Insights Vol. 2 No. 6: F.A.T.C.A. 24/7

Read Publication

F.A.T.C.A.’S FIRST ANNIVERSARY: AN ASSESSMENT

On July 1, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“F.A.T.C.A.”) celebrated the first anniversary of its implementation. F.A.T.C.A. was created to improve international tax compliance and combat offshore tax evasion. Notwithstanding dire predictions about its impact on the financial community when F.A.T.C.A. was first enacted in 2010, the sky has not yet fallen as of its first anniversary.

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.

Insights Vol. 2 No. 3: F.A.T.C.A. 24/7

Read Publication

FOREIGN ACCOUNTS – UPDATE TO 2014 INSTRUCTIONS TO FORM 8938

Form 8938, Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets, requires the disclosure of certain foreign financial assets owned by U.S. citizens, resident alien individuals, and nonresidents who elect to be treated as resident alien individuals for U.S. tax purproses. (E.g., a nonresident alien having a U.S. citizen spouse may elect be treated as a U.S. resident for purpose of filing a joint income tax return.) Form 8938 is attached to the individual’s income tax return for the applicable year (starting with tax year 2011) and must be filed by the due date for said return, including extensions.

Updates to the 2014 instuctions for the Form 8938 reporting requirements were announced on March 10, 2015 and incorporate final Treasury Regulations under Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) §6038D, adopted in December 2014. The final regulations are effective for taxable years beginning after December 19, 2011. The update contains additional information not included in the updated instructions for Form 8938. Taxpayers and their tax return preparers must review these recent changes to the form’s instructions to make sure it does not affect their filing obligations.

Dual Resident Taxpayers

A dual resident taxpayer, within the meaning of these regulations, is an individual who is considered a resident of the U.S. under the Code and applicable regulations because he or she meets the “Green Card Test” or the “Substantial Presence Test” and is also a resident of a treaty country (pursuant to the internal tax laws of that country). The updated instructions apply to dual resident taxpayers who determine their income tax liability for all or a portion of the taxable year as if they were nonresident aliens (pursuant to a provision of an income tax treaty that provides for resolution of conflicting claims of residence by the U.S. and its treaty partner).

Insights Vol. 2 No. 2: Updates & Other Tidbits

Read Publication

BUSINESSMAN PLEADS GUILTY TO CONCEALING $8.4 MILLION

A Connecticut business executive, George Landegger, pled guilty to willfully failing to report $8.4 million held in Swiss bank accounts to the I.R.S. During the early 2000’s until 2010, Landegger maintained undeclared accounts which reached a maximum value of over $8.4 million at an unidentified Swiss bank.

While Landegger’s defense attorney confirmed that Landegger has not been accepted to the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (“O.V.D.P.”), Landegger, according to the prosecutors, repeatedly rejected the possibility of disclosing his undeclared accounts to the I.R.S. through the O.V.D.P. and instead proactively took steps to conceal his accounts. Landegger held his undeclared accounts in a sham entity formed by a Swiss lawyer under the laws of Liechtenstein. In August 2013, the Swiss lawyer pled guilty to tax fraud conspiracy charges and has been cooperating with prosecutors.

Landegger agreed to pay a civil penalty of over $4.2 million and more than $71,000 in back taxes as part of his plea, entered on January 15, 2015. Landegger’s sentencing will be held May 12. He faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison. In his statement, I.R.S. Acting Special Agent-in-Charge Thomas E. Bishop stressed that uncovering hidden offshore accounts and income is the Service’s top priority and that it will continue working with the Department of Justice to do so. This case illustrustrates the importance of a timely O.V.D.P. submission.

OBAMA PROPOSES INCREASE IN CAPITAL GAINS TAX, ELIMINATION OF STEPPED-UP BASIS ON INHERITED ASSETS

President Obama has proposed a 28% tax rate on capital gains for couples with $500,000 in annual income and eliminating the stepped-up basis on inherited investments. Obama believes that these tax increases will help to pay for expanded benefits for middle- and low-income households. Congressional Republicans have indicated that they would not support Obama’s proposal.

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.

Using the U.K. as a Holding Company Jurisdiction: Opportunities and Challenges

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION: AN IDEAL HOLDING JURISDICTION?

At a time when a quintet of septuagenarian comics attempt to revive former glories with a final run of a live show of Monty Python in London, it is worth reflecting on the Holy Grail of the international tax practitioner: to find the perfect international holding company jurisdiction.

In this, the holding company jurisdiction needs certain characteristics:

• The possibility of returning profits to shareholders with minimal tax leakage;
• The ability to receive profits from underlying subsidiaries without taxation at home;
• The ability to dispose of investments in the underlying subsidiaries without triggering a tax charge on any profit or gain;
• A good treaty network to ensure that profits can be repatriated to the holding company from underlying subsidiaries, whilst minimizing local withholding taxes; and
• Low risk from anti-avoidance measures that profits of subsidiaries will otherwise be taxed in the holding company jurisdiction.

The U.K. has emerged over the last decade as an increasingly viable holding company jurisdiction, particularly for investments in countries within the European Union.

Swiss Trustees and Board Members of Foundations Have to Prepare for F.A.T.C.A.

Read Publication

BACKGROUND

Trusts are unknown under Swiss law and family foundations are not commonly used because their purpose is very limited by law. Consequently, many Swiss trust companies, family offices or lawyers act as trustees of non-Swiss trusts or as members of family foundations. It is not uncommon for trustees, trusts or foundations, and underlying companies to be established under the laws of different jurisdictions, and typically Liechtenstein is used.

Foreign trusts and foundations, foreign trustees and underlying holding companies that invest in the U.S. must determine their classification under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“F.A.T.C.A.”) and possibly a relevant intergovernmental agreement (“I.G.A.”). In the case of Switzerland, a Model 2 I.G.A. exists.

The determination must be made prior to the end of June 2014, even if no U.S. owners or beneficiaries are involved. The reason is that, by 1 July 2014, a foreign entity that is a Foreign Financial Institution (“F.F.I.”) must register on the I.R.S. F.A.T.C.A. portal and receive a G.I.I.N. The I.R.S. has announced that the last date to register and receive a G.I.I.N. prior to 1 July 2014 is 5 May. Registration is required unless the F.F.I. is a certified deemed-compliant F.F.I. or a Non-Financial Foreign Entity (“N.F.F.E.”). An exempt F.F.I. could be a sponsored investment entity, a sponsored closely held investment vehicle, or an owner-documented F.F.I. In each of those fact patterns, another entity is engaged to carry out the F.A.T.C.A. reporting. An N.F.F.E. is an entity that is formed outside the U.S. that is not an F.F.I.