Uncategorized

IC-DISC Still Providing Big Tax Benefits

January 22, 2022 by Frank Vari, JD. MTax, CPA

In a time when business taxpayers have few ways to save tax dollars, the good news is that I-C DISC continues to provide big tax benefits to closely held businesses. When compared with high – and likely rising – corporate and individual tax rates these benefits are especially attractive and worth pursuing.

Those that have followed the journey of the Interest Charge Domestic International Sales Corporation (IC-DISC) through the winding legislative process behind the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) as well as proposed changes to US tax laws know that it has survived intact. Those that have followed these export tax benefits from the 1970’s DISC, whose enactment was somewhat contemporaneous with the unrelated peak of disco music, to FSC to EIE and now back to IC-DISC know that it has really been quite a legislative and judicial journey for these important export tax benefits. Now that we can be sure that IC-DISC benefits have survived, where exactly do we stand post-tax reform and what can we do to maximize IC-DISC benefits?

IC-DISC one of the last remaining export incentives provided to U.S. based taxpayers. It’s been an important part of tax planning for closely held companies since the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 cemented into law reduced capital gains tax rates making IC-DISC a profitable tax strategy. As an added bonus, it is not currently on the World Trade Organization’s radar unlike some other current U.S tax incentives, i.e., the Foreign Derived Intangible Income (FDII) regime, so IC-DISC beneficiaries can rest assured that they are playing nice with our trade partners which is comforting. Also, don’t forget that IC-DISC is probably the last remaining tax planning technique where the IRS is willing to look past substance over form, at least a little bit – more on that later, which is not something seen too often.

Everyone probably knows the bad news by now that the reduction in U.S. individual tax rates has also reduced the IC-DISC benefits. However, it still provides a hefty 13.2% tax rate benefit to individuals which is only a slight reduction from the pre-TCJA rate of 15.8%. The difference is the 2.6% top individual tax rate drop from 39.6% to 37%. If the business is a pass-through, and assuming newly enacted §199A is available to the taxpayer, it still provides a 6% rate benefit. Thus, even post TCJA, IC-DISC remains an important planning tool for businesses of all types.

What many taxpayers are missing is that there are planning tools out there that can make IC-DISC an even better tax planning vehicle without increasing shareholder risk. Some are more complex than others but here are some that we’re using with our IC-DISC clients:

Ensuring IC-DISC Compliance
If an IC-DISC is not properly qualified there are no benefits and there are likely penalties. This is pretty simple to understand but it is very often a problem. IC-DISC is an attractive planning tool but it is often adopted by taxpayers who don’t want to deal with the complexities of IC-DISC qualification or by an inexperienced practitioner who fails to properly implement or advise their client on the importance of these rules. I have been part of many acquisitions of middle market companies where the seller’s IC-DISC was determined to be defective during due diligence as a result of taxpayer error. Similarly, the IRS understands this very well and disqualifies many IC-DISC benefits on this basis. It is never good when an IC-DISC fails this way but in practice many do. Please don’t be the advisor that has to tell your client their IC-DISC has been disqualified.

Utilize IRC §482 Transfer Pricing
IC-DISC is one of the few areas where the IRS cannot force a taxpayer to use IRC §482 arm’s length principles to determine the profit allocation between related parties. However, IRC §482 is best used here proactively by the taxpayer. Most IC-DISC taxpayers that I work with use the 4% of export gross receipts methodology. For many taxpayers that’s a mistake. Most often, their IC-DISC advisor doesn’t fully understand how IRC §482 works and is unable to even model what the answer would be so the taxpayer doesn’t get to see what the options truly are. By addressing the IRC §482 options, or consulting with an IRC §482 expert, an IC-DISC may see greatly enhanced profits. It is certainly fact dependent, but I’ve seen it deliver enough benefits that is part of every IC-DISC analysis we perform.

Grouping Transactions vs. Transaction by Transaction (TxT)
For those of us that practiced in the FSC days, TxT was one of the most popular tax planning tools out there and was used by FSCs with literally millions of individual transactions. We all know that FSC is long gone but the TxT method is alive and well but is a little of a lost art since the very large companies had to stop doing it. Most of the IC-DISCs out there utilize grouping(s) of transactions. Grouping is a proper methodology and it can be the best and is certainly the easiest to apply. However, like transfer pricing above, TxT often produces significantly better benefits. It requires that each individual transaction be treated separately which is beyond the capabilities of many IC-DISC practitioners. At a minimum, grouping vs. TxT must be modeled to ensure that the taxpayer is obtaining, or maintaining, maximum benefits.

Appropriate Expense Allocations
In order to properly determine the profitability of foreign sales, the taxpayer must utilize the principles of IRC Treas. Reg. §1.861-8 and its relations. These rules can certainly be complex and they are not often applied properly. For example, many U.S. based exporters spend large amounts on things like interest and selling expenses which are, in practice, mostly directed toward U.S. activities. By improperly overallocating these expenses to foreign sales they are artificially dampening IC-DISC profits. The IRC §861 expense allocation rules are not optional and it is imperative that the practitioner fully understand them.

IC-DISC for the Foreign Owned U.S. Company
There are many closely held U.S. companies with foreign shareholders that export. Please keep in mind here that sales to Canada and Mexico are also exports. Many of these corporations do not utilize IC-DISC but many should. Especially those that reside in treaty countries with low dividend tax withholding rates. This can be difficult because to properly model the results you need to understand the shareholder’s resident country tax laws as well as the shareholder’s tax posture. That said, I’ve seen this benefit work for foreign shareholders often enough that I always consider it when I see these facts.

Utilizing a Roth IRA
This has been a somewhat popular planning tool utilizing a Roth IRA to avoid annual contribution limits. The Roth IRA value grows while the IC-DISC profits are not taxed. Simple enough but it is not a risk free strategy. The IRS feels that this is a violation of substance over form and argued that, albeit unsuccessfully, in Summa Holdings, Inc., No. 16-1712 (6th Cir. 2/16/17). My view is that the IRS argued this case wrong but that’s another article. If you live in the 6th Circuit, good for you. The primary risks here are that the IRS does not like this and Summa Holdings predated the enactment of IRS §7701(o) which codified the economic substance doctrine. Until the IRS makes another run at this you certainly have substantial authority for this position where it makes sense.

IC-DISC as Non-Qualified Executive Retirement Tool
You don’t see this one too often but it makes sense. We have advised a client who was retiring from a leadership position in a successful family business. IC-DISC itself made sense as a planning tool but it also played a neat part in the transition of the business by placing the IC-DISC ownership in the hands of the retiring executives. Keep in mand that the IC-DISC does not have to be held by the same shareholders as the related supplier. This planning, in essence, permits the related supplier a full tax deduction and the retired executives enjoy reduced qualified dividend tax rates.

Summary
The bottom line here is that IC-DISC remains alive and well for the foreseeable future courtesy of the TCJA. Thus, it is time to start considering using IC-DISC again and, more importantly, maximizing IC-DISC benefits with proven and reliable strategies.

Frank J. Vari, JD, MTax, CPA is the practice leader of FJV Tax which is a CPA firm specializing in complex international and U.S. tax planning. FJV Tax has offices in Wellesley and Boston. The author can be reached via email at frank.vari@fjvtax.com or telephone at 617-770-7286/800-685-2324. You can learn more about FJV Tax at fjvtax.com.

New Transfer Pricing Opportunities in the COVID Environment

September 23, 2020 by Frank Vari, JD. MTax, CPA

Frank J. Vari, JD, MTax, CPA

We have previously written on transfer pricing opportunities in the COVID environment and, as the COVID pandemic continues to impact global supply chains, and our multinational clients in our transfer pricing practice continue to reap economic benefits via proactive transfer pricing adjustments. Multinational taxpayers that fail to actively change existing supply chain transfer pricing strategies will meet upended treasury strategies where cash needs no longer match cash sources as well as simple tax inefficiencies that can be avoided. It is our belief that, as we wrote in April, there will continue to be transfer pricing opportunities in the COVID environment with international tax benefits as well.

Global transfer pricing strategies are traditionally built on multi-year models in normal operating times. It is not uncommon for these transfer pricing plans/policies to only be updated on an annual basis. None of these plans, or the economic models upon which they are built, were designed to proactively address a seismic supply chain event like the COVID pandemic. An existing and unmodified transfer pricing plan is now likely materially incorrect and almost instantly out of date. The question is then what can be done to modify, or create, a transfer pricing strategy that reflects current conditions as well as the opportunities these new strategies present.

Finance and tax professionals should perform a detailed review of the business operations to mitigate TP risks and identify the TP opportunities to help management deal with their cash and operational concerns.

Learn More About Our Transfer Pricing Practice Here

Best Practices For Transfer Pricing Planning

Successful tax strategies are always based on communication and knowledge of the taxpayer’s operating environment. That has never been truer than now as this is the most dynamic and fast moving international business environment in modern times. Supply chains are changing very rapidly including the reallocation of associated functions and risks. Tax professionals must keep track of these business changes in order to ensure that their transfer pricing reflects the new reality and that cash balances and tax bills don’t create problems for the group.

Functions and Risks

The cornerstone of any transfer pricing analysis is the functional analysis that describes the allocation of functions and risks across a global supply chain. Some functions and risks stand out as significantly impacted by the COVID environment. Those we see are:

Liquidity – This is the most critical factor for many clients as they struggle to balance global cash flows where financial markets are in turmoil, customer orders are imperiled due to global shutdowns, and operating costs rise across the world to meet new safety concerns.
Supply Disruptions – Traditional suppliers, internal and external, have been taken offline either by government mandate or workplace safety issues. Alternative suppliers have had to step in at much higher costs to ensure supply chains operate properly if at all.
Logistics – Global transportation networks have been placed under significant stress resulting in product shortages in end markets and backed up inventories in production facilities. This has resulted in new supply chains not contemplated by existing transfer pricing plans.
Services – Global service providers ranging from legal, HR, IT, and other areas have changed to meet a crisis environment. Services traditionally performed in house have been outsourced, or vice versa, resulting in significantly increased costs for global corporate services as well as new service providers.

The allocation of functions and risks supports the economic underpinnings of a multinational transfer pricing strategy and the related tax and treasury results.

Transfer Pricing Opportunities

The very first step is to review existing transfer pricing documentation to understand any differences in the current environment to those facts supporting the economic comparables in place. In addition to the documentation, any intercompany contracts agreements for sale of goods, services, or the use or development of intellectual property must be analyzed to understand if unusual or unforeseen risks such as COVID have been covered and how they should be allocated between participants.

One common fact we see changing is the location performing intercompany services. Government mandated lockdowns and other related factors are forcing these changes. As a result, the modification of intercompany services contracts must be performed immediately to ensure that documentation and compliance are maintained. This is but one example of the multiple changes impacting documentation.

Force Majeure Clauses

The documentation review discussed above must consider if each party is able to fulfill their contractual responsibilities under COVID or whether force majeure should be invoked to alleviate either party’s obligations during the pandemic. This would allow related parties to seek relief from payment of recurring charges such as management fees or royalties. An excellent way to support the arm’s length nature of an intercompany declaration of force majeure is to determine if force majeure provisions have already been invoked with third party suppliers or customers of within the taxpayer’s industry.

If there is no force majeure clause in the intercompany contract, alternative legal remedies or renegotiating contracts to deal with nonperformance issues or other extraordinary circumstances should be evaluated. Courts have accepted that renegotiating intercompany agreements is consistent with arm’s-length dealings which, when coupled with the existence of third party force majeure invocation within the industry, provides solid support. Further, the local tax authorities may understand that a contractual restructuring is a better option than going out of business altogether even if short term profitability is impacted.

Create COVID Specific Policies

In the short term, policies can be created to address major changes and disruptions. These changes are highly dependent on the operational nature of the business. They can range from credit protection to expanded compensation for headquarters or shared services. It is very important to note that any changes must remain arm’s length which places the burden on the taxpayer to monitor developments with third parties and within their industry to determine what allowances are taking place. .

If the operational changes appear to be longer term, there is likely a case for an overall supply chain restructure. Many reading this may ask what exactly this new supply chain will look like which is a greet question in the fog of crisis. However, proactive tax professionals will be looking for the first clearing in the fog to make immediate corrections to global supply chain agreements and economics.

Benchmarking Adjustments

It is probably obvious by now that the use of a multiple year approach may not be suitable for generating reliable comparables in the COVID environment. A global taxpayer should evaluate whether the use of a year-by-year approach could better capture the effect of dramatic changes in their markets. There are certainly cases where the use of multiple year averages for years where the taxpayer’s comparables suffered from similar economic conditions that could help to develop a more realistic range.

Another more practical approach may be to expanding the acceptable range of results beyond the current interquartile range. These changes must be assessed on a case-by-case basis and are very fact dependent and local country transfer pricing rules must be reviewed.

Government Relief Programs & Policies

We are now seeing a number of countries offering relief programs to support faltering economies and we expect to see more if indeed a second COVID wave develops. Multinational groups must very closely monitor any local country tax news to determine if relief is being provided in some shape or form to their global supply chain. It may seem like this goes without saying but we do see these programs or policies often being implemented without the tax team’s knowledge and, as such, they are failing to properly evaluate or take advantage of these often very favorable programs. Specific to transfer pricing, information releases at both the OECD and local country levels must be monitored closely.

Conclusion

As the COVID supply chain effects continue to evolve, we will continue to identify ways to ensure that transfer pricing policies support both tax and treasury goals. The thoughts and ideas presented here represent just a few of the strategies out there to ensure that goals are met. Because each strategy is fact specific, no single strategy applies to all. We encourage multinational taxpayers to stay tuned in this ever evolving environment and remember that the arm’s-length principle comes always comes down to the idea that independent enterprises must always consider the options realistically available to them especially in times of crisis.

Does PPP Loan Forgiveness Create Taxable Income?

April 13, 2020 by Frank Vari, JD. MTax, CPA

Frank J. Vari, JD, CPA, MTax

We have taken a look at forgiveness of indebtedness issues related the Payroll Protection Program (PPP) loans that may be forgiven in whole or in part for some of our clients who are modeling the impact of a PPP loan. I thought I’d share it with everyone as any potential any PPP recipient would need to know this up front. All of this is current as of today but could change in this fast moving environment.

Federal

Under IRC §61(a)(11), the reduction or cancellation of indebtedness generally results in cancellation of debt (COD) income to the debtor. An “identifiable event” determines when a debt has been reduced or canceled. An identifiable event includes a creditor accepting less than full payment as a complete discharge of a debt, the acquisition by a debtor of the debtor’s own debt, and events or circumstances that remove the likelihood that a debt will be paid. A forgiven PPP loan would seem to fit here.

Under the CARES Act, an eligible recipient is eligible for forgiveness of indebtedness on a covered PPP loan in an amount equal to the sum of costs incurred and payments made during the covered period for payroll costs, interest payments on a covered mortgage obligation, and any covered rent obligation, covered utility payments. See Act §1106(b).

Under the CARES Act, the amount which, but for this subsection, would be includible in gross income of the eligible recipient by reason of forgiveness described in subsection ACT §1106(b) is excluded from gross income. See Act §1106(i) which specifically addresses this.

The Act does not specifically modify IRC §108 regarding COD income. It appears that exclusions for COD income under IRC §108 should be applied first with a resulting reduction in tax attributes if applicable. CARES Act §1106(i) then excludes any remaining amount of COD income realized as a result of PPP loan forgiveness.

Learn More About Our Tax & Business Consulting Practice

State

As noted above, CARES Act §1106 provides that any forgiveness of a PPP loan under the Act is excluded from the recipient’s federal gross income. However, also as noted above, the Act does not specifically modify IRC §108 related to COD income. Rather, it provides “For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, any amount which, but for this subsection, would be includible in gross income of the eligible recipient by reason of forgiveness described in subsection (b) shall be excluded from gross income” See Act §1106(i).

Most states conform to federal treatment of cancelation of indebtedness income under IRC §108 with some limited exceptions. It is very unclear how PPP loan forgiveness will be treated at the state level if it is not effectuated via IRC §108 which is the clearest technical path to COD income. Most states begin the calculation of state taxable income with federal gross, adjusted gross, or taxable income, but the specific method for performing this calculation, as outlined in the applicable state statutes, may result in different treatment in different states, absent further guidance.

Please do stay tuned here especially at the state level.

Please let us know how we can help you plan for your tax planning and compliance needs. Learn more about our business tax practice or our firm by contacting us at FJVTAX.com.

The Hidden Passive Foreign Investment Corporation Danger & How To Address It

October 17, 2019 by Frank Vari, JD. MTax, CPA

The Hidden Passive Foreign Investment Corporation Danger & How To Address It

Frank J. Vari, JD, MTax, CPA

Passive Foreign Investment Company (PFIC) is a term that many U.S. taxpayers and practitioners do not understand or recognize but it stands as one of the most significant risk exposures to any US taxpayers with foreign investments of any sort. Many U.S. taxpayers, primarily individual investors, and practitioners are too quick to conclude that they do not own a PFIC interest. In our experience, this is because they either don’t understand what a PFIC is or they are daunted by the complicated PFIC rules and reporting requirements. The common results on audit are unexpected severe tax consequences to unsuspecting and unprepared taxpayers. When one considers that a PFIC could be anything from a small interest in a foreign corporation to a Bitcoin investment it is easy to see how easy it is to come into contact with the complex and punitive PFIC rules. This article is intended to provide some basic guidance on the PFIC regime and to address some basic issues.

The PFIC rules were enacted in 1986 as a counterpart to the anti-deferral regime of Subpart F with an intended target of U.S. owners of foreign corporations with primarily passive income or assets. The PFIC rules, unlike the rules in Subpart F, aim to remove the economic benefit of deferral with respect to any and all U.S. PFIC investors and not just those with significant ownership interests. Extremely broad and complex, the PFIC rules discourage U.S. taxpayers from investing in PFICs assuming that they can identify whether their foreign investment is a PFIC in the first place.

The PFIC rules are primarily contained within IRC §§1291, 1297, 1298 and related authority. Primary technical guidance has historically been provided by IRS Notice 88-22 which continues to provide significant guidance to this day.

Generally defined, a PFIC is a foreign corporation that has, during the tax year, at least 75% passive income (“Income Test”) or at least 50% of assets that produce passive income (“Asset Test”). Passive income is any income that would be Foreign Personal Holding Company Income (“FPHCI”) as defined by the Subpart F provisions in IRC §954(c). Many conclude that unless the investment is considered a Controlled Foreign Corporation (“CFC) there is no PFIC exposure. This is an incorrect and false analysis that confuses PFIC with Subpart F. This is an especially dangerous conclusion when one recognizes that the PFIC rules don’t apply to a CFC after 1997 as part of the PFIC/CFC overlap rule of IRC §1297(d) exempting CFC shareholders from the PFIC regime.

Here for example, are common PFIC investments that we regularly see in our international tax practice. In any of these or similar situations PFIC testing is required:

Foreign Mutual Funds

The primary investments of a mutual fund are most often passive or generate passive income qualifying the mutual fund itself as a PFIC.

Foreign Holding Companies

Many foreign holding company investments by U.S. shareholders are tailored to avoid CFC rules due to passive share investments. However, there is often PFIC exposure which often goes untested. This is a very common PFIC scenario.

Foreign Hedge Funds

Like a mutual fund, a hedge fund is an entity often engaging in passive investment activity. We work with a number of foreign hedge funds and any U.S. investor in a foreign hedge fund has potential PFIC exposure.

Foreign Trusts

A foreign trust is most often a foreign entity consisting of passive investments generating passive income. We often see U.S. beneficiaries of foreign trusts, many of which are family trusts established many years ago, that qualify as PFICs and carry significant past tax liabilities with them.

Foreign Bank Accounts

A bank account might also be a PFIC if that account is a money market type investment rather than simply a deposit account as many money market investments are equivalent to fixed income mutual funds.

Foreign Pension Funds

PFIC rules can and do apply to passive investments held inside foreign pension funds unless those pension plans are recognized by the U.S. as “qualified” under the terms of a double-taxation treaty between the U.S. and the host country.

Bitcoin / Cryptocurrency

If cryptocurrency is held in via a foreign fund or it is held via a foreign entity maybe a PFIC investment. The passive nature of these investments always require PFIC testing.

Learn More About Our International Tax Practice Here

As noted above, the PFIC regime is essentially an anti-deferral regime intended to remove any advantage of income deferral provided by a non-CFC offshore investment. PFIC taxation falls into three elective categories. First, income can be currently taxed as a Qualified Electing Fund (“QEF”) under IRC §1293 where a U.S. shareholder elects to have their PFIC income taxed annually. Second, the IRC §1291 “interest on deferral” regime allows annual U.S. taxes on PFIC income to be deferred but requires the U.S. shareholder to pay any tax plus interest on the deferred PFIC income when the shareholder ultimately receives their PFIC income via distribution or disposition. Third, there is the IRC §1296 mark-to-market regime where the shareholder recognize gains and losses from marketable stock on an annual basis. The most common taxing regime chosen is a QEF election if PFIC treatment cannot be avoided altogether.

One notable rule around PFICS is the “once a PFIC always a PFIC” rule. This rule states that if stock in a foreign investment meets the PFIC definition at any time during the shareholder’s holding period it continues to be treated as a PFIC forever even after it no longer meets the PFIC definition. This requires a lookback for many taxpayers to see if their investment has been tainted as a PFIC at some point in the past even if it clearly no longer qualifies as a PFIC today. This is not an uncommon event.

This article is not intended to be and should not be treated as a complete description of the PFIC testing and treatment rules. There is much more to this regime including complex Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) reporting rules which include filing Form 8621 for each PFIC investment.

The bottom line to any U.S. taxpayer or practitioner who believes that a foreign investment is or was a PFIC should immediately research or seek out an experienced international tax practitioner with PFIC experience to help them navigate and limit their PFIC tax exposure.

Please let us know how we can help you plan for your international investments. Learn more about our international tax practice or our firm by contacting us at FJVTAX.com.

How Does the US Tax UK Pension Lump-Sum Payments to US Citizens?

July 23, 2019 by Frank Vari, JD. MTax, CPA

Frank J. Vari, JD, MTax, CPA

Our international tax practice gets a large number of questions from United Kingdom (UK) citizens that are also United States (US) citizens and residents regarding their UK pensions. There are a number of complex issues around both UK private and public pensions that need to be addressed and each question requires separate research and analysis. Further complicating matters are issues for dual citizens that are trying to navigate not only both US and UK tax laws but also the US/UK Income Tax Treaty. These are certainly difficult waters to navigate even for experienced tax professionals.

One very common and complex question is the US tax treatment on a 25% lump-sum distribution from a UK pension. As many know, the UK government will not tax the 25% lump-sum payment as a matter of UK law. The tricky question is how does the US treat it?

There is a lot of information out there on the internet and much of it is either wrong or misleading. Many “advisers” claim that the 25% lump-sum payment is tax free both in the US and the UK. These folks claim that in the UK it is tax exempt by statute/law and that it is also tax free in the US by virtue of the US/UK Tax Treaty. They advise that the Treaty will allow you to escape US tax on this payment. Treaty questions are usually rather complex and difficult to understand especially if you’re not used to the language they use meaning things like “savings clause”, etc. I’ll try to explain below both what we’ve seen and what the rule is on this issue.

One thing that seems to be clear is that all of a US citizen’s income from any source is subject to US tax under IRC §61. Further, a dual citizen of the US and UK is entitled to rely on the aforementioned tax Treaty between the two countries by virtue of Article 23(2)(A).

The basic position we’ve seen out there is as such:

There is a “reciprocal pension exemption” in Article 17(1)(b) that requires the US to respect the UK exemption on the 25% lump-sum payment when paid to a US citizen and resident. This is False.
There is something in many tax treaties, including this one, that is called a “savings clause”. Basically, what this says is that if income received by a resident of country #1 is not taxed by county #2, country #1 can tax it. It almost serves as a soak-up clause to make sure all income is taxed by someone. This is true and is contained in many income tax treaties.
An exemption from a savings clause would mean that income received by a treaty country resident – like a dual citizen of the UK and the US residing in the US – is not taxed on that exempted income in either the UK or US. True if it applies.
The position to avoid tax here relies on the Article 1(4) savings clause – citing Article 1(5)(A) – to say that Article 17(1)(B) is not covered by the savings clause meaning, if read in conjunction with the earlier point, that the 25% lump-sum payment is not taxed by the US under Article 17(1)(b) and is exempt from the Treaty’s savings clause. This is false as the savings clause does apply as enumerated below.
Stated alternatively, these advisers are saying that the Treaty binds the US to recognize the UK exemption on the 25% payment and the savings clause does not operate to “soak it up” or otherwise tax it. Thus, you escape both US and UK tax on the 25% lump-sum distribution.

There are some big problems with this. The first is that, if you read the Treaty, this is not what it says. The second is that the IRS has publicly stated that this is not what the Treaty says. Please read the latter as the IRS explains its position on this very specific issue.

Please allow me to explain what the Treaty says on this issue:

Article 17(1)(B) provides us with a reciprocal pension exemption but not at all in the way described above. Treaty Article 17(1)(B) says no such thing. Also, Article 17(1)(B) does not address lump-sum payments which are clearly addressed in Article 17(2).
Article 17(2), covering lump-sum pension payments like this one, tells us that a lump-sum payment that is tax-free in one state shall also be tax-free when received by a resident of the other state. That’s a great answer if you stop there.
The Treaty’s savings clause specifically cites Article 1(5)(A). A reading of that article shows that it exempts Articles 17(3) – dealing with periodic payments of a social security scheme – and 17(5) – dealing with divorce and support payments – from the savings clause. Article 17(2) – dealing with lump-sum payments – is not mentioned or exempted in any way from the Treaty’s savings clause.
As such, the savings clause will require that the lump-sum payment be picked up in the taxpayer’s US tax as neither US tax law nor the US/UK Tax Treaty offers any exemption.

The IRS has specifically said what is clearly in the Treaty:

Article 1(5) of the Treaty provides a number of exceptions to the saving clause, but there is no exception for Article 17(2). Therefore, the saving clause overrides Article 17(2) and allows the United States to tax a lump-sum payment received by a U.S. resident from a U.K. pension plan.

That is sufficiently clear regarding the US tax authority’s position on the issue.

In summary, a UK 25% lump-sum pension distribution is fully taxable to a US citizen and resident and the US tax authorities have specifically stated that the Treaty language agrees. Any other position on this issue contradicts the IRS’s position and, quite frankly, has no basis either in US tax law or the Treaty itself. One taking an alternative position on this issue should be aware that it will likely require a substantive audit defense. Further, any practitioner taking this position should be mindful of IRS Circular 230’s requirements for tax return positions.

This is surely a complex subject as any Treaty based analysis usually is and any slight change in facts could derive a completely different answer. Each taxpayer situation is slightly different and that is why an experienced international tax practitioners should always weigh in on these questions. We do a considerable amount of work in this area and we hope that this note clears up a situation with considerable confusion around it.

International Tax Planning Tools for US Individuals with Foreign Investments

February 4, 2019 by Frank Vari, JD. MTax, CPA

Frank J. Vari, JD, MTax, CPA

There is no question that Public Law 115-97, commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“Act”), changed the rules governing all US individuals and corporations with foreign businesses and investments. The Act was advertised to reduce taxes and compliance costs for both individuals and corporations and for most parties it has accomplished that goal. However, some of these new rules have had a decidedly negative impact on individual or non-corporate US shareholders of controlled foreign corporations (“CFC”) compared with corporate shareholders. Many non-corporate CFC shareholders actually face an expensive tax increase as well as increased compliance costs.

It is not clear whether the negative impact of these new rules was intended or simply the result of constructing very complicated tax legislation in a somewhat short time period. Whatever the cause, where care was taken in domestic legislation to place individual and corporate shareholders on a somewhat equal footing, e.g., new IRC §199A tax benefits offered along with reduced corporate tax rates, the same efforts were not made in the context of international shareholdings.

US individuals with foreign investments must immediately explore their international tax planning options to avoid these negative US income tax effects. We are actively engaged with a number of US based individuals on their individual international tax planning and we hope this article sheds some light on these important issues and related planning opportunities for you or your clients.

CFC Ownership

A CFC is generally defined as any foreign corporation where US persons own 50% or more (directly, indirectly, or constructively) of the foreign corporation’s stock (measured by vote or value) taking into account only those US persons who own at least 10% of the aforementioned stock. These shareholders are each referred to as a United States Shareholder (“USS”).

US individual ownership of CFC shares was always disadvantaged compared to corporate shareholders primarily due to the inability of individuals to use IRC §902 to credit indirect foreign taxes paid by the CFC. US individual shareholders can only use IRC §901 foreign tax credits which are basically limited to withholding taxes associated with the CFC dividend. Where the CFC’s local income taxes are high, the US individual shareholder’s effective tax rate on their CFC income is effectively equivalent to their US individual rate plus the CFC’s effective rate. It’s not uncommon for us to see an individual effective rate exceed 70% in these cases.

The benefit that US individual CFC shareholders did receive was deferral. In other words, unless an anti-deferral regime such as Subpart F was in play, the US individual did not have to recognize the CFC income until it was actually dispersed to them via dividend or otherwise. Further, if the CFC’s local income tax was a low amount, the increase in their overall effective tax rate for taxes not creditable under IRC §901 may have been worth it if deferral had true economic value to them.

Tax Reform Changes

The aforementioned CFC tax regime has significantly changed under the Act. Here are the major changes affecting individuals:

No Transition Tax Relief

IRC §965 requires the inclusion in income for all CFC shareholders of the CFC’s previously untaxed earnings and profits (“E&P”). The Act offered corporate CFC shareholders a reduced transition tax rate to cushion the blow of this unanticipated income inclusion but no such rate forbearance was offered to individual CFC shareholders. They took their inclusion at their regular individual tax rates.

No Participation Exemption

IRC §245A provides a full participation exemption, also referred to as dividends received deduction (“DRD”), for certain dividends received by a US C corporation from a CFC. However, US individuals who own CFC shares are not eligible for this participation exemption. CFC dividends received by individuals remain taxable either as qualified or non-qualified dividends at higher individual rates.

No GILTI Tax Reduction

The Act added IRC §951A which requires a USS to include in their US taxable income their pro-rata share of the CFC’s Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (“GILTI”) which is treated, basically, as Subpart F income.

The GILTI calculation is complex by any measure. Quite basically, GILTI is the excess of a USS’s pro-rata share of a CFC’s income reduced by an allowable return equal to 10% of the CFC’s adjusted tax basis in certain depreciable tangible property. US corporate CFC shareholders are given a 50% deduction via newly enacted IRC §250 against any GILTI inclusion and can, subject to certain limits, credit IRC §902 taxes paid by the CFC to offset the US tax resulting from the GILTI inclusion.

Individual shareholders of CFCs are not eligible for either of these benefits afforded to corporate shareholders. Instead, they are subject to US tax at their individual income tax rates up to 37% on their GILTI inclusions without any foreign tax credit offsets. It is certainly a bitter pill for US individual CFC shareholders who engaged in sophisticated and expensive international tax planning to avoid Subpart F income only to be hit with similarly taxed GILTI inclusions.

The following example illustrates the disparate impact of the GILTI regime on an individual CFC shareholder who is also a USS. Assume a CFC operates an active services business in a jurisdiction that imposes a 30% income tax rate. The CFC has no tangible depreciable assets and generates $100 of net taxable income annually that is not otherwise classified as Subpart F income. The following graphic compares the tax consequences to a US corporate shareholder to those of an US individual shareholder:

	C Corporation USS of a CFC	Individual USS of a CFC
GILTI inclusion (IRC §951A)	$100	$100
50% Deduction (IRC §250)	$50	N/A
US Taxable Income	$50	$100
Foreign Income Tax (30%)	$30	$30
US Pre-Credit Tax	$10.5 (21% x $50)	$25.9 (37% x $70)
US Foreign Tax Credit	$24 IRC §960(d) 80% FTC limit	$0 No IRC §902 Credits
US Tax Liability	$0	$25.9
GILTI Effective Tax Rate	30% No GILTI FTC Carryforward	55.9%

Corporate CFC shareholders who utilize foreign tax credits to offset their GILTI tax expense are not only limited by the 80% IRC §960(d) limitation but also the inability to carryforward or carryback GILTI basket foreign tax credits. However, the IRC §78 gross-up still applies to 100% of the foreign tax expense. Even with these limitations, corporate shareholders get a much better deal than individual shareholders under the GILTI rules as a whole.

No FDII Benefits

The Act introduced, via IRC §250(a), the Foreign Derived Intangible Income (“FDII”) regime which provides C corporations with export sales important new tax benefits. These export benefits provide a reduced US tax rate on income attributable to intangible assets owned within the US in a similar manner to how the GILTI rules create income inclusions for the same activities conducted offshore. For a detailed description of the FDII rules, please see this recent article we authored on this topic.

The FDII rules were theoretically intended to provide tax benefits to offset the impact of GILTI inclusions. The result is a new benefit to US C corporations for using US based intangible property that they’ve owned all along. Even better, they don’t have to patent, copyright, or even identify the intangible property as the benefit is derived from a deemed return on assets calculation. It’s all good but it does not apply to individuals, S Corps, or partnerships. As a result, individuals take a harder hit from the GILTI rules with no corresponding relief from the FDII regime.

Learn More About Our International Tax Practice By Clicking Here

Planning Options

For a US individual with existing or planned CFC ownership, there are various options available to mitigate some of these new provisions but each involves different steps with different side effects. We continue to see new options arise depending on the facts and circumstances of each particular taxpayer but here are some of the most common planning options we’ve been using thus far:

Contribute CFC Shares to a C Corporation

The logic here is easy enough to understand. Once the CFC shares are held by the C corporation, the corporation can utilize IRC §902 credits for taxes paid by the CFC, use offsets to the GILTI provisions provided under IRC §250 and elsewhere, and utilize the FDII regime. However, double taxation still occurs to the individual shareholder and there can be considerable complexity and costs in restructuring the CFC’s ownership chain.

Making an Annual IRC §962 Election

An IRC §962 election is a rarely utilized election employed to ensure that an individual taxpayer is not subject to a higher rate of tax on the earnings of a foreign corporation than if he or she had owned it through a US C corporation. This is an annual election with respect to all CFCs for which the individual is a USS including those owned through a pass-through entity.

The primary benefits of this election are that it provides a 21% corporate tax rate on any GILTI or Subpart F inclusion as well as allowing the use of IRC §902 credits. The individual taxpayer also does not have to endure the administrative burden of actually creating a C corporation holding structure for the CFC(s). However, in addition to having to make an annual election, the election does not allow the taxpayer to take the GILTI IRC §250 deduction or utilize the FDII export incentive regime.

Check-The-Box / Disregarded Entity Election

The taxpayer may also solve many of the problems created by the Act by using the now commonly exercised tool of a CFC check-the-box or disregarded entity election. This changes the CFC into a disregarded entity or foreign branch for US tax purposes while leaving it unchanged for local country purposes.

This has long been an instrument for individuals invested either directly or indirectly, via S corporations or partnerships, in a CFC. The primary benefits have been to allow individuals to benefit foreign tax losses in the US and to convert IRC §902 taxes into creditable IRC §901 taxes thus significantly reducing their individual tax burden on foreign earnings. Now, however, a disregarded entity election also allows the US individual shareholder to escape both GILTI and Subpart F inclusions

Prior to the Act, the main downside of a disregarded entity election by an individual was that it eliminated foreign deferral via the CFC. The conversion of a CFC to a disregarded entity could also be very expensive due to rules around CFC conversion. Most of the expense and complexity are due to a disregarded entity election being treated the same as a CFC liquidation.

US individuals may not use IRC §332 to effectuate a tax-free CFC liquidation. Instead, they must rely on IRC §331 where a liquidating distribution is considered to be full payment in exchange for the shareholder’s stock rather than a deemed dividend distribution. These shareholders generally recognize gain or loss in an amount equal to the difference between the fair market value (“FMV”) of the assets received, whether they are cash, other property, or both, and the adjusted basis of the stock surrendered. If the stock is a capital asset in the shareholder’s hands, the transaction qualifies for capital gain or loss treatment. The detailed tax effects of an IRC §331 CFC liquidation are outside the scope of this document but they are important and must be addressed thoroughly as part of any related analysis.

For a corporate USS, IRC §332 will generally apply to provide tax-free treatment but IRC §367(b) steps in and requires that the liquidating corporate USS include, as a deemed dividend, the CFC’s “all earnings and profits” amount (“All E&P Amount”) with respect to the CFC. The All E&P Amount generally is the corporate USS’s pro rata share of the CFC’s E&P accumulated during the USS’s holding period.

What’s important to note here is that the corporate USS’s All E&P Amount is reduced by E&P attributable to previously taxed income (“PTI”). The CFC’s E&P subject to the IRC §965 transition tax distribution, which is likely now in the past, becomes PTI. A corporate USS’s PTI amount resulting from the transition tax will likely equal the shareholder’s All E&P Amount and therefore reduce the required All E&P Amount inclusion to $0. If the All E&P Amount is $0, the disregarded entity election will not trigger any incremental US income tax to the electing corporate shareholder.

Here, we may actually have an instance where the IRC §965 transition tax, likely already incurred by the corporate shareholder, will serve to greatly reduce the cost of a disregarded entity election by making the deemed liquidation much less expensive. It’s an unusual situation for sure but one that allows a low-tax way for corporate USS’s to escape GILTI and Subpart F inclusions.

Here again we have another distinct advantage provided to corporate CFC shareholders but not individuals.

Here is a basic example of how CFC earnings are taxed to corporate, individual, and individual assuming the CFC is now treated as a disregarded entity:

	C Corporation USS of a CFC	Individual USS of a CFC	Individual Shareholder of a Disregarded Entity
Foreign Entity Income	$100 Dividend	$100 Dividend	$100 Pass-Through Earnings
Foreign Income Tax (assumed 30%)	$30	$30	$30
US Pre-Credit Tax	$21 (21% x $100)	$25.9 (37% x $70)	$37 (37% x $100)
US Foreign Tax Credit	$30	$0 No IRC §902 Credits	$30
US Tax Liability	$0	$25.9	$7
Effective Tax Rate	30% Possible FTC Carryforward	55.9%	37%
Tax on $70 Corporate Dividend to Individual Shareholder	$16.7 (23.8% x $70)	$0	$0
Post- Distribution Effective Tax Rate	46.7%	55.9%	37%

Conclusion

The US tax reform rules are certainly not advantaged to individuals as originally enacted. There is certainly the possibility that the Act will be amended to balance the negative effect on individual CFC shareholders but there is no guarantee. In the interim, there are some planning tools that the taxpayer can utilize to offset the negative impact of these new rules. This is not and is not intended to be an exhaustive list of each planning opportunity that we see or that we will see. What each shareholder should do depends upon a detailed analysis of the taxpayer’s unique facts coupled with sophisticated modeling to confirm the planning benefits. Anything short of that is likely to fail in some regard.

We’ve authored other articles on GILTI that you may find helpful by clicking here.

Please let us know how we can help you plan for your international investments. Learn more about our international tax practice or our firm by contacting us at FJVTAX.com.