Uncategorized

The Foreign Earned Income Exclusion Dilemma

January 14, 2019 by Frank Vari, JD. MTax, CPA

Our practice deals with many expatriate US citizens of varying income levels working abroad as well as supporting CPAs and attorneys with their expatriate clients. We find that many clients are directed by their advisers to take advantage of the US Foreign Earned Income Exclusion (“FEIE”) rather than the US Foreign Tax Credit (“FTC”). The problem that we see is that those taking, or many giving, this advice do not understand how these different rules apply or even how they may interact to benefit the taxpayer.

Our advice to any expatriate taxpayer is that there is no one size fits all answer to which method works best. A US citizen working and/or living abroad must pay US tax on their worldwide income so the question of what works best is very important. Each methodology has some rather basic pros and cons that can help the taxpayer or their adviser pick what works best for that taxpayer. Let’s take a basic overview of these rules to outline the issues and recommended approach. This is not meant to be a technical dissertation of these rules but rather a practical approach.

The Foreign Earned Income Exclusion

The most popular method to address US expatriate taxation is the FEIE. It’s relatively easy to apply and understand and most US tax preparation software can do the heavy lifting. Those are all positives for the tax preparer or adviser but not always for the taxpayer.

The FEIE only applies to foreign earned income which is generally defined as salary and wages and related income. The FIEI for 2018 is $104,100. This means that this amount of foreign earned income may be excluded from US taxable income provided it otherwise qualifies. It may not be excluded from local country taxation but the US will allow it to escape US taxation.

The FEIE does not apply to foreign source passive income like, for example, any interest, dividend, or investment income earned outside the US. It also does not shelter foreign self-employment income from US self-employment taxes. Thus, you can have income from self-employment earned outside the US that is excluded from US income tax that is still subject to US self-employment taxes. Determining whether the self-employment tax applies is a separate analysis that depends upon whether the US has what is known as a Totalization Agreement with the country where the self-employment income is earned.

One final point to note regarding the foreign earned income exclusion is that once a taxpayer decides to take the exclusion, and then does not take it in a subsequent year, they are barred from taking it for the following 5 years. The only way to reverse is IRS permission via a US tax ruling which can be complicated and costly to obtain.

Learn More About Our Individual International Tax Practice by Clicking Here

The Foreign Tax Credit

The US FTC is a tax credit that reduces or offsets a US taxpayer’s US income tax liability based on the foreign income taxes that have been paid during the relevant tax period. It sounds simple enough but it can be complex in practice and, sometimes more importantly, most US tax software packages cannot handle the FTC or are unable to properly take into account the many variables impacting a properly prepared FTC calculation. This leads many US tax preparers and advisers to avoid it even when it would provide a better result.

The purpose of the US FTC is to avoid double taxation on US taxpayers. In general, if the taxpayer lives and pays taxes in a country where the income taxes are higher than the US the expected result of utilizing the FTC will usually be that the taxpayer owes zero income tax to the IRS. If the foreign taxes paid are lower than the US tax rate, then there will likely be incremental US taxes due to meet the US tax expense.

If a US taxpayer has unused FTCs from prior years, they are automatically carried forward and can be utilized in future years where the taxpayer may not have paid sufficient foreign income tax credit to offset their US income tax owing. This is a valuable tool for US expatriates moving between high tax and low tax jurisdictions.

It must be noted that foreign social security taxes cannot be used for the US FTC since only income taxes are creditable. This is a common error that is made and it must be noted that if the IRS audits the related personal tax return, they will disallow from the FTC any foreign social security taxes or any other taxes for that matter that are not income taxes including sales taxes, VAT, etc.

Taking Both the FEIE and the FTC?

Most practitioners understand that a US taxpayer can either take the FEIE or the FTC on the same income but not both. This rule is simple enough but it leads to much confusion.

For example, does this mean if the US taxpayer earns over $104,100 in foreign earned income in 2018 that they have to pick one regime over the other? The answer is no. The US taxpayer can actually use the FEIE for the foreign earned income up to the annual limitation and then use the FTC mechanism for the remainder. This blended approach is often the approach for high income taxpayers.

The rules tell us these two regimes can be used in the same tax year but the same foreign income taxes excluded by the FEIE cannot be credited under the FTC. In other words, if a certain amount of foreign earned income was excluded, and there is additional income to be taxed exceeding the FEIE, then the foreign taxes paid on the income that was already excluded cannot be used to offset US income taxes on the remaining income.

Why is this so complicated and misunderstood? As noted above, the US FTC can be very complex. Also, most US tax software packages are not able to handle this blended approach to foreign income taxation and the FTC calculation must be performed offline and typed into the return.

The Bottom Line

The proper taxation of a US taxpayer’s foreign earned income can be very complex especially when that income exceeds the FEIE. However, as this article points out, there are still ways to reduce or entirely avoid US income taxes for these taxpayers. The problem is that many practitioners are not familiar with these methods and most US tax preparation software packages do not help with a blended approach of the FEIE and FTC. As such, practitioners and taxpayers must remain aware that this approach exists and it could save them a considerable amount of current and future US taxes.

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.

Can a Partnership With Some Service Activities Claim Section 199A Benefits?

November 16, 2018 by Frank Vari, JD. MTax, CPA

Frank J. Vari, JD, MTax, CPA

We recently went on the Massachusetts Society of CPAs (“MSCPA”) tax practitioner website, aka the “HUB”, to answer a question regarding the ability of a partnership that has some service type activities to claim Section 199A benefits. We do get a number of questions on this so we felt it would be great to share on our blog.

The basic question presented was whether a partnership that manufactures and sells goods but has some consulting or service type activities may claim Section 199A benefits?

This is a very good Section 199A question that, as noted above, we’re seeing quite a bit in our business practice. It highlights the fact that Section 199A is actually a very complicated piece of legislation lacking solid administrative guidance and detailed understanding among many professionals. Many clients have assumed they qualify for Section 199A benefits when they actually do not.

When Section 199A was enacted and reviewed by the tax community there were more questions than answers to many specific fact situations. In particular, the statute itself left unclear to us the treatment of trades or businesses with both a Qualified Trade or Business (“QTB”) component which is benefit eligible and a Specified Service Trade or Business (“SSTB”) component which is not benefit eligible.

Learn More About Section 199A Benefits By Clicking Here

Section 199A only applies to pass-through businesses. C Corporations received their tax break separately by reduced tax rates. The Proposed Regulations issued in August created the term “relevant pass-through entity” (“RPE”). An RPE is generally a partnership, other than a Publicly Traded Partnership, or an S corporation that is owned, directly or indirectly, by at least one individual, estate or trust. In most states, including Massachusetts, partnerships are mostly multi-member LLCs.

Section 199A defines a QTB rather simply as any trade or business except a SSTB or services performed as an employee. A SSTB includes a trade or business involving the performance of services in the fields of health, law, accounting, actuarial science, performing arts, consulting, athletics, financial services, investing and investment management, trading, dealing in certain assets or any trade or business where the principal asset is the reputation or skill of one or more of its employees. For practitioners familiar with former Section 199 and the former Extraterritorial Income Exclusion (“EIE”) rules, one could foresee how services besides architecture and engineering were going to be excluded from benefits – and they were but in a complicated fashion.

The Proposed Regulations provide us with our only guidance on our issue of a partnership, i.e., an RPE, with both QBI and SSTB activities. Prop. Reg. 1.199A-5(c)(1) provides a de minimis rule based on trade or business gross receipts and the percentage of gross receipts attributable to a SSTB under which a trade or business will not be considered a SSTB merely because it performs a small amount of services in a SSTB. The Preamble to the Proposed Regulations explains that this rule was created because the Treasury Department and the IRS believe that requiring all taxpayers to evaluate and quantify any amount of specified service activity would create administrative complexity and undue burdens for both taxpayers and the IRS. It is simply an administrative safe harbor.

Learn More About Our Business Tax Practice By Clicking Here

Under this rule, a trade or business, determined before application of the aggregation rules, which I’m not addressing here, would not be a SSTB if in a specific tax year it has: (1) gross receipts of $25 million or less, and (2) less than 10% of the gross receipts are attributable to the performance of services in a SSTB. Take note that this includes the performance of activities incidental to the actual performance of services. For a trade or business with gross receipts greater than $25 million, the trade or business qualifies for the de minimis rule if less than 5% of the gross receipts are attributable to the performance of services in a SSTB.

The bottom line is that if the SSTB activities rise above these safe harbor amounts within a single RPE, the entire trade or business is tainted and is considered to be a SSTB. The law does not allow you to otherwise create allocations within a single RPE. It is either a QBI or a SSTB depending upon the results of the test outlined above.

We are assisting many of our clients with both QBI and SSTB activities with restructuring options to qualify for Section 199A benefits. However, any restructuring alternatives are fact dependent. There is no one option that applies to all businesses but restructuring options do exist that allow many taxpayers to claim these important new benefits.

Has Subpart F Been Greatly Expanded?

July 23, 2018 by Frank Vari, JD. MTax, CPA

Frank J. Vari, JD, MTax, CPA

For many years, international tax planners took great care to design global tax structures to avoid Subpart F. Now, in what is perhaps an unintended error, Subpart F appears to have been greatly expanded for many multinationals and particularly private equity investors. This potential expansion of Subpart F is a result of new share ownership attribution rules under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) where U.S. taxpayers that were not considered U.S. Shareholders of certain foreign corporations for purposes of Subpart F may now be liable for those foreign corporation’s Subpart F income beginning in 2017.

The issue that is causing such concern is the repeal by the TCJA of IRC §958(b)(4). Prior to repeal, this Code section prohibited “downward” attribution of stock ownership from a foreign person to a U.S. person. This prevented what would otherwise be Subpart F income being attributed to a U.S. Shareholder via a foreign parent.

How exactly did IRC §958(b)(4) operate prior to repeal? Here is a quick example. In a typical Subpart F avoidance structure, foreign parent (FP) owns 80% of a foreign corporation (FORCO) and 100% of a U.S. corporation (USCO). USCO owns the remaining 20% of FORCO. Prior to repeal, USCO would not be considered a U.S. Shareholder of FORCO for purposes of Subpart F. As such, USCO never considered or included any of FORCO’s income that would have qualified as Subpart F income had FORCO been owned directly by USCO. Quite simply, the IRC §958(b)(4) rules prevented FORCO from ever being a Controlled Foreign Corporation (“CFC”) for U.S. tax purposes.

What has changed? After repeal of IRC §958(b)(4), USCO is, for purposes of determining U.S. Shareholder and CFC status, treated as owning all of FORCO’s stock. USCO now owns 20% directly and 80% constructively (via FP) under newly enacted IRC §318(a)(3) making it a U.S. Shareholder of FORCO and also making FORCO a CFC. As such, USCO is now liable for U.S. tax on 20% of FORCO’s Subpart F income. That’s a really bad answer from both an income inclusion and information reporting standpoint.

This example is not the only situation where this may cause a significant expansion of Subpart F. There are many others out there. In practice, every foreign structure involving a U.S. owner needs to be tested. That’s a tall order, but when the scope of how the repeal of IRC §958(b)(4) operates is considered it’s not something that can be reasonably ignored.

As if Subpart F expansion is not enough to worry about, this also impacts whether a taxpayer is a 10% or more U.S. Shareholder for purposes of calculating the Global Intangible Low Taxed Income (GILTI) inclusion.

The biggest problem is that we simply don’t know if this expansion has really taken place. We certainly do know that IRC §958(b)(4) is gone and we also know the statutory language of IRC §318(a)(3). Thus, the statutes tell us downward attribution is now the rule.

However, the legislative history behind the TCJA states that the repeal of IRC §958(b)(4) was not intended to cause a foreign corporation to be a CFC with respect to any U.S. Shareholder as a result of downward attribution under section 318(a)(3) to any U.S. person that is not a “related person” (as defined by IRC §958(d)(3)) to such U.S. Shareholder. This means that Congress intended this to apply solely to related parties, particularly those involved in inversion transactions, and not to unrelated parties. That’s both logical and simple enough to understand but it is not part of any statute, regulation, or even authoritative guidance for that matter.

Click to Learn More About FJV’s International Tax Practice

Why hasn’t this been resolved by now? One could reasonably theorize that Treasury feels it lacks authority to limit the scope of these rules via regulation and that a legislative correction, i.e., congressional action, is required to implement the result described in the legislative history. Congress, on the other hand, will find it difficult to enact a comprehensive technical corrections bill in short order considering the scope of the TCJA. In the absence of regulations, technical corrections, or some authoritative guidance, it is extremely difficult to reconcile the statutory language with the intent articulated in the legislative history.

One piece of guidance by the IRS has been regarding Form 5471. You can see where that would be a nightmare under these rules. IRS Notice 2018-13 provides an exception to filing Form 5471 for certain U.S. Shareholders considered to own stock via downward attribution from a foreign person. The Notice also states that they intend to modify the instructions to the Form 5471 as necessary which has not yet occurred.

The uncertainly outlined above has left taxpayers searching for the right approach here. To say there is no good approach is an understatement. For now, here are some of the choices:

Wait for a technical correction, regulation, or other clarifying authority to make clear the intent of these new rules.
File 2017 returns taking a technical position in favor of the legislative intent – on the basis that no other guidance currently exists – and keep your fingers crossed that the position outlined in such legislative authority is ultimately adopted.
Liquidate, or check-the-box, on your U.S. C Corporation that’s contributing to the CFC attribution to have it treated as a disregarded entity.
Liquidate, or check-the-box, on the foreign subsidiary creating the Subpart F income to have it treated as a disregarded entity.

Not a lot of great choices there. However, one could have reasonably anticipated that there would be problems like this as a result of the speed at which the TCJA was enacted. In the meantime, taxpayers must make a choice and prepare for the possibility that these rules may stand as such.

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.

Maximizing IC-DISC Benefits After Tax Reform

July 9, 2018 by Frank Vari, JD. MTax, CPA

Frank J. Vari, JD, MTax, CPA

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) know by now 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. To corporate shareholders, 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 6^th 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. I advised with a practitioner whose client was retiring along with a sibling 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 mind 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. We help our IC-DISC clients on these and other tax planning issues. Let us help you or your clients.

To learn more about FJV’s IC-DISC or transfer pricing practices and our considerable experience with this important topic and how it impacts your business and tax positions, please contact FJV Tax or visit us at fjvtax.com.

The BEPS & FATCA Impact on Transfer Pricing – Prepare for the Future or Return to Basics?

June 29, 2018 by Frank Vari, JD. MTax, CPA

Frank J. Vari, JD, MTax, CPA

There is certainly no shortage of publicity regarding the impact of BEPS and FATCA on transfer pricing and how to best address these significant new requirements. This has spurred considerable attention to predicting exactly what the future holds and how to prepare for it. At this same time, many new rules are similar to historic requirements that a taxpayer maintain global transfer pricing positions that are supported with logic, facts, and documentation. As we continue to see how these rules will be applied, the question remains whether multinationals in today’s environment should focus entirely on the future or return to basics?

Since the first transfer pricing guidelines were issued by the IRS and OECD, most countries, including the US, have adopted a contemporaneous documentation requirement which remains relatively unchanged as other global transfer pricing rules have greatly evolved. Multinational corporations prepare this documentation for each taxing jurisdiction where there is either a registered subsidiary or a permanent establishment. This same documentation also provides compliance with SOX 404 and financial statement reporting requirements including FIN 48.

A key element of the contemporaneous documentation requirement is a risk analysis that describes and allocates business risks amongst the related parties. This risk allocation is the foundation of the intercompany profit allocation where the related party bearing the majority of the risks in the economic relationship is entitled to the lion’s share of the profits. The better the quality of the overall documentation and the closer the nexus between this risk analysis and the income allocation the stronger the taxpayer’s position becomes.

Progressive taxpayers have long understood that creating and maintaining strong and appropriate transfer pricing documentation ensures that the taxpayer controls any narrative of its pricing and business practices. This prevents a tax authority from creating alternative theories about a taxpayer’s intercompany relationships and standards of comparability. To the extent a taxpayer presents a taxing authority with documentation that does not support or accurately reflect their facts or reporting positions the higher the chances are of a unilateral transfer pricing adjustment and related penalties being forced upon them.

Like existing rules, the new rules address risk allocation. Specifically, the OECD BEPS Guidelines set out this analytical risk framework:

STEP 1 – Identify the economically significant risks of the business.

STEP 2 – Determine how the economically significant risks are contractually assumed.

STEP 3 – Perform a detailed functional analysis of the economically significant risks to determine which entity controls the risk and has the financial ability to bear the risk.

STEP 4 – Consider whether the contractual assumption of risk identified in Step 2 is consistent with the entities’ conduct identified in Step 3.

STEP 5 – Where the contractual assumption of risk is not consistent with the entities’ conduct, reallocate the risk to the party that assumes it based on conduct in Step 3.

STEP 6 – Perform a transfer pricing analysis based on the delineated transactions after re-allocating risk.

These specific requirements as laid out above may be new but they don’t materially depart from what taxpayers have been historically required to do. The real change will be to taxpayers that have not adequately analyzed and documented their facts and performed a risk analysis on a jurisdictional basis in a sufficiently detailed manner to defend their existing intercompany profit allocations.

For all multinational taxpayers, the immediate focus should be a renewed understanding of intercompany relationships requiring the tax team to have an even closer relationship with the business product development, operation, and supply chain teams. This ensures that detailed facts and risks are understood and, more importantly, support the taxpayer’s tax positions. The need for an ongoing and close relationship with business teams cannot be understated due to the fluid nature of global business practices and the problems that can arise when these practices deviate from reported tax positions. Taxpayers must now be able to adjust and adapt tax positions at least annually in potentially multiple jurisdictions or risk having any deviations pointed out on audit.

This updated risk analysis requirement is woven into a bevy of new information reporting requirements under both FATCA and BEPS. A cursory glance at the new business and financial data that now must be filed annually significantly exceeds the information historically reported and certainly that which is publicly reported. Gathering and reporting this newly required jurisdictional data is loaded with practical difficulties well beyond the scope of this article but it is important to note that information that is now required greatly exceeds a simple updated transfer pricing report.

What remains unchanged is that tax leadership cannot allow any deviation from their actual business practices and the newly required intercompany reporting disclosures to shift control of the transfer pricing narrative away from the taxpayer and give a taxing authority room to create their own models of intercompany profit allocation. Agreement of all reported information with intercompany profit allocations is necessary. It is not a new goal but it has certainly become tougher to meet due to significantly increased annual reporting requirements.

This article posed the basic question whether BEPS or FATCA requires a look to the future or a return to the transfer pricing basics? The answer is mixed. The requirement of a detailed functional fact and risk allocation analysis tailored to the local country is not new nor is the knowledge that much more detailed information may be required in the event of an actual audit or examination. What is new is the significantly increased level of detail now required to be reported annually and how to best gather and present that data. That is a very big change and one that will keep tax departments busy now and for some time to come.

To learn more about FJV’s transfer pricing practice and our considerable experience with this important topic and how it impacts your business and tax positions, please contact FJV Tax or visit us at fjvtax.com.

This article was previously published by the Tax Career Digest.