The Proskauer Tax Blog

The Proposed BEAT Regulations

On December 13, 2018, the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) and the Department of the Treasury (the “Treasury”) released proposed regulations (the “Proposed Regulations”) with respect to the “base erosion and anti-abuse tax” (the “BEAT”) under section 59A of the Internal Revenue Code.[1]

The BEAT was enacted in 2017 as part of the tax reform act.[2] The BEAT is an additional tax that has the effect of a minimum tax on certain large U.S. corporations that make deductible payments to foreign related parties. The BEAT is designed to prevent these U.S. corporations from using deductible payments to reduce (or “base erode”) their corporate tax liability.

The Proposed Regulations clarify which taxpayers are subject to the BEAT and how the BEAT rules apply. The Proposed Regulations are generally effective for taxable years after December 31, 2017, and a taxpayer may rely on them before they are finalized so long as the taxpayer applies them consistently for all taxable years before they are finalized.

This post provides background and summarizes some of the most important aspects of the Proposed Regulations. For more information, please contact any of the Proskauer tax lawyers listed on this post or your regular Proskauer contact.

Tax Reform: UBTI Guidance on Qualified Transportation Fringe Benefits

By Amanda H. Nussbaum and Amy Zelcer on December 19, 2018 Posted in Exempt Organizations, IRS, NYS / NYC, State Taxation, Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Tax Reform, UBTI

From Proskauer’s Not For Profit / Exempt Organization Blog, a discussion of recent IRS guidance and New York State legislative relief on Internal Revenue Code 512(a)(7), added by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”)…

Inclusion of Qualified Transportation Fringe Benefits in UBTI: Guidance, Relief, and Rumors of Possible Repeal

FATCA: Significant Relief in New Proposed Regulations

By Jeremy Naylor, Amanda H. Nussbaum and Martin T. Hamilton on December 17, 2018 Posted in Compliance, International Taxation, IRS, Withholding and FATCA

On December 13, 2018, the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) and the U.S. Department of the Treasury (the “Treasury”) issued proposed regulations (the “Proposed Regulations”) addressing various aspects of the withholding and information reporting regime commonly referred to as “FATCA”.[1] The Proposed Regulations provide significant relief from potential withholding and compliance burdens that U.S. and non-U.S. financial institutions would otherwise be subject to under FATCA. The preamble to the Proposed Regulations announces that taxpayers may generally rely on the Proposed Regulations pending issuance of final regulations.

Read this post for a brief background of FATCA and a discussion of the most important aspects of the Proposed Regulations. For more information please contact any of the Proskauer tax lawyers listed on this post or your regular Proskauer contact. Continue Reading

U.S. Tax Reform: IRS Proposes Interest Deduction Limitation Regulations

By Martin T. Hamilton, Annie Kim, David S. Miller, Amanda H. Nussbaum, Richard M. Corn, Sejin Park, Mani Kakkar and Sean M. Webb on December 5, 2018 Posted in Corporate tax, financial products, International Taxation, IRS, Partnership Taxation, Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Tax Reform, U.S. Legislation

On November 26, 2018, the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) and the U.S. Department of the Treasury (the “Treasury”) issued proposed regulations (the “Proposed Regulations”) under section 163(j) of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”).[1] Section 163(j) limits the deductibility of net business interest expense to 30% of “adjusted taxable income” plus “floor plan financing interest expense” for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.

The Proposed Regulations generally apply to taxable years ending after the date the Proposed Regulations are published as final regulations. However, taxpayers may elect to apply the Proposed Regulations retroactively to a taxable year beginning after December 31, 2017 so long as the taxpayer and any related parties consistently apply the Proposed Regulations to those taxable years.

This post provides background and a general summary of some of the most important aspects of the Proposed Regulations. For more information, please contact any of the Proskauer tax lawyers listed on this post or your regular Proskauer contact. Click to read more about the Proposed Regulations. Continue Reading

Impact of Proposed Regulations under Section 956 on Lending Arrangements Involving U.S. Corporate Borrowers

By Martin T. Hamilton, Annie Kim, David S. Miller, Xiaoyang Ma and Kathleen R Semanski on November 13, 2018 Posted in Corporate Taxation, International Taxation, IRS

Introduction

On October 31, 2018, the U.S. Treasury Department (“Treasury”) and the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) proposed new regulations (the “Proposed Regulations”)[1] that are likely to allow many controlled foreign corporations (“CFCs”)[2] of U.S. multi-national borrowers to guarantee the debt of their parents and to allow the U.S. parent to pledge more than 66 2/3% of the voting stock of the CFC (and to have the CFC provide negative covenants), all without causing the U.S parent to recognize deemed dividend income under Section 956 of the Code.[3] Specifically, the Proposed Regulations will exempt a corporate “United States shareholder”[4] of a CFC from including its pro rata share of a CFC’s earnings attributable to an “investment in United States property” (a “Section 956 deemed dividend”) as income to the extent that such deemed dividend would be excluded from income if it was paid as an actual dividend under Section 245A. However, there will remain certain situations where Section 956 will still trigger deemed dividends.[5] Although the Proposed Regulations are proposed only (and may be amended before being finalized), corporate U.S. borrowers may rely on them so long as the borrower and all parties related to the borrower apply them consistently with respect to all CFCs of which they are United States shareholders.[6]

Tags: Controlled Foreign Corporation, Section 956, Subpart F

Summary of the Opportunity Zone Program

By David S. Miller, Jean Bertrand, Sejin Park, Mitchell Gaswirth, Martin T. Hamilton, Malcolm Hochenberg, Amanda H. Nussbaum and Jamiel E. Poindexter on November 8, 2018 Posted in IRS, Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted section 1400Z-2 of the Internal Revenue Code, which created the qualified opportunity zone program. The program is designed to encourage investment in distressed communities designated as “qualified opportunity zones” by providing tax incentives to invest in “qualified opportunity funds” (“opportunity funds”) that, in turn, invest directly or indirectly in the opportunity zones.

The qualified opportunity zone program generally offers three potential tax benefits to investors:

First, a taxpayer may elect to defer tax on capital gain from the sale or exchange of property with an unrelated person by investing the gain as equity in an opportunity fund within 180 days after the sale or exchange. The deferral ends on December 31, 2026, or sooner if the taxpayer sells its interest in the opportunity fund, and at that time the taxpayer must recognize the gain (and pay tax) with respect to the original property.

Second, if the taxpayer holds its interest in an opportunity fund for five years, it can step up its basis in the opportunity fund by an amount equal to 10% of the deferred gain with respect to the original property and, if the taxpayer holds its interest in the opportunity fund for seven years, it can step up its basis in the opportunity fund by an amount equal to an additional 5% of the deferred gain with respect to the original property (for a total of 15%). The stepped up basis reduces the amount of gain recognized by the taxpayer at the end of the deferral period.

Finally, if the taxpayer holds its interest in the opportunity fund for at least 10 years, it can step up its basis in its interest in the opportunity fund to the fair market value of the interest on the date the interest is sold (enabling the taxpayer to eliminate income tax on any post-acquisition capital gain in its opportunity fund interest, including any capital gain attributable to leverage incurred by the fund).

An in depth discussion of the opportunity zone program and the proposed regulations can be found here: https://www.proskauer.com/report/irs-and-treasury-issue-proposed-opportunity-zone-regulations.

Tags: IRS, Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

UK Budget – Some Key Changes

By Robert E. Gaut, Stephen Pevsner and Daniella Abel on October 30, 2018 Posted in UK Tax

The UK Budget took place on 29^th October. The Chancellor, Philip Hammond, took the opportunity to make a series of targeted changes to the UK’s tax system, some of which had already been announced, but several of which were new and surprising. We have summarized here of the most eye-catching changes that will be of interest to our corporate and international client base. Please contact any member of our UK tax group if you have any queries about how this year’s Budget will affect your business.

Immediate restriction on eligibility for entrepreneurs’ relief

Entrepreneurs’ relief (ER) is a longstanding relief which allows, amongst others, certain manager shareholders in private fund backed businesses to pay capital gains tax at 10% rather than 20% on up to £10 million of lifetime gains realised when they sell their shares in the company that they manage. The most significant change announced in the Budget that will affect private fund-backed businesses was the immediate change to the conditions required for shareholders to be able to claim ER, which means that many management shareholders who would have qualified for ER on a future sale of the shares that they hold currently will now not qualify. While changes to the ER rules have been anticipated for a while, it is surprising that the changes have been introduced with no consultation, immediate effect and application to existing shareholdings on the basis, as stated by the Treasury, that the measure is to “address an identified abuse of the current rules”.

In order to be able to claim ER on shares, the share issuing company has to be the individual shareholder’s “personal company”. As well as some employment requirements, this required that the individual held “ordinary shares” which entitled them to at least 5% of the issuing company’s “ordinary share capital” and 5% of the votes. The ordinary share capital test is a technical one, so that the only substantive requirement was for the ER shares to carry 5% of the votes. A private fund backer of a business would generally be willing to give management as a whole 20% of the votes so that they retained 75% plus control of the company.

The change to the rules has introduced two new economic rights tests, so that in addition to the share capital and voting rights, an individual now has to be entitled to at least 5% of the profits available to equity holders and 5% of the assets available to equity holders in a winding up of the company. These tests have to be satisfied at all times through the 12 months before the disposal (being increased to 24 months from 6 April 2019). It will be extremely difficult for any portfolio company manager receiving shares as part of an equity incentive arrangement from a private fund backed business to satisfy these 5% economic tests.

As we mention above, it is not particularly surprising that these changes have been made to the rules, particularly given the Resolution Foundation’s (the political think tank) report in August pointing out just how much ER has cost the Exchequer in the 10 years since its introduction and who has benefited from it. What is unfortunate, however, in a period when it is particularly important for the UK to appear an attractive jurisdiction for inward investment, is that the changes have been introduced with immediate, and effective retrospective, effect by removing a large number of existing management shares from ER without warning when the share terms were designed to comply fully with the clear and well understood requirements in place when the shares were issued. The government’s claim that the change is addressing an abuse of the rules, along with the immediate effect of them, will add to the feeling of the investment management industry that they are not welcome in the UK and undermine further the UK’s reputation for having a stable and certain tax regime. For these reasons, the manner in which the change has been introduced is more concerning than the change itself.

Digital Sales Tax

It was also announced at the UK Budget that the UK will introduce a new digital services tax (DST). The DST will apply from April 2020 and is intended to address the rise of the digital economy and the challenges it poses to traditional tax regimes by ensuring that digital businesses pay UK tax that reflects the value generated from UK customers.

The tax will be levied at 2% of revenues generated from UK customers by search engines, social media platforms and online marketplaces. Only businesses that meet a “double threshold” will fall within the scope of the tax, meaning that they must generate at least £500m of revenue globally and the first £25m of UK revenue will not be taxable. A safe harbour will be included for businesses that are loss-making or have very low profit margins, the details of which will be subject to consultation.

The introduction of the DST makes the UK a front runner in tackling tax for the digital economy, although it is acknowledged that it may be repealed in the future as international solutions for effective taxation of the digital economy are progressed and implemented.

Offshore Intangibles Regime

New rules are to be published, which will have effect from 6 April 2019, to directly tax non-resident companies that realise intangible property income in low-tax jurisdictions that derives from UK sales. The measure will include embedded royalties and income from the indirect exploitation of intangible property in the UK market through unrelated parties.

The Government gives the example of a non-UK entity receiving income from the sale of goods or services in the UK, and that entity making a payment to the holder of intangible property in a low tax jurisdiction. A charge will arise under the new rules to the extent that the income receivable in the low tax jurisdiction is referable to the sale of goods or services in the UK.

This tax replaces the previously proposed withholding tax proposed in Budget 2017 to capture similar revenues. How this new tax will be collected and enforced remains to be seen, although the proposals do include joint and several liability for connected parties if the non-resident entity does not pay. There will be a £10m de minimis UK sales threshold and other exemptions where income that is taxed at appropriate levels and/or supported by local substance. In addition, non–UK resident companies located in countries with which the UK has a double tax agreement containing a non-discrimination article will not be affected.

Tags: UK Budget 2018, UK Tax