B.E.P.S. Actions 8, 9 & 10: Assuring that Transfer Pricing Outcomes are in Line with Value Creation

Read Publication

On December 19, 2014, the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (“O.E.C.D.”) released a discussion draft on Actions 8, 9, and 10 of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“B.E.P.S.”) Action Plan (“Discussion Draft” or “Draft”). Actions 8, 9, and 10 reinforce the goal of assuring that transfer pricing outcomes are in line with value creation.

In July 2013, the O.E.C.D. published the B.E.P.S. Action Plan for the purpose of establishing a comprehensive agenda to resolve B.E.P.S. issues. The B.E.P.S. Action Plan identifies 15 actions to combat B.E.P.S. and establishes deadlines for application of each action.

The Discussion Draft introduces revisions to Chapter I of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines and addresses the related topics in Actions 8, 9, and 10. Specifically, the Discussion Draft focuses on the development of the following:

(i) rules to prevent B.E.P.S. by transferring risks among, or allocating excessive capital to, group members. This will involve adopting transfer pricing rules or special measures to ensure that inappropriate returns will not accrue to an entity solely because it has contractually assumed risks or has provided capital. The rules to be developed will also require alignment of returns with value creation.

(ii) rules to prevent B.E.P.S. by engaging in transactions which would not, or would only very rarely, occur between third parties. This will involve adopting transfer pricing rules or special measures to: (i) clarify the circumstances in which transactions can be recharacterized.

(iii) transfer pricing rules or special measures for transfers of hard-to-value intangibles.

B.E.P.S. Action 4: Limit Base Erosion Via Interest Payments and Other Financial Payments

Read Publication

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.

2014 Tax Extenders Legislation Finally Approved

Read Publication

SUMMARY

On December 19, President Obama signed into law the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014 (the “Act”). The Act extended more than 50 expired tax-related provisions through the end of 2014, allowing taxpayers to claim a number of tax deductions, credits, and other benefits for the 2014 tax year. Since the Act does not generally cover 2015 and later years, Congress will have to debate the merits of these many expiring provisions all over again in 2015. Taxpayers are once again faced with making decisions based upon the hope that Congress will act to renew the provisions.

Legislative materials indicate that the 2014 expiration date was based upon budgetary and political concerns. The Act is projected to cost U.S. taxpayers $41.6 billion over 10 years, with no new federal revenue to offset the cost. Half of the cost comes from the $7.6 billion credit for business research and development costs, a $6.4 billion tax break for renewable energy production plants, and a $5.1 billion tax exception that allows financial firms and other businesses to defer U.S. taxes on certain foreign profits.

EXTENDED PROVISIONS

The heart of the Act is the extension of many tax deductions and credits that expired on January 1, 2014.

Tax 101: Understanding U.S. Taxation of Foreign Investment in Real Property - Part II

Read Publication

This article examines the U.S. income, gift, and estate tax consequences to a foreign owner upon a sale or other disposition of U.S. real property, including a sale of real estate, sale of stock of a U.S. corporation, or a sale of a mortgage secured by U.S. real property.

In addition to (or sometimes in lieu of) rental income, many foreign investors hope to realize gain upon a disposition of U.S. real property. The Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act of 1980 (“F.I.R.P.T.A.”) dictates how gains are taxed from the disposition of United States Real Property Interests (“U.S.R.P.I.’s”). The law has a fairly extensive definition of U.S. real property for this purpose. Most significantly, the law provides for a withholding mechanism in most cases.

WHAT IS A U.S.R.P.I.?

A U.S.R.P.I. includes the following:

• Land, buildings, and other improvements;
• Growing crops and timber, mines, wells, and other natural deposits (but not severed or extracted products of the land);
• Tangible personal property associated with the use, improvement, and operation of real property such as:
• Mining equipment used to extract deposits from the ground,
• Farm machinery and draft animals on a farm,
• Equipment used in the growing and cutting of timber,
• Equipment used to prepare land and carry out construction, and
• Furniture in lodging facilities and offices.
• Direct or indirect rights to share in appreciation in value, gross or net proceeds, or profits from real property;
• Ownership interests other than an interest solely as a creditor, including:
• Fee ownership;
• Co-ownership;
• Leasehold interest in real property;
• Time-sharing interest;
• Life estate, remainder, or reversionary interest; and
• Options, contracts, or rights of first refusal.

Filing Requirements Upon Conversion of a Trust Between Foreign and Domestic Status

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION

Whether a trust is categorized as a U.S. domestic trust or a foreign trust leads to different tax consequences and different filing obligations. This leads to the following questions: Which tax return must be filed when a trust is converted from a U.S. domestic trust to a foreign trust, and which applies when a foreign trust is converted to a U.S. domestic trust? A Chief Counsel Advice Memorandum, C.C.A. 201432022 issued on August 8, 2014, provides guidance on filing requirements in these fact patterns. Though it stated the obvious, the C.C.A. still leaves questions open, in particular with respect to grantor trusts. This article summarizes the conclusion reached by the C.C.A. and addresses issues for which clarification was not provided.

C.C.A. 201432022

In approaching the issue, the C.C.A. began by outlining the rules under which the filing status of a trust is determined for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

U.S. Trust versus Foreign Trust – General Tax Rules

Domestic trusts, like U.S. citizens and residents, are taxed on worldwide income, whereas foreign trusts, like nonresident aliens, are taxed only on U.S.-source income and income effectively connected with the conduct of business in the United States.

The Proposed United Kingdom "Diverted Profits Tax"

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION

The United Kingdom proposes to introduce, on profits arising as of April 1, 2015, a “Diverted Profits Tax.” This is intended to override the normal international tax arrangements when H.M.R.C. (the U.K. tax authority) does not like the outcome. Domestic laws, O.E.C.D. practice, and a network of Double Tax Agreements provide a definition of “Permanent Establishment” defining what income is or is not taxable within the country of operation. Similarly, “Transfer Pricing” rules should enable the tax authorities to ensure that the price used for transactions between related entities is appropriate for calculating proper division of taxable revenue between the countries concerned. While many believe that these are not working as well as they should, the problems need a more subtle and sophisticated solution rather than a blunderbuss approach.

The “Diverted Profits Tax,” at a rate of 25% (mildly penal, compared with the Corporation Tax rate of 21%), is to be imposed if H.M.R.C. does not like the answer produced by these well-established procedures and succeeds in claiming, under this new law, that profits have, nevertheless, been “diverted.” The draft legislation sets out very detailed rules. These are available on the H.M.R.C. website, but those who follow matters very closely would be well-advised to continue to examine the extensive comments that are being made. The draft legislation gets very close to giving H.M.R.C. the power to determine unilaterally the level of taxable income. “Tax by administrative discretion” is a policy normally associated with authoritarian or left-wing governments. The United Kingdom may well, post-election, have a leftwing government who will be delighted to be presented with what, to them, is a very attractive measure.

APPROPRIATE STRATEGIES FOR AFFECTED BUSINESSES

What do those affected by the draft legislation and their advisers need to do or know? The provisions will not apply to S.M.E.’s, i.e., groups with less than £10 million of annual sales within the U.K. Others will need to consider their position very carefully and make contingency plans on the assumption that the provisions will be enacted, although perhaps in a substantially amended form. H.M.R.C. forecasts that the measure will eventually bring in £350 million per annum, but goes on to say that it “is not expected to have a significant economic impact.” American readers in particular will be well aware that there is a huge gap between the initially-forecast yield of a tax avoidance measure and the outcome. Hastily proposed and badly designed tax legislation is often more successful at creating economic damage than producing revenue or desirable changes in activities.

Insights Vol. 1 No. 11: Updates & Other Tidbits

Read Publication

B.E.P.S. PROJECT FACES CHALLENGE IN ADDRESSING C.F.C. RULES

The O.E.C.D.’s pending base erosion and profit shifting action plan is due to face a significant challenge as to how to address controlled foreign corporations. Action 3, which strengthens C.F.C. rules, is set to be released in 2015. Currently, European case law restricts the scope of E.U. members establishing C.F.C. regimes.

Stephen E. Shay of Harvard Law School says the U.S. is encouraging the expansion of the C.F.C. rules as a way to solve several of the issues the B.E.P.S. action plan is trying to address, however, these new rules run the risk of being contrary to E.U. jurisprudence. The E.U.’s ability to adopt stringent C.F.C. rules is limited by the Cadbury Schweppes (C-196/04), a 2006 ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Court held that E.U. freedom of establishment provisions preclude the U.K. C.F.C. regime unless the regime “relates only to wholly artificial arrangements intended to escape the national tax normally payable.”

Without resolving the issue among E.U. countries, Action 3 may not be effective in appropriately addressing earnings stripping. However, Shay also added that Action 2, which neutralizes the effects of hybrid mismatch arrangements, so far appears to include an approach that works without C.F.C. rules.

CHARGES LAID AGAINST U.S. CITIZEN FOR MAINTAINING ALLEGED SECRET SWISS BANK ACCOUNTS

Department of Justice announced that charges have been laid against Peter Canale, a U.S. citizen and resident of Kentucky, for conspiring to defraud the I.R.S., evade taxes, and file a false individual income tax return. It is alleged that Canale conspired with his brother and two Swiss citizens to establish and maintain secret, undeclared bank accounts in Switzerland.

In approximately the year 2000, a relative of Canale died and left a substantial portion of assets which were held in an undeclared Swiss bank account to Canale and his brother, Michael. The brothers met with two Swiss citizens, who agreed to continue to maintain the assets in the undeclared account for the benefit of the Canales.

A Bad Month for Luxembourg

Read Publication

Luxembourg made front-page news last month with the leak of hundreds of documents that had been signed when current European Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, was prime minister and finance minister of Luxembourg. The leak, exposed by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (“I.C.I.J.”), revealed confidential agreements approved by Luxembourg authorities that provided tax relief to more than 340 global companies.

The leaked documents implicated not only private companies but also revealed that the Canadian government received a tax ruling for its Public Sector Pension Investment Board, which manages pensions for all Canadian federal employees. The Canadian Pensions Board issued a statement addressing this ruling and claimed that since it is tax-exempt in Canada its ruling is not tax avoidance as it has “no tax advantage.”

The European Union Antitrust Authority is now expected to expand its ongoing illegal state aid probe using the leaked documents in its investigation. A high-level European Commission official said, “We expect to expand our current request for documents…These documents are now available. They are clearly relevant to the ongoing probe, which is a high political priority.”

POLITICAL PRESSURE

The leaked documents put Luxembourg in hot water, especially former prime minister and finance minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, who now faces great political pressure to explain his role in the scandal. He is accused of acting to enrich his country at the expense of its European partners. His actions are purported to have been in defiance of the E.U. spirit, which he hopes to represent as the new Commission President.

Foreign Correspondence: Notes from Abroad

Read Publication

HOLIDAY SHOPPING, CANADIAN RETAIL PRICES AND TRANSFER PRICING CONTROVERSY

By Michael Peggs

When people think of massive transfer pricing cases, the driver typically is the diversion of profits to a low-tax jurisdiction. But transfer pricing issues are now filtering down to the level of retail shoppers facing retail price disparity in adjacent jurisdictions. A typical case is the premium that Canadian purchasers generally pay over prices charged in the U.S. for comparable products.

Before the internet, it was customary for Canadians to receive flyers in the mail from U.S. grocery and department stores. The flyers offered bargains for the holidays. The internet now allows instant price comparisons and greater choice for Canadian consumers. Disregarding sub rosa impediments to competition that permeate many areas of the Canadian economy – think of cultural preferences – Canadians have complained loudly that retail prices are unfairly high when compared with exchange-adjusted U.S. prices. A typical example is print media where the premium for pricing the Canadian edition was not reduced over the period in which the Canadian dollar reached parity with its U.S. counterpart.

The Canadian government is now preparing to give the Competition Bureau new powers to persuade U.S. multinationals with Canadian retail operations to lower prices or to achieve retail price parity, as will be determined. One hopes that Industry Canada will intervene with the Canada Revenue Agency (“C.R.A.”) before drafting legislation, as an unintended consequence may be a new round of Canadian transfer pricing controversy.

Insights Vol. 1 No. 11: F.A.T.C.A. 24/7

Read Publication

BITCOIN ACCOUNTS MAY BE SUBJECT TO F.A.T.C.A. AND F.B.A.R. REPORTING

Bitcoin and other virtual currency accounts held in foreign exchanges may be treated as a foreign financial account and thus be subject to F.B.A.R. reporting. Eventually, it is even possible that the foreign exchanges themselves may be considered foreign financial institutions (“F.F.I.’s”) that have to report the accounts to the I.R.S. under F.A.T.C.A.

This view follows caselaw where a court found that online accounts held for the purpose of foreign online gambling had to be reported on an F.B.A.R.

Currently, the I.R.S. treats virtual currency as property. However, some claim that it is only a short hop to apply the court's ruling in the online gambling case to digital currency accounts.

Speaking at the fall meeting of the American Bar Association Section of Taxation, a senior I.R.S. official said the I.R.S. doesn't have a stance yet on whether the currency is subject to F.B.A.R. or F.A.T.C.A. reporting, even though the agency is well aware of the issue.

RELAXED DEADLINE FOR REPORTING ACCOUNTS AS PRE-EXISTING

On November 17, the I.R.S. published a corrected amendment under which F.F.I.’s can treat all accounts that were opened before the date on which the F.F.I. signed an agreement with the I.R.S. to participate in F.A.T.C.A. (an “F.F.I. Agreement”) as pre-existing accounts for 2014 reporting purposes. Before this announcement was made, only accounts opened on or before June 30, 2014 were treated as preexisting accounts.

Corporate Matters: Don't Be Late - Time is of the Essence

Read Publication

When purchasing New York real estate, whether a commercial building or residential property, choosing the correct words with which to provide for the closing date in the contract of sale can make the difference between a smooth closing and a calamitous default. This article discusses the nuances of various terms of art so that a purchaser can protect its contract deposit and position as contract vendee.

New York is unusual in that a contract may recite a specific date for the closing of title but without the addition of certain talismanic words it is not the “Law Date” with regard to the property, meaning the date on which title must close. In order for a closing date specified in a contract of sale to become a Law Date, the specified date must be qualified by the phrase time is of the essence. “Time Is of the Essence” is a term of art that renders the specified closing date an ironclad date. Consequently, when Time Is of the Essence a purchaser’s failure to close on a specified date will result in default; by the purchaser and typically the loss of its contract deposit.

Thus, a closing scheduled for “on,” or “on or about,” or “on or before” or “in no event later than” a specified date does not lock-in the parties to close on that date. Such phrases assure that the parties will be afforded a reasonable time within which to perform the closing, beginning on the specified date. Generally, utilization of one of the foregoing phrases is regarded as permitting a 30-day adjournment of the closing date set forth in the contract.

Often, however, the seller will attempt to set an initial closing date or agree to adjourn a closing date only if Time Is of the Essence with regard to the new date. The purchaser must beware because the new date will be set on an iron-clad basis.

So what happens when a purchaser is confronted with a seller who demands a Time Is of the Essence closing date? There are various strategies which can be implemented by the purchaser to avoid a default if it is not ready to close on the specified date.

New I.R.S. Procedures for Canadian Retirement Plans

Read Publication

On October 7, 2014, the I.R.S. released Revenue Procedure 2014-55, which provides guidance for U.S. citizens or residents who own a Canadian Registered Retirement Savings Plan (“R.R.S.P.”). In short, U.S. citizens/Canadian residents, Canadian citizens/U.S. residents, and dual citizens will no longer need to file Form 8891 to defer the accrued R.R.S.P./R.R.I.F income for U.S. tax purposes. The deferral will now occur automatically, assuming the individual is “eligible.” These new procedures will apply even if the contributions to the R.R.S.P./R.R.I.F. were made as a resident of Canada.

However, practitioners should note that this does not alleviate the need to file Form 8938 or FinCen Form 114 upon receiving a distribution from an R.R.R.P.

Original Treatment

An individual who is both a U.S. citizen/resident and a beneficiary of a R.R.S.P will be subject to current U.S. income taxation on income accrued in the plan even though the income is not currently distributed to the beneficiary. In Canada, the individual is not subject to Canadian income taxation until the accrued income is actually distributed from the plan. This leads to a mismatch in the timing of the U.S. tax and the Canadian tax, resulting in possible double taxation.

Article XVIII, Paragraph 7 of the U.S.-Canada Income Tax Convention (the “Treaty”) provides that an individual may defer U.S. taxation on income accumulated in an R.R.S.P., but only if the individual makes an annual election to defer the taxation of income.

Expansion of Non-Willful Standard for Relief From Non-Filing of Gain Recognition Agreement Reduces Compliance Burdens

Read Publication

BACKGROUND

Outbound transfers (as defined) of stock or assets, as well as reorganization transactions that involve a foreign party to the reorganization, are subject to Code §367 and the regulations thereunder. Code §367(a) deals with outbound transfers of stock or assets and attempts to prevent the removal of appreciated property from U.S. taxing jurisdiction before its sale or other disposition. Code §367(b) applies to certain inbound and foreign-to-foreign reorganization transactions and is aimed at preserving the ability of the United States to tax, either currently or at a future date, the accumulated earnings and profits of a foreign corporation attributable to the stock of that corporation held by U.S. shareholders.

In the case of an outbound transfer of assets consisting of tangible property for use by the transferee, a foreign corporation in the active conduct of a trade or business outside of the United States, no gain under §367(a)(1) is triggered. Otherwise, gain under Code §367(a) equal to the fair market value in excess of tax basis is triggered. Code §367(a)(2) and Treas. Reg. §1.367(a)-3, in pertinent part, provide for exceptions to the general Code §367(a) gain recognition for outbound transfers of stock or securities. These sections provide for non-recognition of gain where appropriate, upon entering into a gain recognition agreement (a “G.R.A.”).

Under a G.R.A., gain recognition under §367(a) generally can be avoided on the condition that a G.R.A. is entered into by any U.S. transferor who owns at least 5% of the transferee foreign corporation immediately after transfer. The 5% threshold for requiring a G.R.A. is determined based on the greater of vote or value, taking into consideration attribution rules. A U.S. shareholder who does not own 5% or more of the stock does not have to sign a G.R.A. in order to claim non-recognition treatment for their exchange of stock for stock. The foreign parent corporation that issues stock or securities to these U.S. transferors is treated as the transferee foreign corporation for purposes of applying the G.R.A. provisions.

Canadian Immigration Trust Exemption Withdrawn

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION

For over 40 years, Canada offered a unique tax benefit to individuals not previously Canadian resident or who had been resident in Canada for less than 60 months. Such persons were allowed to establish a nonresident trust, which would not be taxable by Canada and from which a Canadian resident beneficiary could receive tax-free capital distributions. In addition, and in comparison to U.S. tax rules, income accumulated in the trust at the end of the calendar year automatically became capital, following typical provisions in discretionary trusts. Once converted into capital, the rules for tax-free distributions of capital became applicable.

This made Canada an attractive jurisdiction for global elite. Wealthy immigrants to Canada could shelter foreign investment income and capital gains from Canadian tax for a period of up to 60 months after becoming resident. Needless to say, these structures became quite popular.

In a surprise move announced in February 2014, the tax benefit was withdrawn from 2015 onwards. However, if the trust received a contribution after February 22, 2014, it would become taxable from 2014 onwards. Importantly, no grandfathering was provided for existing trust arrangements, which is both unfortunate and unfair. The change impacts a large number of individuals, as many people have structured their tax planning on the basis of having this exemption for 60 months.

CANADIAN TAX SYSTEM

Canada has a common law definition of residence, which is basically a facts and circumstances test. When an individual establishes sufficient ties to Canada, that person will become resident. While Canada also has a substantial presence rule (183 days in the calendar year), this rule is only applicable to persons who spend time in Canada without becoming resident under common law principles. Citizenship and immigration status are not a basis for levying tax.

Insights Vol. 1 No. 10: Updates & Other Tidbits

Read Publication

ISRAEL ANNOUNCES ADOPTION OF O.E.C.D.’S COMMON REPORTING STANDARD

Israel has announced that it will adopt the Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information: Common Reporting Standard (“C.R.S.”) issued by the O.E.C.D. in February 2013.

The C.R.S. establishes a standardized form that banks and other financial institutions would be required to use in gathering account and transaction information for submission to domestic tax authorities. The information would be provided to domestic authorities on an annual basis for automatic exchange with other participating jurisdictions. The C.R.S. will focus on accounts and transactions of residents of a specific country, regardless of nationality. The C.R.S. also contains the due diligence and reporting procedures to be followed by financial institutions based on a Model 1 F.A.T.C.A. intergovernmental agreement (“I.G.A.”).

At the conclusion of the October 28-29 O.E.C.D. Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, about 50 jurisdictions had signed the document. The U.S. was notably absent as a signatory to the agreement. In addition to the C.R.S., the signed agreement contains a model competent authority agreement for jurisdictions that would like to participate at a later stage.

Insights Vol. 1 No. 10: F.A.T.C.A. 24/7

Read Publication

CENTRAL AMERICAN COUNTRIES MOVE TO COMPLY WITH F.A.T.C.A.

While Mexico, the largest Central American nation, signed an I.G.A. in April of 2014, other Central American nations are also deciding to join the F.A.T.C.A. bandwagon. Panama, which has the greatest number of U.S. residents in Central America along with Costa Rica, are leading an effort to have Central America move towards compliance by the September 2015 deadline. In May 2014, Panama reached an agreement in substance to adopt an I.G.A., and has been treated as if an I.G.A. has been in effect since then. Costa Rica had already signed a Model 1 I.G.A. in December 2013.

Though Guatemala has not yet signed an I.G.A., many local financial institutions have registered for direct exchange with the I.R.S. under the Treasury Regulations. It was reported that nearly 100 foreign financial institutions (“F.F.I.’s”), including 18 banks, ten stock brokerages, and 28 insurance firms have registered with the I.R.S. to start sharing information by March 31, 2015, as required under the Regulations with respect to F.F.I.’s in non-I.G.A. jurisdictions. Edgar Morales, operation subdirector at banking trade group Asociación Bancaria de Guatemala, said that unlike Panama or Costa Rica, where aggregating these lists of U.S. resident account holders “will be much harder,” the process in Guatemala hasn’t been so complex because “there aren’t that many people who qualify under F.A.T.C.A. here.” Guatemala has a robust banking secrecy law that forbids banks from sharing customer data with other government institutions, and therefore banks that register with the I.R.S. have to obtain privacy waivers from customers to be able to reveal their information under F.A.T.C.A.

Corporate Matters: Series Limited Liability Companies

Read Publication

Clients frequently tell us they have heard of series limited liability companies but are unsure what they are and when they should be used. In this issue we will briefly explain the series limited liability company (“Series L.L.C.”) and outline some of the pros and cons, with respect to its formation and use.

SERIES L.L.C. ESSENTIALS

Delaware and a handful of other states have allowed the formation of Series L.L.C.’s since the mid-1990’s. A Series L.L.C. is a limited liability company (“L.L.C.”) composed of an individual series of membership interests where the L.L.C. is essentially subdivided into many separate series, each series holds distinct assets, and obligations with respect to the assets designated as being in a series. The creation of the series must be included in the Certificate of Formation and the management and operation of each series must be set forth in the Series L.L.C. agreement. The Delaware statute provides that “a limited liability company agreement may establish or provide for the establishment of one or more designated series of members, managers, limited liability company interests orassets” and that each series may have a separate business purpose or investment objective. This allows, in theory, for each series to have its own management structure and distinct business purpose.

The feature that most piques the interest of our clients is the ability of the assets of each separate series to be protected from the creditors of another. An owner of an L.L.C. that holds real estate assets, for example, that comprises both ownership and management could hold each business in a separate series of the same L.L.C., and a suit against the ownership series could not attack the assets of the management series.

T.I.G.T.A. Advises the I.R.S. on Improving International Tax Compliance

Read Publication

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.

INTERNATIONAL TAXPAYERS

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.

• U.S. individual taxpayers and resident aliens working, living, or doing business abroad;
• U.S. corporations doing business abroad;
• Nonresident aliens working or doing business in the United States; and
• Foreign corporations doing business in the United States