Read more at: Tax Times blog
LA Man Pleads Guilty to Not Reporting Over $1 Million Held in Israeli Offshore Accounts
August 20, 2018
August 20, 2018
Read more at: Tax Times blog
August 20, 2018
According to Moodys Gartner, the transition tax on businesses, introduced by the US Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 2017, may cause some Canadian-resident US individuals with a substantial unexpected US tax liability. They will have to pay the tax without being able to claim it as a tax credit against their Canadian income, unless the Ottawa government decides to allow them relief from this double taxation.
At the 2018 Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (STEP) conference held in Toronto, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) confirmed that a Canadian resident shareholder’s Canadian tax liability would not be eligible for a credit to offset the Transition Tax paid (see question #12 of the CRA Roundtable Questions & Answers here). Accordingly, this can lead to double taxation for these unfortunate Canadian residents.
The allowance of a domestic tax credit for foreign tax paid on domestic income is specifically found in the Article XXIV of the Canadian/US Tax Treaty which provides relief by deeming the source of some types of income to be foreign, thereby enabling the use of FTCs to offset the Canadian or US. tax otherwise payable.
Another possible solution would have been for CanadaCo to pay out an immediate dividend of the same amount in 2017, as the income would be included on the personal returns in both countries in 2017.
This problem may also be faced by US citizens living in other countries besides Canada, since most other industrialized countries will not consider this transition tax nor other types of accrued Subpart F income, as taxable in their country:
Sources:
Moodys Gartner
Forbes
Read more at: Tax Times blog
August 17, 2018
According to Law360, the Eighth Circuit vacated a favorable U.S. Tax Court decision for Medtronic Inc., in its $1.36 billion tax dispute with the IRS, after finding that the judge in the case had not justified the pricing.
The case will return to the Tax Court, which found in January 2017 that the medical equipment company owed only $14 million in an adjustment over its 2005-2006 tax years, stemming from royalty payments to the company's U.S. headquarters from its Puerto Rican subsidiary.
The Eighth Circuit did not reject the Tax Court's decision outright but ordered U.S. Tax Court Judge Kathleen Kerrigan to justify more extensively her determination that Medtronic's overall transfer pricing method was correct.
Using that methodology, Kerrigan found that the royalty rate for medical device pulse generators should be 44 percent, while the rate for pacemaker leads should be 22 percent. Based on those figures, Medtronic and the IRS reached an agreement to reduce Medtronic's tax bill to $14 million while the case remained under appeal.
The IRS argued that because the Puerto Rican subsidiary was merely an assembly arm, the comparable uncontrolled transactions method was inappropriate. The agency used the comparable profits method, which takes into account profits from similar firms, to argue that Medtronic's U.S. entities should have received 90 percent of the income from the transaction, which it used to make an overall adjustment of $1.36 billion for the two years.
Writing the lead opinion for the Eighth Circuit, Judge Roger Wollman said the Tax Court didn't explain how it determined that Medtronic's choice of comparable prices, which used pricing from a 1992 settlement with another supplier, was appropriate. Judge Wollman also said the Tax Court didn't account for significant differences in the transactions, including the types of intellectual properties sold and the nature of the contracts.
In addition, the judge found that the Tax Court did not sufficiently analyze how the Puerto Rican subsidiary assumed risk in the transaction, which Medtronic used to justify its royalty agreement.
"In the absence of such a finding, we lack sufficient information to determine whether the Tax Court’s profit allocation was appropriate," Wollman wrote.
Fellow Eighth Circuit Judge Bobby Shepherd noted in a concurring opinion that the Tax Court did not account for effects that could potentially distort prices in a legal settlement, including that the parties settled to avoid future litigation costs.
Read more at: Tax Times blog
August 15, 2018
On November 22, 2017 we posted 146 Offshore Banks & Now Financial Advisors Are Turning Over Your Names To The IRS - What Are Your Waiting For? and since then the Government has add NPB Neue Privat Bank AG (effective 7/18/18 ) and Mirelis Holding S.A., formerly known as Mirelis InvestTrust S.A. (effective 7/27/18) to this list bringing the number to 148 Offshore Banks and Foreign Financial Advisors.
The IRS keeps updating its list of foreign banks which are turning over the names of their US Account Holders, who are now subject to a 50% (rather than 27.5%) penalty in the IRS’s Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP). This penalty is based on the highest account balance measured over up to eight years.
Under the program, banks are required to:
These Banks, Financial Instructions and Foreign Financial Advisors have made substantial efforts to cooperate with the IRS investigation, including by:
The complete list of Offshore Banks and Foreign Financial Advisors who are turning over the names of their US Account Holders, who are now subject to a 50% (rather than 27.5%) penalty in the IRS’s Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) is as of January 31, 2017:
Read more at: Tax Times blog