Corporate Matters: Buy/Sell Arrangements

Read Publication

In our May issue, we discussed the implications and importance of drafting governance documents to cover the death of a business partner. We thought an appropriate follow-up would be a brief examination of buy/sell provisions.

Buy/Sell provisions deal with the transfer of ownership interests, typically within a business enterprise, when one of the partners wants out, or, potentially, wants another partner out. In either circumstance, it is not uncommon for each partner to want to carry on with the business – just as long as the other partner is excluded.

Can B.E.P.S. Survive Without U.S. Support?

Read Publication

On May 28, 2015, the O.E.C.D. announced the countries that will participate in a meeting to begin substantive work on drafting a multilateral instrument under B.E.P.S. Action 15. Currently, more than 83 countries have expressed interest in joining the discussion, which will take place on November 5 and 6, 2015. The United States was noticeably absent from the list. However, the O.E.C.D. hopes that support will continue to grow in the intervening months and that the meeting may ultimately include as many as 100 countries.

The U.S. Treasury chose not to participate in negotiating a multilateral instrument under B.E.P.S. Action 15. After a careful review of the agenda for the discussion on the multilateral instrument, the U.S. Teasury felt that participation did not seem like a good use of its scarce resources. This decision was prompted by the question, “What is there for U.S. to gain by participating in the discussions?”

More Swiss Banks Reach Resolution Under D.O.J.'s Swiss Bank Program

Read Publication

The U.S. Department of Justice’s (“D.O.J.”) “Swiss Bank Program” (officially called the “Program For Non-Prosecution Agreements”), was announced in August 2013 and provided a path for Swiss banks to resolve potential criminal liabilities in the U.S.

Swiss banks eligible to enter the program were required to advise the D.O.J. by December 31, 2013 that they had reason to believe that they had committed tax-related criminal offenses in connection with undeclared U.S.-related accounts. Banks that were already under criminal investigation related to their banking activities were expressly excluded from the program.

Reinsurance Case Invalidates Tax on Foreign-to-Foreign Withholding Transactions

Read Publication

A “cascading tax” is a tax that is enforced more than once on the income from the same transaction or related transactions. A common example involves a back to back license in which:

• A non-U.S. individual or corporation (“A Co.”) licenses the rights to use intellectual property (“I.P.”) in the U.S. to another non-U.S. corporation (“B Co.”); and
• B Co. then sub-licenses the same rights to use the I.P. to a U.S. corporation (“C Co.”).

The Hewlett-Packard Debt v. Equity Case – Reply Brief Filed

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION

The focus of a debt-versus-equity inquiry generally narrows to whether there was intent to create a debt with a reasonable expectation of repayment and, if so, whether that intent comports with the economic reality of creating a debtor-creditor relationship. This determination has led various courts of appeals to identify and consider a multi-factor test for resolving such inquires.

In the typical debt-versus-equity case, the I.R.S. will argue for equity characterization whereas the taxpayer will endeavor to secure debt characterization to obtain an interest deduction. In some cases, the roles are reversed, but this does not require that courts apply different legal principles. Some courts consider 10 factors, while others consider as many as 16 factors. No matter how many factors are considered, the multi-factor test is the established, standard analysis used in such disputes.

Could an I.R.S. Employee's Comment Cause Yahoo! Stock to Fall?

Read Publication

Recently, the Internal Revenue Service (“I.R.S.”) Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate) announced that it may hold off on issuing ruling requests to taxpayers seeking assurance on the “active trade or business” requirement (“A.T.B.”) of a tax-free spinoff under Code §355. In light of recent market transactions, the I.R.S. is in the process of considering, how much A.T.B. is enough for a spinoff to qualify for nonrecognition treatment.

YAHOO! CIRCUMSTANCES

The announcement also placed doubt on whether ruling requests already submitted to the I.R.S. would be issued. Speaking at a District of Columbia Bar Association event, a senior technical reviewer at the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate) stated that the I.R.S. will hold off on issuing new ruling requests starting on May 19, 2015. He said that requests that were submitted before that date will be reviewed in the normal course, but that position may also change depending on what is decided in the next few months.

Legislation to Relax F.I.R.P.T.A. Gets Bipartisan Support

Read Publication

Tax legislation to encourage foreign investment in U.S. real estate made through real estate investment trusts (“R.E.I.T.’s”) was recently introduced in both the House and the Senate. Representatives Kevin Brady (R-T.X.) and Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.), introduced H.R. 2128, the “Real Estate Investment and Jobs Act of 2015.” The measure, backed by 22 bipartisan members of the U.S. House of Representatives, would make significant changes to the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act (“F.I.R.P.T.A.”). The bill is similar to legislation Representatives Brady and Crowley introduced in the last session of Congress, as well as a companion version introduced in the U.S. Senate this year, co-authored by Senators Mike Enzi (R-W.Y.) and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), S. 915. The Senate version would adopt additional changes including a proposed increase in F.I.R.P.T.A. withholding tax rates that would complicate investing by those not benefitting from the proposals. Enactment of the significant provisions in H.R. 2128 and S. 915 would signify an important step toward achieving F.I.R.P.T.A. reforms that have been advocated for by a number of real estate organizations for many years.

R.E.I.T. QUALIFICATION

A R.E.I.T. is a creation of the tax law. Any corporation, trust, or unincorporated entity may qualify as a R.E.I.T. if it meets the requirements of Code §856. A benefit of R.E.I.T. status is that it is a conduit for tax purposes, provided distributions are made to shareholders. No tax is imposed on the R.E.I.T. if it distributes all its income to its owners. The R.E.I.T. claims a deduction for dividends that it pays to its shareholders. In addition, a shareholder of the R.E.I.T. may be able to treat a dividend from the R.E.I.T. as taxable at capital gains rates if the underlying income of the R.E.I.T. that generates the dividend arises from the sale of an asset.

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.

P.L.R. 201446025 – A Change of I.R.S. Direction?

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION

U.S. charities are required to obtain I.R.S. approval in order to be exempt from federal income tax under §501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”). Under Code §508(a), new organizations must notify the Secretary of the Treasury that they are applying for recognition of Code §501(c)(3) status. In order to establish such exemption, Treasurey Regulation §1.1501(a)-1(a)(2) requires that an organization must file an appropriate application form with the district director for the internal revenue district in which the principal place of business of the organization is located. Furthermore, any rulings or determination letters holding the organization exempt are effective so long as there are no material changes in the organization’s character, purposes, or methods of operation. To be tax-exempt under §501(c)(3), an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual.

This begs the following question: If a charity changes its organizational structure or state of incorporation, will a new application be required?

Eaton Corp.'s Transfer Pricing Trial Begins August 24

Read Publication

The U.S. Tax Court’s transfer pricing trial of Eaton Corp. v. Comm’r1 will begin on August 24, 2015, despite attempts by the I.R.S. to further delay the trial until 2016. The controversy between the parties began in 2011, when the I.R.S. used its discretionary power to cancel its advance pricing agreements2 with Eaton Corp. and issued a notice of deficiency. Eaton Corp. filed a petition in 2012 challenging the I.R.S. cancellations and claiming that the agreements should be upheld on the basis of contract principles. The outcome of the trial could have a substantial impact on the I.R.S. Advance Pricing Agreement Program and impact the finality of these agreements with other taxpayers.

The trial was originally scheduled to begin August 5, but the I.R.S. filed a motion to delay the trial for five months. In response to the motion, Judge Kathleen Kerrigan ordered a 19-day continuance. The I.R.S. filed another motion to reconsider the five-month delay, which Judge Kerrigan denied. The I.R.S. argued that Eaton Corp. has failed to cooperate during the discovery process and that it requires additional time to prepare for trial in light of new developments. Judge Kerrigan denied a further delay of the trial because she doubts that the hostile relationship between the parties will improve with additional time.

Tax Rulings in the European Union – State Aid as the European Commission's Sword Leading to Transparency Rulings

Read Publication

The European Union’s plan on putting an end to corporate tax breaks granted by means of letter rulings ran into German privacy concerns as E.U. Finance ministers met on June 19, 2015. The initiative, aimed at implementing an automatic exchange of letter rulings granted by E.U. Member States, will affect E.U. businesses as well as European operations of foreign multinationals, including those based in the United States. Examples of the latter are already under review by the E.U. Commission with regard to letter rulings issued by Ireland and the Netherlands, respectively, to local operations of Apple and Starbucks. Although the E.U. Commission, the executive body of the European Union, has no direct authority over national tax systems, it can investigate whether certain fiscal regimes, including those that issue advance private tax rulings, constitute an infringement of E.U. principles, in particular “unjustifiable” State Aid to companies. Such allegedly incompatible State Aid would comprise, inter alia, selective tax advantages granted by an E.U. Member State to companies with operations in its jurisdiction.

The Commission is very clear on its intent to use its powers and pursue its initiative vigorously. The financial press has widely reported a statement made by a spokesman for Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager that combating tax evasion and avoidance is a top priority of the Commission. In line with that concern, the Commission is taking a structured approach when using its State Aid enforcement powers to investigate selective tax advantages that distort fair competition.

The following provides an overview on the legislative framework with respect to State Aid, developments and an outlook on the future of tax rulings in an environment of increased tax transparency.

Insights Vol. 2 No. 5: F.A.T.C.A. 24/7

Read Publication

I.R.S. OFFERS GUIDANCE TO TAXPAYERS SEEKING ELECTRONIC NOTIFICATION ON F.A.T.C.A. REPORTS

The Internal Revenue Service (“I.R.S.”) provided guidance to taxpayers who do not receive notification of the status of their reports once they have uploaded the data into the electronic system used to transmit information regarding overseas bank accounts to the I.R.S. under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“F.A.T.C.A.”). There has been growing concern among taxpayers as to what to do if they successfully upload a F.A.T.C.A. report into the International Data Exchange Service (“I.D.E.S.”) but do not get an International Compliance Management Model (“I.C.M.M.”) notification letting them know the status of the report.

The I.R.S. added a new Item D9 to its F.A.T.C.A. I.D.E.S. Frequently Asked Questions and Answers relating to data transmission. The I.R.S. has also stated that a similar question and answer was added to the F.A.Q.’s on the I.C.M.M., the I.R.S. system that ingests, validates, stores, and manages F.A.T.C.A. information once it is received.

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.

Pre-Immigration Tax Planning, Part III: Remedying The Adverse Consequences of the Covered Expatriate Regime

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION

Following our previous articles regarding pre-immigration planning and the expatriation rules applicable to covered expatriates (see here and here), this article considers some techniques for implementation before and after expatriation, with the objective to reduce the adverse treatment of the covered expatriate regime to the extent possible depending on the specific facts and circumstances of each individual.

For a Green Card holder, expatriating prior to becoming a long-term resident would eliminate the application of the covered expatriate regime. For a U.S. citizen (other than children under certain situations), the circumstances that will allow for a tax-free expatriation are more restrictive. An individual is considered a covered expatriate if he or she meets one of three tests. Pre-expatriation planning can eliminate the application of the covered expatriate regime for some individuals, while for others additional planning may be needed to reduce the unfavorable effect of the covered expatriate rules.

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.