“Helen of Troy” Inversions Continue

volume 2 no 4   /   Read article

By Rusudan Shervashidze and Andrew P. Mitchel

This month, our team delves into the Joint Committee Report addressing international tax reform in a series of articles. The Joint Committee Report discovers that a better tax result is obtained when foreign low-tax profits are removed from the U.S. tax stream, leaving more for shareholders and executives. Is it an inversion or merely self-help? Andrew P. Mitchel and Rusudan Shervashidze explain.  See more →

See all articles in this series →

Moving Deductions into the U.S. as a Tax Planning Strategy

volume 2 no 4   /   Read article

By Stanley C. Ruchelman and Philip R. Hirschfeld

This month, our team delves into the Joint Committee Report addressing international tax reform in a series of articles. Taking a lead from the preceding article, the report discovers that a better tax result is obtained when deductible expenses are booked in high tax countries. Stanley C. Ruchelman and Philip R. Hirschfeld explain.  See more →

See all articles in this series →

Competitiveness of the U.S. Tax System

volume 2 no 4   /   Read article

By Stanley C. Ruchelman, Andrew P. Mitchel, and Sheryl Shah

This month, our team delves into the Joint Committee Report addressing international tax reform in a series of articles. The report compares the U.S. tax system with the systems of other countries. Stanley C. Ruchelman, Andrew P. Mitchel, and Sheryl Shah explain what the J.C.T. staff believes. It is not pretty.  See more →

See all articles in this series →

J.C.T. Report on Competitiveness – A Step Toward Consideration of New Rules

volume 2 no 4   /   Read article

By Stanley C. Ruchelman

This month, our team delves into the Joint Committee Report addressing international tax reform in a series of articles. Stanley C. Ruchelman leads with comments on the J.C.T. analysis of Subchapter N of today’s Code – the foreign provisions.  See more →

See all articles in this series →

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.

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.

Insights Vol. 1 No. 8: Updates & Other Tidbits

Read Publication

U.K. WINDFALL WINDING DOWN

After an arduous path through the courts regarding the creditability of the U.K. windfall tax, the Third Circuit followed the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court and found the tax to be creditable in a case involve PPL Corp.

The U.S. and foreign countries can tax foreign-sourced income of U.S. taxpayers. To lessen the economic cost of double taxation, U.S. taxpayers are allowed to deduct or credit foreign taxes in computing income or net tax due. The amount of the U.S. income tax that can be offset by a credit cannot exceed the proportion attributable to net foreign source income. Code §901(b) specifies that a foreign credit is allowed only if the nature of the foreign tax is similar to the U.S. income tax and is imposed on net gain.

The U.S. entity PPL is a global energy company producing, selling, and delivering electricity through its subsidiaries. South Western Electricity PLC (“SWEB”), a U.K. private limited company, was an indirect subsidiary that was liable for windfall tax in the U.K. Windfall tax is a 23% tax on the gain from a company’s public offering value when the company was previously owned by the U.K. government. When SWEB paid its windfall liability, PPL claimed a Code §901 foreign tax credit. This was denied by the I.R.S. and the long and winding litigation commenced.

Initially, the Tax Court found the windfall tax to be of the same character as the U.S. income tax. The decision was reversed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the tax was neither an income tax, nor a war profits tax, nor an excess profits tax. It took into consideration in determining the tax base an amount greater than gross receipts. Then, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the predominant character of the windfall tax is an excess profits tax based on net income. Therefore, it was creditable. In August, the Third Circuit followed the Supreme Court’s decision and ordered that the original decision in the Tax Court should be affirmed.

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.

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.

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.