Wealth & Risk Management Blog

William Byrnes (Texas A&M) tax & compliance articles

Byrnes & Bloink’s Covid-19 TaxFacts Intelligence Weekly for April 3, 2020

Posted by William Byrnes on April 3, 2020


Texas A&M University School of Law has launched its online wealth management, risk management, and international tax risk management graduate curricula for industry professionals. Apply now for Summer courses that begin May: Legal Risk Management; Intro to Risk Management; FATCA & CRS Risk Management; International Tax Risk Management, Data, and Analytics I  Texas A&M University is a public university and is ranked 1st among public universities for its superior education at an affordable cost (Fiske, 2018) and ranked 1st of Texas public universities for best value (Money, 2018).

                    Prof. William Byrnes
          Robert Bloink, J.D., LL.M.
Lots of CVOID-19 legislation in the updates this week. The IRS and DOL continue to release new guidance–and update existing guidance–at an unprecedented and fast pace. For the time being, clients and advisors alike should check the actual text of the guidance before taking concrete action to make sure they are operating under the most up-to-date rules.
IRS Releases FAQ on COVID-19 Filing, Payment Extensions

The IRS FAQ clarifies that the filing and payment extensions (from April 15 to July 15) apply regardless of whether the taxpayer is actually sick or quarantined because of COVID-19. For fiscal year taxpayers with 2019 returns due April 15, the deadline is extended to July 15 regardless of whether April 15 is an original or extended filing deadline. Taxpayers facing filing or payment deadlines that are not April 15 must note that their deadlines have not generally been extended. The relief also does not apply to payroll or excise tax payments (deposit dates remain unchanged, but employers may be eligible for the new paid sick leave tax credit, see Tax Facts Q8550). Taxpayers do not have to do anything to take advantage of the extension–they simply file their returns and make required payments by the new July 15 deadline. Taxpayers who filed and schedule a payment for April 15 must, however, take action to reschedule their payment for July 15 if they wish (by contacting the credit or debit card company if the payment was scheduled directly with the card issuer). For more information, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

Counting Employees for COVID-19 Paid Sick Leave & FMLA Expansion Purposes

DOL FAQ provides that an employer is subject to the expanded paid sick leave and FMLA rules if the employer has fewer than 500 full-time and part-time employees. Employees on leave and temporary employees should be included, while independent contractors are not included in the count. Each corporation is usually a single employer. When a corporation has an ownership interest in another corporation, the two are separate employers unless they are joint employers for Fair Labor Standards Act purposes. Joint employer status is based on a facts and circumstances analysis, and is generally the case when (1) one employer employs the employee, but another benefits from the work or (2) one employer employs an employee for one set of hours in a workweek, and another employer employs the same employee for a separate set of hours in the same workweek. For more information on the details provided by current DOL guidance, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

Calculating Sick Pay for Part-Time and Variable Hour Workers Under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act

With respect to the FMLA extension, the rate of pay for part-time employees is based upon the number of hours they would normally be scheduled to work. For employees with variable schedules, pay is based upon a number equal to the average number of hours that the employee was scheduled per day over the 6-month period ending on the date on which the employee takes such leave, including hours for which the employee took leave of any type or (2) if the employee did not work over such period, the reasonable expectation of the employee at the time of hiring of the average number of hours per day that the employee would normally be scheduled to work. As of now, the law provides that leave may not be carried over into 2021. For more information on the law’s requirements, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

RMDs Suspended for 2020, Penalty Waived for Coronavirus Distributions

The CARES Act suspended the required minimum distribution (RMD) rules for 2020–a suspension that applies to all 401(k), 403(b), and certain 457(b) deferred compensation plans maintained by the government, as well as IRAs. The law also contains a provision waiving the 10% early distribution penalty that applies to retirement account withdrawals. The relief generally mirrors the relief commonly granted in more localized natural disaster situations. The Act allows employees to take up to $100,000 in distributions from an employer-sponsored retirement plan (401(k), 403(b) or defined benefit plan) or an IRA without becoming subject to the penalty. Unless the participant elects otherwise, inclusion of the distribution in income is spread over three years, beginning with the tax year of distribution. The Act also provides a repayment option, where the participant has the option of repaying the distribution over the three-taxable year period beginning with the tax year of distribution. In this case, the distribution will be treated as an eligible rollover made in a trustee-to-trustee transfer within the 60-day window. For more information on expanded access to retirement funds, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

WEBINAR

Small Business Incentives Under the CARES Act:  Will it Help My Business?

Tuesday, April 7, 2020, 12:00 noon – 1:00 p.m. Central

Learn how the CARES Act affects your business.

Texas A&M Law faculty experts share practical, fact-based information regarding how the CARES Act is affecting those of us in Texas in this free webinar.

 

  • Access to and eligibility for loans for small businesses
  • Implications for payroll tax payments and employee tax credits

Presenters:

Posted in Pensions, Reporting, Retirement Planning, Tax Policy, Wealth Management | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Byrnes & Bloink’s Covid-19 TaxFacts Intelligence Weekly for March 26, 2020

Posted by William Byrnes on March 26, 2020


Texas A&M University School of Law has launched its online wealth management, risk management, and international tax risk management graduate curricula for industry professionals. Apply now for Summer courses that begin May: FATCA & CRS Risk Management; International Tax Risk Management, Data, and Analytics I  Texas A&M University is a public university and is ranked 1st among public universities for its superior education at an affordable cost (Fiske, 2018) and ranked 1st of Texas public universities for best value (Money, 2018). To apply for Summer, call or fill in the form https://law.tamu.edu/distance-education/

            William H. Byrnes, J.D.
        Robert Bloink, J.D., LL.M.
Today we are seeing our first concrete responses to the COVID-19 virus in the tax field. First, the IRS has now formally extended the income tax filing deadline for tax year 2019 to July 15. Because this is an extension of the actual filing deadline (not just an extension of time to pay owed taxes) it also pushes a number of related deadlines (e.g. for qualified plan contributions) back to July. President Trump also signed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which creates a paid sick leave program and related tax credits for small businesses.

 

Avoid Confusion Over IRS 90-Day Extension of the Federal Tax Payment Deadline

In response to the coronavirus pandemic, the IRS has announced that it will extend the tax payment deadline from April 15, 2020 to July 15, 2020. Interest and penalties during this period will also be waived. The April 15 filing deadline was also extended to July 15, although in separate guidance. Individuals and pass-through business entities owing up to $1 million in federal tax are eligible for the relief, as are corporations owing up to $10 million in federal tax. Individuals who do not anticipate being able to file by July 15 should be aware of their option for requesting a six-month filing extension to October 15. The extension is available by filing Form 4868. For more information on federal tax filing requirements, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

Coronavirus Act Creates Paid Sick Leave Benefits for Small Business Employees

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act applies to private employers with fewer than 500 employees (and government employers), and makes several key changes to paid time off laws. The bill: (1) provides 80 hours’ additional paid sick leave for employees (pro-rated for part-time workers) and (2) expands FMLA protections. The additional paid sick leave is capped at $511 per day (total of $5,110) for employees who cannot go to work or telecommute because they (1) are experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and seeking a diagnosis, or (2) are subject to government-mandated quarantine or a recommendation to self-quarantine. The additional paid sick leave is capped at 2/3 of the employee’s pay rate, subject to a maximum of $200 per day or $2,000 total if the employee (1) is caring for or assisting someone subject to quarantine, (2) caring for a child whose school or care provider is unavailable or (3) experiencing “substantially similar conditions” specified by HHS. For more information on the family and medical leave tax credit available for business owners, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

Coronavirus Response Act: Tax Relief for Small Business Owners

The law contains a tax credit to help small business owners subject to the new paid sick leave and expanded FMLA requirements. The tax credit is computed each quarter, and allows as a credit (1) the amount of qualified paid sick leave wages paid in weeks 1-2, and (2) qualified FMLA wages paid (in the remaining 10 weeks) during the quarter. The credit is taken against the employer portion of the Social Security tax. Amounts in excess of the employer Social Security taxes due will be refunded as a credit (in the same manner as though the employer had overpaid Social Security taxes during the quarter). The Act also provides a tax credit for qualified health plan expenses that are allocable to periods when the paid sick leave or family leave wages are paid. For more information on refundable tax credits, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

2020’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience

Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone.  Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com800-543-0874

Posted in Retirement Planning, Tax Policy | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

text of final Covid-19 Senate Bill “Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act’’ or the ‘‘CARES Act’’.

Posted by William Byrnes on March 25, 2020


2020’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience

Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone.  Professor William Byrnes and Robert Bloink provide for subscribers weekly analysis of tax issues that impact wealth managers and financial planners. Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com800-543-0874

 

Final Covid-19 Text of Bill for Senate Vote [PDF Link] Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act’’ or the ‘‘CARES Act’’.

Tax and Benefits sections of Final Bill described below by Senate Finance Committee (March 25, 2020)

DIVISION A – KEEPING WORKERS PAID AND EMPLOYED, HEALTH CARE SYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS, AND ECONOMIC STABILIZATION

TITLE II—ASSISTANCE FOR AMERICAN WORKERS, FAMILIES, AND BUSINESSES

Subtitle A—Unemployment Insurance Provisions

Section 2101. Short Title
This title is called the Relief for Workers Affected by Coronavirus Act

Section 2102. Pandemic Unemployment Assistance
This section creates a temporary Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program through December 31, 2020 to provide payment to those not traditionally eligible for
unemployment benefits (self-employed, independent contractors, those with limited work history, and others) who are unable to work as a direct result of the coronavirus public health emergency.

Section 2103. Emergency Unemployment Relief for Governmental Entities and Nonprofit Organizations
This section provides payment to states to reimburse nonprofits, government agencies, and Indian tribes for half of the costs they incur through December 31, 2020 to pay
unemployment benefits.

Section 2104. Emergency Increase in Unemployment Compensation Benefits
This section provides an additional $600 per week payment to each recipient of unemployment insurance or Pandemic Unemployment Assistance for up to four months.

Section 2105. Temporary Full Federal Funding of the First Week of Compensable Regular Unemployment for States with No Waiting Week
This section provides funding to pay the cost of the first week of unemployment benefits through December 31, 2020 for states that choose to pay recipients as soon as they become unemployed instead of waiting one week before the individual is eligible to receive benefits.

Section 2106. Emergency State Staffing Flexibility
This section provides states with temporary, limited flexibility to hire temporary staff, rehire former staff, or take other steps to quickly process unemployment claims.

Section 2107. Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation
This section provides an additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits through December 31, 2020 to help those who remain unemployed after weeks of state unemployment benefits are no longer available.

Section 2108. Temporary Financing of Short-Time Compensation Payments in States with Programs in Law
This section provides funding to support “short-time compensation” programs, where employers reduce employee hours instead of laying off workers and the employees with reduced hours receive a pro-rated unemployment benefit. This provision would pay 100 percent of the costs they incur in providing this short-time compensation through December 31, 2020.

Section 2109. Temporary Financing of Short-Time Compensation Agreements
This section provides funding to support states which begin “short-time compensation” programs. This provision would pay 50 percent of the costs that a state incurs in providing short-time compensation through December 31, 2020.

Section 2110. Grants for Short-Time Compensation Programs
This section provides $100 million in grants to states that enact “short-time compensation” programs to help them implement and administer these programs.

Section 2111. Assistance and Guidance in Implementing Programs
This section requires the Department of Labor to disseminate model legislative language for states, provide technical assistance, and establish reporting requirements related to “shorttime compensation” programs.

Section 2112. Waiver of the 7-day Waiting Period for Benefits under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act
This section temporarily eliminates the 7-day waiting period for railroad unemployment insurance benefits through December 31, 2020 (to make this program consistent with the change made in unemployment benefits for states through the same period in an earlier section of this subtitle).

Section 2113. Enhanced Benefits under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act
This section provides an additional $600 per week payment to each recipient of railroad unemployment insurance or Pandemic Unemployment Assistance for up to four months (to make this program consistent with the change made in unemployment benefits for states in an earlier section of this subtitle).

Section 2114. Extended Unemployment under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act
This section provides an additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits through December 31, 2020 to help those who remain unemployed after weeks of regular unemployment benefits are no longer available (to make this program consistent with the change made in unemployment benefits for states in an earlier section of this subtitle).

Section 2115. Funding for the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General for Oversight of Unemployment Provisions
This section provides the Department of Labor’s Inspector General with $25 million to carry out audits, investigations, and other oversight of the provisions of this subtitle.

Section 2116. Implementation
This section gives the Secretary of Labor the ability to issue operating instructions or other guidance as necessary in order to implement this subtitle, as well as allows the Department of Labor to waive Paperwork Reduction Act requirements, speeding up their ability to gather necessary information from states.

Subtitle B – Rebates and Other Individual Provisions

Section 2201. 2020 recovery rebates for individuals
All U.S. residents with adjusted gross income up to $75,000 ($150,000 married), who are not a dependent of another taxpayer and have a work eligible social security number, are eligible for the full $1,200 ($2,400 married) rebate. In addition, they are eligible for an additional $500 per child. This is true even for those who have no income, as well as those whose income comes entirely from non-taxable means-tested benefit programs, such as SSI benefits.

For the vast majority of Americans, no action on their part will be required in order to receive a rebate check as IRS will use a taxpayer’s 2019 tax return if filed, or in the
alternative their 2018 return. This includes many low-income individuals who file a tax return in order to take advantage of the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit. The rebate amount is reduced by $5 for each $100 that a taxpayer’s income exceeds the phase-out threshold. The amount is completely phased-out for single filers with incomes exceeding $99,000, $146,500 for head of household filers with one child, and $198,000 for joint filers with no children.

Section 2202. Special rules for use of retirement funds
Consistent with previous disaster-related relief, the provision waives the 10-percent early withdrawal penalty for distributions up to $100,000 from qualified retirement accounts for coronavirus-related purposes made on or after January 1, 2020. In addition, income attributable to such distributions would be subject to tax over three years, and the taxpayer may recontribute the funds to an eligible retirement plan within three years without regard to that year’s cap on contributions. Further, the provision provides flexibility for loans from certain retirement plans for coronavirus-related relief.

A coronavirus-related distribution is a one made to an individual: (1) who is diagnosed with COVID-19, (2) whose spouse or dependent is diagnosed with COVID-19, or (3) who experiences adverse financial consequences as a result of being quarantined, furloughed, laid off, having work hours reduced, being unable to work due to lack of child care due to COVID-19, closing or reducing hours of a business owned or operated by the individual due to COVID-19, or other factors as determined by the Treasury Secretary.

Section 2203. Temporary waiver of required minimum distribution rules for certain retirement plans and accounts
The provision waives the required minimum distribution rules for certain defined contribution plans and IRAs for calendar year 2020. This provision provides relief to
individuals who would otherwise be required to withdraw funds from such retirement accounts during the economic slowdown due to COVID-19.

Section 2204. Allowance of partial above the line deduction for charitable contributions
The provision encourages Americans to contribute to churches and charitable organizations in 2020 by permitting them to deduct up to $300 of cash contributions, whether they itemize their deductions or not.

Section 2205. Modification of limitations on charitable contributions during 2020
The provision increases the limitations on deductions for charitable contributions by individuals who itemize, as well as corporations. For individuals, the 50-percent of
adjusted gross income limitation is suspended for 2020. For corporations, the 10-percent limitation is increased to 25 percent of taxable income. This provision also increases the limitation on deductions for contributions of food inventory from 15 percent to 25 percent. Section 2206. Exclusion for certain employer payments of student loans The provision enables employers to provide a student loan repayment benefit to employees on a tax-free basis. Under the provision, an employer may contribute up to $5,250 annually toward an employee’s student loans, and such payment would be excluded from the employee’s income. The $5,250 cap applies to both the new student loan repayment benefit as well as other educational assistance (e.g., tuition, fees, books) provided by the employer under current law. The provision applies to any student loan payments made by an employer on behalf of an employee after date of enactment and before January 1, 2021.

Subtitle C – Business Provisions

Section 2301. Employee retention credit for employers subject to closure due to COVID-19
The provision provides a refundable payroll tax credit for 50 percent of wages paid by employers to employees during the COVID-19 crisis. The credit is available to employers whose (1) operations were fully or partially suspended, due to a COVID-19-related shutdown order, or (2) gross receipts declined by more than 50 percent when compared to the same quarter in the prior year.

The credit is based on qualified wages paid to the employee. For employers with greater than 100 full-time employees, qualified wages are wages paid to employees when they are not providing services due to the COVID-19-related circumstances described above. For eligible employers with 100 or fewer full-time employees, all employee wages qualify for the credit, whether the employer is open for business or subject to a shut-down order. The credit is provided for the first $10,000 of compensation, including health benefits, paid to an eligible employee. The credit is provided for wages paid or incurred from March 13, 2020 through December 31, 2020.

Section 2302. Delay of payment of employer payroll taxes
The provision allows employers and self-employed individuals to defer payment of the employer share of the Social Security tax they otherwise are responsible for paying to the federal government with respect to their employees. Employers generally are responsible for paying a 6.2-percent Social Security tax on employee wages. The provision requires that the deferred employment tax be paid over the following two years, with half of the amount required to be paid by December 31, 2021 and the other half by December 31, 2022. The Social Security Trust Funds will be held harmless under this provision.

Section 2303. Modifications for net operating losses
The provision relaxes the limitations on a company’s use of losses. Net operating losses (NOL) are currently subject to a taxable-income limitation, and they cannot be carried back to reduce income in a prior tax year. The provision provides that an NOL arising in a tax year beginning in 2018, 2019, or 2020 can be carried back five years. The provision also temporarily removes the taxable income limitation to allow an NOL to fully offset income. These changes will allow companies to utilize losses and amend prior year returns, which will provide critical cash flow and liquidity during the COVID-19 emergency.

Section 2304. Modification of limitation on losses for taxpayers other than corporations
The provision modifies the loss limitation applicable to pass-through businesses and sole proprietors, so they can utilize excess business losses and access critical cash flow to maintain operations and payroll for their employees.

Section 2305. Modification of credit for prior year minimum tax liability of corporations
The corporate alternative minimum tax (AMT) was repealed as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, but corporate AMT credits were made available as refundable credits over several years, ending in 2021. The provision accelerates the ability of companies to recover those AMT credits, permitting companies to claim a refund now and obtain additional cash flow during the COVID-19 emergency.

Section 2306. Modification of limitation on business interest
The provision temporarily increases the amount of interest expense businesses are allowed to deduct on their tax returns, by increasing the 30-percent limitation to 50 percent of taxable income (with adjustments) for 2019 and 2020. As businesses look to weather the storm of the current crisis, this provision will allow them to increase liquidity with a reduced cost of capital, so that they are able to continue operations and keep employees on payroll.

Section 2307. Technical amendment regarding qualified improvement property
The provision enables businesses, especially in the hospitality industry, to write off immediately costs associated with improving facilities instead of having to depreciate those improvements over the 39-year life of the building. The provision, which corrects an error in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, not only increases companies’ access to cash flow by allowing them to amend a prior year return, but also incentivizes them to continue to invest in improvements as the country recovers from the COVID-19 emergency.

Section 2308. Temporary exception from excise tax for alcohol used to produce hand sanitizer
The provision waives the federal excise tax on any distilled spirits used for or contained in hand sanitizer that is produced and distributed in a manner consistent with guidance issued by the Food and Drug Administration and is effective for calendar year 2020

 

Posted in Tax Policy, Taxation | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Byrnes & Bloink’s TaxFacts Intelligence Weekly for March 19, 2020

Posted by William Byrnes on March 20, 2020


2020’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience

Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone.  Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com800-543-0874

 

Editor’s Note: New rulings from the IRS help clarify that COVID-19 expenses can be paid by HDHPs (before the deductible has been met) and FSAs can pay for genetic testing when the information is intended to be provided to a medical professional for treatment purposes. Note that the decision on genetic testing comes in the form of a PLR that addresses some rather unique facts, so it may not be very broadly applicable. We also have a new (and regrettably timely) ruling on worthless securities.
IRS Announces HDHPs Can Pay Coronavirus Costs

The IRS announced that high deductible health plans are permitted to cover the costs associated with the coronavirus. HDHPs can cover coronavirus-related testing and equipment needed to treat the virus. Generally, HDHPs are prohibited from covering certain non-specified expenses before the covered individual’s deductible has been met. Certain preventative care expenses are excepted from this rule. HDHPs will not jeopardize their status if they pay coronavirus-related expenses before the insured has met the deductible, and the insured will remain HSA-eligible. The guidance applies only to HSA-eligible HDHPs. For more information on the rules governing HDHPs, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

Tax Court Rules on Deduction

The Tax Court held that a worthless securities deduction may be permitted even if the entity that issued the securities still held some value. In a complex case involving a number of rounds of financing over several years, the court found it was reasonable to believe that a junior interest may be worthless if there are not funds to pay currently, or anticipated in the future, the senior interests. For more information on the worthless securities deduction, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

IRS Finds Health FSA Can Reimburse a Portion of Ancestry Genetic Testing

In a private letter ruling (applicable only to the taxpayer requesting the ruling), the IRS found that a portion of the ancestry genetic test could be reimbursed by the health FSA. In the redacted PLR, the IRS discussed whether the genetic testing service could be classified as medical care. The taxpayer’s goal was to provide genetic information to their healthcare provider, but it was impossible to purchase the genetic information without also purchasing the ancestry services. The IRS found that portions of the testing may be considered medical care, although ancestry reports could not be classified as reimbursable medical care. The IRS directed the taxpayer to use a “reasonable method” to allocate between medical and non-medical services. For more information on health FSAs, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

Texas A&M University School of Law has launched its online wealth management, risk management, and international tax risk management graduate curricula for industry professionals. Apply now for Summer courses that begin May: FATCA & CRS Risk Management; International Tax Risk Management, Data, and Analytics I  Texas A&M University is a public university and is ranked 1st among public universities for its superior education at an affordable cost (Fiske, 2018) and ranked 1st of Texas public universities for best value (Money, 2018). To apply for Summer, call or fill in the form https://law.tamu.edu/distance-education/

 

Posted in Retirement Planning, Taxation | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

SBA to Provide Disaster Assistance Loans for Small Businesses Impacted by Coronavirus (COVID-19)

Posted by William Byrnes on March 17, 2020


SBA’s Economic Injury Disaster Loans offer up to $2 million in assistance for a small business. These loans can provide vital economic support to small businesses to help overcome the temporary loss of revenue they are experiencing.

  • These loans may be used to pay fixed debts, payroll, accounts payable and other bills that can’t be paid because of the disaster’s impact. The interest rate is 3.75% for small businesses without credit available elsewhere; businesses with credit available elsewhere are not eligible. The interest rate for non-profits is 2.75%.
  • SBA offers loans with long-term repayments in order to keep payments affordable, up to a maximum of 30 years. Terms are determined on a case-by-case basis, based upon each borrower’s ability to repay.

Process for Accessing SBA’s Coronavirus (COVID-19) Disaster Relief Lending

  • The U.S. Small Business Administration is offering designated states and territories low-interest federal disaster loans for working capital to small businesses suffering substantial economic injury as a result of the Coronavirus (COVID-19). Upon a request received from a state’s or territory’s Governor, SBA will issue under its own authority, as provided by the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act that was recently signed by the President, an Economic Injury Disaster Loan declaration.
  • Any such Economic Injury Disaster Loan assistance declaration issued by the SBA makes loans available to small businesses and private, non-profit organizations in designated areas of a state or territory to help alleviate economic injury caused by the Coronavirus (COVID-19).
  • SBA’s Office of Disaster Assistance will coordinate with the state’s or territory’s Governor to submit the request for Economic Injury Disaster Loan assistance.
  • Once a declaration is made for designated areas within a state, the information on the application process for Economic Injury Disaster Loan assistance will be made available to all affected communities.
  • SBA’s Economic Injury Disaster Loans are just one piece of the expanded focus of the federal government’s coordinated response, and the SBA is strongly committed to providing the most effective and customer-focused response possible.

See §121.201   What size standards has SBA identified by North American Industry Classification System codes?

The size standards described in this section apply to all SBA programs unless otherwise specified in this part. The size standards themselves are expressed either in the number of employees or annual receipts in millions of dollars unless otherwise specified. The number of employees or annual receipts indicates the maximum allowed for a concern and its affiliates to be considered small.  By example, a hotel that does not exceed $35 million gross revenue is a small business whereas a B&B Inn or a full-service restaurant may not exceed $8 million in revenue.

Even tax law firms can qualify for SBA loans. The office of lawyers that do not exceed $12 million in revenue is a “small” law firm. But tax preparation services? Allowed up to $22 million in revenue.

For additional information, please contact the SBA disaster assistance customer service center. Call 1-800-659-2955 (TTY: 1-800-877-8339) or e-mail disastercustomerservice@sba.gov(link sends e-mail).

Posted in Financial, Wealth Management | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Byrnes & Bloink’s TaxFacts Intelligence Weekly for Financial Advisors (March 16, 2020)

Posted by William Byrnes on March 16, 2020


Texas A&M University School of Law has launched its online wealth management, risk management, and international tax risk management graduate curricula for industry professionals. Apply now for Summer courses that begin May: FATCA & CRS Risk Management; International Tax Risk Management, Data, and Analytics I  Texas A&M University is a public university and is ranked 1st among public universities for its superior education at an affordable cost (Fiske, 2018) and ranked 1st of Texas public universities for best value (Money, 2018). To apply for Summer, call or fill in the form https://law.tamu.edu/distance-education/

Editor’s Note: Reconciliation abounds! You need to reconcile your advance premium tax credit payments, the Supreme Court needs to reconcile the ACA without the individual mandate, and employers need to reconcile employee withholdings with the new regs.
Do you (or your clients) receive advance premium tax credit payments? If you haven’t squared them away with 2019 income levels that might delay the return. Also, with new withholding regs it’s a good idea for employers to take a second look at employee allowances.
Finally, the Supreme Court will (again) look at the constitutionality of the ACA. Recall that the last time this happened constitutionality hinged on Congress’ ability to tax, with Chief justice Roberts noting that the Aca was clearly tax legislation since the individual mandate penalty was implemented through the tax code. Now that the individual mandate has been repealed, how will the ACA fare under additional scrutiny? Tune in next year to find out!
And wash your hands!
Tax Season Tip: Failure to Reconcile Advance Premium Tax Credit Payments May Delay Returns

The IRS has released guidance reminding taxpayers who received advance payments of their premium tax credit throughout the year of their obligation to reconcile those payments with respect to their actual household income levels for 2019. Taxpayers have the option of choosing to have premium tax credits applied directly to their monthly insurance premiums. For more information on the premium tax credit, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

Supreme Court to Once Again Consider ACA Viability

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments and rule on the continued constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. The Court may decide whether the remainder of the ACA is constitutional absent the individual mandate. Arguments in the case are set to be heard in October, after the election, and a decision is unlikely before 2021. For more information on the individual mandate, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
Determining the Employer’s Obligations Under the New Proposed Withholding Regulations

The regulations are clear that the employer is not required to ascertain whether the withholding allowance claimed by the employee is greater than those to which the employee is actually entitled. However, the IRS (or published guidance) may direct an employer to submit employees’ withholding certificates (or the certificates relating to groups of employees) to the IRS. Further, the IRS may notify the employer that an employee is not entitled to claim more than a certain withholding allowance. For more information on the new withholding regulations, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

2020’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience

Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone.  Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com800-543-0874

Posted in Pensions, Retirement Planning, Taxation | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

What will be the impact of the 2017 Tax Cuts Act, Covid-19 (coronavirus), a Zombie Apocalypse, on Estimated Tax due by April 15?

Posted by William Byrnes on March 15, 2020


If a zombie apocalypse does not emanate from the illness known as Covid-19 caused by the coronavirus, then we still need to plan for our 2020 tax payments.  It is likely that taxpayers with business or investment income will be able to reduce the 2020 quarterly estimated tax payments that will be due April 15 this year, June 15, September 15, and January 15 of 2021.  Why?

2019 was a good income year for most taxpayers earning investment and business income.  But 2020 will likely be a depressed income year, maybe even a recession (for those not eaten by zombies). Thus, estimated tax payments to avoid a penalty, generally, 90% of the tax that is estimated to be due for 2020, should be much reduced from the 2019 level paid. (Contrarian investor taxpayers that shorted the market may actually need to make higher estimated taxpayers because the contrarians are likely to have a great capital gain year).

What are the changes enacted in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 that, because of the coronavirus, impact 2020’s estimated tax payments?

  • A taxpayer’s ability to reduce tax because of a net operating loss (“NOL”) in 2020 has been reduced by the TCJA. An NOL resulting in 2020 cannot be applied to taxes paid in the previous two-years of 2019 and 2018 to claw those taxes back.  Before the TCJA, the NOL “carry-back” of two-years was allowed.  NOLs may still be carried forward.  Excess NOL in 2020 may be used to reduce 2021’s income and thus tax due.

However, the TCJA even modifies how much NOL may be used to reduce 2020’s taxable income.  Starting in 2018, the TCJA modified the tax law on “excess business losses” by limiting losses from all types of business for noncorporate taxpayers. An “excess business loss” is the amount of a taxpayer’s total deductions from business income that exceeds a taxpayer’s “total gross income and capital gains from business plus $250,000 for an individual taxpayer or $500,000 for married taxpayers filing a joint return.”  Said another way, the business loss in 2020 is limited to a maximum of $250,000 for an individual taxpayer. Yet, the remainder does not evaporate like a vampire stabbed with a stake in the heart.  The remainder may be carried forward to 2021.  The remainder is called a “net operating loss” or NOL.

But the TCJA has another limitation for the carry forward of an NOL.  The NOL may only be used in 2021 to reduce the taxpayer’s taxable income by 80%.  The remainder NOL in 2021, if any, that resulted from 2020’s original loss and 2021’s limitation to just 80% of taxable income may again be carried forward, to 2022, yet again subject to the 80% of taxable income limitation.  The NOL may keep rolling forward indefinitely, subject to the 80% limitation until it is all used.

  • High net wealth taxpayers that generate gross receipts greater than $26 million may be subject to the TCJA’s limitation of interest expense for 2020. The TCJA included a rule that limits the amount of interest associated with a taxpayer’s business income when the taxpayer has on average annual gross receipts of more than $26 million since 2018.  The limitation does not apply to a taxpayer whose business income is generated from providing services as an employee, and a taxpayer that generates business income from real estate may elect not to have the limitation apply.

The amount of deductible business interest expense that is above a taxpayer’s business interest income is limited to 30% of the taxpayer’s adjusted taxable income (called “ATI”).  For 2020, ATI will probably be significantly lower than in 2019 and 2018. A taxpayer calculated ATI taking the year’s taxable income then reducing it by the business interest expense as if the limitation did not apply. The remaining amount is then further reduced by any net operating loss deduction; the 20% deemed deduction for qualified business income, any depreciation, amortization, or depletion deduction, and finally, any capital loss.  The business interest expense allowable for 2020 is 30% of that remainder.  The lost business income resulting from the coronavirus in 2020 may lead the remainder to be zero, and 30% of zero is zero.  Like the NOL above, the business interest expense if not usable in 2020 does not vanish. It carries forward to 2021 and each year thereafter, applying the same limitation rules each year.

  • Many taxpayers may end 2020 in a capital loss position if the stock market does not fully recover by December.  If a taxpayer’s capital losses are more than the year’s capital gains, then $3,000 of that loss may be deducted from the taxpayer’s 2020 regular income.  Remaining capital loss above the $3,000 may be carried forward to apply against 2021 income, and so on until used up.
  • The IRS may offer taxpayers more time beyond the April 15th deadline to file and pay 2019’s tax in 2020.  The filing and payment for 2019, and estimated tax for 2020, is due on or before April 15. But the IRS has indicated that it may extend that deadline.  A taxpayer may, regardless, file a request for a six-month extension on or before April 15, 2020, that is automatically granted if filed on time. But any tax owing for 2019 will still be due April 15, 2020, after which interest begins to be charged by the IRS to the taxpayer’s tax debt.   Check the IRS website here for whether, because of the coronavirus, it has extended the payment deadline beyond April 15, 2020.  Can the IRS extend the deadline, legally? Yes. Because Congress enacted a section of the Internal Revenue Code (our tax law) “§ 7508A” which is aptly named “Authority to postpone certain deadlines by reason of Presidentially declared disaster or terroristic or military actions”.  The President declared an official national emergency (see here).
  • Taxpayers are not required to exhaust the deductible required by a high-deductible health plan (called “HDHP”) before using the HDHP to pay for COVID-19 related testing and treatment.

I have four tax policy suggestions for Congress that it can include in a taxpayer coronavirus relief bill. I welcome acronym suggestions for this proposed bill’s name, especially a creative bill name whose acronym is “Zombie” or “Eat Brains”. The four tax relief suggestions that will mitigate damage caused by Covid-19 are:

Proposal 1 (stop medical bankruptcy): In 2020 the itemized deduction for medical expenses is reduced by 7.5% of a taxpayer’s AGI.  For 2020, I propose eliminating the 7.5% reduction of medical expenses attributed to the coronavirus or any 2020 flu (or zombie bite), such as hospitalization.  Medical diagnosis should suffice. Not going to be used by many people.  But the people who do use will really need it – those that do not awake as zombies that is.

Proposal 2 (stop restaurant bankruptcy): The administration proposes the suspension of the Social Security and Medicare payroll tax to jump-start consumer spending, presumably after the removal of quarantine orders to stay indoors or at least six feet away from each other. Not very targeted.  Someone like me may just shift the payroll tax relief and use it instead to upward adjust my 403(b) retirement savings for 2020, taking advantage of my full $19,500 contribution allowance for 2020 (and because I am 50 years old or older – add another $6,000 retirement ‘catchup’ to that $19,500 for a full $25,500),  Not only have I not spent the money to help the economy rebound, I have reduced my tax due for 2020 because my retirement contributions reduce my taxable income.  I have saved tax twice!! While I quite like that idea personally, I feel empathy for all the local restaurant owners who may go bankrupt unless I go out to eat at more local restaurants once I assured that 2020 was not the year of the zombie apocalypse.

A better-targeted proposal to save our nation’s local restaurants and the local farmers that supply them is to allow taxpayers an itemized deduction up to $1,000 for an individual and $2,000 for a married filing jointly 2020, beyond the standard deduction, of 100% of restaurant meals expense between June 1 and October 31, at U.S. restaurants with the last three years gross annual receipts averaging less than [$5 million – whatever is reasonable so that big chains are not included, Small Business Administration uses a maximum of $8 million for full-service restaurants (NAICS 722511)- I’m OK with that].  I know – many reasons not to do this, such as Americans will become hooked on eating out at local restaurants. Wait, why is that a bad thing?  And we will need to address the tax abusers who will order one slice of pizza and 20 bottles of wine, to go. So maybe the maximum meal receipt must be set at $100 per meal receipt per adult. That should allow plenty of food for a couple, and alcohol, and leave enough for the children to still have mac & cheese. Plus it requires ten different restaurant trips. Local restauranteurs and the local farmers can hold out hope that 2020 will not require filing for bankruptcy protection.  November is Thanksgiving when people eat out anyway, at least in the restaurants that have remained open.  By the way, I am purposely leaving business out of this.  Business has a 50% business meal deduction anyway. And my policy suggestion is about Americans being social and not talking business at the dinner table (and perhaps not politics either).

Proposal 3 (stop hotel bankruptcy): And let’s not forget about locally-owned hotels with average gross receipts below $8 million (SBA uses $35 million for hotels and $8 million for B&B Inns so maybe I am way off base with just $8 million – see NAICS subsector 721 Accomodation). A $500 itemized deduction for 2020 for a U.S. hotel stay (not Air BnB homes or apartments, actually licensed hotels/BnB Inns) for an individual or couple between June 1 and October 31. Might not buy a weekend at the Ritz but the Ritz probably exceeds the small business amount of revenue a year.  Is it sound tax policy? Huey Long (I’m from Louisiana) promised a chicken in every pot and a car in every yard.  I promise a get-a-way weekend at a small(ish) hotel.

Proposal 4 (keep employees employed): A tax credit (I am not sure the right amount, let the Labor Secretary decide, something around $5,000 an employee) to employers of less than 500 employees who do not reduce the monthly payroll of the employees, or fire any employees, between June 1 and September 30. October 1 employers start thinking about Christmas hiring for the shopping season.  I can imagine some mathematically-inclined employees thinking “I am going to walk into my boss’ office and projectile vomit because the cost of losing the tax credits for firing me is too high.” OK, so firing ‘for cause including projectile Zombie vomiting on the boss ‘ will be allowed without loss of the tax credit.  Now if a business wants to expand and hire a lot of employees up to 500 that’s great.  I propose that all employees employed and start fulltime work before June 1st qualify for a reduced $4,000 tax credit (basically $1,000 a month of employment for June through September).

These four proposals are enough to keep the economy, restaurants, hotels, and employees out of recession and bankruptcy.  But I have more proposals not currently part of the current bill, but common sense dictates should be (well, maybe not).  Why have we heard nothing from the House to encourage donations of toilet paper rolls to local shelters?   And why hotels and restaurants, but not spas?  I’ll leave it to the politicians (and lobbyists) to argue about.  Meanwhile, I look forward to receiving your comments while I set up my anti-zombie chicken wire barricade around the yard.

I’ll be covering these and related issues in my weekly Tax Facts Intelligence Newsletter.

2020’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience

Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone.  Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com800-543-0874

Posted in Tax Policy, Taxation, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

International Tax Risk Management case studies online Summer and Fall courses for 2020

Posted by William Byrnes on March 6, 2020


Want to join one of the case study teams for the international tax risk management courses taught live online, using Zoom, by industry’s recognized tax risk leaders and leading tax authors?  The courses are for tax attorneys, accountants, or economists and count toward the Texas A&M’s Master and LL.M. degrees in residence and online.

The class of a maximum of 18 students will be grouped into teams of 3 students each. The 6 teams meet using Zoom to prepare a weekly presentation to respond to a real-world post-BEPS client study. Then all teams meet twice together each week ‘in live session class’ via Zoom with the industry case study topic expert professor and the course professor, 9:00am – 10:30am Dallas Central time to discuss and present the case study solutions. Students are provided without charge the learning and textbook materials, videos with PPT, and podcasts, and granted access to a large online law & business/tax database library including Lexis, Bloomberg, IBFD, Kluwer/CCH, Thomson, BvD, S&P, among many other tax and financial data resources.

To apply for the international tax courses, contact Jeff Green, Graduate Programs Coordinator, T: +1 (817) 212-3866, E: jeffgreen@law.tamu.edu or contact David Dye, Assistant Dean of Graduate Programs, T (817) 212-3954, E: ddye@law.tamu.edu. Texas A&M Admissions website: https://law.tamu.edu/distance-education/international-tax  (applications require university transcripts delivered by May 15).

Strength of the Aggie Network: Texas A&M, annual budget over $6 billion (FY2020), is the largest U.S. public university, with the renown Aggie former students network exceeding 500,000 around the world, Texas A&M is 1 of only 60 accredited U.S. universities of the American Association of Universities (R1: Doctoral Universities – Highest Research Activity) and 1 of only 17 U.S. universities that hold the triple U.S. federal grant of Land, Sea, and Space!

 

SUMMER 2020 (May 18 through June 30)

FATCA, CRS, AEoI, Systems and Data: 3 credits (meet Wednesday and Sunday at 9am Central Daylight Dallas time zone)

Week 1. May 18: FATCA, CRS, and EU: nationality, residency, data sharing: Dr. Bruno Da Silva (Loyens & Loeff), and William Byrnes (TAMU).

Week 2. May 25: FATCA/CRS and the Asset Management Industry, intermediaries: Denise Hintzke (Deloitte)

Week 3. June 1: FATCA Withholding Compliance, overlap with QI: Denise Hintzke (Deloitte)

Week 4. June 8: Documentation FATCA v CRS: Danielle Nishida (KPMG) / Laurie Hatten-Boyd (KPMG)

Week 5. June 15: Danielle Nishida (KPMG) or Laurie Hatten-Boyd (KPMG)

Week 6. June 23: Financial Institutions Systems And Data: Haydon Perryman (Bank of America, UBS, Barclays, RBS and Lloyds) 

International Tax Risk Management I (Data, Analytics & Technology) 3 credits (meet Tuesday and Friday at 9am Central Daylight Dallas time zone)

Week 1. May 18: BEPS: Dr. Bruno Da Silva (Loyens & Loeff), and William Byrnes (TAMU).

Week 2. May 25: Interest (thin cap, EBIDTA):

Week 3. June 1: CbCR & Analytics David Deputy, Vertex

Week 4. June 8: LOB / PPT / MLI: Dr. Bruno da Silva (Loyens & Loeff)

Week 5. June 15: General tax risk management approach Dr. Knut Olsen

Week 6. June 23: Future of Analytics & Technology from a Risk Management Perspective: Dr. Paula de Witte 

FALL 2020 (Aug 23 through Nov 23) 3 credits (meet Wednesday and Sunday at 9am Central Daylight Dallas time zone)

Domestic Tax Systems Risk Management

Week 1 Aug 23 Canada (extractive)

Week 2 Aug 30 Mexico (manufacturing)

Week 3 Sept 6 India (services)

Week 4 Sept 13 China (supply chain)

Week 5 Sept 20 Japan Dr. Maji Rhee (Waseda) (comps and secret comps)

Week 6 Sept 27 UK (financial services) 

International Tax Risk Management II (Data, Analytics & Technology) 3 credits (meet Wednesday and Sunday at 9am Central Daylight Dallas time zone)

Week 1 Oct 11 Technology industry (Dell) Pillar 2 – CFC, GILTI, related

Week 2 Oct 18 Manufacture

Week 3 Oct 25 Oil & Gas

Week 4 Nov 1 Tax of Patents / Technology, Dr. Brigitte Muehlmann (Daylight time ends, Wednesday and Sunday at 8am Central Standard Dallas time zone)

Week 5 Nov 8 Tax Risk & Tax Technology, Dr. Brigitte Muehlmann

Week 6 Nov 15 Tax Risk & Tax Technology, Dr. Brigitte Muehlmann   

International Tax & Tax Treaties I: Residency Dr. Bruno Da Silva (Loyens & Loeff), and William Byrnes (TAMU) 3 credits (meet Wednesday and Sunday at 9am Central Daylight Dallas time zone)

Week 1 Aug 23 Domestic Tax Rights; Double Taxation; Tax Treaty Allocation Of Tax Rights

Week 2 Aug 30 Types Of Taxes; Tax Treaty Interpretation

Week 3: Sept 6 Tax Jurisdiction Over Persons, Tax Treaty Interpretation

Week 4: Sept 13 Tax Jurisdiction of Corporations; Tax Treaty Interpretation & Application

Week 5: Sept 20 Tax Jurisdiction of Entities

Week 6: Sept 27 Pillar 1 And 2 (Taxation of Digital; Min Effective Tax)

 International Tax & Tax Treaties II: Source Dr. Bruno Da Silva (Loyens & Loeff), and William Byrnes (TAMU) 3 credits (meet Wednesday and Sunday at 9am Central Daylight Dallas time zone)

Week 1 Oct 11 Tax of Business Income

Week 2 Oct 18 Tax of Investment Income

Week 3: Oct 25 Taxation of Services and Employment Income

Week 4: Nov 1 Double Taxation and Tax Credits (Daylight time ends, Wednesday and Sunday at 8am Central Standard Dallas time zone)

Week 5: Nov 8 Tax Accounting

Week 6: Nov 15 Introduction to Management of Tax and Data

Capstone Nov 23: Groups Create Client Case Studies

SPRING 2021 (Jan 10 – April 26)

U.S. Tax Risk Management (Data, Analytics & Technology) 3 credits (Wednesday and Sunday at 8am Central Standard Dallas time zone)

Week 1 January 10, 2021 Outbound / FDII Melissa Muhammad

Week 2 January 17, 2021 Inbound / BEAT Melissa Muhammad

Week 3 January 24, 2021 [check the box] Form 1120 Documentation: Neelu Mehrotra: EY

Week 4 January 31, 2021 [Subpart F & GILTI, PTEP ] Form 5471 Documentation: Neelu Mehrotra: EY

Week 5 February 7, 2021 M&A or topic and Neelu Mehrotra: EY

Week 6 February 14, 2021 FTCs; wrap-up: Melissa Muhammad 

E.U. International Risk Management 3 credits (Wednesday and Sunday at 9am Central Daylight Dallas time zone)

Week 1 February 28, 2021 General Framework & Fundamental Freedoms

Week 2 March 7, 2021 P/S + Interest / Royalty

Week 3 March 21, 2021 M&A directive

Week 4 March 28, 2021 Cross-Border Losses – Dr. Bruno Da Silva

Week 5 April 4, 2021 Free Movement of Capital (investment funds)

Week 6 April 11, 2021 ATAD, DAC 6, Abuse – Dr. Bruno da Silva

Capstone Week: Build a client case study, wrap up 

Transfer Pricing Risk Management: Tangibles, Methods, Economics, and Data (William Byrnes course material professor)

Week 1 January 13 Arm’s Length Standard (v Formulary Approach) Dr. Bruno Da Silva & William Byrnes

Week 2 Jan 20 CUP & Comparables  Dr. Lorraine Eden

Week 3 Jan 27 Cost Plus & Resale Minus  Dr. George Salis

Week 4 Feb 3: Comparable Profits Method & TNMM Dr. George Salis

Week 5 Feb 10 Profit Split Dr. George Salis

Week 6 Feb 17 Best Method Dr. Lorraine Eden 

Transfer Pricing Risk Management: Intangibles and Services (William Byrnes course material professor)

Week 1 March 2 Intangibles Royalty Rates CUT and CPM  Dr. Debora Correa Talutto

Week 2 March 16 CSA Intangibles Buy In/Out Dr. George Salis & William Byrnes

Week 3 March 23 Digital Business Unitary Apportionment Dr. Bruno Da Silva

Week 4 March 30 Digital Value Chain, Internet of Things Dr. Lorraine Eden

Week 5 April 6 U.S. v OECD v UN Manual case study Extractive Industries, Financing Hafiz Choudhury

Week 6 April 13 Restructuring the Business, Services case study Hafiz Choudhury

Capstone Hand-On Week with Financial databases April 20 – 26: Thomson OneSource, BvD (Moodys), and CrossBorder AI Solutions Dr. Debora Correa Talutto & William Byrnes

Posted in Courses | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Byrnes & Bloink’s TaxFacts Intelligence Weekly for Financial Advisors (March 5, 2020)

Posted by William Byrnes on March 5, 2020


Texas A&M University School of Law has launched its online wealth management, risk management, and international tax risk management graduate curricula for industry professionals. Apply now for Summer courses that begin May: FATCA & CRS Risk Management; International Tax Risk Management, Data, and Analytics I  Texas A&M University is a public university and is ranked 1st among public universities for its superior education at an affordable cost (Fiske, 2018) and ranked 1st of Texas public universities for best value (Money, 2018). To apply for Summer, contact Jeff Green, Graduate Programs Coordinator, T: +1 (817) 212-3866, E: jeffgreen@law.tamu.edu or contact David Dye, Assistant Dean of Graduate Programs, T (817) 212-3954, E: ddye@law.tamu.edu. Texas A&M Admissions website: https://law.tamu.edu/distance-education/

Editor’s Note: Litigation on breaches of fiduciary duties in qualified plans has increased dramatically in the past few years, and this week sees an interesting decision from the Supreme Court reducing the statute of limitations where the employee has actual knowledge of the breach. In contrast, the IRS indicates that there is no statute of limitations for employer ACA violations. For more on these topics and many others, log in to Tax Facts for the latest.
U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Statute of Limitations for Fiduciary Breach

The U.S. Supreme Court, in the widely watched Intel case, agreed with former employees that an employer cannot shorten the time period over which plan participants can sue by simply posting relevant information online or sending information in the mail. In most cases, plan participants have six years to bring a lawsuit for fiduciary breach. However, that window is shortened to three years from the date the participant had “actual knowledge” of the fiduciary violation. For more information on investment diversification requirements for 401(k)s, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

IRS Releases Regs on Post-Reform Deduction for Business Meals and Entertainment

The IRS released regulations governing the post-tax reform treatment of the deduction for business meals and entertainment expenses. The regulations generally mirror guidance release in 2018 and 2019 on the deduction. As such, taxpayers may continue to deduct 50 percent of their business-related food and beverage expenses that are not lavish or extravagant. For more information on the post-reform deduction, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

IRS: No Statute of Limitations on ACA Penalties for Large Employers

In usual scenarios, when a taxpayer files a return reporting certain information to the IRS, that filing triggers the start of a limitations period after which the IRS can no longer challenge the information in that return (generally, three years). However, the IRS has recently clarified that this rule does not apply with respect to ACA penalty taxes owed by applicable large employers—because there is no actual return that they file in order to report those taxes. This is the case despite the fact that ALEs have certain reporting obligations via annual Forms 1094-C and 1095-C. For more information on how penalties are assessed, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

2020’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience

Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone.  Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com800-543-0874

Posted in Pensions, Retirement Planning, Taxation, Wealth Management | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Byrnes & Bloink’s TaxFacts Intelligence Weekly for Financial Advisors (Jan 31, 2020)

Posted by William Byrnes on January 31, 2020


Texas A&M University School of Law has launched its online wealth management, risk management, and international tax risk management graduate curricula for industry professionals. Apply now for Summer courses that begin late May  Texas A&M University is a public university and is ranked 1st among public universities for its superior education at an affordable cost (Fiske, 2018) and ranked 1st of Texas public universities for best value (Money, 2018). To apply for Summer, contact Jeff Green, Graduate Programs Coordinator, T: +1 (817) 212-3866, E: jeffgreen@law.tamu.edu or contact David Dye, Assistant Dean of Graduate Programs, T (817) 212-3954, E: ddye@law.tamu.edu. Texas A&M Admissions website: https://law.tamu.edu/distance-education/

SECURE Act and Extenders Bill

As a part of the year-end budget package, Congress passed the long-awaited SECURE Act and also addressed the recently neglected extenders provisions. The SECURE Act contains a number of provisions that will impact nearly every American. Some of the highlights include:

·  Pushing the age when required minimum distributions (RMDs) from retirement accounts must begin from 70 1/2 to 72.
·  Permitting contributions to traditional retirement accounts at any age (previously, taxpayers were not permitted to contribute after age 71).
·  Limiting the value of inherited IRAs, so that most accounts inherited by non-spouse beneficiaries must now be distributed within 10 years (rather than over the lifetime of the beneficiary).
·  Increasing the retirement plan start-up credit for small businesses who offer a retirement savings option (to $5,000 per year or $5,500 if auto-enrollment provisions are included).
·  Expanding multiple employer plan (MEP) options so that unrelated employers can join together to offer retirement savings options to employees.
·  Requiring plans to provide annual lifetime income estimates to certain retirement plan participants.

The bill signed into law also extends many tax provisions, known as “extenders”, through the 2020 tax year. Some of those provisions include the Work Opportunity Credit, the new Family and Medical Leave Credit created by the 2017 tax reform legislation and the ability to treat mortgage insurance premiums as qualified residence interest for tax deduction purposes. Additionally, the bill lowers the medical expense threshold back to 7.5% through 2020. We will provide more information on the individual provisions of the SECURE Act and how the law will impact planning for clients as we move into 2020. For more information on the credits extended by the year-end spending bill, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

Appeals Court Finds ACA Individual Mandate Unconstitutional

The Fifth Circuit Appeals Court ruled that the ACA individual mandate is unconstitutional. However, it declined to invalidate the entire law. Instead, the case was remanded back to the lower court for more detail on other aspects of the law, including the employer mandate that continues in effect. For more information on the individual mandate, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

IRS Releases Proposed Regulations on TCJA Executive Compensation Deduction Limits

As a follow up to interim guidance released in August, 2018, the IRS has released proposed regulations that clarify the definitions of covered employee, publicly held corporation and applicable employee remuneration. For more information on the new limits that apply, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

2020’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience

Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone.  Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com800-543-0874

Posted in Retirement Planning, Taxation | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Byrnes & Bloink’s TaxFacts Intelligence Weekly for Financial Advisors (Jan 30, 2020)

Posted by William Byrnes on January 30, 2020


Texas A&M University School of Law has launched its online wealth management, risk management, and international tax risk management graduate curricula for industry professionals. Apply now for Summer courses that begin late May  Texas A&M University is a public university and is ranked 1st among public universities for its superior education at an affordable cost (Fiske, 2018) and ranked 1st of Texas public universities for best value (Money, 2018). To apply for Summer, contact Jeff Green, Graduate Programs Coordinator, T: +1 (817) 212-3866, E: jeffgreen@law.tamu.edu or contact David Dye, Assistant Dean of Graduate Programs, T (817) 212-3954, E: ddye@law.tamu.edu. Texas A&M Admissions website: https://law.tamu.edu/distance-education/

Editor’s Note:
A couple of interesting developments this week. The NAIC action towards creating a best interest standard for annuity sales follows moves by several states (most notably New York with its new Regulation 187) to create similar rules. While the NAIC has not yet taken any definitive action in this area, in the words of Bob Dylan “you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”

We also have more SECURE Act updates. The Act upped the penalties for anyone filing a Form 5500, and it has also expanded (again, following the 2017 tax reform law) the possible uses for 529 pans, making them an even more valuable planning tool.

NAIC Committee Votes to Pass Best Interest Standard for Annuity Sales

The Life Insurance and Annuities Committee of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) voted to pass a “best interest” standard that would apply to annuity sales. The NAIC standard would be contained in a model that could be passed by states to create a more uniform approach nationwide. The model law would focus on four key concepts: (1) duty of care, (2) disclosure obligations, (3) conflicts of interest and (4) documentation requirements. For more information on the factors that are important to determining whether an annuity is in a client’s best interest, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

SECURE Act Increases Cost of Failing to File Form 5500

Form 5500 is a form that must be filed by most employers that offer an employee benefit plan subject to ERISA (exceptions do apply). The SECURE Act has significantly increased the penalties that the IRS may assess for failure to file (note that the DOL may also assess penalties. For more information on when a Form 5500 may be required, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

SECURE Act Increases 529 Plan Value

The SECURE Act, which primarily impacts retirement-related provisions, also expands upon the permissible uses of Section 529 plan dollars to include apprenticeships and student loan payments. For more information on the use of 529 plan funds, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

2020’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience

Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone.  Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com800-543-0874

Posted in Retirement Planning, Taxation | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Byrnes & Bloink’s TaxFacts Intelligence Weekly for Financial Advisors (Jan 29, 2020)

Posted by William Byrnes on January 29, 2020


Texas A&M University School of Law has launched its online wealth management, risk management, and international tax risk management graduate curricula for industry professionals. Apply now for Summer courses that begin late May  Texas A&M University is a public university and is ranked 1st among public universities for its superior education at an affordable cost (Fiske, 2018) and ranked 1st of Texas public universities for best value (Money, 2018). To apply for Summer, contact Jeff Green, Graduate Programs Coordinator, T: +1 (817) 212-3866, E: jeffgreen@law.tamu.edu or contact David Dye, Assistant Dean of Graduate Programs, T (817) 212-3954, E: ddye@law.tamu.edu. Texas A&M Admissions website: https://law.tamu.edu/distance-education/

Editor’s Note:

Several interesting updates this week, including New Jersey’s unique approach to SALT taxes, which allows optional entity-level taxation for pass-throughs in exchange for individual tax credits to be distributed to the members. We also see a new IRS Gig Economy Tax Center and the elimination of the “one bad apple” rule for MEPs with the SECURE Act.

Did we see you at the Heckerling estate planning conference last week? It was a week of warm sunshine and hot (well, OK, at least interesting) tax and estate planning developments. Happy planning!

Latest in the SALT Cap Saga: New Jersey Passes Pass-through Entity Tax Workaround

In the latest in the ongoing SALT cap debate, New Jersey has passed a new law creating an optional entity-level tax for pass-through entities. The New Jersey law allows pass-through entities to elect taxation at the entity level. In exchange, the members are given a refundable gross income tax credit. For more information on the SALT cap, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

IRS Announces New “Gig Economy” Tax Center

More workers than ever are working in the gig, or freelance, economy–whether full-time or simply to supplement regular income. To keep up with the growing gig industry, the IRS has developed a new tool to help gig workers better understand and comply with their tax obligations. Taxpayers can access the site through irs.gov. For more information on the self-employment tax, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

SECURE Act Eliminates the “One Bad Apple” Rule for MEPs—With Conditions

The one bad apple rule presented one of the primary roadblocks for small business owners interested in the multiple employer plan (MEP) structure. The SECURE Act provides that if one employer’s actions would disqualify the plan, only that employer’s portion of the MEP will be disqualified. For more information, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

2020’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience

Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone.  Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com800-543-0874

 

Posted in Retirement Planning, Taxation | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Byrnes & Bloink’s TaxFacts Intelligence Weekly for Financial Advisors (Jan 28, 2020)

Posted by William Byrnes on January 28, 2020


Texas A&M University School of Law has launched its International Tax online graduate curriculum for tax professionals. Apply now for Jan 13 – April 19 transfer pricing courses.  Texas A&M University is a public university and is ranked 1st among public universities for its superior education at an affordable cost (Fiske, 2018) and ranked 1st of Texas public universities for best value (Money, 2018). To apply for the inaugural cohort opportunity, contact Jeff Green, Graduate Programs Coordinator, T: +1 (817) 212-3866, E: jeffgreen@law.tamu.edu or contact David Dye, Assistant Dean of Graduate Programs, T (817) 212-3954, E: ddye@law.tamu.edu. Texas A&M Admissions website: https://law.tamu.edu/distance-education/international-tax

 

TAXFACTS

TaxFacts Intelligence Weekly

William H. Byrnes, J.D., LL.M. and Robert Bloink, J.D., LL.M.
Jan 09, 2020

View in Browser

Editor’s Note: Mileage rates, UBTI for VEBAs, and 401(K)s for part-time employees under the SECURE Act

Vehicle-related reimbursement and deductions can be a big deal. Anyone who tracks mileage for work, medical, or charitable purposes is impacted by the changes in the IRS mileage rates, which have just been updated for 2020. We also have new UBTI rules for VEBAs, which were adopted in light of recent litigation. Finally, the SECURE Act mandates access to employer-sponsored 401(k)s to many part-time workers who could previously be excluded from participation. Learn what the new rules are, including how they impact nondiscrimination testing, with Tax Facts Online.

2020 IRS Business Standard Mileage Rates

In 2020, the optional standard mileage rate for using a car for business purposes will be 57.5 cents per mile driven for business purposes (the 2019 rate was 58 cents per mile). For more information on deducting business-related travel expenses, including medical and charitable mileage rates visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

IRS Regs Clarify UBTI Calculation for VEBAs and SUBs

The IRS has released regulations clarifying how voluntary employees’ beneficiary associations (VEBAs) and supplemental unemployment benefit trusts (SUBs) calculate unrelated business taxable income (UBTI) in light of recent litigation. For more information on the new rules and the related litigation, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

SECURE Act Expands 401(k) Access for Long-Term, Part-Time Employees

Under the SECURE Act, employees who perform at least 500 hours of service for at least three consecutive years (and are at least 21 years old) must be allowed to participate in the employer-sponsored 401(k). These long-term, part-time employees may, however, be excluded from coverage and nondiscrimination testing requirements. For more information on 401(k) requirements, including detailed descriptions of the nondiscrimination testing requirements, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

2020’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience

Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone.  Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com800-543-0874

Posted in Retirement Planning, Taxation | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Byrnes & Bloink’s TaxFacts Intelligence Weekly for Financial Advisors (Jan 2d, 2020)

Posted by William Byrnes on January 3, 2020


Texas A&M University School of Law has launched its International Tax online graduate curriculum for tax professionals. Apply now for Jan 13 – April 19 transfer pricing courses.  Texas A&M University is a public university and is ranked 1st among public universities for its superior education at an affordable cost (Fiske, 2018) and ranked 1st of Texas public universities for best value (Money, 2018). To apply for the inaugural cohort opportunity, contact Jeff Green, Graduate Programs Coordinator, T: +1 (817) 212-3866, E: jeffgreen@law.tamu.edu or contact David Dye, Assistant Dean of Graduate Programs, T (817) 212-3954, E: ddye@law.tamu.edu. Texas A&M Admissions website: https://law.tamu.edu/distance-education/international-tax

Editor’s Note: Ending the Transportation and Parking Tax for Nonprofits, Wrangling the New Form W-4P, and Some SECURE Act Caveats for Inherited IRAs.

We continue to see odds and ends for the new year related to the passage of the SECURE Act. The Act eliminated the Transportation and Parking tax for nonprofits, and we also have an analysis of the caveats for the newly-limited stretch for inherited IRAs.

With the SECURE Act finally passed, the editorial team here at Tax Facts is working hard update all of the relevant content with the new changes. Tax Facts Online content is continually updated, and we will be compiling a white paper for our print customers outlining the changes with the new laws and how they track to the existing Tax Facts Q&As. As always, we strive to make accurate and insightful changes to Tax Facts that reflect the most current tax information available.

Tax-Exempt Entities Wave Goodbye to Tax Reform’s Transportation and Parking Tax
The Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Relief Act of 2020, which contained the SECURE Act and addressed tax “extender” provisions, also repealed a controversial portion of IRC Section 512(a). Generally, tax-exempt entities were subject to a 21 percent tax on certain benefits, including use of parking facilities, provided to employees beginning in 2018. The new law repeals this expanded definition retroactively to the date of its enactment, to it is essentially as though the UBTI expansion was never enacted. For more information on the issue, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
IRS Clears Up Questions on Tax Withholding from Retirement Accounts and Annuity Distributions in 2020
Tax withholding from retirement accounts and annuities is handled differently than ordinary employer income tax withholding. However, unless a taxpayer has opted out, payors of amounts from pensions, annuities and other sources are required to withhold for income taxes under Section 3405(a). The IRS guidance discusses how the new Form W-4P can be used for this, and notes that additional changes in later years may be considered. For more information on retirement plan withholding, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
SECURE Act Limits the Stretch IRA After 2019—with Caveats
In previous years, as retirement accounts have grown in value, the idea of using the account to provide a tax-preferred legacy to future generations had grown in popularity. To offset some of the cost of the SECURE Act, Congress limited the value of the stretch for most taxpayers. Under the new law, most non-spouse account beneficiaries will be required to take distributions over a ten-year period. The new rule has some caveats, and applies for tax years beginning after December 31, 2019. For more information, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

2020’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience

Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone.  Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com800-543-0874

Posted in Retirement Planning, Taxation | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Online & Hybrid Learning Pedagogy Best Practices and Standards Development at AALS on Thursday, January 2

Posted by William Byrnes on December 30, 2019


If you are attending the first afternoon of AALS Thursday, please join our discussion Online & Hybrid Learning Pedagogy Best Practices and Standards Development at Marriot Wardman Park Hotel’s Roosevelt Room 4, from 3:30-5:15 p.m. on Thursday, January 2 in a Q&A format.  Discussants include Dean April Barton (Duquesne), Dean James Hackney (Northeastern), Dean Megan Carpenter (New Hampshire), Prof. Rebecca Purdom (Emory), John Mayer (CALI), David Thomson (Denver), and Prof. William Byrnes (Texas A&M).

The discussants will help lead an audience conversation: “Since the publication of the first set of best practices and model rules, what have we learned? What should the community be considering now?

Our goal for this discussion is to test whether there is an appetite for an updated set of best practice standards and model rules. The five-year project sponsored by the Harvard Project on the Legal Profession to draft a set of best practices and model standards for online learning in legal education, Distance Learning in Legal Education: Delivery and Recommended Practices, is published by CALI: download here.  This conversation will continue next summer at SEALS and at the 2021 AALS meeting.

Specific discussion points may include:

  • Do we need to modernize best practices? Were we wrong about anything five years ago?
  • Do we need to update model rules? Who/what organization is the target for model rules? How should the ABA and regional accreditors review online law classes?
  • Some states still restrict how many online classes students may count toward taking the bar. Does this affect the growth of online law programs? Should it? Should this community engage those states? How?
  • Many online offerings by law schools are in their non-JD degree programs. How should the accreditation discussion for these programs consider online offerings? How will their regulation affect online JD classes?
  • Some law schools report status differences between faculty who teach online, and faculty who teach residential classes. Is this status difference a problem? If so, how should the problem be approached?
  • Some law schools heavily use adjuncts to teach online law classes. Is this a problem? If so, what steps should be taken?
Hope that you can join our discussion this Thursday at AALS!

Posted in Education Theory | Leave a Comment »

U.S. IRS Data for Country-by-Country Reports, Tax Year 2017 and 2016

Posted by William Byrnes on December 20, 2019


Six new tables presenting data from Form 8975, Country-by-Country Report, and Form 8975 Schedule A, Tax Jurisdiction and Constituent Entity Information, are now available on SOI’s Tax Stats Web page. The tables present data from the estimated population of corporate and partnership returns filed for Tax Year 2017. Five tables display the number of filers, revenues, profit, income taxes, earnings, number of employees, and tangible assets. The first three tables are classified by major geographic region and selected tax jurisdiction. The fourth table is classified by major industry group, geographic region, and select tax jurisdiction. The fifth table is classified by effective tax rate of multinational enterprise subgroups. A sixth table displays number of constituent entities classified by major geographic region, selected tax jurisdiction, and main business activities.

Country-by-Country Report: Tax Jurisdiction Information

Data Presented: Number of Filers, Revenues, Profit, Income Taxes, Earnings, Number of Employees, Tangible Assets

Classified by: Major Geographic Region and Selected Tax Jurisdiction
Tax Years: 2017 | 2016
Classified by: Major Geographic Region and Selected Tax Jurisdiction with Positive Profit Before Income Tax
Tax Years:  2017 | 2016
Classified by: Major Geographic Region and Selected Tax Jurisdiction with Negative or Zero Profit Before Income Tax
Tax Years: 2017 | 2016
Classified by: Major Industry Group, Geographic Region, and Selected Tax Jurisdiction
Tax Years: 2017 | 2016
Classified by: Effective Tax Rate of Multinational Enterprise Sub-groups
Tax Years: 2017 | 2016

Country-by-Country Report: Constituent Entities

Data Presented: Number of Constituent Entities

Classified by: Major Geographic Region, Selected Tax Jurisdiction, and Main Business Activities
Tax Years: 2017 | 2016

William Byrnes’ 4th Edition of his industry-leading Practical Guide to U.S. Transfer Pricing treatise was published on December 19, 2019 by Matthew Bender LexisNexis.  William Byrnes is the author or co-author of nine Lexis titles and an advisory board member of Law360’s International Tax journal.

William Byrnes’ completely revised 4th Edition Practical Guide to U.S. Transfer Pricing (2020) has been expanded to 2,000 pages of analyses and practice notes, 47 chapters divided over six parts: Part I: U.S. regulatory analysis, application of transfer pricing methods, and jurisprudence; Part II: OECD; Part III: United Nations; Part IV: European Union; Part V: Industry topics; and Part VI: Country practice and tax risk management. Professor Byrnes brings together 50 of the industry’s eminent transfer pricing counsel, economists, and financial accountants to provide a comprehensive two-volume “go-to” resource for tax risk management.

William Byrnes explained, “I am fortunate to be able to call upon and work with the industry’s leading transfer pricing professionals from firms such as Alston, Covington, Pillsbury, Jones Day, McDermott, Duff & Phelps, Miller Chevalier, PwC, KPMG, and multinational companies like Vertex and Veritas.” Sixty contributors add subject matter expertise on technical issues faced by tax and risk management counsel.

Last chance to join one of the case study teams for TRANSFER PRICING taught live online, using Zoom, by Dr. Lorraine Eden, Prof. William Byrnes, and many industry experts… The courses are for tax attorneys, accountants, or economists and count toward the Texas A&M’s INTERNATIONAL TAX Master degree (taught online).

The class of a maximum of 18 students will be grouped into teams of 3 students each. The 6 teams meet using Zoom to prepare a weekly TP Aggiespresentation to respond to a real-world post-BEPS client study. Then all teams meet together online via Zoom twice each week at 8:00am Dallas time Wednesdays and Sundays to discuss and present the case study solutions. Students are provided without charge textbook materials, videos with PPT, and podcasts, and granted access to a large online law & business database library including Lexis, Bloomberg, IBFD, Kluwer/CCH, Thomson, among many other tax resources.

To apply for the transfer pricing courses and international tax courses, contact Jeff Green, Graduate Programs Coordinator, T: +1 (817) 212-3866, E: jeffgreen@law.tamu.edu or contact David Dye, Assistant Dean of Graduate Programs, T (817) 212-3954, E: ddye@law.tamu.edu. Texas A&M Admissions website: https://law.tamu.edu/distance-education/international-tax  (applications and previous university transcripts must be received by Admissions before Wednesday, January 8th at 5pm Texas time). Note that the university is closed for the holidays from Dec. 20 until Jan. 2, 2020.

Posted in book, Transfer Pricing | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

What’s New in the 4th Edition Practical Guide to U.S. Transfer Pricing?

Posted by William Byrnes on December 20, 2019


Highlights

In this release, Professor William Byrnes launches a new 4th Edition of Practical Guide to U.S. Transfer Pricing, in which chapters have been reorganized, substantially revised and expanded to align the publication to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the 2017 OECD Transfer Guidelines and BEPS, and the 2017 UN Practical Manual.

His new edition has 47 chapters, 1,800 pages of technical, jurisprudence, and regulatory analysis to advise clients from a tax risk management perspective and to mitigate controversy. Order a copy here: https://store.lexisnexis.com/products/practical-guide-to-us-transfer-pricing-skuusSku60720

There are 29 U.S. specific chapters (Part I), 7 OECD/BEPS/EU chapters (Part II, IV), 9 industry-specific chapters (Part V), 2 foreign country chapters (Part VI).

New Country Chapters. India (Chapter 121) and Brazil (Chapter 120).

Financial Industry Chapters. Financial Industry Transfer Pricing Issues (Chapter 92), Determining Arm’s Length Interest (Chapter 93), Defending Intercompany Debt (Chapter 94), Performance Guarantees (Chapter 95).

Business Structuring Chapters. Business Restructuring: U.S. Tax and Transfer Pricing Rules (Chapter 27), Mergers and Acquisitions (Chapter 96), International Strategy for Transfer Pricing Compliance: A Checklist for Multinationals (Chapter 90), Transfer Pricing Aspects of Business Restructurings (Chapter 43).

Hybrid Rules and Transfer Pricing. New Chapter 45.

Cost Sharing casesAmazon and Altera, analyzed in depth and contrasted. see Chapter 13 and Chapter 10.

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Revision of U.S. Business Restructuring Chapter 27 includes the impact of GILTI, FDII, BEAT, Transition Tax, on U.S. business’s transfer pricing exposure. BEAT and Service Cost Method are discussed in Chapter 14.

Digital Taxation and Transfer PricingSee new Chapter 44.

Transfer Pricing Review Panel and Transfer Pricing Examination Process Updates. See Chapter 20, Examination and Appeals.

Value Chain Analysis. See Chapter 42, Porter’s Value Chain Analysis Case Study of Amazon; Chapter 97, Value Chain Study of Coffee Industry; Chapter 98, Value Chain Study of the Tobacco Industry.

Taxpayer First Act of 2019. Impact on LB&I Discussed in Chapter 20.

Impact of 2015 APA and Competent Authority Revenue Procedures. Analysis of trends and risks in Chapter 21, APAs and in Chapter 22, Competent Authority.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Lexis Advance Tax Platform Includes Treatise Library Analyzing

Management of Operational and Transactional Tax Risk

It’s all here.

Faster research: Streamline tax analysis with one search across the broadest array of leading tax publishers on a single platform. Predictable, fixed-rate pricing covers full use of nearly 1,400 subscription sources you’ll see—no added charges.

Superior tax content: Enhance your productivity with access to the widest array of tax sources on a single platform. Matthew Bender® titles, including more than 80 federal, state and international tax treatises.

Advisors will discover a rich selection of Lexis titles examining hot, cutting-edge issues like: Practical Guide to U.S. Transfer PricingLexis Guide to FATCA Compliance; a country-by-country examination of anti-money laundering laws; Taxation of Intellectual Property and TechnologyFederal Taxation of Oil and Gas Transactions; and Foreign Tax & Trade Briefs, which provides summaries of the tax laws and systems of over 120 countries. Nine treatises are authored or co-authored by Professor William H. Byrnes (Texas A&M University Law School) who leads teams of contributing subject experts in analyzing the management of operational and transactional risk confronting tax officers and their advisors, and providing compliance and planning insights.

Comprehensive results: Be confident you’re providing the most complete and accurate tax guidance:

Leverage proven strategies and practical approaches by leading tax practitioners.

Quickly validate IRS Administrative rulings with exclusive Shepard’s® signals indicators.

Keep informed about current developments with exclusive current awareness resources from Law360 and other premier publishers.

Lexis Advance Tax—What you need when you need it …

Call: 800-227-4908 or visit: http://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/products/lexis-advance-tax.page.

Looking for Lexis Advance Tax?: Sign in at www.lexisadvance.com and look for the scroll-down menu called “Lexis Advance Research” in the upper left-hand corner. Click on the down arrow and select Lexis Advance Tax.

Posted in book, Transfer Pricing | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

William Byrnes’ 4th Edition Practical Guide to U.S. Transfer Pricing Treatise Published December 19, 2019

Posted by William Byrnes on December 19, 2019


William Byrnes’ 4th Edition of his industry-leading Practical Guide to U.S. Transfer Pricing treatise was published December 19, 2019 by Matthew Bender LexisNexis.  William Byrnes is the author or co-author of nine Lexis titles and an advisory board member of Law360’s International Tax journal.

William Byrnes’ completely revised 4th Edition Practical Guide to U.S. Transfer Pricing (2020) has been expanded to 2,000 pages of analyses and practice notes, 47 chapters divided over six parts: Part I: U.S. regulatory analysis, application of transfer pricing methods, and jurisprudence; Part II: OECD; Part III: United Nations; Part IV: European Union; Part V: Industry topics; and Part VI: Country practice and tax risk management. Professor Byrnes brings together 50 of the industry’s eminent transfer pricing counsel, economists, and financial accountants to provide a comprehensive two-volume “go-to” resource for tax risk management.

William Byrnes explained, “I am fortunate to be able to call upon and work with the industry’s leading transfer pricing professionals from firms such as Alston, Covington, Pillsbury, Jones Day, McDermott, Duff & Phelps, Miller Chevalier, PwC, KPMG, and multinational companies like Vertex and Veritas.” Sixty contributors add subject matter expertise on technical issues faced by tax and risk management counsel.

“Transfer Pricing is one of the most complex and changing areas of tax risk in the United States and globally,” continued Byrnes. “The big-ticket cases, ones with over a half-billion-dollar adjustment, are almost always transfer pricing.  And with the renewed government focus on this topic around the world, transfer pricing audits will both increase in number and in actions taken, not just for the IRS, but most countries’ revenue authorities. U.S. companies are often the target.”

Byrnes shared, “Dr. Lorraine Eden (Texas A&M) and I will be using the treatise to teach transfer pricing online from January 13 through April 20 as part of the Texas A&M international tax curriculum”.

 

 

Posted in book, Transfer Pricing | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Transfer Pricing case studies online course Jan 13 – Apr 19, 2020

Posted by William Byrnes on December 18, 2019


Last chance to join one of the case study teams for TRANSFER PRICING taught live online, using Zoom, by Dr. Lorraine Eden, Prof. William Byrnes, and many industry experts… The courses are for tax attorneys, accountants, or economists and count toward the Texas A&M’s INTERNATIONAL TAX Master degree (taught online).

The class of a maximum of 18 students will be grouped into teams of 3 students each. The 6 teams meet using Zoom to prepare a weekly TP Aggiespresentation to respond to a real-world post-BEPS client study. Then all teams meet together online via Zoom twice each week at 8:00am Dallas time Wednesdays and Sundays to discuss and present the case study solutions. Students are provided without charge textbook materials, videos with PPT, and podcasts, and granted access to a large online law & business database library including Lexis, Bloomberg, IBFD, Kluwer/CCH, Thomson, among many other tax resources.

To apply for the transfer pricing courses and international tax courses, contact Jeff Green, Graduate Programs Coordinator, T: +1 (817) 212-3866, E: jeffgreen@law.tamu.edu or contact David Dye, Assistant Dean of Graduate Programs, T (817) 212-3954, E: ddye@law.tamu.edu. Texas A&M Admissions website: https://law.tamu.edu/distance-education/international-tax  (applications and previous university transcripts must be received by Admissions before Wednesday, January 8th at 5pm Texas time). Note that the university is closed for the holidays from Dec. 20 until Jan. 2, 2020.

 

 

 

 

Course I: Tangibles, Methods

  • Week 1 January 13 Arm’s Length Standard (v Formulary Approach) case study
  • Week 2 Jan 20 CUP & Comparables case study
  • Week 3 Jan 27 Cost Plus & Resale Minus case study
  • Week 4 Feb 3: Comparable Profits Method & TNMM case study
  • Week 5 Feb 10 Profit Split case study
  • Week 6 Feb 17 Best Method case study

Course II: Intangibles, Services

  • Week 1 March 2 Intangibles Royalty Rates CUT and CPM case study
  • Week 2 March 16: CSA Intangibles Buy In/Out case study
  • Week 3 March 23: Digital Business Unitary Apportionment case study
  • Week 4 March 30 Digital Value Chain, Internet of Things case study
  • Week 5 April 6 U.S. v OECD v UN Manual case study Extractive Industries, Financing
  • Week 6 April 13 Restructuring the Business, Services case study

Posted in Courses | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Transfer Pricing case studies online course Jan 13 – Apr 19 (live Zoom based classes, small team groups)

Posted by William Byrnes on December 13, 2019


Interested to join one of the case study teams for TRANSFER PRICING taught live online, using Zoom, by Dr. Lorraine Eden, Prof. William Byrnes, and many industry experts January 13 – April 19. The courses are for tax attorneys, accountants, or economists and count toward the Texas A&M INTERNATIONAL TAX online Master curriculum.

The class is divided into teams of 3 or 4 students, each team meets internally using Zoom to prepare a team response and presentation for a real-world post-BEPS client study. Then the entire class meets twice each week: (A) on Wednesdays to discuss the case study with the Subject Matter Expert and Prof. William Byrnes, and (B) on Sundays each team presents interactively their positions and solutions in a friendly rivalry against the other teams, facilitated by William Byrnes and the Subject Matter Expert professor.  Students are provided textbook materials, videos with PPT, and podcasts, while learning to use a robust online law & business database library. The weekly lead Subject Matter Experts listed below and several more will be joining to explain specific tools and issues.

To apply for the transfer pricing courses and international tax courses, contact Jeff Green, Graduate Programs Coordinator, T: +1 (817) 212-3866, E: jeffgreen@law.tamu.edu or contact David Dye, Assistant Dean of Graduate Programs, T (817) 212-3954, E: ddye@law.tamu.edu. Texas A&M Admissions website: https://law.tamu.edu/distance-education/international-tax  (applications with all previous degree academic transcripts must be received by Admissions before Wednesday January 8th at 5pm Texas time)

Texas A&M Law offers the premier online program in international tax with a multidisciplinary, risk-management-focused approach. Our TP Aggiesunique, industry-based online curriculum is vetted by and focuses on the needs of multinational corporations, large firms, and governments. Though one of the largest U.S. public universities of 70,000 students and an annual budget exceeding $6 billion (FY2020), Texas A&M’s international tax curriculum offers small class sizes (maximum 30) to ensure personal faculty and in-class engagement. Smaller class sizes also allow stronger engagement and connections to develop among classmates who learn from each other’s corporate experiences.

  • Class meeting time is 60  – 120 minutes each Wednesday and Sunday at Central (Texas) time 08:00 (am) (i.e. 15:00 Paris; 18:00 Dubai; 22:00 Shanghai). The sessions are normally recorded if students are unable to attend because of client commitments or must sign off early.
            Capstone Week April 20 – 26: students teams build case studies that winning teams can present next year in the courses

Posted in Courses | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Byrnes & Bloink’s TaxFacts Intelligence Weekly for Financial Advisors (December 12 edition)

Posted by William Byrnes on December 12, 2019


Texas A&M University School of Law has launched its International Tax online graduate curriculum for tax professionals. Apply now for Jan 13 – April 19 transfer pricing courses.  Texas A&M University is a public university and is ranked 1st among public universities for its superior education at an affordable cost (Fiske, 2018) and ranked 1st of Texas public universities for best value (Money, 2018). To apply for the inaugural cohort opportunity, contact Jeff Green, Graduate Programs Coordinator, T: +1 (817) 212-3866, E: jeffgreen@law.tamu.edu or contact David Dye, Assistant Dean of Graduate Programs, T (817) 212-3954, E: ddye@law.tamu.edu. Texas A&M Admissions website: https://law.tamu.edu/distance-education/international-tax

IRS Provides New ACA Transition Relief for Employer Reporting

As usual, the IRS has released transition relief to extend the deadline for providing Form 1095-C to individuals from January 31, 2020 to March 2, 2020. However, unlike other years, the March 2 deadline is now a firm deadline and the IRS has indicated that it will no longer respond to requests for extension beyond that deadline. Form 1094-C and Form 1095-C that must be provided to the IRS are not subject to the extension. The employer must furnish these filings to the IRS by February 28, 2020 if the filing is on paper and March 31, 2020 if the employer is filing electronically. For 2019 forms, the IRS has extended the relief that may allow employers to escape liability if they make a good faith effort to comply with all filing requirements. Because the individual mandate has been reduced to $0, the IRS will also not impose a penalty under IRC Section 6722 upon employers who fail to provide Form 1095-B if certain requirements are satisfied. For more information, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

December 31 Deadline to Take Full Advantage of Opportunity Zone Deferral is Fast Approaching

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act introduced opportunity zones into the tax code, which allow taxpayers to defer certain gains if certain deadlines and requirements are satisfied. However, the law only gives taxpayers a limited amount of time to take full advantage of the deferral provisions. Specifically, December 31, 2019, is the deadline for taxpayers who wish to make opportunity zone investments and take full advantage of the 15% step-up in the deferred gains. Taxpayers who invest after this deadline (but before December 31, 2020) and hold the opportunity zone investment through 2026 will be entitled to take 10% step-up in basis (10% of the amount deferred) on the deferred tax. For more information on the opportunity zone rules, including the gain deferral provision, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

Unpacking the New Section 6050Y Reporting Requirements for Life Insurance Reportable Policy Sales

The new 6050Y regulations create new reporting obligations for many who issue, acquire or sell life insurance policies in a reportable policy sale post-tax reform. An “issuer” under the new regulations is anyone that bears any part of the risk associated with the life insurance contract, including those collecting premiums and paying death benefits. However, where there are multiple issuers, the reporting obligations are satisfied if only one issuer or designee reports on a timely basis. New forms released by the IRS to complete the reporting obligations include Form 1099-LS, Reportable Life Insurance Sale and Form 1099-SB, Seller’s Investment in Life Insurance Contract. While some reporting requirements have been delayed, it’s important to understand the basics of these forms now. Form 1099-LS must be filed by anyone who acquires a life insurance policy (or interest therein) in a reportable policy sale. Basic information about the sale, policy, acquirer and seller must be included. Form 1099-SB must be filed by the issuer of the life insurance policy to report both the seller’s investment in the contract and the surrender amount if the sale is a reportable policy sale (or transferred to a foreign person). For more information on the new 6050Y reporting requirements, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

2020’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience

Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone.  Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com800-543-0874

Posted in Retirement Planning, Taxation | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Byrnes & Bloink’s TaxFacts Intelligence Weekly for Financial Advisors (December 5 edition)

Posted by William Byrnes on December 6, 2019


Texas A&M University School of Law has launched its International Tax online graduate curriculum for tax professionals. Apply now for Jan 13 – April 19 transfer pricing courses.  Texas A&M University is a public university and is ranked 1st among public universities for its superior education at an affordable cost (Fiske, 2018) and ranked 1st of Texas public universities for best value (Money, 2018). To apply for the inaugural cohort opportunity, contact Jeff Green, Graduate Programs Coordinator, T: +1 (817) 212-3866, E: jeffgreen@law.tamu.edu or contact David Dye, Assistant Dean of Graduate Programs, T (817) 212-3954, E: ddye@law.tamu.edu. Texas A&M Admissions website: https://law.tamu.edu/distance-education/international-tax

Final Regulations Confirm: No “Clawback” for Gifts Made Under Expanded Transfer Tax Exemption

The 2017 tax reform legislation significantly expanded the transfer tax exemption, which applies to exempt both lifetime and postmortem gifts from transfer taxes. However, the new provision is set to sunset after 2025, leading many taxpayers to question whether large gifts made while the provision is effective would be exempt once the exemption reverts to the much lower $5 million (as adjusted for inflation) limit. In general, the exemption applies first to gifts made during life and then to the individual’s remaining estate. Under the final regulations, estates are allowed to compute the available estate tax credit using the higher of the basic exclusion amount that applied to gifts made during life or the basic exclusion amount applicable on the date of death. Essentially, this rule provides certainty that taxpayers can make large gifts now (i.e., gifts that exceed the $5 million exemption) without generating transfer tax liability if the exemption amount is reduced in the future. For more information on the estate tax, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

Court Finds Prudent Process Sufficient to Overcome DOL Fiduciary Liability

Many retirement plan sponsors and advisors have been left in uncertainty since the DOL fiduciary rule was vacated. A September 2019 case involving a DOL fiduciary enforcement action may shed light on resolution of fiduciary issues in the retirement plan context. In this case, the court found that retirement committee members were not liable under ERIA for a failure to monitor the committee’s investment manager more closely. The committee here had implemented processes and procedures, including regular meetings and reports, and acted in accordance with those procedures. After the DOL initiated action, the court agreed that the committee was entitled to rely upon those procedures. Once an error or problem arose and the committee became aware—or reasonably should have become aware—of the issue, the committee correctly increased its oversight until the issue was resolved. Here, that issue was that the committee’s instructions with respect to investments were not being followed. Once the committee noticed, they stepped up oversight. Importantly, this ruling shows that a prudent process is often sufficient to avoid fiduciary liability even if a decision results in investment losses. For more information on the fiduciary standard, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

IRS Cracking Down on Syndicated Conservation Easements

In recently released IR-2019-182, the IRS announced that it has substantially increased resources to crack down on syndicated conservation easements. Under the IRC, a special rule allows taxpayers to take a deduction for donations of qualified conservation easements (an exception to the general rule prohibiting deductions for donations of less than an entire interest in property). A qualified conservation easement is a contribution of real property including a restriction (granted in perpetuity) for the use of the property, which must be used for conservation purposes. Syndications are often set up to purchase real property for conservation easements. Most syndications involve tiers of pass-through entities so that investors in the entities can more fully use the charitable deduction (which is subject to an adjusted gross income cap like any other charitable deduction). Often, the actual deduction will far exceed the amounts invested—sometimes because inflated property values are used. These and substantially similar arrangements are now classified as listed transactions, which must be disclosed to the IRS. Clients should be made aware of this increased potential for enforcement across several IRS divisions. For more information on the requirements for claiming a conservation easement deduction, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

 

2020’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience

Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone.  Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com800-543-0874

Posted in Retirement Planning, Taxation | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Byrnes & Bloink’s Thanksgiving TaxFacts Intelligence for Wealth Advisors

Posted by William Byrnes on December 3, 2019


Texas A&M University School of Law has launched its International Tax online curriculum for graduate degree candidates. Admissions is open for Jan 13 – April 19 transfer pricing courses.  Texas A&M University is a public university and is ranked 1st among public universities for its superior education at an affordable cost (Fiske, 2018) and ranked 1st of Texas public universities for best value (Money, 2018). To apply for the inaugural cohort opportunity, contact Jeff Green, Graduate Programs Coordinator, T: +1 (817) 212-3866, E: jeffgreen@law.tamu.edu or contact David Dye, Assistant Dean of Graduate Programs, T (817) 212-3954, E: ddye@law.tamu.edu. Texas A&M Admissions website: https://law.tamu.edu/distance-education/international-tax

Often-Overlooked Section 1202 Tax Break for Small Business Adds New Value Post-Reform

Section 1202, while often overlooked by small business owners and investors alike, can provide a valuable tax benefit post-reform because many small businesses have transitioned to C corporation status to take advantage of the simpler 21 percent corporate tax rate. Section 1202 allows for an exclusion of up to 100 percent of gain realized when qualified small business stock is sold. To qualify, the stock must be acquired by the taxpayer when the stock was originally issued and held for at least five years. Further, the Section 1202 stock exclusion only applies to stock in C corporations with active businesses and assets of $50 million or less (measured when the stock is issued). Excluded gains are limited to the greater of: $10 million or 10 times the basis of the qualified small business stock. For more information on the exclusion, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

IRS Expands Nondiscrimination Relief for Closed Defined Benefit Plans

Although the IRS has previously extended the nondiscrimination relief for closed DB plans in Notice 2014-5, newly released Notice 2019-60 also expands the relief to include relief from benefits, rights and features testing for closed plans. To qualify, the plan must have closed via amendments adopted before December 13, 2013. Notice 2019-60 does not change prior relief, but adds additional relief. Closed plans’ benefits, rights and features are treated as satisfying testing if the benefits, rights and features were provided at the time of the amendment closing the plan and one of two conditions are satisfied: (1) no amendments were adopted after January 29, 2016 that expanded or restricted eligibility for the benefits, rights and features or (2) if there was such an amendment, the benefit, right or feature does not benefit a relatively larger proportion of highly compensated employees (measured using the plan’s ratio percentage) than before the amendment. This relief is available for plan years ending after November 13, 2019 and before January 1, 2021. For more information on defined benefit plan nondiscrimination testing, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

Advisory Fees Withdrawn From Annuity Not Treated as Distributions to the Owner

A recent IRS letter ruling found that investment advisory fees paid periodically from an annuity contract case value should not be treated as amounts received by the contract owner. The annuities in this case were nonqualified deferred annuities. As part of the annuity, the product owner would receive investment advice from a licensed advisor on how to allocate the case value of the contract. The fees were to be negotiated in an arm’s length transaction, but were not to exceed 1.5 percent of the annuity cash value. The fees were paid directly to the advisor (in other words, the owner would never receive the amounts deducted from the annuity value). The IRS found the fees “integral” to operation of the annuity contract based on the fact that the owner would receive ongoing investment advice. Further, the fees did not compensate the advisor for services related to any other asset (other than the annuity). The IRS concluded that the fees were an expense of the contract, not distributions to the owner. For more information on the tax treatment of nonqualified annuities, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

2020’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience

Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone.  Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com800-543-0874

Posted in Retirement Planning, Taxation | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Transfer Pricing case studies online course Jan 13 – Apr 19 (live Zoom based classes, small team groups)

Posted by William Byrnes on November 26, 2019


Interested to join one of the case study teams for TRANSFER PRICING taught live online, using Zoom, by Dr. Lorraine Eden, Prof. William Byrnes, and industry experts January 13 – April 19. The courses are for tax attorneys, accountants, or economists and count toward the Texas A&M INTERNATIONAL TAX online Master curriculum. The class meets each week to discuss the real-world post-BEPS client studies and then again weekly the teams present their positions and solutions.  During the week the teams meet internally via Zoom and study provided materials, videos and audio casts based on provided PPTs, while using a robust online law & business database library.  For more information about how to apply, contact Texas A&M Admissions https://info.law.tamu.edu/international-tax

Texas A&M Law offers the premier online program in international tax with a multidisciplinary, risk-management-focused approach. Our TP Aggiesunique, industry-based online curriculum is vetted by and focuses on the needs of multinational corporations, large firms, and governments. Though one of the largest U.S. public universities of 70,000 students and an annual budget exceeding $6 billion (FY2020), Texas A&M’s international tax curriculum offers small class sizes (maximum 30) to ensure personal faculty and in-class engagement. Smaller class sizes also allow stronger engagement and connections to develop among classmates who learn from each other’s corporate experiences.

Posted in Courses | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Byrnes & Bloink’s November 21 TaxFacts Intelligence for Wealth Advisors

Posted by William Byrnes on November 22, 2019


Texas A&M University School of Law has launched its International Tax online curriculum for graduate degree candidates. Admissions is open for Jan 13 – April 19 transfer pricing courses.  Texas A&M University is a public university and is ranked 1st among public universities for its superior education at an affordable cost (Fiske, 2018) and ranked 1st of Texas public universities for best value (Money, 2018). To apply for the inaugural cohort opportunity, contact Jeff Green, Graduate Programs Coordinator, T: +1 (817) 212-3866, E: jeffgreen@law.tamu.edu or contact David Dye, Assistant Dean of Graduate Programs, T (817) 212-3954, E: ddye@law.tamu.edu. Texas A&M Admissions website: https://law.tamu.edu/distance-education/international-tax

IRS Proposes New Life Expectancy Tables for Calculation IRA & 401(k) RMDs

The IRS has released new proposed life expectancy tables that would be used in calculating required minimum distributions from both IRAs and employer-sponsored retirement plans. The new tables generally assume longer life expectancies and provide information needed to calculate RMDs for participants living to 120 (the current tables stop at 115). For most clients, the primary impact will be seen in lower required distributions beginning in 2021 Individuals taking RMDs from inherited accounts will also be entitled to switch to the new life expectancy tables under a proposed transition rule, as will those clients currently receiving substantially equal periodic payments. For more information on the RMD rules, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

IRS Releases Proposed Regulations Implementing Tax Reform Changes to Eligible Terminated S Corporations

The IRS has released proposed regulations that would implement some of the tax reform changes that apply to S corporations that convert to C corporation status. Under tax reform, certain adjustments under IRC Section 481(a) that are required because of the revocation of the S corporation election of an “eligible terminated S corporation” (ETSC) are taken into account ratably during the six tax years beginning with the year of the change (under previous law, most changes had to be accounted for within a one-year period). The proposed regulations’ “no newcomers rule” clarifies that an ETSC is defined as one that (1) was an S corporation on December 21, 2017, (2) during the two-year period beginning on December 22, 2017, revokes its S corporation election, and (3) all of the owners of the corporation on December 22, 2017 are the same as on the day the election is revoked (in identical proportions). The proposed regulations also implement a “snapshot approach” to determining the ratio needed to make allocations under the rules. For more information, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

Participating in Two Retirement Plans? Need-to-Know Information on Contribution Limits

In today’s day and age, many clients may participate in more than one employer-sponsored retirement plan. This means that clients must understand the deferral limits that limit the amount that can be contributed on a tax-preferred basis each year. The elective deferral limit is a per-person limit, meaning that each client gets one amount per year (for most clients, the 2019 deferral limit is $19,000, or $25,000 for clients who have reached age 50). This means that clients participating in two 401(k) plans can make $19,000 in pre-tax contributions, spread between the two plans (457(b) plans and 403(b) plans are not subject to this aggregation rule). A second limit, known as an “annual additions limit”, governs the total employer and employee contributions that can be made in a single year. For 2020, that limit is $576,000 and $632,000 for clients 50 and up. The annual additions limit applies to plans offered by a single company, or by companies that are related. Clients participating in two plans sponsored by unrelated companies should be aware that a separate annual additions limit applies to each plan. For more information on the rules governing elective deferrals, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

2020’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience

Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone.  Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com800-543-0874

Posted in Taxation | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Byrnes & Bloink’s Actionable TaxFacts Intelligence Weekly for Financial Advisors

Posted by William Byrnes on November 20, 2019


Texas A&M University School of Law has launched its International Tax online curriculum for graduate degree candidates. Admissions is open for Jan 13 – April 19 transfer pricing courses.  Texas A&M University is a public university and is ranked 1st among public universities for its superior education at an affordable cost (Fiske, 2018) and ranked 1st of Texas public universities for best value (Money, 2018). To apply for the inaugural cohort opportunity, contact Jeff Green, Graduate Programs Coordinator, T: +1 (817) 212-3866, E: jeffgreen@law.tamu.edu or contact David Dye, Assistant Dean of Graduate Programs, T (817) 212-3954, E: ddye@law.tamu.edu. Texas A&M Admissions website: https://law.tamu.edu/distance-education/international-tax

Final 401(k) Hardship Distribution Rules Take Effect January 1, 2020

Plan participants and sponsors should note that the final regulations governing 401(k) hardship distributions take effect in 2020. As of 2020, participants who take a hardship distribution must now be permitted to continue to make deferrals within the six months following the hardship distribution. While some aspects of the new rules are optional, this new requirement is mandatory with respect to qualified plans. For more information on hardship distributions, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

IRS Releases Proposed Regs on Accounting for Advance Payments

The IRS has released proposed regulations implementing changes made by the 2017 tax reform legislation that impact the tax treatment of advance payments. The regulations generally adopt the rules contained in Revenue Procedure 2004-34— the approach in place prior to tax reform. For more information on the tax treatment of advance payments, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

IRS FAQ Provides for Specific Identification in Transactions Involving Virtual Currency

The recently released FAQ on the tax treatment of virtual currency confirms that transactions in bitcoin and other forms of virtual currency will be taxed as transactions in property. The guidance goes further and answers the question of whether taxpayers should identify particular virtual currency that is part of a transaction. For more information on the tax treatment of bitcoin, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

2020’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience

Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone.  Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com800-543-0874

Posted in Retirement Planning, Taxation | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Byrnes & Bloink’s TaxFacts Intelligence Weekly – Actionable Analysis for Financial Advisors

Posted by William Byrnes on November 18, 2019


Texas A&M University School of Law has launched its International Tax online curriculum for graduate degree candidates. Admissions is open for Spring (January) semester for the transfer pricing courses.  Texas A&M University is a public university of the state of Texas and is ranked 1st among public universities for its superior education at an affordable cost (Fiske, 2018) and ranked 1st of Texas public universities for best value (Money, 2018). 

Final 401(k) Hardship Distribution Rules Take Effect January 1, 2020

Plan participants and sponsors should note that the final regulations governing 401(k) hardship distributions take effect in 2020. As of 2020, participants who take a hardship distribution must now be permitted to continue to make deferrals within the six months following the hardship distribution. While some aspects of the new rules are optional, this new requirement is mandatory with respect to qualified plans. For more information on hardship distributions, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

IRS Releases Proposed Regs on Accounting for Advance Payments

The IRS has released proposed regulations implementing changes made by the 2017 tax reform legislation that impact the tax treatment of advance payments. The regulations generally adopt the rules contained in Revenue Procedure 2004-34— the approach in place prior to tax reform. For more information on the tax treatment of advance payments, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

IRS FAQ Provides for Specific Identification in Transactions Involving Virtual Currency

The recently released FAQ on the tax treatment of virtual currency confirms that transactions in bitcoin and other forms of virtual currency will be taxed as transactions in property. The guidance goes further and answers the question of whether taxpayers should identify particular virtual currency that is part of a transaction. For more information on the tax treatment of bitcoin, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

2020’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience

Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone.  Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com800-543-0874

Posted in Taxation | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Comments and Recommendations to the OECD Proposal for a “Unified Approach” under Pillar One

Posted by William Byrnes on November 15, 2019


Excerpt from SSRN here: A withholding based system will not be trapped in the tar pit of formation and implementation in the development of a new international tax regime, thereafter mired in the lack of institutional knowledge and capacity of resources for audit and MAP. A withholding based system offers a contrasted simplicity in relation to its implementation, including: (a) better procedural certainty for taxpayer and tax authority based upon current withholding regimes for services, (b) better revenue estimation for tax authorities, (c) less complex and expensive audits by tax authorities of taxpayers, (d) better tax risk management for taxpayers, (e) an established procedural system for relief of double taxation, and finally, (f) less cause for requiring MAP. Among proposals most likely to congeal into a uniform approach by March 2020, a withholding based system already has numerous adherents representing various economic strata.  Read the complete Excerpt from SSRN here

Thus, rather than running away from a withholding based system into a ‘brave new world’, the OECD should embrace it and shape its current contours of definitional income and source issues and range of rates. Thereafter, the respective OECD and UN committees may leverage economic theory and regulatory impact analyses, as was done in 1923, to modulate the withholding based system via the inclusive process of the OECD and UN MTCs while working within the context of the ALP bedrock of the OECD and UN TPGs to address Article 7 and Article 9 allocation issues resulting from intangible-based residual. Read the complete Excerpt from SSRN here

Posted in international taxation, OECD, Transfer Pricing | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Brand Rights: What type of taxable income? Royalties or Business Income?

Posted by William Byrnes on November 13, 2019


The Tax Court recently decided a case, Slaughter v. Comm’r (find all the citations in 1 Taxation of Intellectual Property § 1.06 (2019), involving annual royalty payments to an author wherein the IRS argued that instead of treating the payments as royalties that are not subject to self-employment and Medicare tax, the payments should be treated as net earnings from self-employment. The dispute that the Tax Court faced was whether there is a distinction, for self-employment tax purposes, between an author’s royalty income derived from her writing and any royalty income derived from her name and likeness. The author contends that one portion of her royalty payments is derived from her writing, which is a trade or business, and that another portion is derived, not from her writing, but rather solely from her name and likeness which are personal attributes which are not part of any trade or business. The IRS argued that the entire payments the author received from her publishing contracts were derived from her trade or business as an author, thus subject to self-employment tax.

To provide context to the dispute, Karin Slaughter is a bestselling crime author: over 35 million books sold in 37 languages. The Tax Court stated the following details of her publishing contract are standard in the publishing industry. Her contracting publishers receive more than just the right to print, publish, distribute, sell, and license the works and manuscripts written, or to be written. The publisher also secures the right to use the author’s name and likeness in advertising, promotion, and publicity for the contracted works. The author is required to provide photos and be available for promotional activities. The contracts include noncompete clauses that vary in scope, from requiring that the specified manuscript be completed before others, to prohibiting the author from entry into another contract until her writing obligations are met. Publishers also secure the right to advertise other works in the author’s books, qualified by the requirement that the author’s consent to the specific advertisements. Several of the contracts allow for, but do not require, a share of advertising proceeds to be paid to the author as a condition of her consent. Finally, the contracts include an exclusive option for the respective publisher to negotiate the contract for the author’s next works.

The author also receives more than just her advances and royalties. For instance, some contracts include a marketing guaranty requiring the publisher to spend a minimum amount on marketing for the author’s books. Although the publishers fund the marketing plan, the author’s agent retains the authority over its development. Another example is the author’s option to purchase the publisher’s plates at a reduced cost for any book that goes out of print and that the publisher refuses to reissue or license. In that instance, the rights in the work also revert to the author.

On her Federal income tax returns, the author deducted as a business expense the cost of leasing a vehicle to attend media interviews and promotional events. She also deducted the cost of hosting her own promotional events. For marketing purposes, many of her meetings were scheduled in New York City. While there, the author often attended meetings, conducted media interviews, and participated in publishing industry events such as trade shows. During the years in the issue she also met with a fellow writer to collaborate on a script for a possible television series. To facilitate her various activities, the petitioner rented an apartment in New York City and deducted the rent. Petitioner also deducted the cost of business gifts to agents, editors, publishers, and others.

The authors income grew eightfold due to her brand as an author. That brand is monetized by the author’s ability to attract and engage readers, speak in front of a crowd, and recommend other authors within her publishing house. Petitioner’s promotional activities and writing have created a very successful brand and body of work. In petitioner’s case, her brand includes her name and likeness as well as her reputation, goodwill, and existing readership. She maintains contact with her readership through social media, websites, and a newsletter.

The author’s advisors concluded that any amount paid to the author for the use of her name and likeness was “investment income,” i.e., payment for an intangible asset beyond that of her trade or business as an author. The author’s name is a brand.  The author’s expert concluded that the actual writing of a manuscript is but a small percentage of the value a publisher seeks from an author. An author’s work may sell on the basis of the author’s name and readers’ expectations for a particular kind of story, rather than for the quality of the writing. Thus, the author contended that the amount paid for her writing is what a publisher would pay a nonbrand author, and the residual amount is a separate and distinct payment for her brand.

The Tax Court held that the author’s brand became part of her trade or business. The Tax Court focused on the following elements of her behavior. The author was engaged in developing her brand with continuity and regularity. The author set out in a businesslike fashion to obtain stationery, a reputable agent, and a publishing contract. The author worked with a media coach and publishers to develop a successful brand. She has spent time meeting with publishers, agents, media contacts, and others to protect and further her status as a brand author. She attended interviews and promotional events and works to develop and maintain good relationships with booksellers and librarians. The author uses social media, websites, and a newsletter to maintain her brand with her readership. The Tax Court noted that royalties earned from her brand are not solely a result of her publishers’ actions.

The Tax Court then turned the fact that the author deducted advertising costs, the cost of a car used, in part, to attend promotional activities around Atlanta, and gifts sent to her contacts in the publishing world. Such expenses, stated the Tax Court, demonstrate that petitioner’s trade or business extends beyond writing to its promotion. If the author takes such promotion and brand-related expenditures on her Schedule C trade or business expenses, then the income derived from the brand to which those expenses relate must also be trade or business income. The Tax Court found on behalf of the IRS.

The Tax Court stated that there was not a particular case on point regarding an author’s income from the business of writing and that attaching to royalties for the sales of an author’s books. The Tax Court distinguished other cases decided in favor of the taxpayer regarding athletes and image rights, albeit these cases arguably are applicable to Karen Slaughter’s situation. For example, in Garcia v. Comm’r, the issues were to what extent to which payments made to the taxpayer under the endorsement agreement were compensation for the performance of the taxpayer’s personal services and the extent to which the payments were royalties for the use of the taxpayer’s image rights. The Tax Court stated that

Courts have repeatedly characterized payments for the right to use a person’s name and likeness as royalties because the person has an ownership interest in the right.”

The Court therein cited Goosen v. Comm’r that the characterization of a taxpayer’s endorsement fees and bonuses depends on whether the sponsors primarily paid for the taxpayer’s services, for the use of the taxpayer’s name and likeness, or for both. The court held that the payments made by the company were allocated 65 percent to royalties and 35 percent to personal services.

In Kramer v. Comm’r, the Tax Court found that royalties paid primarily for the grant of the exclusive right to use the taxpayer’s name to sell sports equipment, and only secondarily for the personal services rendered by taxpayer under the royalty contract. Herein the Tax Court concluded that commercial success for sales upon which the royalty income derives depended upon accompanying aggressive promotional activities. For Mr. Kramer, the Tax Court concluded that only the portion of the royalties that reflected compensation for the personal services constituted “earned income.” In Boulez v. Comm’r, the Tax Court said if a taxpayer has an ownership interest in the property whose licensing or sale gives rise to the income, then that income should be characterized as a royalty as opposed to personal service income. Therein the Tax Court cited the Fifth Circuit decision of Patterson v. Texas Co, wherein the Court of Appeals adopted the definition of a “royalty” as

“a share of the product or profit reserved by the owner for permitting another to use the property.”

The Slaughter case is ripe for appeal. The weight of jurisprudence perhaps rests on the author’s side regarding whether the royalties should be apportioned and that a portion derives from her brand rights that are not personal service income. Like for the tennis star Mr. Kramer, aggressive promotional activities are necessary to grow the sales of the product. There can be no brand, such as a trademark, without promotion of it. But the promotional activities are not the business of the author but rather those of the publishing company to sell books.

Yet, the weight of the facts perhaps rest on the side of the IRS. If the author’s accountants claimed the full amount of the expenses, such as for the New York apartment, on the author’s Schedule C as a trade or business expense, then correspondingly, as the Tax Court presents, income associated with those expenses is also Schedule C. It does not appear that the accountants undertook any diligence, by example not reading the contracts and not seeking any support records for the guestimate by the author of her time apportionment. It does not appear the accountants undertook any research and analysis other than to dismiss that any cases applied. It does not appear that the accountants undertook any planning research, or at least, the author rejected paying for such advice because it is common practice for authors, artists, and athletes of this income level to operate via a Sub S corporation or LLC. The pass-through business is a well-understood mechanism for mitigating Medicare tax, though with its own host of issues regarding compensation versus distributions.

For more analysis and coverage on this and other related issues, see William Byrnes’ treatise Taxation of Intellectual Property and Technology (2020 edition), a 1,000-page analytical treatise to the federal tax consequences of the development, purchase, sale and licensing of intellectual properties and intangibles.  Primary author William Byrnes leads a team of America’s leading tax senior counsel to analyze tax risk challenges for business and investment decisions concerning intellectual property, technology, intangibles, and the digital economy.

Nine seats remain for the Spring (4 teams of 3 students each) to join the current 4 teams January 13 – April 20 semester for the TRANSFER PRICING course taught by Dr. Lorraine Eden, Prof. William Byrnes, TP Aggiesand several industry experts. The courses count toward the INTERNATIONAL TAX online Master curriculum of Texas A&M for tax attorneys, accountants, and economists. Taught live twice weekly using Zoom involving teams working to design positions and solutions for real-world post-BEPS client studies each week, supported by originally authored materials, videos and audio casts, PPTs, and a robust online law & business database library.  For more information, contact Texas A&M Admissions https://info.law.tamu.edu/international-tax

Posted in Tax Policy, Taxation | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Release of Taxation of IP & Technology Update for 2020

Posted by William Byrnes on November 11, 2019


Taxation of Intellectual Property and Technology 2020 edition is a 1,000 page analytical treatise to the federal tax consequences of the development, purchase, sale and licensing of intellectual properties and intangibles.  Primary author William Byrnes leads a team of America’s leading tax senior counsel to analyze tax risk challenges for business and investment decisions concerning intellectual property, technology, intangibles, and the digital economy. This 2020 update published in November (next update published in June 2020) contains:

  • Expands this treatise beyond 1,000 pages of analysis and planning research.
  • Provides in-depth analysis of the 2019 final and proposed regulations that impact intellectual property and intangibles, including GILTI and FDII.
  • Analyzes the new Cloud Computing Regulations.
  • Expanded analysis of the 2018 Supreme Court Wayfarer decision and its impact on interstate digital business models and trademark holding companies.
  • Analysis of several 2019 decisions cases including AmazonAlteraSlaughterhouse.

Major revisions this update, by chapter, include:

  • GILTI regulations. The final and newly proposed GILTI regs are analyzed in depth in § 2.04[8].
  • FDII regulations. The proposed regulations are explained in depth in § 2.04[9].
  • Cloud Computing Regulations. The proposed regulations are explained in depth in § 2.05[3] and § 10.02[2][c][iii][G].
  • International Transactions. Chapter 12 has been substantially revised and additional analysis of the Service Regulations as well as the Cost Sharing Regulations in light of Amazon and Altera.
  • Economic presence tax nexus and digital services tax. See analysis within Chapters § 11.09, § 14.07[6] and § 15.05[1].
  • Wayfarer’s Impact. On taxation of holding companies, see § 4.06. On tax nexus and sales tax, see Chapter § 11.04.
  • Taxation of Emerging Technologies for Cloud Computing, Blockchain, and Artificial Intelligence. See Chapter § 10.02[2][c].
  • Slaughter v Comm’r. IRS argued that the author’s promotion for the publisher which builds her brand is her trade or business and thus her royalties are net earnings from self-employment. Analyzed and critiqued in Chapter § 1.06[4].

New domestic and internationally focused chapters are in development by treatise author Prof. William Byrnes (Texas A&M Law) for 2020, including on the valuation of intangibles, tax considerations for entrepreneurs, and country analysis chapters. His team of internationally recognized expert practitioners provide strategic and tax risk analysis: Carlos Perez Gautrin, Yair Holtzman, Iselle Coronado-Torres, Jeffrey Trey, Arinjay Kumar Jain, Leonardo Macedo, Venetia Argyropoulou, Pamela Ann Fuller, William Seeger, Lucia Valenzuela, and Charles Lincoln. Please contact William Byrnes with chapter proposals. Taxation of Intellectual Property Publication Update (2019)

Nine seats remain for the Spring (4 teams of 3 students each) to join the current 4 teams January 13 – April 20 semester for TRANSFER PRICING course taught by Dr. Lorraine Eden, Prof. William Byrnes, TP Aggiesand several industry experts. The courses count toward the INTERNATIONAL TAX online Master curriculum of Texas A&M for tax attorneys, accountants, and economists. Taught live twice weekly using Zoom involving teams working to design positions and solutions for real-world post-BEPS client studies each week, supported by originally authored materials, videos and audio casts, PPTs, and a robust online law & business database library.  For more information, contact Texas A&M Admissions https://info.law.tamu.edu/international-tax

Posted in book, Taxation, Transfer Pricing | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Byrnes & Bloink’s TaxFacts Intelligence Weekly – Actionable Analysis for Financial Advisors

Posted by William Byrnes on November 9, 2019


2020’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience

Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone.  Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com800-543-0874

Texas A&M University School of Law has launched its International Tax online curriculum for graduate degree candidates. Admissions is open for Spring (January) semester for the transfer pricing courses.  Texas A&M University is a public university of the state of Texas and is ranked 1st among public universities for its superior education at an affordable cost (Fiske, 2018) and ranked 1st of Texas public universities for best value (Money, 2018). 

199A Rental Real Estate Safe Harbor Excludes Certain Businesses

Not all taxpayers will be able to take advantage of the Section 199A safe harbor for rental real estate. While the safe harbor does apply to residential rental real estate, taxpayers are not entitled to rely upon the safe harbor if the taxpayer uses the property as a residence during the tax year. Notably, if the real estate is rented or leased under a triple net lease, the safe harbor remains unavailable under the final rule. When satisfying the “hours of rental real estate services” criteria, only certain activities are counted toward the 250-hour threshold. Activities such as rent collection, advertising the rental, property maintenance, negotiating leases and managing the real property generally count toward the threshold. However, the taxpayer’s activities as an “investor” are not counted. Similarly, if any property within the rental real estate enterprise is classified as a specified service trade or business, the safe harbor is unavailable for the entire business. For more information on the final safe harbor rule, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

DOL Proposes New Electronic Disclosure Rules for Pension Plans

In response to the Trump administration’s executive order, the DOL has proposed a safe harbor rule that would allow pension plans to satisfy disclosure obligations electronically. As currently proposed, the rule only applies to pension plans. It would allow plan sponsors to email required documents to participants, beneficiaries and any other individuals entitled to receive disclosures–so long as the individual has provided an email address (which can be a work email address). Any documents required under Title I of ERISA could be furnished electronically, including notices of material modification or blackout notices, except for documents that must be furnished upon request. While employers are not yet entitled to rely upon this rule until it is finalized, it provides important insight into potential future developments surrounding pension disclosure obligations. For more information on the requirements that apply to pension plans, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

District Court Rules Small Business Qualified Retirement Plan Not Exempt in Bankruptcy

While 401(k) funds are generally exempt from a bankruptcy debtor’s estate, a recent district court ruling highlights a situation where a small business owner may lose the exemption. In this case, the taxpayer maintained a pension plan pursuant to a prototype plan document offered by his financial institution that had been approved via an IRS opinion letter, as is commonly the case. The court, however, found that amendments to the prototype plan document rendered the opinion invalid. Further, it found that the plan inappropriately benefitted the taxpayer and his spouse, rather than providing benefits to employees, in violation of IRS nondiscrimination rules. Because of this, the plan was deemed to be disqualified despite the fact that the taxpayer relied upon advisors to manage the plan. Because the taxpayer was owner of the small business responsible for the plan, he was deemed to be materially responsible for the qualification failure, therefore causing the plan assets to lose the typically available bankruptcy exemption. The court noted that this probably wouldn’t have been the case if the taxpayer had been an employee participating in a non-qualified plan. For more information on the treatment of 401(k) assets in bankruptcy, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

Posted in Retirement Planning, Taxation | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Transfer Pricing case studies based course Jan 13 – Apr 20 (Zoom based, small team groups)

Posted by William Byrnes on November 7, 2019


Nine seats remain for the Spring (4 teams of 3 students each) to join the current 4 teams January 13 – April 20 semester for TRANSFER PRICING taught by Dr. Lorraine Eden, Prof. William Byrnes, TP Aggiesand several industry experts. The courses count toward the INTERNATIONAL TAX online Master curriculum of Texas A&M for tax attorneys, accountants, and economists. Taught live twice weekly using Zoom involving teams working to design positions and solutions for real-world post-BEPS client studies each week, supported by originally authored materials, videos and audio casts, PPTs, and a robust online law & business database library.  For more information, contact Texas A&M Admissions https://info.law.tamu.edu/international-tax

Texas A&M Law offers the premier online program in international tax with a multidisciplinary, risk-management-focused approach. Our unique, industry-based online curriculum is vetted by and focuses on the needs of multinational corporations, large firms and governments. A degree from Texas A&M University, a Tier-1 research institution and one of the largest U.S. public universities, is recognized worldwide. Texas A&M’s online International Tax Program is specifically designed for tax professionals, both lawyers and non-lawyers, whose careers demand an understanding of international taxation and related issues.  For more information, contact Texas A&M Admissions https://info.law.tamu.edu/international-tax

The International Tax graduate program is an online, 24 or 30 credit hour graduate degree that can be completed in less than two years. The degree program offers a competitive advantage to any tax professional, including lawyers, accountants, finance executives and economists, that advises multinational clients on business and investment, or that works within a tax (risk management) department.

    • Industry-Responsive Curriculum:  A tax-risk management approach with a focus on tax data management and risk analysis based on the results of in-depth industry research.
      • Hanover Research, on behalf of Texas A&M, interviewed one-on-one and then validated by anonymous survey over 100 tax executives from multinational corporations, large firms and government. As a result, the program is designed with faculty and degree candidates that are multidisciplinary, including both tax lawyers and non-lawyer tax professionals, engaged together in teams.
    • Incredible Student Experience:  Texas A&M law offers small class sizes to ensure each student gets personal attention. These small class sizes allow ​you to forge strong connections with your classmates and to learn from each other’s experiences.
    • Faculty Expertise & Leadership:  The curriculum has been developed and is led by Professor William Byrnes, an international tax authority and globally recognized online education pioneer focused on student outcomes. The program’s faculty are multidisciplinary (e.g. lawyers, economists, accountants, data scientists) and include renowned authors, academics, tax executives of multinational corporations, and tax advisors from large firms.

Posted in Courses, international taxation, Transfer Pricing | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

The Battle to Legalize Marijuana Comes Down to Tax Deductions and the 16th Amendment

Posted by William Byrnes on November 6, 2019


Every day I comb through my Law360 Tax Authority list of articles in order to update one of my tax treatises.  I found a really interesting one though today for my Money Laundering treatise.  It’s about fitting an elephant through a keyhole.  With enough pressure, it can be done, but by breaking down the entire door.  The case is Northern California Small Business Assistants Inc. v. Commissioner, 153 T.C. No. 4 (Oct. 23, 2019).  The Law360 Tax Authority analysis is here: https://www.law360.com/articles/1215134/tax-court-decision-may-open-up-new-challenges-to-280e

My commentary this week… (well, it will be for a debate in my Spring Fed Income Tax course actually)

Of course, it’s not a violation of 8th because not a penalty, albeit I appreciate the (losing) argument.  Yet, at this stage, cross-aisle agree both federal Cannabis-leaf-hempand state, marijuana, at least at defined dosages, it is more like Valium on Schedule IV then Vicodin Schedule II.  The Schedules allow for dosage amounts. Only ardent prohibitionists I think (I am no expert) want the Schedule I classification to remain.  I am sure state leaders, the financial industry (because of the AML provisions of the BSA), the IRS, and the AG industry want it reduced to at least Schedule II but preferably Schedule IV where it belongs.  Or break it up by THC levels into Sch II, III, and IV.

But I think that the DEA is the real problem. I do not understand why the DEA will not remove marijuana from the blacklist (Schedule I) unless the DEA needs it on Schedule I to maintain its significant funding for global marijuana crop eradication programs because govt agencies never shrink themselves by giving up jurisdiction or budget. But I do not believe that the FDA, HHS, et al who inform the DEA want to keep it at Schedule I.  Read the DEA’s current policy regarding CBD and THC-Cannabis.  The medical pharmacological evidence is building of the benefits for various ailments, see the 2017 National Institutes of Health meta analysis (Medicinal Cannabis: History, Pharmacology, And Implications for the Acute Care Setting).  All pharma has side effects so the fact that some participants who ingested the THC Cannabis (“got high”) reported being dizzy is very mild (‘don’t operate heavy machinery or drive’ warning labels mandatory). Prolonged and heavy use of any pharma, any drug like caffeine (of which I have much experience, but not willing to kick the habit yet) and alcohol, is probably going to be harmful to very harmful to just out-right early death.  I am not saying something new – everyone in the debate already knows all the arguments for and against.  So it’s either the teetotaler lobby, the DEA not wanting to give up ‘the war against marijuana”, or a combination, keeping marijuana on Schedule I.

So lots of pressure on Treasury to fix two insurmountable issues to marijuana state-licensed businesses from being federally legit and compliant. The BSA problem for AML compliance (keeps this a cash business) and the IRC 280E problem (makes marijuana industry a federal tax evader or unprofitable because effective rates of taxation of state and federal are in many cases greater than 100% of net income).  And Treasury wants to fix it.  But its hands are technically tied because the DEA will not delist marijuana from Schedule I.  That forces 280E and AML rules to kick in.  I’d be happy for Treasury to ignore the law but it’s too dangerous for Treasury or any agency to pick and choose what laws to adhere to. Of course, the discretion of enforcement is a totally different issue.

The AML issue Treasury issued, albeit the former prohibitionist AG basically said DOJ is not playing ball, a soft guidance explaining to banks how to distinguish good and bad marijuana dollars (the Marijuana SAR guidance). (See marijuana SAR results for 2018) For 280E though, Treasury would need to tell the IRS to ignore 280E marijuana stated licensed businesses fraudulent filed returns to circumvent the prohibition of deductions.  It would be really hard to administer the audits.

If Treasury cannot do it, but wants to do it, that leaves the Tax Court.  The Tax Court judges have over the past two years have concluded that marijuana should be removed from Schedule I so that 280E is not an issue.  In this case, once again the conclusion is:

“Congress, rather than this Court, is the proper body to redress petitioner’s grievances. We are constrained by the law, and Congress has not carved out an exception in section 280E for businesses that operate lawfully under State law.”

It’s only doing so because the IRS Counsel (must I think) express this in arguments to the Court, begging the Court for a way out of this mess. So the Tax Court has written that Congress or an agency needs to fix the problem.  It hasn’t been fixed.   And then this case where a powerful voice on the Tax Court said to the DEA and Congress: ‘do not force us to rectify the problem because you are not going to like the theoretical hoop we must jump through to do it.’

So, the theoretical argument that could gain some traction about the denial of all deductions by 280E is that it imposes the tax rate (say 37%) on revenue which may violate the intention of the 16th Amendment.  This is what Gustafon is musing about at page 23. I agree.

At page 26 the point is driven home (pun coming..):

Very different would be an attempt by Congress to tax gross proceeds from the sale of a capital asset, without allowing a taxpayer to account for his “basis” in the property in calculating his taxable gain.”

So imagine Congress imposes the ordinary tax rate on the sale price of an individual taxpayer’s sale of the home.  Say 37% on $500,000.  Taxpayer not allowed the basis reduction of the acquisition cost of $450,000 three years ago.  TP owes $185,000 tax (and also the additional 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax), on the $50,000 – expenses of the transaction gain.  Of course, this is absurd because property requires financing and the remaining would be less than any mortgage secured loan.  Same scenario but now shares in Apple bought at $220 last year by our home owing taxpayer and 13 months later sold for $250.  Economic collapse.  TP rebellion.  Not a pretty civil scenario.

Well, 280E does not deny deductions for the cost of goods (of the narcotics like marijuana or heroin – I do not think marijuana should be a black-listed scheduled narcotic).  But why not?  Because, simply put, an ‘income’ tax on business ‘income’ should be imposed on the ‘income’ and not on the revenue which is not a business’ income.  A tax imposed on a business revenue is something other than an ‘income tax’.  Excise tax maybe, but not an income tax.  See Judge Gustafson explain this at page 26-27.

Likewise, a congressional attempt to tax the gross receipts of a business engaged in sales should fail. A taxpayer who purchased 100 widgets at a cost of $10 each and sold them at a price of $9 each would have gross receipts or sales of $900, which after being reduced by the “cost of goods sold” (“COGS”) of $1,000 (analogous to basis in the Blackacre example) would yield a loss of $100. Given that obvious loss, Congress could not tax the gross receipts of $900 as if it were “income”. Rather, as the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has explained: “To ensure taxation of income rather than sales, the ‘cost of goods sold’ is a mandatory exclusion from the calculation of a taxpayer’s gross income.””

Can Congress levy a tax on revenue under the 16th?  We know the answer is no because that is why COG is allowed to be above the line to derive an income, and then 280E applies.  Well settled.  See page 27.

The taxation of “income” must take account of the “basis” in a capital asset and of the COGS of inventory–not merely as an exercise of “legislative grace” but as mandatory under the Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution.”

So some expenses are allowed being COG, and other, operating expenses, not allowed.  Already 280E is in a quagmire of discriminating between good and bad expenses to fit into the 16th.  Thus, the Tax Court could force a bushel of marijuana through a 280E keyhole using the pressure of the 16th Amend if it must to deal with this situation.  Gustafson’s push through the keyhole is the second part of his sentence highlighted below at page 29.

“Congress taxes something other than a taxpayer’s “income” when it taxes gross receipts without accounting for basis or COGS--and, I would hold, when it taxes gross receipts without accounting for the ordinary and necessary expenses that are incurred in the course of business and must be paid before one can be said to have gain.”

The argument requires stretching the keyhole with a lot of 16th Amend pressure (though I personally quite like the 16th argument) and Appellate Circuits may want to keep the keyhole rather small and deflate that pressure.  But I think that the 1st, 9th, and 10th judges have to live in states where education or other government funding is significantly helped by the state-legal licensed marijuana industry.  Judges look at neighbor farmers who cannot sell to China about to go belly up with their grains and soybean – where marijuana can save the farm.  I have no litigation or controversy experience but I imagine some Appellate judges know these situations from reading or table talk.

So if the stretch of the 280E keyhole is not totally implausible by using the 16th Amend, a panel may just agree to send a message like the Tax Court to the DEA and failing that, Congress.  Anyway, the Supremes can sort out the ramifications of using the 16th to stretch the 280E keyhole.  And by that time, maybe the DEA did what the public pressure wants it to do, and is the right thing to do based on medical evidence being generated, move marijuana, based on amount of THC, to the relevant schedules of II through IV.

Anyway, my take on this case.  Look forward to our Spring debate.

Posted in Courses, Tax Policy | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

William Byrnes joins SDG project for taxation supported by the UN’s International Tax Committee

Posted by William Byrnes on October 29, 2019


William Byrnes of Texas A&M University’s Law School was invited to participate in the October 2019 4-day session of the United Nations’ International Tax Committee of Experts at its Geneva HQ2 followed by the day-long session of the international tax committee of the International Chamber of Commerce (the “ICC”), as well as the April 2019 UN international tax committee meeting in New York.

“150 plus countries, led by China, India, and Brazil, that are not members of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (the “OECD”) which is led by the G7, have found their voice and are shaking up the international system for taxing business income,” said William Byrnes.

William Byrnes UN credentials

“At the United Nations Committee meetings, the future sharing of corporate profits among trading nations is being decided, from old industries such as Oil & Gas, to new ones such as digital advertising, big data, and cloud storage,” continued Byrnes. “Texas A&M Law, through my work with Dr. Lorraine Eden, is one of a very few public research institutions with a seat at the proverbial table, which I think is a testament to the impact of our research and mutual reputation.”

“Last October Dr. Lorraine Eden and I were invited to present our research on government tax agreements to the UN’s UNCTAD World Investment Forum, attended by over 4,000 national and industry leaders.  That event started a conversation that led to an invitation to the sustainable development goals for taxation conference sponsored by the University of Barcelona in collaboration with the UN, the OECD, the Spain and Netherlands Tax Authority, the Inter-American Center of Tax Administrations, and the Conféderation Fiscale Européenne.”

“I learned at this meeting that I have been appointed as a research scholar to the project of the 2030 Addis Ababa Sustainable Development Goals for the area of taxation, which is supported by the UN International Tax Committee and led by Prof. Eva Andrés Aucejo of the University of Barcelona,” shared William Byrnes.  “The team members will begin our research for an international tax cooperation convention that may be discussed among countries seeking a sustainable balance among capital exporter and importer countries, natural resource rich countries, entrepreneur countries, and market countries.”

Posted in international taxation, OECD | Leave a Comment »

State Aid: What is the Arm’s Length Return for Starbucks Netherlands?

Posted by William Byrnes on October 28, 2019


For the complete paper see https://ssrn.com/abstract=3464990

The crux of the legal issue is the EU Commission’s contention, required as the third Starbucks_Coffee_Logo.svgcondition for a finding of State aid, that the Netherlands-Starbucks APA conferred a selective advantage on Starbucks’ Netherlands manufacturing subsidiary (SMBV, aka the “roasting operation”) that resulted in a lowering of SMBV’s tax liability in the Netherlands as compared with what SMBV would have paid under the Netherlands’ general corporate income tax system dealing with third parties.

And the crux of the dispute that determines the legal issue outcome is whose choice of transfer pricing method (the Commission or The Netherlands/Starbucks) is the most reliable.

However, the most interesting aspect of the controversy is how to allocate the residual between SMBV and Starbucks intermediary IP management limited partnership? In a broader framework, not part of the analysis contemplated by the applicable 1995 OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, is how to allocate the residual among Starbucks’ global value chain. For the complete paper see https://ssrn.com/abstract=3464990

Posted in Transfer Pricing, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Byrnes & Bloink’s TaxFacts Intelligence Weekly – Actionable Analysis for Financial Advisors

Posted by William Byrnes on September 20, 2019


2019’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience

Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone.  Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com800-543-0874

Texas A&M University School of Law has launched its International Tax online curriculum for graduate degree candidates. Admissions is open for Spring (January) semester for the transfer pricing courses.  Texas A&M University is a public university of the state of Texas and is ranked 1st among public universities for its superior education at an affordable cost (Fiske, 2018) and ranked 1st of Texas public universities for best value (Money, 2018). 

IRS Releases Guidance on Failure to Cash Distribution Checks

The IRS has released guidance providing that when a check for a fully taxable distribution from a qualified plan is mailed to a plan participant, but not cashed, it is considered to have been “actually distributed” from the plan and is taxable to the participant in the year of distribution. Further, the failure to cash the check did not change the plan administrator’s withholding obligations with respect to the distribution and did not change the obligation to report the distribution on Form 1099-R (assuming the distribution exceeds the applicable reporting threshold). Despite these findings, the IRS was careful to note that it continues to consider the issue of uncashed distribution checks in situations involving missing participants. For more information on the withholding requirements that may apply to qualified plan distributions, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

December 31 Opportunity Zone Deadline Fast Approaching

Investors who are considering an opportunity zone investment should be advised that now is the time to take advantage of the new rules in order to maximize the potential for deferral. December 31, 2019 is the final day that investors can elect to roll their gains into opportunity zone funds in order to obtain the full 15% reduction in the amount of the deferred gain. Generally, taxpayers can defer capital gains tax by rolling gains into a qualified opportunity fund (gains may be deferred until December 31, 2026). If the investment is held for at least seven years, the taxpayer will receive a 15% reduction in the amount of the deferred gain (so that the funds are invested for a full seven years). In turn, the fund has 180 days to acquire qualified property once the taxpayer invests the gain. Because gain on the sale of Section 1231 property is not determined until year-end, taxpayers wishing to roll over Section 1231 gain should be advised to track 1231 sales carefully to determine whether such sales will result in gain (treated as long-term capital gain) or loss (treated as ordinary loss). For more information on the opportunity zone rules, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

IRS Extends Nondiscrimination Relief for Closed Defined Benefit Plans

Many employers who have closed defined benefit plans to new participants have continued to allow groups of “grandfathered” employees to earn benefits under the closed defined benefit plans. Because of this, many of these plans have had difficulties meeting the applicable nondiscrimination requirements as more of these grandfathered employees become “highly compensated” over time. Proposed regulations published in 2016 contain special rules to make it easier for these plans to satisfy the nondiscrimination requirements and Notice 2014-5 was released to provide temporary relief if certain conditions are satisfied. The proposed regulations modify the rules applicable to defined benefit replacement allocations (DBRAs) that allow some allocations to be disregarded when determining whether a defined contribution plan has a broadly available allocation rate in order to allow more allocations to satisfy the rules. Further, the regulations provide a special nondiscrimination testing rule that can apply if a benefit or plan feature is only made available to grandfathered employees in a closed plan. In anticipation of the finalization of these regulations, Notice 2019-49 expands the nondiscrimination relief to plan years beginning before 2021, so long as the conditions in Notice 2014-5 are satisfied. For more information the nondiscrimination rules, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

Posted in Taxation | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

TaxFacts Intelligence Weekly of September 13, 2019 – Actionable Analysis for Financial Advisors

Posted by William Byrnes on September 14, 2019


2019’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience

Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone.  Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com800-543-0874

Texas A&M University School of Law has launched its International Tax online curriculum for graduate degree candidates. Admissions is open for Spring (January) semester for the transfer pricing courses.  Texas A&M University is a public university of the state of Texas and is ranked 1st among public universities for its superior education at an affordable cost (Fiske, 2018) and ranked 1st of Texas public universities for best value (Money, 2018). 

IRS PLR Approving CLAT Structure Provides Option for High-Net Worth Estate Planning

The IRS has recently released a private letter ruling approving a charitable lead annuity trust (CLAT) structure that may prove useful in estate planning for high net worth clients. In the case at issue, the taxpayer proposed to set up a revocable trust where the trust would first pay certain debts and expenses and then distribute the trust assets to other individuals and trusts if the taxpayer predeceased his spouse. Should the spouse die first, the trust would have paid the relevant debts, made distributions to individuals and trusts and then transfer the remaining assets to the CLAT, which would then pay a 5% annuity to the charity based upon the initial trust’s fair market value. The IRS approved this structure even though in most cases, the CLAT must have a payout stream that lasts a predetermined number of years to qualify for tax preferential treatment (deduction of the present value of annuity payments for the estate). Here, the IRS determined that it would eventually be possible to calculate that specified payout term once the CLAT was funded from the revocable trust after payment of debts, expenses and distributions to other beneficiaries. For more information on charitable lead trusts, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

Recent Ninth Circuit Case Highlights Importance of Disclosing Transactions Substantially Similar to “Listed Transactions”

The IRS identifies certain types of transactions as having the potential for tax avoidance, and thus requires that taxpayers disclose these transactions affirmatively in order to avoid penalties. The IRS can impose penalties for failing to disclose a listed transaction, but also has authority to impose penalties for failure to disclose a transaction that it deems to be “substantially similar” to a transaction that is specifically listed. The case at hand involved a situation where a company participated in a group life insurance term plan in order to fund cash-value life insurance that the sole shareholder and employee owned. While the structure at issue was not specifically listed, the IRS determined that the transaction was substantially similar to other listed transactions and imposed a $10,000 penalty for every year that the taxpayer failed to disclose the transaction. For more information on the exemptions that may apply in cases involving prohibited transactions, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

Reminder to Clients: 401(k) Exceptions for Early Withdrawal Liability Differ From IRAs

Most clients understand that they may be entitled to claim an exemption from the generally applicable 10 percent early withdrawal penalty if retirement accounts are tapped prior to age 591/2 where the funds are used for certain specified purposes. However, a recent Tax Court case highlights the need for clients to understand that the exceptions vary depending upon whether the account is a 401(k) or an IRA. In this case, the taxpayer used 401(k) account funds withdrawn early to fund the purchase of her home and attempted to claim an exception to the penalty. However, the exception for purchasing a home only applies in the case of IRA funds–and the courts strictly apply the exception even in cases where the error resulted from an honest mistake. Because of this, it’s important that clients be advised as to the detailed requirements that apply depending upon the type of account involved. For more information on the exceptions to the early withdrawal penalties, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

Tax Facts Team
Molly Miller
Publisher
William H. Byrnes, J.D., LL.M
Tax Facts Author
Jason Gilbert, J.D.
Senior Editor
Robert Bloink, J.D., LL.M.
Tax Facts Author
Connie L. Jump
Senior Manager, Editorial Operations
Alexis Long, J.D.
Senior Contributor
Patti O’Leary
Senior Editorial Assistant
Danielle Birdsail
Digital Marketing Manager
Emily Brunner
Editorial Assistant

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

TaxFacts Intelligence Weekly of Aug 29, 2019 – Actionable Analysis for Financial Advisors

Posted by William Byrnes on August 30, 2019


2019’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience

Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone.  Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com800-543-0874

Tuition Waiver for International Tax Online Courses (more information here)

Texas A&M University School of Law will launch August 26, 2019 its International Tax online curriculum for graduate degree candidates. Admissions is open for the inaugural cohort of degree candidates to pilot the launch of the Fall semester introductory courses of international taxation and tax treaties, and provide weekly feedback on content, support, and general experience in exchange for waiving the tuition and providing the books free.  Texas A&M University is a public university of the state of Texas and is ranked 1st among public universities for its superior education at an affordable cost (Fiske, 2018) and ranked 1st of Texas public universities for best value (Money, 2018). 

IRS Reverses Stance on Lenient Enforcement of ACA Employer Mandate

In a recent reversal of practice, in the early weeks of August the IRS began issuing Notice 972CG to employers informing them that they owe substantial penalties for failing to strictly comply with the ACA employer mandate. Generally, the Notice is sent to inform employers who have made late or incorrect filings of Forms 1094-C and 1095-C that penalties now apply (the current notices generally apply for mistakes made in 2017). The penalty that applied in 2017 was $260 per return ($50 per return if the filing was made within 30 days of the original due date). Employers must respond to the Notice 972CG within 45 days (from the date listed on the notice) or the IRS will bill the employer for the penalty amount listed. If the employer disagrees in whole or part with the proposed penalty, box B or box C of the notice should be checked and the employer must submit a signed statement detailing the disagreement, including supporting documentation if applicable. Generally, the employer will be required to explain that the late or incorrect filing was due to reasonable cause. For more information on responding to this notice and other correspondence that the employer may receive with respect to the employer mandate, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

The Latest Tax Scam: Beware Fake IRS Letters

Nearly every taxpayer has heard warnings about phone-based IRS scams, assuming they have not experienced the calls themselves. However, because the general advice to avoid falling prey to these scams is often accompanied by the advice “the IRS will only contact you via U.S. mail” to initiate a dispute, scammers have now begun sending fake IRS letters–at the exact point in the year when legitimate IRS mail correspondence is at its highest. To avoid falling prey to letter-based scams, keep in mind that IRS letters arrive in government envelopes and provide a notice or letter number in the top right corner, along with a truncated version of your tax ID number. The tax year in question will also appear in the top right corner. A contact telephone number–usually a “1-800” number will appear. If the letter contains what appears to be a personal phone number, you can verify by visiting irs.gov, where legitimate contact information will be posted. Also keep in mind that the IRS will not send threats, such as threats of arrest or deportation. For more information on federal income tax filing requirements, visit Tax Facts Online.Read More

Own an S Corporation? Here’s How to Fix a Violation of the S Corp Requirements

For many clients, making the election to be taxed as an S corporation can have substantial benefits–but also carries the burden of risking disqualification if the business fails to meet the requirements governing S corporations. Selling shares to an impermissible shareholder (such as a partnership), violating the “one class of stock” rule can result in automatic revocation of the S status. To prevent this, the business must show the IRS that the violation was inadvertent, which can be accomplished by submitting a ruling request explaining how the violation occurred. Generally, the S corporation should seek to demonstrate to the IRS that it took remedial action as soon as it learned of the violation, explain the circumstances involved and how the S corporation discovered the violation, in which case the IRS may grant retroactive relief–so that it is treated as though no violation occurred at all. For more information on the specific requirements that an S corporation must satisfy, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

Tax Facts Team
Molly Miller
Publisher
William H. Byrnes, J.D., LL.M
Tax Facts Author
Jason Gilbert, J.D.
Senior Editor
Robert Bloink, J.D., LL.M.
Tax Facts Author
Connie L. Jump
Senior Manager, Editorial Operations
Alexis Long, J.D.
Senior Contributor
Patti O’Leary
Senior Editorial Assistant
Danielle Birdsail
Digital Marketing Manager
Emily Brunner
Editorial Assistant

Posted in Taxation | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Hope to see you at the Cambridge Economic Crimes Symposium this week (Sept 1 – 8)!!

Posted by William Byrnes on August 29, 2019


It is almost 40 years now – each year the first week of September, over 2,000 delegates (government, financial institutions, large firms) from 120 countries descends on Jesus College, Cambridge University for the world’s oldest and #1 international economic crimes and money laundering risk symposium.

The Cambridge International Symposium on Economic Crime first convened nearly 40 years ago as a result of widespread concern that both the development and the integrity of the global financial system were at risk from those who engage in economically motivated crime, and those who would assist them.

8 days: The symposium runs over eight days and offers hundreds of opportunities to connect formally and informally. 3 meals a day together in the Jesus College Cambridge formal meals halls, drinks from 5pm until dinner every night, Jesus College Bar for after-dinner conversations and networking. Come for the week; or drop in for a day!  September 1 – September 8, 2019: registration by day or the week is here https://www.crimesymposium.org/register

120+ sessions: With the emphasis on expertise, topicality and practicality, there are over 120 plenary sessions and workshops, as well as smaller interactive workshops and think tanks.

650+ experts: The symposium’s emphasis has always been practical; therefore, we bring together experts across a range of fields to share knowledge and expertise.

It’s my 10th attendance and always come away with new ideas, much learned, and many new colleagues made through the networking. Three professors from Texas A&M University (Dr. Andrew Morriss, Dr. Lorraine Eden, and myself) will be in attendance and participating in workshops and plenary.  So if you’ve been thinking about joining the symposium but needed a push, then come meet us at the afternoon drinks after the last plenary session.

September 7th Saturday 11am plenary I will be chairing a transfer pricing and economic crimes discussion and idea generation session. Check out the full 8-day program https://www.crimesymposium.org/programme-37

 

Posted in Money Laundering, Transfer Pricing | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

TaxFacts Intelligence Weekly – Actionable Analysis for Financial Advisors (August 15th release)

Posted by William Byrnes on August 16, 2019


Tuition Waiver for International Tax Online Courses (more information here) Texas A&M University School of Law International Tax online curriculum. Deadline is August 26 to apply, Transcripts must be received by September 3.  Books free as well, as well as access to LexisNexis and Texas A&M’s online tax library.

DOL Releases Final MEP Regulations

The DOL has released its final regulations governing multiple employer plans (MEPs). In general, to qualify as an MEP under the final regulations, a plan must satisfy five basic requirements. First, the association must have at least one substantial business purpose that is not related to offering the plan. The employer-members of the association must control its activities and any employers that participate in the MEP must control the MEP in substance and in form, directly or indirectly. The association must adopt a formal organizational structure. Only employees of the association’s employer-members and certain working owners may participate in the MEP. Finally, some commonality of interest must exist between the employers participating in the MEP, such as the same industry or geographic location. The regulations are effective September 30, 2019. For more information on small business retirement planning options, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

IRS Announces Campaign Aimed at Holders of Virtual Currency

The IRS has announced that it will begin sending letters to holders of various forms of cryptocurrency informing those taxpayers of potential misreporting (or failure to report) on virtual currency transactions. The IRS advises taxpayers who receive such a letter to review past tax filings to uncover any errors or underreporting, and amend those returns in order to pay back taxes, interest and penalties as soon as possible. These letters are part of a larger campaign designed by the IRS to crack down on misreporting or underreporting of virtual currency transactions, which are currently taxed according to the rules governing transactions in property. For more information on the tax treatment of virtual currency, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

IRS Provides Summertime Tax Checkup Tips

The IRS has released a list of summertime tax tips to help clients avoid surprises as we move closer to the end of the summer, especially with respect to part-time and seasonal workers. The IRS reminds business owners of the need to withhold Social Security and Medicare taxes from part-time and seasonal employees’ pay even if the worker is unlikely to meet the federal income tax filing threshold. Further, business owners must pay close attention to properly classifying these workers as either employees or independent contractors, remembering that independent contractors, although not subject to withholding, are required to pay their own Social Security and Medicare taxes, in addition to applicable income taxes. For more information on the Social Security and Medicare tax requirements, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

 

2019’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience

Tax Facts, authored by renown experts William Byrnes and Robert Bloink, for 60 years continues to be the leading tax book and online strategic client resource for the financial professional and advanced products underwriter industry. Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into a client’s solution. Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com800-543-0874

 

Posted in Tax Policy | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

TaxFacts Intelligence Weekly of Aug 1, 2019 – Actionable Analysis for Financial Advisors

Posted by William Byrnes on August 5, 2019


2019’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience

Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone.  Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com800-543-0874

 

Tuition Waiver for International Tax Online Courses (more information here)

Texas A&M University School of Law will launch August 26, 2019 its International Tax online curriculum for graduate degree candidates. Admissions is open for the inaugural cohort of degree candidates to pilot the launch of the Fall semester introductory courses of international taxation and tax treaties, and provide weekly feedback on content, support, and general experience in exchange for waiving the tuition and providing the books free.  Texas A&M University is a public university of the state of Texas and is ranked 1st among public universities for its superior education at an affordable cost (Fiske, 2018) and ranked 1st of Texas public universities for best value (Money, 2018). 

IRS Expands List of Preventative Care Coverage Not Subject to HDHP Deductibles
Pursuant to the executive order directing the agencies to expand the use of HSAs and HDHPs for individuals suffering from certain chronic conditions, the IRS has released Notice 2019-45, which expands the definition of “preventative care” to include certain treatments and medications related to chronic illnesses. Generally, HDHPs may now provide these forms of care on a pre-deductible basis without jeopardizing the plan’s status as an HDHP and the participant’s ability to use HSA funds in connection with that HDHP. The agencies have indicated that they will review the new list, which includes items deemed to be “low cost”, every five to ten years. The new table, contained Notice 2019-45, includes items such as glucometers for patients suffering from diabetes and beta blockers for patients suffering from congestive heart failure. For more information on HDHPs, visit TaxFacts Online. Read More
 

IRS Releases Premium Tax Credit-Related Inflation Adjustments for 2020
The IRS has released the Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax credit-related inflation adjusted numbers for use in 2020. In 2020, the percentage used to determine whether an individual is eligible for employer-sponsored health insurance that is affordable is 9.78% (down from 9.86% in 2019). This means that individuals who contribute more than 9.78% of their household income toward health insurance in 2020, he or she may be eligible for premium tax credit assistance. For more information on determining when health coverage is deemed affordable for ACA purposes, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

 

IRS Announces Compliance Campaign Directed at S Corps
The IRS has announced that one of the areas it will be focusing its compliance efforts upon in the coming year involves S corporations that were formerly C corporations. The primary issue of focus will be the built-in gains tax. In general, the built-in gains tax applies to C corporations that convert to S status at a time when they have net unrealized built-in gain, and then sell assets within five years after converting to an S corporation. The tax should be paid at the S corporation level, but the IRS has determined that the tax is often not paid. While this does not necessarily mean that audit resources will be directed toward these entities, it does mean that the IRS has determined that it is necessary to dedicate training and resources toward the goal of ensuring proper compliance with the built-in gains tax. For more information on situations where S corporations may be taxed at the entity level, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

 

Posted in Estate Tax, Retirement Planning, Taxation | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Seeking inaugural cohort of tax professionals to pilot Texas A&M’s International Tax online curriculum starting August 26, 2019

Posted by William Byrnes on July 29, 2019


Texas A&M University School of Law will launch August 26, 2019 its International Tax online curriculum for graduate degree candidates. Admissions is open for the inaugural cohort of degree candidates to pilot the launch of the Fall semester introductory courses of international taxation and tax treaties.

How do I apply for the inaugural cohort? Only for this inaugural cohort, completed applications may be submitted directly, via the below-expedited process, to the law school’s admission office until noon central daylight time (CDT – Dallas) on August 22, 2019.   A completed Fall application must include four items:

(1) the completed and signed law school application (application fees and letters of recommendation are waived for Fall 2019 international tax);

(2) statement of interest for the international tax program that includes mention of prior tax or related experience.

(3) resume/CV reflecting at least three years of employment as a tax advisor or five years employment in a related field; and

(4) an official transcript from the highest academic degree awarded by an accredited University sent to Texas A&M University: Official electronic transcripts can be sent to law-admissions@law.tamu.edu  FedEx, UPS, DHL express mail can be sent to Attn: Office of Graduate Admissions 1515 Commerce Street Fort Worth, TX 76102-6509

To apply for the inaugural cohort opportunity, contact Jeff Green, Graduate Programs Coordinator, T: +1 (817) 212-3866, E: jeffgreen@law.tamu.edu or contact David Dye, Assistant Dean of Graduate Programs, T (817) 212-3954, E: ddye@law.tamu.edu. Texas A&M Admissions website: https://law.tamu.edu/distance-education/international-tax

What is the proposed curriculum of 12 international tax courses?

International Taxation & Treaties I (3 credits)                  International Taxation & Treaties II (3 credits)

Transfer Pricing I (3 credits)                                          Transfer Pricing II (3 credits)

Tax Risk Management (3 credits)                                  FATCA & CRS (3 credits)

International Tax Planning (3 credits)                             Country Tax Systems (3 credits)

U.S. Int’l Tax (3 credits)                                                 EU Taxation (3 credits)

VAT/GST/Sales (3 credits)                                            Customs & Excises (3 credits)

Ethics in Decision Making (1 credit required to graduate)

What distinguishes Texas A&M’s International Tax curriculum?

Since the original 1994 curriculum focus on tax risk management and methodology, the curriculum and the program operational structure continue to evolve based on in-depth industry research. “The central function of the tax office has evolved from strategy and planning into risk management”, says William Byrnes, professor of law and associate dean at Texas A&M University. “This evolution has been accelerated by trends — primarily globalization, transparency and regulatory reform — and by the OECD (through the project on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, or BEPS), the United States (through the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) and the European Union.”

In 2019, Hanover Research on behalf of Texas A&M undertook an extensive long-form survey, including interviews, of 146 tax executives about the needs and value-added of Texas A&M’s new international tax curriculum. The surveys 2019 tax professionals included: 29% U.S. and 71% foreign resident. Half the participants were tax professionals of AmLaw 100 firms (27%) or of Big 4 accounting (21%). The other half of participants were tax professionals of large multinational tax departments in the following industries: Finance / Banking / Insurance; Consulting; Business / Professional Services; Computers (Hardware, Desktop Software); Telecommunications; Aerospace / Aviation / Automotive; Healthcare / Medical; Manufacturing; Food Service; Internet; Mining; Pharmaceutical / Chemical; Real Estate; and Transportation / Distribution. Four percent of survey participants were executive-level government tax authority staff.

Besides the actual design of the course curriculum, two interesting outcomes from the industry interviews are:

  • The faculty and graduate degree candidates must be multidisciplinary, including both tax lawyers and non-lawyer tax professionals (e.g. accountants, finance executives, and economists) engaged together in learning teams with practical case studies and projects that are “applicable in a real-world context”.
  • The curriculum must include the perspectives of tax mitigation and of tax-risk management with exposure to state-of-the-industry data analytics.

In its Tax Insights magazine that is distributed globally to clients, the Big 4 firm EY stated: “Texas A&M University is among the pioneers of change in tax education”.

Texas A&M professor William Byrnes explains: “A risk management approach to tax means that the new model will by definition be multidisciplinary. Financial and managerial accounting– and law– will still be important, of course. But students will also need new “hard” skills involving big data and communications technologies and “soft” skills geared to working in multicultural settings both at home and abroad.” Says Byrnes, “You don’t want to have people who are living in the ‘Stone Age’ (pre-2015) trying to work in a 2016-onward world.” 

What is the proposed course schedule during an academic year?

Fall 2019 Part A (6 week term)                                    Fall 2019 Part B (6 week term)     

International Taxation & Treaties I                                  International Taxation & Treaties II 

Spring 2020 Part A (6 week term)                              Spring 2020 Part B (6 week term)

Transfer Pricing I                                                             Transfer Pricing II

Summer 2020 concurrent 6 week term

Tax Risk Management & Data Analytics             FATCA & CRS

Fall 2020 Part A                                                           Fall 2020 Part B

International Tax Planning                                             Country Tax Systems

International Taxation & Treaties I                                  International Taxation & Treaties II

Spring 2021 Part A                                                      Spring 2021 Part B

U.S. Int’l Tax                                                                 EU Taxation

Transfer Pricing I                                                           Transfer Pricing II

Summer 2021 concurrent term

VAT/GST/Sales             Customs & Excises

Tax Risk Management               FATCA & CRS

When are the semesters?

Fall:                 August 26 until December 14, 2019

Spring:             January 9 until April 30, 2020

Summer:          May 18 until July 11, 2020

Who is leading and creating this International Tax curriculum?

The International Tax curriculum has been developed and is led by Professor William Byrnes (Texas A&M University Law).  In 1994, Professor William Byrnes founded the first international tax program leveraging online education and in 1998 founded the first online international tax program to be acquiesced by the American Bar Association and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.  He is recognized globally as an online education pioneer focused on learner outcomes and best practices leveraging state of the art educational technology.  William Byrnes is also an international tax authority as LexisNexis’ leading published author of nine international tax treatises and compendium, annually updated, and a 10 volume service published by Wolters Kluwer.  His LinkedIn group International Tax Planning Professionals has over 25,000 members and is the largest international tax network on LinkedIn.

If you want to ask questions about the curriculum or how the online courses are as effective as residential ones, reach out to Professor William Byrnes at williambyrnes@law.tamu.edu.

How much time per week does a course require?

Each course unfolds over six weeks, designed to require 15 to 20 hours of input each week. This weekly input includes reviewing materials, listening to podcasts, watching video content, participating in discussion forums, engaging in live class sessions, and working with classmates on team-based learning projects. Working with the colleague groups on real-world case studies is critical to the educational experience.  Potential applicants must have available three to five hours per week to spend developing and working with colleagues on group case studies using communications technologies like Zoom video.

What is the title of this graduate degree?

For lawyers, it is a Master of Laws (LL.M.) and for accountants, tax professionals and economists, it is a Master of Jurisprudence (M.J.).  The degree is awarded by Texas A&M University via the School of Law. Completion of a curriculum, which is like a ‘major’ for university studies, is also recognized with a frameable certificate issued by the School of Law.

What are the minimum requirements of the application for each degree?

  • All applicants must have previous domestic tax or accounting professional experience reflected on the CV of work experience.
  • The Master of Laws (LL.M.) is awarded to successful graduates who hold a law degree from a law school or faculty of law that is accredited by the American Bar Association or if a foreign law degree then accredited by a governmental accreditation body and that allows the graduate eligibility for that country’s practice of law.
  • The Master of Jurisprudence (M.J.) is awarded to all other successful graduates. Applicants for the Master of Jurisprudence must hold a prior degree from an accredited academic institution in business, accounting, finance, economics, or related business field.

What are the program requirements to graduate?

The Master of Laws candidates must complete at least 24 credits to be eligible to graduate.  The Master of Jurisprudence candidates must complete at least 30 credits to be eligible to graduate.

All candidates must complete the Ethics in Decision Making course to be eligible to graduate, which presents networking opportunities with candidates of the Risk management and Wealth Management curricula. Master of Jurisprudence candidates must also complete an Introduction to U.S. Law course which will include networking among all law graduate curricula.

Candidates must complete at least six courses specific to a curriculum in order to be eligible for a degree. Without permission, candidates are allowed to enroll in up to two courses from another curriculum.

How many months to graduate?

Normally, candidates will enroll in two courses during Fall and Spring semester, focusing on one course each term (Fall and Spring have two terms of six weeks each).  Candidates may enroll in one or two courses for the Summer semester, which is only one six-week term.  Thus, most candidates will reach eligibility to graduate within two years.  Candidates have the flexibility as to how many or few courses to enroll each term, subject to university graduate program rules. Candidates may complete the program in one year to as long as four years.  Each course in a curriculum is offered once per year.

Are these degrees eligible for the Aggie Ring and membership in the Texas A&M Former Student Network (Texas A&M alumni)?

Yes, all international tax graduates will become a member of the Texas A&M family.  Texas A&M is renown for the loyalty and engagement among its former students within the Texas Aggie clubs established throughout the world. Texas A&M has graduated over 500,000 “Aggies” who are eligible to wear the Texas A&M ring to identify each other throughout the world. See https://www.aggienetwork.com/

Will there be on-campus opportunities?

Yes.  Graduation, with on-campus activities hosted at the law school, is May 1, 2020.  October 24-25, 2019 is a networking conference of the risk, wealth, and international tax graduate students piggybacking on Texas A&M’s Financial Planning conference: Thursday night networking banquet and Friday conference activities. See https://financialplanning.tamu.edu/events/conference/  Saturday, October 26, 2019 is a Texas A&M football game at the on-campus Kyle stadium that two years ago underwent a $485 million renovation. The graduate program office has inquired about a block of tickets in the same section for students interested in purchasing a ticket and staying over for the game.  Texas A&M football games are sold out with a capacity of over 100,000 seats and thus, Friday night hotel reservations in College Station should be made ASAP.  Other opportunities will be announced during the program year.

What is Texas A&M University?

Texas A&M, the second largest U.S. public university, is one of the only 60 accredited U.S. members of the American Association of Universities (R1: Doctoral Universities – Highest Research Activity), and one of the only 17 U.S. universities that hold a triple U.S. federal designation (Land, Sea, and Space).  As one of the world’s leading research institutions, Texas A&M is at the forefront in making significant contributions to scholarship and discovery: research conducted in fiscal year 2017 at Texas A&M represented an annual expenditure of more than $900 million.  The Texas A&M University system’s operating budget exceeds $4.6 billion and Texas A&M’s combined endowments are 7th largest among universities in the world.

Texas A&M is ranked 1st among national public universities for a superior education at an affordable cost (Fiske, 2018); ranked 1st of Texas public universities for best value (Money, 2018); and ranked 1st in nation for most graduates serving as CEOs of Fortune 500 companies (Fortune, 2019).  During the program, a candidate learns Texas A&M’s traditions and six core values that are grounded in its history as one of the six U.S. senior military colleges: Loyalty, Integrity, Excellence, Leadership, Respect, and Selfless Service.

Which government and professional organizations accredit Texas A&M University?

For the complete list, see https://www.tamu.edu/statements/accreditation.html

What are the other curricula’s courses that are available to international tax candidates? 

Risk Curriculum                                              Wealth Curriculum

Enterprise Risk & Data Analytics                        Taxation of Business Associations

Information Security Management Systems        Securities Regulations

Counter-Terrorism Risk Management                 Financial & Portfolio Management

Cybersecurity                                                   Income Tax Financial Planning

Anti-Money Laundering & Bank                          Principles of Wealth Management

Principles of Risk Management                          Estate Planning, Insurance, and Annuities

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act                            Advanced Wealth Management

Fiduciary & Risk Management                            Non-Profit & Fiduciary Administration

White-Collar Crime                                            Retirement & Benefits

Legal Risk Management                                    Insurance Law (& Alternative Risk Transfer)

Financial Innovations

What is the tuition? Normal Texas A&M University tuition and available financial aid applies after the Fall term and is available at https://tuition.tamu.edu/ Texas A&M University is a public university of the state of Texas and is ranked 1st among public universities for its superior education at an affordable cost (Fiske, 2018) and ranked 1st of Texas public universities for best value (Money, 2018). 

Posted in Courses, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

Professor Jeffery Kadet responds with his thoughts on the Nike European Commission Decision

Posted by William Byrnes on July 26, 2019


Professor Jeffrey Kadet (University of Washington Law) responds below to my thoughts about Nike’s state aid case (Thank you Professor Kadet for your very informed counter to my contentions)

William, it was a pleasure reading your piece on the Nike situation (below in this blog).  I have a few thoughts. Please feel free to add this to your blog if you think these thoughts would be useful to the discussion.

I of course agree with your analysis of transfer pricing and the various functions that are performed (or not performed) in various places. My focus is rather on how groups like Nike, Starbucks, and Apple have potentially hoisted themselves on their own petards.

What do I mean by this? I mean that these groups created structures that make no sense except in light of a tax ruling that never should have been issued in the first place. They were so excited about their respective rulings that they didn’t build into their structures any Plan B in case the ruling were unexpectedly revoked or disappeared for any reason. They of course didn’t anticipate the European Commission actions; nobody anticipated it. But now that it’s there, they’re stuck with the structures they created.

Nike chose to place ownership of certain production and marketing intangibles through a cost-sharing agreement in a special purpose company (initially Nike International Limited and then later Nike International CV) with no personnel or operations of its own. The SPC then licensed whatever IP it held to Nike European Operations Netherlands BV, which clearly conducts an operating business. Since the focus here is Dutch taxation and not U.S. taxation, we ignore the check-the-box structure that Nike presumably created in which the SPC and NEON are merely divisions within one Nike CFC. I haven’t seen any public information on the group’s actual structure in this regard except within the July 29, 2016, Tax Court petition, which described NEON as “a disregarded subsidiary of NIKE Pegasus”.

In any case, the European Commission decision notes that NEON was established and began operations in 1994. The decision goes on to say that NEON has been acting as a principal and regional HQ since 2006. This at least implies that it conducted activities prior to 2006 as either an agent or distributor. In any case, it would have in all years conducted real operations locally and within Europe that added to the group’s marketing intangibles.

Maybe on the surface, NEON is just distributing branded products. However, contractually and economically, it is a manufacturer. How does it do its manufacturing? Prior to a 2009 restructuring, it contracted directly with contract manufacturers using Nike Inc. as an agent for arranging and contracting with these manufacturers. As described in the decision, Nike Inc. conducted for NEON as its agent the types of functions described in Reg §1.954-3(a)(4)(iv)(b) [Foreign base company sales income – (4)Property manufactured, produced, or constructed by the controlled foreign corporation]. Following the 2009 restructuring when the Singapore branch of Nike Trading Company BV was added to the mix, things are less clear but it seems doubtful that many production functions changed. Likely, a few functions might have been moved from the U.S. to Singapore. That, however, logically shouldn’t change NEON’s character as a manufacturer.

With the above in mind, Nike has voluntarily created NEON, which has conducted an active business now for 25 years. Over those years, it has created to some extent the marketing intangibles that it uses. This is in addition to whatever IP rights it secures from the SPC under the license agreement. Further, either through its own personnel or through its agents it is conducting all production activities aside from the physical production itself. NEON has never suggested that it has a PE in the U.S. or elsewhere that is conducting purchasing functions.

Nike structured an active manufacturing and sales business within NEON, which pays (i) a royalty for manufacturing IP and some marketing IP to an SPC with no operations of its own, and (ii) service fees (the arm’s length nature of which no one is questioning) to Nike Inc. and NTC for their production functions. NEON has no PE outside the Netherlands to which any profits could be attributed. Any royalty that NEON pays should be an arm’s length royalty for manufacturing IP and any marketing IP that NEON does not already hold based on its activities since its formation in 1994. To suggest that commercial returns in excess of this arm’s length royalty should be included in an expanded royalty to the SPC is completely contrary and out of phase with the structure that Nike voluntarily created. The revenues, production costs, and other expenses that NEON earns or incurs should be fully within the Dutch tax computation; there’s nowhere else it can go.

The same issue of creating a structure dependent on a tax ruling that invites, in the absence of that ruling, full taxation in the country where operations are being conducted is true as well for Starbucks in the Netherlands and Apple in Ireland. The latter, of course, created Apple Sales International, which manufactures products through contract manufacturers and sells them. With all the manufacturing functions (aside from the physical manufacturing performed by contract manufacturers) presumably being conducted by related parties under service agreements, there again is no basis to suggest that any of ASI’s profits should be attributed to some location outside of Ireland. Should the service fee payable to Apple U.S. group members be higher? Probably, but Apple chose its structure and the level of intercompany service fees. The ruling that created an allocation to a home office with no personnel or physical operations is creating a fiction. With the ruling being negated by the Commission’s decision and with no Plan B, Apple created its own mess.

William, I hope the above is useful to your thinking.

All the best,

Jeff (his faculty website is here)

Posted in Tax Policy, Transfer Pricing | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

TaxFacts Intelligence Weekly of July 25, 2019 – Actionable Analysis for Financial Advisors

Posted by William Byrnes on July 26, 2019


2019’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience

Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone.  Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com800-543-0874

William H. Byrnes, J.D., LL.M. and Robert Bloink, J.D., LL.M.

Jul 25, 2019

View in Browser

Taxpayer Cannot Shield Self-Directed IRA Assets from Bankruptcy Creditors

The 11th Circuit recently confirmed that a taxpayer was not entitled to creditor protection in bankruptcy with respect to a self-directed IRA that he used for impermissible purposes. The issue in this case was not whether IRA funds were used for prohibited personal use, however, but whether the assets left within the IRA could be protected from creditors in bankruptcy. The court ruled that the creditors could access amounts left in the IRA, regardless of whether that IRA continued to be tax-exempt, because the taxpayer failed to properly maintain the IRA by withdrawing funds for prohibited reasons in the past. For more information on the tax treatment of IRA assets in bankruptcy, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

Proposed Regulations Would Eliminate the MEP “One Bad Apple Rule”

The IRS and Treasury have released proposed regulations that would eliminate the so-called “one bad apple rule” for multiple employer plans (MEPs). Under the one bad apple rule, the entire MEP could be disqualified based upon the actions of only one employer that participated in the plan. To qualify, the plan must have established practices and procedures designed to ensure compliance by all MEP participants. The failure must be isolated to a single employer, and cannot be a widespread issue across the employers. The plan administrator must have a process in place that would provide notice to the employer responsible for the failure, and such notice should include a description of the failure, actions necessary to remedy the failure, notice that the relevant employer has only 90 days from the notice date to take remedial action, a description of the consequences for failure to take the remedial action and notice of the right to spin off the non-compliant employer’s portion of the plan and assets. After providing the initial notice and two subsequent notices, the MEP must notify all participants, stop accepting contributions from the noncompliant party and implement spin off procedures designed to terminate the noncompliant employer’s interests in the MEP. For more information on plan qualification requirements, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

Considering an Opportunity Zone Investment? Here’s How to Tell the IRS

Now that the IRS has released a significant amount of guidance on the opportunity zone rules, qualified opportunity zone funds are likely to become more common, leading taxpayers to question how to actually defer taxation on their capital gains through the opportunity zone rules. Taxpayers who have made a sale where the proceeds qualify for capital gain treatment may invest all or a part of that gain in a qualified opportunity fund and defer recognizing the gain under the new opportunity zone rules. The taxpayer makes the election on his or her tax return by attaching a completed Form 8949 to the return. For multiple investments occurring on different dates, the taxpayer uses multiple rows of the form to report the deferral election. If the taxpayer has already filed the relevant tax return, he or she will need to file an amended return to make the election. For more information on the opportunity zone rules, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

Posted in Retirement Planning, Taxation | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Texas A&M Law Solicits Bids for ONLINE GRADUATE PROGRAMS Service Providers, deadline August 2

Posted by William Byrnes on July 25, 2019


Status Details
Open
The Texas A&M University School of Law seeks proposals from qualified vendors for the creation of On-Line Graduate Programs per the Request for Proposal herein.
Close 8/2/2019 2:00 PM CDT
Number TAMU-RFP-1418
Contact Clyde Oberg CO@TAMU.EDU

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

How much TCJA Repatriated Dividends? USA Outward and Inward Direct Investment by Country and Industry, 2018

Posted by William Byrnes on July 24, 2019


These statistics cover outward and inward direct investment positions, financial transactions, and income in 2018 and will provide information answering the following questions:
  • How much did U.S. multinationals repatriate following the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act?
  • Which countries and industries repatriated the most in 2018?
  • Which countries are the largest destinations for U.S. multinational enterprises’ direct investment?
  • Which countries’ multinational enterprises have the largest direct investment positions in the United States?
  • In which industries is foreign direct investment concentrated?
Statistics on foreign direct investment in the United States include data by the country of the immediate foreign parent as well as data by the country of the ultimate beneficial owner. Statistics on U.S. direct investment abroad will include data by the country and industry of the foreign affiliate as well as data by the industry of the U.S. parent.

Effects of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) on U.S. Direct Investment Abroad

The TCJA generally eliminated taxes on dividends, or repatriated earnings, to U.S. multinationals from their foreign affiliates. Dividends of $776.5 billion in 2018 exceeded earnings for the year, which led to negative reinvestment of earnings, decreasing the investment position for the first time since 1982. Contrast $155.1 billion repatriated dividends in 2017.

By country, nearly half of the dividends in 2018 were repatriated from affiliates in Bermuda ($231.0 billion) and the Netherlands ($138.8 billion). Ireland was the third-largest source of dividends, but its value is suppressed due to confidentiality requirements. By industry, U.S. multinationals in chemical manufacturing ($209.1 billion) and computers and electronic products manufacturing ($195.9 billion) repatriated the most in 2018.

Chart of USDIA: Dividends by Country of Affiliate: 2017-2018

 

The U.S. direct investment abroad position, or cumulative level of investment, decreased $62.3 billion to $5.95 trillion at the end of 2018 from $6.01 trillion at the end of 2017, according to statistics released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The decrease was due to the repatriation of accumulated prior earnings by U.S. multinationals from their foreign affiliates, largely in response to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The decrease reflected a $75.8 billion decrease in the position in Latin America and Other Western Hemisphere, primarily in Bermuda. By industry, holding company affiliates owned by U.S. manufacturers accounted for most of the decrease.

The foreign direct investment in the United States position increased $319.1 billion to $4.34 trillion at the end of 2018 from $4.03 trillion at the end of 2017. The increase mainly reflected a $226.1 billion increase in the position from Europe, primarily the Netherlands and Ireland. By industry, affiliates in manufacturing, retail trade, and real estate accounted for the largest increases.

Chart of sDirect Investment Positions, 2017-2018

U.S. direct investment abroad (tables 1 – 6) see tables here: BEA tables

U.S. multinational enterprises (MNEs) invest in nearly every country, but their investment in affiliates in five countries accounted for more than half of the total position at the end of 2018. The U.S. direct investment abroad position remained the largest in the Netherlands at $883.2 billion, followed by the United Kingdom ($757.8 billion), Luxembourg ($713.8 billion), Ireland ($442.2 billion), and Canada ($401.9 billion).

By industry of the directly-owned foreign affiliate, investment was highly concentrated in holding companies, which accounted for nearly half of the overall position in 2018. Most holding company affiliates, which are owned by U.S. parents from a variety of industries, own other foreign affiliates that operate in a variety of industries. By industry of the U.S. parent, investment by manufacturing MNEs accounted for 54.0 percent of the position, followed by MNEs in finance and insurance (12.1 percent).

U.S. MNEs earned income of $531.0 billion in 2018 on their cumulative investment abroad, a 12.8 percent increase from 2017.

Foreign direct investment in the United States (tables 7 – 10) see tables here: BEA tables

By country of the foreign parent, five countries accounted for more than half of the total position at the end of 2018. The United Kingdom remained the top investing country with a position of $560.9 billion. Canada ($511.2 billion) moved up one position from 2017 to be the second-largest investing country, moving Japan ($484.4 billion) into third, while the Netherlands ($479.0 billion) and Luxembourg ($356.0 billion) switched places as the fourth and fifth largest investing countries at the end of 2018.

By country of the ultimate beneficial owner (UBO), the top five countries in terms of position were the United Kingdom ($597.2 billion), Canada ($588.4 billion), Japan ($488.7 billion), Germany ($474.5 billion), and Ireland ($385.3 billion). On this basis, investment from the Netherlands and Luxembourg was much lower than by country of foreign parent, indicating that much of the investment from foreign parents in these countries was ultimately owned by investors in other countries.

Foreign direct investment in the United States was concentrated in the U.S. manufacturing sector, which accounted for 40.8 percent of the position. There was also sizable investment in finance and insurance (12.1 percent).

Foreign MNEs earned income of $208.1 billion in 2018 on their cumulative investment in the United States, a 19.7 percent increase from 2017.

Updates to Direct Investment Statistics Delayed

Updates to BEA’s detailed country and industry statistics for U.S. direct investment abroad and for foreign direct investment in the United States for 2016 and 2017 were delayed due to the impact of the partial federal government shutdown that started in late December 2018. BEA will update the 2016 and 2017 statistics in 2020 along with updates to the 2018 statistics.”

Posted in Tax Policy | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Texas A&M University School of Law Recruiting Multiple Outstanding Scholars for Professorships

Posted by William Byrnes on July 22, 2019


TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW aims to hire multiple outstanding scholars, across an array of fields, over the next several years.

Since integrating with Texas A&M six years ago, the School of Law – based in Dallas/Fort Worth – has achieved a remarkable forward trajectory by dramatically increasing entering class credentials; adding nine new clinics; strengthening student services; and hiring twenty-six new faculty members. The Appointments Committee welcomes expressions of interest in all areas, including especially from candidates who will add to the diversity of our faculty. Areas of particular interest include:

cybersecurity, privacy, and health law (with emphasis on healthcare finance, policy, regulation, delivery, and unfair competition).

The Texas A&M System is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action/Veterans/Disability Employer committed to diversity. Texas A&M University is committed to enriching the learning and working environment for all visitors, students, faculty, and staff by promoting a culture that embraces inclusion, diversity, equity, and accountability. Diverse perspectives, talents, and identities are vital to accomplishing our mission and living our core values. The School of Law provides equal opportunity to all employees, students, applicants for employment or admission, and the public, regardless of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, genetic information, veteran status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Candidates must have a J.D. degree or its equivalent. Preference will be given to those with outstanding scholarly achievement and strong teaching skills. Successful candidates will be expected to engage in scholarship, teaching,  and service. Rank as an Executive Professor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, or Professor will be determined based on qualifications and experience.

Applicants should email a cover letter (indicating teaching and research interests) and CV/references to Professor Milan Markovic, Chair of the Appointments Committee, at appointments@law.tamu.edu. The Appointments Committee will treat all applications as confidential, subject to the requirements of state and federal law.

Posted in Education Theory | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Nike State Aid case analysis: Would you pay $100 for a canvas sneaker designed the 20’s? (Where does the residual value for “Just Do it” and the ‘cool kids’ retro branding of All Stars belong?)

Posted by William Byrnes on July 19, 2019


I have received several requests this month about my initial thoughts on the EU Commission’s 56-page published (public version available here) State Aid preliminary decision with the reasoning that The Netherlands government provided Nike an anti-competitive subsidy via the tax system.  My paraphrasing of the following EU Commission statement [para. 87] sums up the situation:

The Netherlands operational companies are remunerated with a low, but stable level of profit based on a limited margin on their total revenues reflecting those companies’ allegedly “routine” distribution functions. The residual profit generated by those companies in excess of that level of profit is then entirely allocated to Nike Bermuda as an alleged arm’s length royalty in return for the license of the Nike brands and other related IP”

The question that comes to my mind is: “Would I pay $100 for a canvas sneaker designed the 20’s that I know is $12 to manufacture, distribute, and have enough markup for the discount shoe store to provide it shelf space?” My answer is: “Yes, I own two pair of Converse’s Chuck Taylor All Stars.” So why did I spend much more than I know them to be worth (albeit, I wait until heavily discounted and then only on clearance).  From a global value chain perspective: “To which Nike function and unit does the residual value for the ‘cool kids’ retro branding of All Stars belong?”

infograph

U.S. international tax professionals operating in the nineties know that The Netherlands is a royalty conduit intermediary country because of its good tax treaty system and favorable domestic tax system, with the intangible profits deposited to take advantage of the U.S. tax deferral regime that existed until the TCJA of 2017 (via the Bermuda IP company).  Nike U.S., but for the deferral regime, could have done all this directly from its U.S. operations to each country that Nike operates in.  No other country could object, pre-BEPs, because profit split and marketing intangibles were not pushed by governments during transfer pricing audits.

The substantial value of Nike (that from which its profits derive) is neither the routine services provided by The Netherlands nor local wholesalers/distributors.  The value is the intangible brand created via R&D and marketing/promotion.  That brand allows a $10 – $20 retail price sneaker to sell retail for $90 – $200, depending on the country.  Converse All-Stars case in point.  Same  $10 shoe as when I was growing up now sold for $50 – $60 because Converse branded All-Stars as cool kid retro fashion.

Nike has centralized, for purposes of U.S. tax deferral leveraging a good tax treaty network, the revenue flows through NL.  The royalty agreement looks non-traditional because instead of a fixed price (e.g. 8%), it sweeps the NL profit account of everything but for the routine rate of return for the grouping of operational services mentioned in the State Aid opinion. If Nike was an actual Dutch public company, or German (like Addidas), or French – then Nike would have a similar result from its home country base because of the way its tax system allows exemption from tax for the operational foreign-sourced income of branches.  [Having worked back in the mid-nineties on similar type companies that were European, this is what I recall but I will need to research to determine if this has been the case since the nineties.]

I suspect that when I research this issue above that the NL operations will have been compensated within an allowable range based on all other similar situated 3rd parties.  I could examine this service by service but that would require much more information and data analysis about the services, and lead to a lesser required margin by Nike. The NL functions include [para 33]: “…regional headquarter functions, such as marketing, management, sales management (ordering and warehousing), establishing product pricing and discount policies, adapting designs to local market needs, and distribution activities, as well as bearing the inventory risk, marketing risk and other business risks.”

By example, the EU Commission states in its initial Nike news announcement:

Nike European Operations Netherlands BV and Converse Netherlands BV have more than 1,000 employees and are involved in the development, management and exploitation of the intellectual property. For example, Nike European Operations Netherlands BV actively advertises and promotes Nike products in the EMEA region, and bears its own costs for the associated marketing and sales activities.

Nike’s internal Advertising, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) services can be benchmarked to its 3rd party AMP providers.  But by no means do the local NL AMP services rise to the level of Nike’s chief AMP partner (and arguably a central key to its brand build) Wieden + Kennedy (renown for creating many industry branding campaigns but perhaps most famously for Nike’s “Just Do it” – inspired by the last words of death row inmate Gary Gilmore before his execution by firing squad).

There is some value that should be allocated for the headquarters management of the combination of services on top of the service by service approach.  Plenty of competing retail industry distributors to examine though.  If by example the profit margin range was a low of 2% to a high of 8% for the margin return for the combination of services, then Nike based on the EU Commission’s public information falls within that range, being around 5%.

The Commission contends that Nike designed its transfer pricing study to achieve a result to justify the residual sweep to its Bermuda deferral subsidiary.  The EU Commission states an interesting piece of evidence that may support its decision [at para 89]: “To the contrary, those documents indicate that comparable uncontrolled transactions may have existed as a result of which the arm’s length level of the royalty payment would have been lower…”.  If it is correct that 3rd party royalty agreements for major brand overly compensate local distributors, by example provide 15% or 20% profit margin for local operations, then Nike must also.  [I just made these numbers up to illustrate the issue]

All the services seem, on the face of the EU Commission’s public document, routine to me but for “adapting designs to local market needs”.  That, I think, goes directly to product design which falls under the R&D and Branding.  There are 3rd parties that do exactly this service so it can be benchmarked, but its value I suspect is higher than by example ‘inventory risk management’.  We do not know from the EU document whether this ‘adapting product designs to local market’ service was consistent with a team of product engineers and market specialists, or was it merely occasional and outsourced.  The EU Commission wants, like with Starbucks, Nike to use a profit split method.  “…a transfer pricing arrangement based on the Profit Split Method would have been more appropriate to price…”.  Finally, the EU Commission asserts [para. 90]: “…even if the TNMM was the most appropriate transfer pricing method…. Had a profit level indicator been chosen that properly reflected the functional analysis of NEON and CN BV, that would have led to a lower royalty payment…”.

But for the potential product design issue, recognizing I have not yet researched this issue yet, based on what I know about the fashion industry, seems rather implausible to me that a major brand would give up part of its brand residual to a 3rd party local distributor.  In essence, that would be like the parent company of a well-established fashion brand stating “Let me split the brand’s value with you for local distribution, even though you have not borne any inputs of creating the value”.  Perhaps at the onset of a startup trying to create and build a brand?  But not Nike in the 1990s.  I think that the words of the dissenting Judge in Altera (9th Cir June 2019) are appropriate:

An ‘arm’s length result is not simply any result that maximizes one’s tax obligations’.

The EU Commission obviously does not like the Bermuda IP holding subsidiary arrangement that the U.S. tax deferral regime allows (the same issue of its Starbucks state aid attack), but that does not take away from the reality that legally and economically, Bermuda for purposes of the NL companies owns the Nike brand and its associated IP.  The new U.S. GILTI regime combined with the FDII export incentive regime addresses the Bermuda structure, making it much somewhat less comparably attractive to operating directly from the U.S. (albeit still produces some tax arbitrage benefit).  Perhaps the U.S. tax regime if it survives, in combination with the need for the protection of the IRS Competent Authority for foreign transfer pricing adjustments will lead to fewer Bermuda IP holding subsidiaries and more Delaware ones.

My inevitable problem with the Starbucks and Nike (U.S. IP deferral structures) state aid cases is that looking backward, even if the EU Commission is correct, it is a de minimis amount (the EU Commission already alleged a de minimis amount for Starbucks but the actual amount will be even less if any amount at all).  Post-BEPS, the concept and understanding of marketing intangibles including brands is changing, as well as allowable corporate fiscal operational structures based on look-through (GILTI type) regimes. More effective in the long term for these type of U.S. IP deferral structures is for the EU Commission is to spend its compliance resources on a go-forward basis from 2015 BEPS to assist the restructuring of corporations and renegotiation of APAs, BAPAs, Multilateral PAs to fit in the new BEPS reality.  These two cases seem more about an EU – U.S. tax policy dispute than the actual underlying facts of the cases.  And if as I suspect that EU companies pre-BEPS had the same outcome based on domestic tax policy foreign source income exemptions, then the EU Commission’s tax policy dispute would appear two-faced.

I’ll need to undertake a research project or hear back from readers and then I will follow up with Nike Part 2 as a did with Starbucks on this Kluwer blog previously.  See Application of TNMM to Starbucks Roasting Operation: Seeking Comparables Through Understanding the Market and then My Starbucks’ State Aid Transfer Pricing Analysis: Part II.  See also my comments about Altera:  An ‘arm’s length result is not simply any result that maximizes one’s tax obligations’.

Want to help me in this research or have great analytical content for my transfer pricing treatise published by LexisNexis? Reach out on profbyrnes@gmail.com

Prof. William Byrnes (Texas A&M) is the author of a 3,000 page treatise on transfer pricing that is a leading analytical resource for advisors.

Posted in international taxation, Transfer Pricing | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

TaxFacts Intelligence Weekly of July 18, 2019 – Actionable Analysis for Financial Advisors

Posted by William Byrnes on July 19, 2019


2019’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience

Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone.  Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com800-543-0874

 

William H. Byrnes, J.D., LL.M. and Robert Bloink, J.D., LL.M.

Jul 18, 2019

View in Browser

Words of Caution for Non-spouse Beneficiaries of Inherited IRAs

Generally, non-spouse beneficiaries are required to take distributions from the account either under the five-year rule (i.e., exhaust the funds within five years of inheriting them) or based on that beneficiary’s life expectancy. However, what many beneficiaries fail to understand is that when they take a distribution, that distribution will be taxable, cannot be undone by rolling the amount into another IRA and can cause the IRA to forfeit its stretch treatment. Non-spouse beneficiaries should be advised that their only opportunity with respect to rollover of an inherited IRA is to transfer the account (as an inherited account) to a new IRA custodian via a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer. For more information on inherited IRAs, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

District Court Finds Retiree Not Entitled to Change Election Regarding Pension Distribution Form

A district court recently ruled that a pension plan did not abuse its discretion by denying the request of a participant in pay status to change her election from a monthly annuity payout to a lump sum payment. In this case, the pension had opened a window whereby retirees could elect to switch from receiving an annuity to the lump sum option. The option also allowed the participant to revoke the change by a certain set date, and revert back to the annuity. Here, the retiree and her son, who had power of attorney, took the lump sum option but later revoked it to revert back to the annuity. Later, when the retiree was diagnosed with a neurological disease, they attempted to revoke the revocation to receive the lump sum. The court held that there was no abuse of discretion in the pension’s denial of that request because the window for electing the lump sum had closed. The impact of the neurological disease was irrelevant because the son who made the initial requests had power of attorney to speak on the participant’s behalf. For more information on what to consider when facing a lump sum option, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

Updated IRS FAQ Confirms Section 1231 Gains Invested in Qualified Opportunity Funds in 2018 are Qualifying Investments

The second round of proposed regulations regarding qualified opportunity zone fund (QOF) investments generated questions as to the treatment of Section 1231 gains that had been invested in a QOF. Section 1231 capital gain treatment generally applies to depreciable property and real property used in a business (but not land held as investment property). Under the proposed regulations, Section 1231 capital gains are only permissible QOF investments to the extent of the 1231 capital gain amount, if the investment is made within 180 days of the last day of the tax year. IRS released FAQ to provide relief for the 2018 tax year, so that investment in the QOF and deferral will be available for the gross amount of Section 1231 gain realized during the 2018 tax year if the investment was made within 180 days of the sale date, rather than the last day of the tax year (assuming that the taxpayer’s tax year ended before May 1, 2019, when the regulations were released). For more information on opportunity zones, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More

Posted in Taxation | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Getting its “fair share” from the U.S., U.K. implements 2% tax on gross revenues of Google, Amazon, and Facebook

Posted by William Byrnes on July 11, 2019


From April 2020, the government will introduce a new 2% tax on the revenues of search engines, social media platforms and online marketplaces which derive value from UK users. Large multi-national enterprises with revenue derived from the provision of a social media platform, a search engine or an online marketplace (‘in scope activities’) to UK users.

The Digital Services Tax will apply to businesses that provide a social media platform, search engine or an online marketplace to UK users. These businesses will be liable to Digital Services Tax when the group’s worldwide revenues from these digital activities are more than £500m and more than £25m of these revenues are derived from UK users.

If the group’s revenues exceed these thresholds, its revenues derived from UK users will be taxed at a rate of 2%. There is an allowance of £25m, which means a group’s first £25m of revenues derived from UK users will not be subject to Digital Services Tax.

The provision of a social media platform, internet search engine or online marketplace by a group includes the carrying on of any associated online advertising business. An associated online advertising business is a business operated on an online platform that facilitates the placing of online advertising, and derives significant benefit from its connection with the social media platform, search engine or online marketplace. There is an exemption from the online marketplace definition for financial and payment services providers.

The revenues from the business activity will include any revenue earned by the group which is connected to the business activity, irrespective of how the business monetises the platform. If revenues are attributable to the business activity and another activity, the business will need to apportion the revenue to each activity on a just and reasonable basis.

Revenues are derived from UK users if the revenue arises by virtue of a UK user using the platform. However, advertising revenues are derived from UK users when the advertisement is intended to be viewed by a UK user.

A UK user is a user that is normally located in the UK.

Where one of the parties to a transaction on an online marketplace is a UK user, all the revenues from that transaction will be treated as derived from UK users. This will also be the case when the transaction involves land or buildings in the UK. However, the revenue charged will be reduced to 50% of the revenues from the transaction when the other user in respect of the transaction is normally located in a country that operates a similar tax to the Digital Services Tax.

Businesses will be able to elect to calculate the Digital Services Tax under an alternative calculation under the ‘safe harbour’. This is intended to ensure that the tax does not have a disproportionate effect on business sustainability in cases where a business has a low operating margin from providing in-scope activities to UK users

The total Digital Services Tax liability will be calculated at the group level but the tax will be charged on the individual entities in the group that realise the revenues that contribute to this total. The group consists of all entities which are included in the group consolidated accounts, provided these are prepared under an acceptable accounting standard. Revenues will consequently be counted towards the thresholds even if they are recognised in entities which do not have a UK taxable presence for corporation tax purposes.

A single entity in the group will be responsible for reporting the Digital Services Tax to HMRC. Groups can nominate an entity to fulfil these responsibilities. Otherwise, the ultimate parent of the group will be responsible.

The Digital Services Tax will be payable and reportable on an annual basis.

Draft legislation

Explanatory notes

Read:

Posted in Tax Policy, Taxation, Transfer Pricing | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: