Browse Articles:   By Category   /   By Author
HIDE

Other Publications

Insights

Publications

The Aftermath of YA Global: Who is a Partner?

/
The Aftermath of YA Global: Who is a Partner?

The YA Global case has drawn widespread attention due to the U.S. tax implications for foreign investment partnerships investing in U.S. securities or making use of a U.S. investment manager. The I.R.S. prevailed in the U.S. Tax Court, and the foreign investment partnership was found to have been engaged in the conduct of a U.S. trade or business in the facts presented. The Tax Court has now released a follow-up memorandum opinion that addresses the following question: what standard should be applied when determining whether a foreign recipient of an income payment from a partnership should be recognized as a partner for income tax purposes and subject to Section 1446 withholding tax? At stake is the U.S. withholding tax imposed on partnerships with foreign partners and U.S. effectively connected income. Wooyoung Lee and Stanley C. Ruchelman address the issue. Sometimes, financial engineers develop a plan that works well when stress tested in the office, but is far too complicated for the I.R.S. and Tax Court judges.

Read More

Receipt of a Profits Interest in a Partnership by a Service Provider – Not Taxable

/
Receipt of a Profits Interest in a Partnership by a Service Provider – Not Taxable

In E.S. N.P.A. Holding L.L.C. v. Commr., the U.S. Tax Court decided that the indirect receipt of a profits interest in a partnership in exchange for services was not a taxable event for the recipient. The decision was largely an application of Revenue Procedure 93-27, in which the I.R.S. provided guidance on the tax treatment of an individual who directly provides services to a partnership in exchange for the receipt of a profits interest. However, it is not a run-of-the-mill fact pattern that involves the grant of a profits interest to an individual in the financial services sector. Rather, it is about how an individual running a business through a taxable C-corporation was able to (i) arrange a sale of 70% of the C-corporation’s business to new investors bringing in fresh capital and (ii) by choosing a proper structure open a pathway to receive future profits without channeling income through the C-corporation. Wooyoung Lee, Nina Krauthamer, and Stanley C. Ruchelman explain the applicable I.R.S. regulations defining a “profits interest,” an important 8th Cir. Case reversing a decision of the U.S. Tax Court, the Revenue Procedure, and finally E.S. N.P.A. Holding v. Commr.

Read More

New Subpart F and P.F.I.C. Regulations – Ex Uno Plures

/
New Subpart F and P.F.I.C. Regulations – Ex Uno Plures

Is a partnership an entity for certain tax purposes or is it an aggregate of the partners? U.S. tax law was never consistent on this point. In 2017, a foreign taxpayer won a major victory when the U.S. Tax Court held that a partnership is an entity when determining the tax exposure of a foreign partner selling its partnership interest or having its interest redeemed. Almost immediately, Congress changed the law. From that moment, the I.R.S. reviewed the way partnerships and their partners are treated for purposes of the Subpart F, G.I.L.T.I., and P.F.I.C. provisions of U.S. tax law. Regulations were revised, the Schedule K-1 reporting form was modified with the addition of Schedule K-2 and Schedule K-3, and elections once made by domestic partnerships and binding on all members were now to be made by individual partners. Stanley C. Ruchelman and Wooyoung Lee explain these and other changes in the treatment of partnerships for the international provisions of U.S. tax law.

Read More

New Partnership International Information Return Schedules

/
New Partnership International Information Return Schedules

· The I.R.S. recently released drafts of two new partnership return schedules and accompanying instructions to address the reporting of income from international transactions. The new forms are required because of tax law changes enacted as part of the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act in 2017 and recent changes in I.R.S. policy regarding partnerships as aggregates rather than entities. Schedule K-2 and Schedule K-3 each contain nine parts, generally covering the information required with respect to the most common international tax provisions of U.S. tax law. Schedule K-3 contains a tenth part applicable only to the distributive share of a partner in relation to a sale of a partnership interest. Galia Antebi and Nina Krauthamer explain all.

Read More

Domestic Partnerships Treated as Entities and Aggregates: New Approach for G.I.L.T.I. and Subpart F

/
Domestic Partnerships Treated as Entities and Aggregates: New Approach for G.I.L.T.I. and Subpart F

The effects of the 2017 U.S. tax reform continue to be encountered in unexpected ways. Two prime examples are the final and proposed G.I.L.T.I. regulations issued by the I.R.S. earlier this year. These 2019 regulations attempt to bring order out of the chaos created by proposed G.I.L.T.I. regulations released in September 2018. In their article, Neha Rastogi and Stanley C. Ruchelman look at how the rules treat a domestic partnership and its partners when determining who is – and who is not – a U.S. shareholder of a controlled foreign corporation. The answer affects the application of the G.I.L.T.I., Subpart F, and P.F.I.C. rules. For those who follow the debate over whether a partnership is an aggregate of the partners or an entity that is separate from the partners, chalk up a victory for the proponents of the aggregate approach.

Read More

The Devil in the Detail: Choosing a U.S. Business Structure Post-Tax Reform

/
The Devil in the Detail: Choosing a U.S. Business Structure Post-Tax Reform

Prior to the T.C.J.A. in 2017, the higher corporate income tax rate made it much easier to decide whether to operate in the U.S. market through a corporate entity or a pass-thru entity. With a Federal corporate income tax rate of up to 35%, a Federal qualified dividend rate of up to 20%, and a Federal net investment income tax on the distribution of 3.8%, the effective post-distribution tax rate was 50.47%, before taking into account State and local taxes. With the post-tax reform corporate income tax rate of 21% and the introduction of the qualified business income and foreign derived intangible income deductions, the decision to choose a pass-thru entity is no longer apparent. In their article, Fanny Karaman and Nina Krauthamer look into some important tax considerations when choosing the entity for a start-up business in the U.S.

Read More

Grecian Magnesite Put to Bed: Tax Court Ruling Affirmed on Appeal

/
Grecian Magnesite Put to Bed: Tax Court Ruling Affirmed on Appeal

The battle is over. It is agreed that the emporer’s new clothes are made of fairy dust, and Rev. Rul. 91-32 is not worth the paper on which it was printed in the I.R.S. Cumulative Bulletin for 1991. In June, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the 2017 Tax Court ruling in the matter of Grecian Magnesite Mining v. Commr., which held that a foreign corporation was not liable for U.S. tax on the gain arising from a redemption of its membership interest in a U.S. L.L.C. treated as a partnership. In their article, Galia Antebi and Stanley C. Ruchelman address the history of the I.R.S. position and the disdain given to it by the courts. However, they caution that the taxpayer victory applies only to sales, exchanges, and dispositions effected through November 26, 2017. Thereafter, new Code §864(c)(8) modifies the law by adopting a look-thru rule when determining the character of gain from the sale of a membership interest. Win some, lose some.

Read More

Missed Opportunities – Tax Court Shows No Mercy for Indirect Partner

/
Missed Opportunities – Tax Court Shows No Mercy for Indirect Partner

In the U.S., there are several options to challenge an I.R.S. adjustment in the courts, including the U.S. District Court, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and the U.S. Tax Court.  Of the three options, only a challenge in the Tax Court can be pursued without first paying the tax.  Strict time limits are placed on filing a petition to the Tax Court.  If a taxpayer misses the deadline, it must first pay the tax and then sue for refund in either of the other courts.  The petition deadline is easy to determine when the I.R.S. proposes an adjustment to an individual or corporation, but when the adjustment is made to the income of a partnership – which yields tax exposure for partners – it is not always clear when the time limit has run out.  In a recent memorandum decision, the Tax Court ruled that an indirect partner was not able to challenge the tax liability of a partnership because the petition came too late.  In their review of the decision, Rusudan Shervashidze and Nina Krauthamer explain the strange facts involved and point out that the taxpayer did not have “clean hands.”

Read More

Proposed Code §864(c)(8) Regulations Codify Tax on Gain from Sale of Partnership Interest

/
Proposed Code §864(c)(8) Regulations Codify Tax on Gain from Sale of Partnership Interest

Enacted as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Code§864(c)(8) codifies the holding in Rev. Rul. 91-32 and overturns the result ofthe Grecian Magnesite case. In late December 2018, the I.R.S. released pro- posed regulations containing guidance under new Code §864(c)(8). Among the points addressed in the proposed regulations are (i) rules to compute the amount of E.C.I. gain or loss, (ii) coordination with F.I.R.P.T.A. tax and withholding, (iii) interaction with income tax treaties, and (iv) anti-abuse rules. Fanny Karaman and Nina Krauthamer discuss these and other aspects of the proposed regulations.

Read More

Corporate Matters: Profits Interest Basics

/
Corporate Matters: Profits Interest Basics

In the latest in his series of articles on the relative flexibility of limited liability companies and their desirability for use in many instances, including joint ventures, Simon H. Prisk looks at grants of profits interests as a means of compensating service providers and employees.  If done properly, these incentives can be optimized by favorable tax treatment, achieving the same or better tax results than incentive stock options available to C-corporations and S-corporations.  If done without proper thought and planning, the results may be suboptimal.  

Read More

Non-Corporate Taxation: Individuals & Partnerships Face Highs & Lows Under the T.C.J.A.

/
Non-Corporate Taxation: Individuals & Partnerships Face Highs & Lows Under the T.C.J.A.

Most cross-border tax advisers with clients that are impacted by the T.C.J.A. focus on the principal items, such as B.E.A.T., G.I.L.T.I., and the like.  However, the act contains many additional provisions that can affect the non-corporate cross-border investor.  Taxes have been reduced, a holding period for capital gains treatment now applies to carried interests, the scope of like-kind exchanges has been limited, and the tax treatment of alimony payments has been changed.  These are just a few of the items addressed by Sheryl Shah.

Read More

New U.S. Tax Law Adopts Provisions to Prevent Base Erosion

/
New U.S. Tax Law Adopts Provisions to Prevent Base Erosion

Following the lead of the O.E.C.D. and the European Commission (“E.C.”), the T.C.J.A. adopts several provisions designed to end tax planning opportunities.  In some instances, the new provisions closely follow their foreign counterparts.  In others, the provisions that are specific to U.S. tax law.  Among these changes are (i) the introduction of the G.I.L.T.I. minimum tax on the use of foreign intangible property by C.F.C.’s, (ii) the total revamp of Code §163(j) so that it reflects an interest ceiling rather than an earnings stripping provision, (iii) the restriction of tax benefits derived from the use of hybrid entities and transactions, (iv) the broadened scope of Subpart F through definitional changes, (v) legislative reversals of judicial decisions in which I.R.S. positions in transfer pricing matters were successfully challenged, and (vi) legislative reversals of a judicial decision invalidating Rev. Rul. 91-32 regarding the sale of partnership interests by foreign partner.  Sheryl Shah and Stanley C. Ruchelman discuss these provisions and place them in context. 

Read More

Tax 101: Taxation of Intellectual Property—Selected Tax Issues Involving Corporations and Partnerships→

/

Published in The Licensing Journal vol. 37, no. 9 (October 2017): pp. 11-18.

Read More

Foreign Partner Not Subject to U.S. Tax on Gain from Redemption of U.S. Partnership Interest

/
Foreign Partner Not Subject to U.S. Tax on Gain from Redemption of U.S. Partnership Interest

Hurray!  After three years, the U.S. Tax Court ruled that gain from the sale of a partnership interest or the receipt of a liquidating distribution by a retiring partner is not subject to U.S. income tax even though the partnership conducts business in the U.S.  Neha Rastogi, Elizabeth V. Zanet, and Nina Krauthamer explain the reasoning behind the decision and the magnitude of the defeat for the I.R.S. Unless the case is reversed on appeal, the decision invalidates the I.R.S. position announced in Rev. Rul 91-32.

Read More

Tax 101: Taxation of Intellectual Property – Selected Issues Involving Corporations and Partnerships

/
Tax 101: Taxation of Intellectual Property – Selected Issues Involving Corporations and Partnerships

Tax 101 continues its series regarding the U.S. Federal tax considerations involving the creation, acquisition, use, license, and disposition of intellectual property (“I.P.”).  This month, Elizabeth V. Zanet and Stanley C. Ruchelman focus on I.P. held through a corporation or a partnership/L.L.C.  In particular, the not-well-understood rules regarding the sale of interests in a partnerships/L.L.C.’s owning “hot assets” are explained.  Not all gain benefits from favorable long-term capital gains tax rates.

Read More

Sale of a Partnership Interest by a Foreign Partner – Is Rev. Rul. 91-32 Based on Law or Administrative Wishes?

/
Sale of a Partnership Interest by a Foreign Partner – Is Rev. Rul. 91-32 Based on Law or Administrative Wishes?

The I.R.S. has a long history in misapplying U.S. tax rules applicable to a sale of a partnership interest.  For U.S. tax purposes, a partnership interest is treated as an asset separate and apart from an indirect interest in partnership assets.  In Rev. Rul. 91-32, the I.R.S. misinterpreted case law and Code provisions to conclude that gains derived by foreign investors in U.S. partnerships are subject to tax.  No one thought the I.R.S. position was correct, but then, in a field advice to an agent setting up an adjustment, the I.R.S. publicly stated that the ruling was a proper application of U.S. law when issued and remains so today. The adjustment was challenged in the Tax Court, and the tax bar is eagerly awaiting a decision.  Stanley C. Ruchelman and Beate Erwin examine the I.R.S. position, the string of losses encountered by the I.R.S. when challenged by taxpayers, and the Grecian Magnesite case awaiting decision.

Read More

Property Contributions to Partnerships with Related Foreign Partners

/

The Tax Section of the American Bar Association recently commented on a set of proposed rules that appear in Notice 2015-54.  When adopted, these rules would limit the ability of U.S. persons to transfer appreciated property to a partnership in a tax-free transaction when the partnership has a non-U.S. person as a partner.  The I.R.S. is concerned that through special allocations of gain, built-in appreciation in contributed assets may escape taxation.  The Tax Section makes a case for additional guidance concerning the methods proposed to eliminate that result.  Philip R. Hirschfeld and Nina Krauthamer discuss the I.R.S. proposal and A.B.A. comments.

Read More

A Concise Guide to Acquisition Vehicles for Purchase of U.S. Real Estate by Foreign Individuals

/

Question: How many ways are there to structure an investment in U.S. real property by a foreign person? Answer: Many. Nina Krauthamer describes five.

Read More

Partnership Tax Traps and Recent Guidance

/

At the end of 2015, the I.R.S. issued a notice designed to limit the instances in which contributions of property to foreign partnerships benefit from nonrecognition of gain. In January, the I.R.S. came under pressure to modify its announced position in final regulations that are currently being developed. Philip R. Hirschfeld explains.

Read More