Members of Ruchelman P.L.L.C. contribute to publications throughout the world and the Firm’s monthly tax journal, Insights.
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.
Read MoreThis month, Galia Antebi and Philip R. Hirschfeld discuss (i) the growing list of countries with which the I.R.S. will exchange F.A.T.C.A. information, (ii) the litigation in Canada attempting to block F.A.T.C.A. exchanges with U.S., (iii) recent developments in acceptably encryption for F.A.T.C.A. exchanges, (iv) additional competent authority agreements, and (iv) an updated list of I.G.A. partner countries.
Read MoreUnder political pressure from N.G.O. watchdogs, governments are striving to demonstrate their support for the B.E.P.S. Action Plan on a national level. Kenneth Lobo and Stanley C. Ruchelman look at implementation issues around the world. Included are issues in Germany related to exchanges of information, treatment of C.I.V.’s for income tax treaty purposes, and U.K. tax penalties for aggressive tax planning.
Read MoreThe offshore community often accuses the I.R.S. of having insufficient U.B.O. reporting for offshore companies forming single-member L.L.C.’s that serve as U.S. fronts for global business. The L.L.C. conducts business, but the I.R.S. treats the taxpayer as foreign. If no effectively connected income is generated, no U.S. tax returns are filed. The I.R.S. announced that information reporting will be required, much like partnership reporting by U.S. partnerships not having U.S. members or U.S. effectively connected income. Galia Antebi and Rusudan Shervashidze explain.
Read MoreIn the heyday of tax shelters, transactions involving transfers of low value assets with high tax bases were elevated to an art form. The fervor effectively ended when the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 enacted anti-loss importation provisions under Code §§334(b)(1)(B) and 362(e)(1). In March, the I.R.S. issued final regulations to stop base erosion through shifting of loss property into the U.S. Christine Long and Beate Erwin explain all.
Read MoreThe U.S. has extensive rules regarding tax-free reorganizations in a domestic context. When the transaction involves cross-border exchanges, these rules are supplemented by Code §367(a). Rusudan Shervashidze and Andrew P. Mitchel explain how the rules work when shares of a U.S. corporation are transferred to a foreign corporation in a §351 exchange.
Read MoreAs Insights continues to look at various provisions of the Internal Revenue Code applicable to corporate reorganizations and divisions, Elizabeth V. Zanet and Beate Erwin delve deeper into the requirements to address an eternal question relating to a tax-free spin-off.
Read MoreMichael Peggs and Kenneth Lobo comment on the I.R.S. victory in the Guidant case where the I.R.S. applied the “one size fits all” approach to group-wide transactions. Their conclusion is that today’s I.R.S. victory may be tomorrow’s lost revenue where a taxpayer seeks competent authority relief for transfer pricing adjustments initiated abroad.
Read MoreB.E.P.S. Action 13 addresses country-by-country reporting among tax authorities as a means of ferreting out mismatches between functions and profits. Now, CbC reporting is morphing in Europe to a public disclosure tool to bring N.G.O.’s into the process. Your tax savings through planning becomes a global problem for the N.G.O.’s to redress through public outcry. Michael Peggs and Kenneth Lobo tell all.
Read MoreOn April 4, 2016, the Treasury Department issued a third round of new rules under Code §7874 aimed at halting the wave of inversions. Already, at least one inversion transaction, involving pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and Allergan, has been scuttled. Beyond that, the new rules resuscitate regulations issued under Code §385. Philip R. Hirschfeld explains.
Read MoreThink you can hide behind a corporate shell in order to avoid notoriety? Think again if you own a company or L.L.P. formed in the U.K. These entities are now being required to maintain a statutory register setting out the individuals who are considered “persons with significant control,” and beginning in July, the registers are to be made available to the public. Naomi Lawson and Melanie Jory of Memery Crystal, London, explain of this new, transparency-seeking legislation and provide commentary on the multitude of potentially adverse consequences.
Read MorePublished in GGi FYI International News No. 4, Spring 2016 (p.12).
Read MoreIn the March 2016 edition of Insights, Kenneth Lobo, Sheryl Shah, and Beate Erwin look at the following recent developments: (i) an A.B.A. recommendation for higher Cuban compensation for seized U.S. businesses, (ii) U.S. inversions and European State Aid investigations targeting U.S. companies, (iii) an increase in the stakes faced by Coca Cola in its transfer pricing dispute with the I.R.S., and (iv) the U.K. reaction to the Google Settlement tax payment.
Read MoreThis month, Galia Antebi and Philip R. Hirschfeld discuss (i) changes to F.A.T.C.A. regulations designed to ease burdens on F.F.I.’s; (ii) continued I.R.S. interest in public comments; (iii) finalization of domestic entity reporting regulations under Code §6038D; (iv) an exemption from F.A.T.C.A. for a Swiss attorney’s confidential client escrow accounts; (v) competent authority agreements that have been reached with Brazil, Colombia, and Italy; and (vi) an updated list of I.G.A. partner countries.
Read MoreSimon H. Prisk and Nina Krauthamer begin a series on the reasons why a carefully crafted L.L.C. agreement is important in a joint venture. Commonly referred to as an operating agreement, this governance tool addresses the purpose, management, and overall operation of an L.L.C. and the obligations of members to make capital contributions.
Read MoreContinuing their series on the basic rules that must be met for a transaction to be treated as tax-free reorganization under U.S. tax law, Rusudan Shervashidze and Andrew P. Mitchel discuss practical mergers, acquisitive D-reorganizations, recapitalizations, and changes to the identity, form, or place of organization of a single corporation.
Read MoreOn February 17, 2016, the Treasury Department released its 2016 Model Treaty. The model serves as the baseline from which the U.S. initiates treaty negotiations. Various provisions are discussed in detail in this month’s Insights.
The 2016 Model Treaty adopts certain B.E.P.S. provisions, including those that eliminate double non-taxation through a splintered operation which divides a long-term project among several related parties and each party maintains the project for a limited time. That type of planning no longer works. Other B.E.P.S.-related revisions are missing. Sheryl Shah and Elizabeth V. Zanet explain what is out and what is in. They also address the way payments from expatriated entities are treated. It is not all bad news.
Read MoreOn February 17, 2016, the Treasury Department released its 2016 Model Treaty. The model serves as the baseline from which the U.S. initiates treaty negotiations. Various provisions are discussed in detail in this month’s Insights.
Taking a cue from the U.S.-Canada Income Tax Treaty, the 2016 Model Treaty provides for mandatory arbitration as part of the article on Mutual Agreement Procedure. I.R.S. statistics indicate that under the Canadian treaty 80% of cases were resolved by the competent authorities in lieu of risking an adverse decision through arbitration. Kenneth Lobo explains the revised provision and places it in context.
Read MoreOn February 17, 2016, the Treasury Department released its 2016 Model Treaty. The model serves as the baseline from which the U.S. initiates treaty negotiations. Various provisions are discussed in detail in this month’s Insights.
Those who thought that the limitation on benefits (“L.O.B.”) provision under the U.S.-Netherlands Income Tax Treaty was complex will find that the level of complexity in the 2016 Model Treaty has been raised several levels. Some taxpayers will be losers and others will be winners. Philip R. Hirschfeld and Galia Antebi explain how the revised provision will work.
Read MoreOn February 17, 2016, the Treasury Department released its 2016 Model Treaty. The model serves as the baseline from which the U.S. initiates treaty negotiations. Various provisions are discussed in detail in this month’s Insights.
A new provision of the 2016 Model Treaty attacks special tax regimes. Treaty benefits are denied for payments to connected persons who benefit from such provisions. Patent box regimes and regimes that allow for notional interest deductions are specifically targeted. Christine Long and Stanley C. Ruchelman explain.
Read More
