a more internationally competitive level and modernize the badly outdated and uncompetitive U.S. international tax structure.

So say Representative Dave Camp (R) and Senator Orrin Hatch (R), two leading Republican voices in Congress, on the O.E.C.D.’s B.E.P.S. project.

Does this somewhat direct expression of skepticism represent nothing more than U.S. political party politicking or a unified U.S. government position that in fact might be one supported by U.S. multinational corporations? The thought of the two political parties, the Administration and U.S. industry agreeing on a major political/economic issue presents an interesting, if unlikely, scenario. This article will explore that scenario.

OVERVIEW OF B.E.P.S./WHY B.E.P.S.?/WHY NOW?

Base erosion and profit shifting (“B.E.P.S.”) refers to tax planning strategies that exploit gaps and mismatches in tax rules in order to make profits “disappear” for tax purposes or to shift profits to locations where there is little or no real activity and the taxes are low. This results in little or no overall corporate tax being paid.

The McKesson Transfer Pricing Case

volume 1 no 7   |   Read article

By Sherif Assef

In this month’s lead article, Sherif Assef of Duff & Phelps weighs the consequences of a recent Tax Court of Canada case involving risk shifting and function shifting within a multinational group when neither risks nor functions are actually shifted. Nonetheless, profits were shifted and this annoyed the C.R.A.  See more →

Insights Vol. 1 No. 6: Updates & Other Tidbits

Read Publication

THINK TWICE BEFORE EVADING TAXES (PART II) FOLLOW UP TO CREDIT SUISSE GUILTY PLEA

As we noted last month, Credit Suisse AG pleaded guilty to conspiracy to aid and assist U.S. taxpayers with filing false income tax returns and other documents with the I.R.S. Following Credit Suisse’s guilty plea to helping American clients evade taxes, New York State’s financial regulator is said to have picked Mr. Neil Barofsky as the corporate monitor for Credit Suisse Group AG. Monitors are chosen to act as the government’s post-settlement proxy, shining a light on the inner workings of corporations and suggesting steps to bolster compliance procedures.

Credit Suisse agreed to two years of oversight by New York’s financial regulator as part of its $2.6 billion resolution with the U.S. Credit Suisse’s settlement is the first guilty plea by a global bank in more than a decade, and the penalty agreed to is the largest penalty in an offshore tax case.

Insights Vol. 1 No. 6: F.A.T.C.A. 24/7

Read Publication

INSTRUCTIONS TO KEY F.A.T.C.A. TAX FORMS RELEASED

On June 19, Instructions for the Form W-8IMY, Certificate of Foreign Intermediary, Foreign Flow-Through Entity, or Certain U.S. Branches for United States Tax Withholding and Reporting, were released. The instructions provide useful guidance because they allow entities to attach alternative certifications based on an Inter-Governmental Agreement (“I.G.A.”) or the regulations instead of checking a box on the form.

On June 24, the Internal Revenue Service (“I.R.S.”) released final instructions on Form 8966, F.A.T.C.A. Report. The instructions provide that taxpayers must file Form 8966 for the 2014 calendar year on or before March 31, 2015. They will get an automatic 90-day extension for calendar year 2014 without the need to file any form or take any action.

Corporate Matters: Professional Limited Liability Companies and Professional Corporations

Read Publication

In our March issue we discussed incorporation basics and entity selection. We focused on limited liability companies and corporations, as they are the most common entities used. We thought it might be helpful to follow up on that article with a brief discussion on professional limited liability companies and professional corporations.

PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY COMPANY

A professional limited liability company (“P.L.L.C.”) is organized for the sole purpose of providing professional services by licensed professionals. Generally, states don’t allow L.L.C.’s for businesses where a license is required. Licensed professionals who want the benefits of an L.L.C. must form a P.L.L.C. instead. A P.L.L.C. must be organized solely for the purpose of engaging in either a single licensed profession, or in two or more that can be lawfully practiced together. The name of the business must include the words “professional limited liability company,” or the abbreviation “P.L.L.C.” Generally, any person who is licensed to practice in a state under a designated profession may organize a P.L.L.C. A professional is a person licensed in a field such as health, law, engineering, architecture, accounting, actuarial science, or another similar field. However, licensing requirements may vary state by state. Therefore, one must thoroughly review the applicable statute for the state in which the P.L.L.C. will conduct business.

A professional or group of professionals considering incorporation would consider a P.L.L.C. for the favorable pass-through tax treatment and limited liability – a member of a P.L.L.C. is not liable for acts of another member or the entity’s debts. Note, however, that members remain personally liable for their own professional misconduct or malpractice. So, even if you practice a profession through a P.L.L.C., it is a good idea to carry malpractice insurance.

First Circuit Holds Corporation's Possessions Tax Credit Was Not Reduced

Read Publication

Recently, the First Circuit held that Code §936 does not require a credit cap decrease for the U.S. seller of business lines in Puerto Rico if the buyer is a foreign entity that does not pay U.S. corporate income tax. In OMJ Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. U.S., a U.S. corporation based in Puerto Rico transferred a significant portion of its assets to an Irish subsidiary; the corporation was not required to decrease its base period income for the purposes of computing the cap on its Section 936 possessions tax credit. As a result, the corporation’s credit was not capped at the lower amount that was asserted by the I.R.S., thus allowing the corporate taxpayer a refund of close to $53 million.

From 1976 to 1996, Code §936 provided to U.S. corporations a credit that fully offset the federal tax owed on income earned in the operation of any trade or business in Puerto Rico. Under the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-188), the credit was repealed and phased out over a ten-year period. During this transition period, the credit remained available only to those taxpayers who had claimed it in previous years. Furthermore, during the last eight years of the transition period the taxable income that an eligible taxpayer could take into account in computing its credit was capped at an amount roughly equal to the average of the amounts it had claimed in previous years. Although the cap was generally fixed, it could be adjusted up and down to account for the taxpayer’s purchases and sales of lines of business that had generated credit-eligible income.

Tax 101: Outbound Acquisitions - Holding Company Structures

Read Publication

When 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.

U.S. TAXATION OF INTERCOMPANY DIVIDENDS AMONG FOREIGN SUBS

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.

I.R.S. Announces Major Changes to Amnesty Programs

Read Publication

The I.R.S. announced major changes to its amnesty programs last month. These changes can be broken into two parts: changes to the 2012 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (“O.V.D.P.”), which can be to referred to as the 2012 Modified O.V.D.P. or the 2014 O.V.D.P., and changes to the streamlined procedures (“Streamlined Procedures”). As the requirements for the latter are relaxed, the requirements for the former are tightened.

The changes in the amnesty programs reflect the new I.R.S. approach for addressing taxpayers with offshore tax issues. The new approach provides one path for willful taxpayers, with steeper penalties but certainty, and another path for taxpayers who believe their conduct was non-willful, with reduced penalties but uncertainty to the extent their conduct is subsequently proven willful.

CHANGES TO O.V.D.P.

The major changes to the 2012 O.V.D.P. include the following:

1. Changes to Preclearance Process

Under the 2012 O.V.D.P., all that was required was to submit a preclearance request was a fax to the I.R.S. O.V.D.P. department that contained the taxpayer’s name, social security number, date of birth, address, and if the taxpayer was represented by an authorized party, an executed power of attorney (P.O.A.).

Using the U.K. as a Holding Company Jurisdiction: Opportunities and Challenges

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION: AN IDEAL HOLDING JURISDICTION?

At a time when a quintet of septuagenarian comics attempt to revive former glories with a final run of a live show of Monty Python in London, it is worth reflecting on the Holy Grail of the international tax practitioner: to find the perfect international holding company jurisdiction.

In this, the holding company jurisdiction needs certain characteristics:

• The possibility of returning profits to shareholders with minimal tax leakage;
• The ability to receive profits from underlying subsidiaries without taxation at home;
• The ability to dispose of investments in the underlying subsidiaries without triggering a tax charge on any profit or gain;
• A good treaty network to ensure that profits can be repatriated to the holding company from underlying subsidiaries, whilst minimizing local withholding taxes; and
• Low risk from anti-avoidance measures that profits of subsidiaries will otherwise be taxed in the holding company jurisdiction.

The U.K. has emerged over the last decade as an increasingly viable holding company jurisdiction, particularly for investments in countries within the European Union.

Insights Vol. 1 No. 5: Updates & Other Tidbits

Read Publication

SUPPORT FOR PROPOSED BILLS LIMITING CORPORATE INVERSIONS WEAK GIVEN DESIRE FOR FULL INTERNATIONAL TAX OVERHAUL

The Stop Corporate Inversions Act was introduced in the Senate on May 20 by Senator Carl Levin. The bill represents an attempt to tighten U.S. tax rules preventing so-called “inversion” transactions, defined generally as those involving mergers with an offshore counterpart. Under current law, a U.S. company can move its headquarters abroad (even though management and operations remain in the U.S.) and take advantage of lower taxes, as long as at least 20% of its shares are held by the foreign company's shareholders after the merger. Under the bill, the foreign stock ownership for a non-taxable entity would increase to 50% foreignowned stock. Furthermore, the new corporation would continue to be considered a domestic company for U.S. tax purposes if the management and control remains in the U.S. and at least 25% of its employees, sales, or assets are located in the U.S. The Senate bill would apply to inversions for a two year period commencing on May 8, 2014. A companion bill (H.R. 4679) was introduced in the House which would make the changes permanent. However, the bills face opposition on the Hill with lawmakers indicating that the issue could be better solved as part of a broader tax overhaul. House Republicans favored pushing corporate tax rates lower as opposed to tightening inversion requirements, believing that the lower rates would give corporations an incentive to stay in the U.S. and invest, rather than go overseas for a better corporate tax rate. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) stated that he would consider the issue at a later time during a hearing on overhauling the international tax laws but would not introduce anti-inversion legislation nor would he sign onto the Levin bill. We agree that any changes to the inversion rules should not be made in isolation but as part of an overall rationalization of the U.S. international tax system.

Insights Vol. 1 No. 5: F.A.T.C.A. 24/7

Read Publication

I.R.S. PUBLISHES 1ST F.F.I. LIST

On June 2, implementation of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“F.A.T.C.A.”) reached another milestone. On that date, the I.R.S. published its first list of foreign financial institutions (“F.F.I.’s”) that have registered with the I.R.S. to show intent to comply with F.A.T.C.A. and have received a Global Intermediary Information Number (“G.I.I.N.”) to document that compliance. The I.R.S. list is important since U.S. withholding agents who are being asked by F.F.I.’s not to remit the 30% withholding tax imposed under F.A.T.C.A. must first obtain a G.I.I.N. from the F.F.I. and then confirm on the I.R.S. published list that the G.I.I.N. is accurate and in full force.

More than 77,000 F.F.I.’s appear on this first list and include foreign affiliates of some of the U.S.'s largest financial institutions. Among those financial institutions are Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, and Franklin Templeton.