Peter J. Gilman, P.C.

The Senate Finance Committee (SFC) advanced President Donald Trump’s nomination of Charles Rettig for IRS Commissioner. The SFC approved the nomination on July 19 by a 14-to-13 party line vote.

Qualified Nominee

Several SFC Democrats and Republicans praised Rettig’s qualifications to serve as the next IRS Commissioner. SFC ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said that he is a "qualified nominee."

However, Democrats voted against his nomination in protest of new IRS guidance ( Rev. Proc. 2018-38, discussed later in this Issue) that limits donor reporting for certain tax-exempt organizations.

"The Trump administration has taken a qualified nominee and dumped him right into the middle of a dark money political firestorm of their own creation," Wyden said. Wyden announced the day before the vote that he would not support Rettig’s nomination unless Rettig committed to reversing the IRS’s new rules on certain Schedule B donor disclosures.

However, SFC Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, noted during the markup that the IRS reporting rules are unrelated to Rettig’s nomination. "I know that some of my colleagues have expressed dissatisfaction with new IRS reporting rules released recently and want to oppose the important appointment of an IRS commissioner because of these new rules, over which he had no control,"Hatch said. Hatch, praising Rettig’s qualifications, expressed confidence that Rettig, if confirmed, would "lead the IRS with integrity."

Next Steps

Rettig’s nomination now heads to the full Senate. If confirmed, Rettig will oversee the implementation of tax reform enacted last December under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

Rettig previously told the committee that restoring taxpayer trust in the IRS would be a top goal as IRS Commissioner. "If I am privileged to serve as Commissioner, my overriding goal will be to strengthen and rebuild trust between the IRS, the American people, and their representatives in Congress," Rettig said. "That trust is critical to all that the IRS does."

Close

President Donald Trump and House GOP tax writers discussed "Tax Cuts 2.0" in a July 17 meeting at the White House. The next round of tax cuts will focus primarily on the individual side of the tax code, both Trump and House Ways and Means Chair Kevin Brady, R-Tex., reiterated to reporters at the White House before the meeting.

Individual Tax Cuts

The discussion between Trump and several top House GOP tax writers was set to focus, in particular, on how to further strengthen the economy post-tax reform, Brady said. "We think the best place to start is with America’s middle class families and our small businesses," he added. Brady has said that making permanent the individual tax cuts that are set to expire in 2026 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) is a top priority for Republicans.

Corporate Tax Rate

Trump is also calling for lowering the corporate tax rate to 20 percent. The corporate tax rate was lowered last December from 35 percent to 21 percent by the TCJA.

Brady told reporters earlier in the week of July 16 that discussions between House GOP tax writers and the White House were continuing on the possible proposal. While Brady did not openly commit to the notion of further lowering the corporate tax rate, he did tell reporters that he thinks the president is right that global competitors will likely respond in kind to last year’s tax reform.

Tax Cuts 2.0 Timeline

The House is expected to vote on the Tax Cuts 2.0 package in September, Brady told reporters at the White House on July 17. Additionally, Brady stated that he anticipates the "Senate setting a timetable, as well."

Brady’s estimated timeline for votes on the tax cuts package is in line with his statements in June that House GOP members will receive a legislative outline of the proposal this month. Further, a draft of the tax package is expected to be released publicly in August.

Senate

At this time, the Tax Cuts 2.0 package is not expected on Capitol Hill to fare well in the Senate. The package would need at least nine Democratic votes to clear the chamber.

"The GOP tax scam was a huge tax break for big corporations," Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., said in a July 17 tweet. "We should reward work, not just wealth," she added. While Democrats remain outspoken against the TCJA for primarily benefiting corporations, Republicans are hopeful for Democratic support, just prior to midterm elections, on a measure that focuses on individual tax cuts.

Close

House Republicans and the Trump Administration are working together to craft a tax cut "2.0"outline, the House’s top tax writer has said. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., told reporters during the week that House tax writers and the White House are currently working to finalize the "framework."

Tax Cuts 2.0

Additionally, Brady reiterated to reporters that he plans to hold listening sessions with other House Republicans to gather ideas for the tax package. The legislative outline is expected to be circulated among House lawmakers this month and released generally in August. A House floor vote on the package is anticipated this fall.

Individual Tax Cuts

The tax reform "phase two" package will focus on making permanent the individual tax cuts enacted temporarily through 2025 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). Extending the individual tax cuts will be the " centerpiece" of the next package, Brady has said.

Impact. "Making the TCJA’s expiring individual tax code changes permanent would result in a larger economy in the long run," the Tax Foundation said in a report released on July 10. According to the report, a "small, positive" economic impact is expected during 2019 through 2028. "In the long run, making all individual tax provisions permanent will lead to 2.2 percent higher long-run GDP, 0.9 percent higher wages, and 1.5 million more full-time equivalent jobs," the report said.

However, the economic boost would not arrive without being accompanied by an increased federal deficit, according to the report. "Making these provisions permanent will also increase the deficit, reducing federal revenues by $638 billion ($575 billion on a dynamic basis) over the 10-year budget window and in the long run, reduce federal revenue on an annual basis by $165 billion ($112 billion on a dynamic basis)."

Corporate Tax Cuts

Additionally, Republicans are "thinking about bringing the 21 percent [corporate tax rate] down to 20," President Trump said in a recent interview. The corporate tax rate was permanently lowered from 35 to 21 percent under the TCJA.

Senate

At this time, the prospect of the House’s tax cut 2.0 package clearing the Senate remains unlikely. Currently, the phase two measure would need at least nine Democratic votes to clear the chamber. Democrats have remained critical of the TCJA and are not expected on Capitol Hill to support legislative efforts to extend the new law’s provisions.

Close

The Senate Finance Committee’s (SFC) leading Democrat has released a report critiquing Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code. The report, focusing primarily on international tax reform, was released by SFC ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., on July 18.

Criticism of GOP Tax Reform

The Democratic SFC report, "Trump’s Tax Law and International Tax: More Complexity, Loopholes and Incentives to Ship Jobs Overseas," criticizes a number of provisions enacted in last year’s tax reform. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) was signed into law by President Donald Trump last December.

"Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans continue to peddle the false promises outlined in this tax scam report," Wyden said in a July 18 press release. "Their new international tax regime instead rewards companies for investing overseas while hardworking Americans watch their wages fall."

The report focuses on five areas of international tax reform. According to the report, the new tax law makes the tax code more complicated and incentivizes corporations to move jobs overseas.

Tax Cuts 2.0

Meanwhile, Republicans on the other side of the Capitol continue to tout the positive economic effects of tax reform as they prepare to unveil their next tax cuts package. "Tax Cuts 2.0" will focus on making permanent tax cuts for individuals and passthrough entities, which were enacted temporarily through 2025 under the TCJA.

"It wasn’t that long ago that our economy was sluggish, paychecks were going nowhere, jobs were going overseas -- all that has changed," House Ways and Means Committee Chair Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said in a July 18 televised interview in which he praised the TCJA. According to Brady, Congress and the White House are starting Tax Cuts 2.0 "right now."

"The President is all in," Brady said. Brady, along with several other House tax writers, met with Trump on the next round of tax reform in a July 17 meeting at the White House.

Close

Homeowners will be hurt financially by last year’s tax reform, according to a new House Democratic staff report. The report alleges that real estate developers will primarily benefit from the new tax law at the expense of homeowners.

The Democratic staff report was released by House Oversight and Government Reform Committee ranking member Elijah E. Cummings, D-Md., on July 5. The report highlights the effects of specific provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) on homeowners across the United States.

Home Equity Interest Deduction

Prior to the TCJA, homeowners could deduct interest on home equity loans up to $100,000, as noted in the report. However, the TCJA, enacted last December, retroactively prohibits homeowners from deducting interest on loans of any amount if used for any purpose other than home improvement. According to Cummings’ staff, many homeowners use home equity loans for a variety of reasons, such as medical emergencies or college education.

Real Estate Tax Breaks

The staff report highlights several TCJA provisions that could benefit real estate developers. Among these tax breaks includes the 20-percent deduction for passthrough business income for certain qualifying real estate companies. Additionally, the report notes that under the TCJA, real estate developers are exempt from the new 30-percent limitation on interest deducted by large businesses. Further, the report notes that TCJA exempts real estate from the repeal of favorable tax treatment of like-kind exchanges of business assets and provides a 20-percent deduction for dividends from qualified real estate investment trusts.

"For the first time, this new report shows how big the payoffs were to wealthy real estate developers – more than $66 billion over the next ten years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation," Cummings said in a statement. "They [Republicans] chose to take away a longstanding tax deduction that American families have relied on for decades while at the same time creating $66 billion in new tax breaks for real estate developers," he added.

In response to an inquiry about the report, a House Ways and Means Committee majority spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer on July 6 that the Democratic staff report is a "partisan exercise." "Multiple reports from nonpartisan organizations show strong housing numbers for this year...tax reform allows families to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on what is important to them. This all is good news for homeowners and those seeking to buy a home," the spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer.

Close

The IRS has issued final regulations that target tax-motivated inversion transactions and certain post-inversion tax avoidance transactions. The final regulations retain the thresholds and substantiation requirements of the 2016 final, temporary and proposed regulations (the 2016 regulations), but make limited changes to the 2016 regulations to improve clarity and reduce unnecessary complexity and burdens on taxpayers. These changes also ensure that the final regulations do not impact cross-border transactions that are economically beneficial and not tax-motivated.

Background

Generally, in an inversion transaction, a U.S.-based multinational expatriates by changing its tax residence from the United States to another country in an effort to avoid or reduce U.S. taxes.

Comment. Subject to certain limitations, the transaction allows the inverted company to reduce future taxes on U.S.-source earnings, such as by deducting interest paid on loans from the new foreign parent. In addition to U.S. tax base erosion, inversions may have other effects on the U.S. economy, such as reduced employment when the headquarters are moved overseas.

Code Sec. 7874 limits inversions that are tax-motivated, by generally targeting transactions in which the following occur:

a foreign corporation acquires substantially all of the properties of a domestic corporation (domestic entity acquisition);
immediately after the transaction, the former shareholders of the domestic corporation make up a significant portion of the shareholders of the acquiring foreign corporation; and
after the domestic entity acquisition, the expanded affiliated group (EAG) that includes the foreign acquiring corporation does not have substantial business activities in the foreign country in which, or under the law of which, the foreign acquiring corporation is created or organized when compared to the total business activities of the EAG.

Under (2) above, if the former shareholders of the domestic corporation hold 80 percent or more of the stock of the foreign corporation after the transaction, the foreign corporation is treated as a domestic corporation for U.S. tax purposes. If the former shareholders hold at least 60 percent but less than 80 percent of the stock of the foreign acquiring corporation after the transaction, then the transaction is respected but use of tax attributes is limited. Transactions where the former shareholders of the domestic corporation hold less than 60 percent of the stock of the foreign acquiring corporation are generally not limited. The percentage of stock is referred to as the ownership percentage, and the fraction used to calculate the ownership percentage is referred to as the ownership fraction.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) reduced, but did not completely eliminate, the incentives for tax-motivated inversions.

Changes Made by the Final Regulations in General

Similar to the 2016 regulations, the final regulations under Code Sec. 7874 provide rules for:

identifying domestic entity acquisitions and foreign acquiring corporations in certain multiple-step transactions;
calculating the ownership percentage and, more specifically, disregarding certain stock of the foreign acquiring corporation for purposes of computing the denominator of the ownership fraction and, in addition, taking into account certain non-ordinary course distributions (NOCDs) made by a domestic entity for purposes of computing the numerator of the ownership fraction;
determining when certain stock of a foreign acquiring corporation is treated as held by a member of the EAG; and
determining when an EAG has substantial business activities in a relevant foreign country.

However, the final regulations clarify the prior rules, provide additional exceptions to their application, and reduce complexity and unnecessary burdens on taxpayers, including by providing guidance on how to apply particular mechanical rules. Specifically, the final regulations make clarifying changes to some of the stock exclusion rules: the passive assets rule, the serial acquisition rule, and the third country rule. Clarifying changes are also made to the substantial business activities test.

In addition, the final regulations add additional exceptions to the serial acquisition rule and the third country rule to narrow their scope. To reduce complexity and ambiguity, changes are made to the passive assets rule, the NOCD rule, and the rules coordinating the application of the stock exclusion rules with the EAG rules.

The final regulations further provide rules under Code Sec. 7874 and other provisions to reduce the tax benefits of certain post-inversion tax avoidance transactions. Such rules generally prevent the post-inversion dilution of U.S. shareholders’ interests in expatriated foreign subsidiaries.

Passive Assets Rule

The final regulations apply the passive assets rule only for purposes of determining the ownership percentage by value. The passive assets rule is also modified so that stock excluded under any of the stock exclusion rules is not taken into account. In addition, property that gives rise to stock excluded under any of the stock exclusion rules is not taken into account for purposes of this rule.

Serial Acquisitions of Domestic Entities

The final regulations retain the 36-month look-back period for the serial acquisition rule, but make three technical clarifications or modifications to this rule. Specifically, the final regulations:

clarify that the determination of the foreign acquiring corporation’s stock attributable to a prior domestic entity acquisition does not take into account stock of the foreign acquiring corporation deemed to have been received under the NOCD rule or Code Sec. 7874(c)(4) in the prior domestic entity acquisition;
provide an additional exception to the definition of the term "prior domestic entity acquisition" to exclude a domestic entity acquisition that occurs within a foreign-parented group and qualifies for the internal group restructuring exception; and
define a predecessor of a foreign acquiring corporation for purposes of the serial acquisition rule.

Other Matters

The final regulations also:

provide exceptions to the third-country rule in certain cases where transactions are not driven by tax planning;
include several clarifications or modifications to the NOCD rule;
modify one of the requirements of the de minimis exception applicable to the disqualified stock rule, the passive assets rule, and the NOCD rule;
broaden the coordination of the stock exclusion rules with the EAG rules; and
for purposes of the substantial business activities test, define a "tax resident" as a body corporate liable to tax under the laws of the country as a resident.

Applicability Dates

The applicability dates of the rules in the final regulations are generally the same as the applicability dates of the rules as set forth in the 2016 regulations. However, differences between the final regulations and the 2016 regulations generally apply on a prospective basis, with an option for taxpayers to apply the differences retroactively. Since taxpayers may have relied on the 2016 regulations, the modifications to the final regulations generally apply prospectively. However, domestic entity acquisitions completed before July 12, 2018, continue to be subject to those rules as set forth in the 2016 regulations, but generally with an option for taxpayers to apply the differences retroactively.

Close

The Fifth Circuit vacated a tax preparer’s conviction for obstructing tax administration. The conviction was no longer valid in light of C.J. Marinello, SCt., 2018-1 ustc ¶50,192.

Marinello

Under Code Sec. 7212, it is a crime to corruptly or by force or threats obstruct the due administration of the Internal Revenue Code. In Marinello, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that a conviction for this crime requires that:

a relationship ( "nexus") exists between the defendant’s conduct and a particular administrative proceeding; and
the proceeding was either pending when the defendant engaged in the conduct or reasonably foreseeable by the defendant.

A "particular administrative proceeding" includes an investigation, audit or other targeted administrative action. It does not include routine, day-to-day work carried out in the ordinary course by the IRS, such as the review of tax returns.

Obstruction Conviction

Here, a jury convicted the tax preparer on one count of obstructing the tax laws. One of the obstruction allegations was that the preparer had provided false testimony at a show cause hearing in federal court. This met the Marinello requirements, because the hearing was held to assess her compliance with an IRS tax records subpoena.

However, most of the other alleged obstruction did not satisfy Marinello, because it focused on the preparer paying her employees in cash and on failing to keep adequate records.

The court vacated the obstruction conviction, because the jury believed it could consider all of the preparer’s conduct as part of the obstruction count. The court did not know which of the allegations the jury had found to be proven by the government.

False Returns Conviction

The jury also convicted the preparer for preparing false returns. The preparer claimed the improper obstruction count tainted the false return counts. However, the court rejected this "spill-over prejudice" claim, and did not vacate the false returns conviction. The invalid obstruction count did not allow the jury to consider evidence that would not have been allowed at a trial focused on just the false return counts.

On remand from SCt. Unpublished opinion vacating and remanding, per curiam, an unpublished DC Tex. decision. Related decision at CA-5 2017-1 ustc ¶50,241.

Close

National Taxpayer Advocate Nina E. Olson has released her mid-year report to Congress. The report contains a review of the 2018 filing season, and identifies the priority issues the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) will address during the upcoming fiscal year. It also includes the IRS’s responses to each of the 100 administrative recommendations made in the 2017 Annual Report to Congress.

The report identifies and discusses 12 priority issues the TAS plans to focus on during the upcoming fiscal year. The top five include implementation of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), the effectiveness of IRS service channels in meeting taxpayer needs, the development of an integrated case management system, the impact of high false-positive rates on legitimate taxpayers and the protection of taxpayers facing financial hardship from IRS and private debt collection activities. The most significant challenge the IRS faces in the upcoming year is implementing the TCJA, which, among other things, requires programming an estimated 140 systems, writing or revising some 450 forms and publications and issuing guidance on dozens of TCJA provisions. The TAS has launched a new website that lists key tax return items under current law (2017), shows which ones have been impacted by the TCJA and illustrates how the changes will be reflected on tax year 2018 returns filed in 2019.

In her preface to the report, Ms. Olson focuses on the IRS’s customer service challenges. The report says the IRS uses narrow performance measures that suggest the agency is performing well but do not reflect the taxpayer experience. Recommendations to improve customer service include: (1) adopting robust performance measures that more accurately reflect the taxpayer experience; (2) providing taxpayers with modernized "omnichannel"services so that taxpayers can obtain assistance online, by phone or in-person; (3) accelerating the development of an integrated case management system; and (4) using "big data" to help taxpayers as well as to bolster enforcement. Further, Ms. Olson reiterated her longstanding concern that IRS funding reductions have undermined the agency’s ability to provide high-quality taxpayer service and to modernize its aging information technology infrastructure.

Close

Stock options have become a common part of many compensation and benefits packages. Even small businesses have jumped on the bandwagon and now provide a perk previously confined to the executive suites of large publicly held companies. If you are an employee who has received stock options, you need to be aware of the complicated tax rules that govern certain stock options -- several potential "gotchas" exist and failing to spot them can cause major tax headaches.

Over the past few years, the rules governing stock options have become increasingly complicated. More than ever, it is important that employees who receive stock options have a good understanding about how they are taxed -- on receipt of the option, at its exercise, or pursuant to the sale of the underlying stock -- as well as the potential consequences of their decisions regarding the timing of the taxation of those options.

NSOs vs ISOs

The most common type of stock option that employees receive is called a nonstatutory stock option (NSO). The other, less common type of stock option is generically referred to as an incentive stock option (ISO). ISOs are governed by very specific rules and are subjected to strict statutory requirements; NSOs, on the other hand, are subject to more general rules and guidelines.

Incentive stock options (ISOs) give the employee the right to purchase stock from the employer at a specified price. The employee is not taxed on the ISO at the time of its grant or at the time of the exercise of the option. Instead, he or she is taxed only at the time of the disposition of the stock acquired through exercise of the option. Note, however, the exercise of an ISO does give rise to an alternative minimum tax item in the amount of the difference between the option price and the market price of the stock.

Note. The IRS temporarily suspended the collection of ISO alternative minimum tax (AMT) liabilities through September 30, 2008.

NSOs also give the employee the right to purchase stock from the employer at a specified price. When and how an NSO is taxed depends on several factors including whether the underlying stock is substantially vested, and whether or not the fair market value of the stock is readily ascertainable.

Vesting. If an employee receives options from his employer, the tax consequences depend on whether the stock is vested. Stock you receive from your employer is "substantially vested" if it is either "transferable" by the employee or it is no longer subject to a "substantial risk of forfeiture". Property is "transferable" if you can sell, assign or pledge your interest in the option without the risk of losing it. A "substantial risk of forfeiture" exists if the rights in the property transferred depend on the future performance (or refraining from performance) of substantial services by any person, or the occurrence of a certain condition related to the transfer.

Readily ascertainable fair market value. An NSO always has a readily ascertainable fair market value when the option is publicly traded. When an option is not publicly traded, it can have a readily ascertainable fair market value if its value can be measured with reasonable accuracy. IRS rules spell out when fair market value can be measured with reasonable accuracy.

Generally, an employee who receives an NSO that has a readily ascertainable fair market value is subject to special tax rules under the Internal Revenue Code that apply to property received by a taxpayer in exchange for services when the option is granted. Under these rules, the option must be included in the employee's income as ordinary income in the amount of the fair market value in the year the option becomes substantially vested. If the employee paid for the option, he recognizes the value of the option minus its cost. The employee is not taxed again when he exercises the option and buys the corporate stock; he is taxed when the stock is sold. The gain or loss recognized when the employee sells the stock is capital in nature.

No readily ascertainable fair market value. Employees who receive NSOs from privately held companies are most likely to receive an NSO without a readily ascertainable fair market value. In general, when an NSO does not have a readily ascertainable fair market value, taxation occurs at the time when the option is exercised or transferred. The employee will recognize ordinary income in the amount of the value of the stock when it becomes substantially vested minus any amounts paid for the option or stock. The gain or loss recognized when the employee sells the stock is capital in nature. However, employees who have NSOs without a readily ascertainable fair market value also have the ability to elect to have the transaction taxed differently,

Section 83(b) election: Elector beware

Employees who exercise options that did not have a readily ascertainable fair market value when they were granted may elect to report income from the stock underlying the option at the time of the exercise rather than waiting until the stock is substantially vested. This election is referred to as a "Section 83(b) election" and is non-revocable. Once the election is made, any later subsequent appreciation when the stock becomes substantially vested would not be includible in income.

As you can see, the rules and tax laws related to stock options are indeed complicated and require some advance planning in order to avoid a big tax "gotcha". If you are contemplating entering into any transactions that involve stock options, please contact the office for additional guidance.

Close

Keeping the family business in the family upon the death or retirement of the business owner is not as easy as one would think. In fact, almost 30% of all family businesses never successfully pass to the next generation. What many business owners do not know is that many problems can be avoided by developing a sound business succession plan in advance.

In the event of a business owner's demise or retirement, the absence of a good business succession plan can endanger the financial stability of his business as well as the financial security of his family. With no plan to follow, many families are forced to scramble to outsiders to provide capital and acquire management expertise.

Here are some ideas to consider when you decided to begin the process of developing your business' succession plan:

Start today. Succession planning for the family-owned business is particularly difficult because not only does the founder have to address his own mortality, but he must also address issues that are specific to the family-owned business such as sibling rivalry, marital situations, and other family interactions. For these and other reasons, succession planning is easy to put off. But do you and your family a favor by starting the process as soon as possible to ensure a smooth, stress-free transition from one generation to the next.

Look at succession as a process. In the ideal situation, management succession would not take place at any one time in response to an event such as the death, disability or retirement of the founder, but would be a gradual process implemented over several years. Successful succession planning should include the planning, selection and preparation of the next generation of managers; a transition in management responsibility; gradual decrease in the role of the previous managers; and finally discontinuation of any input by the previous managers.

Choose needs over desires. Your foremost consideration should be the needs of the business rather than the desires of family members. Determine what the goals of the business are and what individual has the leadership skills and drive to reach them. Consider bringing in competent outside advisors and/or mediators to resolve any conflicts that may arise as a result of the business decisions you must make.

Be honest. Be honest in your appraisal of each family member's strengths and weaknesses. Whomever you choose as your successor (or part of the next management team), it is critical that a plan is developed early enough so these individuals can benefit from your (and the existing management team's) experience and knowledge.

Other considerations

A business succession plan should not only address management succession, but transfer of ownership and estate planning issues as well. Buy-sell agreements, stock gifting, trusts, and wills all have their place in the succession process and should be discussed with your professional advisors for integration into the plan.

Developing a sound business succession plan is a big step towards ensuring that your successful family-owned business doesn't become just another statistic. Please contact the office for more information and a consultation regarding how you should proceed with your business' succession plan.

Close

As you open the doors of your new business, the last thing on your mind may be the potential for loss of profits through employee oversight or theft - especially if you are the only employee. However, setting up some basic internal controls to guard against future loss before you hire others can save you headaches in the future.

Soon after you start making money and the world realizes that they cannot live without your goods or service, you will probably need to hire employees. Although necessary for your growing company, hiring employees increases your risk of loss through errors, oversights and theft.

Implementing internal controls to help you monitor your business can decrease the need for constant supervision of your employees. Internal controls are checks and balances to prevent fraud, limit financial losses and reduce errors or oversights by employees. For example, the most basic internal control concept requires that certain tasks be handled by different people. This process, called "separation of duties", can greatly decrease the probability of loss.

The following basic internal control checklist includes suggestions that, once implemented, can help you and your employees avoid concerns about fraud or theft in the workplace:

Have one person open the mail and list all the checks on the deposit slip while another enters cash receipts in your financial records.

Make sure someone who does not handle the checkbook or purchasing is in charge of payments to suppliers and vendors.

Have your bank reconciliation done by someone who does not have access to daily checkbook transactions.

Make sure that you approve all vendors and that you count all goods received. Check all orders to make sure they are correct and of the quality you intended. Sign each check and review the invoice, delivery receipt and purchase order.

As your company grows, you may want to become less and less involved with the day-to-day operations of the business. The internal controls you put into place now will help keep the profits up, the losses down, and help you sleep better at night. If you need any assistance with setting up internal controls for you business, please feel free to contact our office.

Close

The United States is currently experiencing the largest influx of inpatriates (foreign nationals working in the U.S.) in history. As the laws regarding United States taxation of foreign nationals can be quite complex, this article will answer the most commonly asked questions that an inpatriate may have concerning his/her U.S. tax liability and filing requirements.

I am a foreign national working in the United States and am paid by my foreign employer. Do I need to file a tax return and pay income taxes?

The general rule is that all wages earned while working in the United States, regardless of who pays for it or the locations of the employer, is taxable in the United States. This is true whether you are treated as a U.S. resident or not.

What is the difference in taxation of a resident alien versus a nonresident alien?

The difference in being taxed as a resident versus a nonresident is as follows: a resident alien is taxable in the U.S. on all worldwide income, regardless of what country it is earned or located in. A nonresident alien is generally taxable only on what is referred to as "effectively connected income". This is normally wages earned while in the U.S., along with earnings on property located in the United States. Certain deductions, exemptions, and filing statuses are not available to nonresidents.

I am not a resident for immigration purposes as I am here on a temporary visa. Can I still be a resident for U.S. tax purposes?

The determination of residency for tax purposes does not bear any relationship to your legal or immigration status. It is quite common for a foreign national to be a nonresident for legal or immigration purposes and yet be a resident for tax purposes. In addition, being a resident for income tax purposes can be different than being a resident for estate tax or even social security tax purposes. In some cases, it is actually more beneficial to be treated as a resident than as a nonresident. As a result, it is important to have all of the information we request in order to make the best decision for you.

How do you determine whether you are a resident or nonresident for U.S. income tax purposes?

As a foreign national working in the U.S., you must first determine if you are a "resident" for U.S. income tax purposes. There are two tests to determine whether you are a U.S. tax resident. These two tests are:

The lawful permanent residence test

The substantial presence test.

If you meet the requirements of either of these two tests, you will be treated as a U.S. tax resident (unless a treaty overrides this).

What is the difference between a lawful permanent resident and meeting the substantial presence test?

Lawful Permanent Resident Test - In its simplest form, this is when you have been issued a green card or alien registration card allowing for permanent residency.

Substantial Presence Test - This is a more complicated test that looks at the number of days of physical presence in the U.S. over a three-year period of time. If the number of days of U.S. presence exceeds 183 days in the current year, or 183 equivalent days during a three-year period, you are a resident for U.S. tax purposes. An "equivalent day" is defined as:

In the current year, each partial day counts as one full equivalent day

In the first preceding year, each day counts as 1/3 of an equivalent day

In the second preceding year, each day counts as 1/6 of an equivalent day.

There are exceptions to the counting of days, but in general, any part of a day counts as a full day.

What if I meet the substantial presence test? Are there exceptions to allow me to be a nonresident anyway?

31 Day Exception - If you are present in the States for less than 31 days in the current year, the substantial presence test is not applied.

Closer Connections Exception - If you are present in the U.S. for fewer than 183 days in the current year AND you maintain a "tax home" in another country during the entire year AND you maintain a closer connection to the foreign country in which you have a tax home, then this test will not apply.

J-1 Visa - Subject to some limitations, you do not count days in the U.S., for calculating the substantial presence test, while you are here on a J-1 visa (generally for up to two years). This does not exempt the earnings, but just allows you to be treated as a nonresident alien, not a resident alien.

Treaty - Some countries have treaties with the U.S. which, in some cases, will override either the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or the income tax law of the foreign country.

If I become a U.S. taxable resident during the year, when does my residency begin?

In general, residency begins on the first physically present day in the U.S. during the year you meet the substantial presence test. There are exceptions for "nominal" days along with the closer connection exception, which can apply here. Remember that residency determines from what point you are taxable on your worldwide income, not when you are taxable.

Likewise, your residency is deemed to end on the last day that you are present in the U.S. within the year that you move from the United States. Problems can arise if you return back to the U.S. within a short period of time.

Can I elect to be treated as a taxable resident even if I do not meet any of the tests (in order to take advantage of special tax rates and laws not available to nonresidents)?

First Year Election - Sometimes it can be better to be treated as a resident than as a nonresident. There is an election available that allows a foreign national to be taxed as a resident in the initial year of a U.S. assignment even if one of the residency tests is not met for the year. To qualify, you would have to satisfy the following:

Must have been a U.S. nonresident in the year immediately preceding the initial year.

You must satisfy the substantial presence test in the year following the initial year.

You must be present in the U.S. for at least 31 consecutive days in the initial year.

During the initial year, you must be present in the U.S. for at least 75% of the days from the start of your 31 consecutive day period through the end of that year.

What if my home country considers me as a taxable resident at the same time the U.S. treats me as a taxable resident? Am I double taxed?

The general rules discussed above are based on the IRS Code. The United States has entered into numerous tax treaties with other countries. The purpose of these treaties is to prevent double taxation issues that may arise due to differences in the tax laws of the two countries. It is possible to be considered a resident, subject to tax in both countries. The treaties usually provide for 'tiebreaker' rules to override the IRS Code or the foreign home country tax laws. Most treaty provisions require the filing of certain documents, though, in order to take benefit of them.

I am on a short-term assignment from my home country and my employer pays for my rent and meals while I am working here in the U.S. Is any of this taxable?

The first thing you need to do is determine whether your assignment is considered "short-term" within the definition of U.S. law. An individual is treated as being on a short-term assignment in the U.S. if their tax home has not changed from their foreign location. If the intent of the assignment is to return to the original work location within one year, the assignment is considered a temporary assignment. This does not determine whether you are a resident or not. It just determines which types of payments are taxable.

The advantage of a temporary assignment is that the employer-provided benefits such as lodging, meals travel and certain other expenses are not considered taxable wages in the U.S. In this case, a resident or nonresident would not be taxed on these payments. On a long-term assignment (more than 12 months), these are typically taxed in addition to the wages.

What happens if I am a nonresident for part of the year and a resident for another part of the year?

It is possible to be taxed in one year as both a resident and a nonresident. If this is the case, a special filing is made on a single tax return, with certain forms required. During the residency period, you would be taxed on worldwide income. During the nonresidency period, you would be taxed only on effectively connected income (usually wages earned in the U.S., as noted earlier).

Can I be exempt or excluded from tax from the U.S. federal government but still be taxed by one of the States?

Yes. Please note quite a few of the 50 states of the U.S. do not follow some, or all, of the U.S. federal tax codes or recognize the Treaties between the U.S. and other countries. So, it is possible, and highly probable, you could be taxable for State purposes but may be exempt for federal. In addition, other tax filing requirements, including estate and gift taxes, social security taxes, along with other filing forms, may be required regardless of your income tax residency determination.

Close