Can the tax treaty apply to a US permanent resident working in US as a foreign government employee?

In a legal advice, the IRS Office of Chief Counsel has concluded that compensation paid to a U.S. permanent resident employed by a foreign government is not exempt from tax under the Belgium-U.S. income tax treaty.

The facts provide that a taxpayer lives and works in the U.S. as an employee of Belgium. The taxpayer, although not a U.S. citizen, is a lawful permanent resident (i.e. a green card holder).

In general, U.S. income tax treaties contain a “savings clause” that provides that a treaty will not affect the taxation by the U.S. of its residents and citizens (see e.g. Article 1(4) of U.S. Model  Income Tax treaty.) An exception to the savings clause is provided for in almost all income tax treaties, but it is not extended to persons who are permanent residents or citizens of the U.S. (permanent residents are treated as U.S. residents under Code Sec.  7701(b)(1)(A)(i)).

The memo notes that Rev Ruling 75-425 has given rise to some confusion with respect to employees of Belgium as it provided that income under the 1948 Belgium-U.S. income tax treaty exempted from tax  the compensation paid to employees who were citizens of the employing country. Prior to the publication of the ruling, however, the new 1970 income tax treaty between both countries was signed and did  not exempt such income from taxation. Rev Rul 75-425 was not updated, but was subsequently obsoleted by Rev Ruling 2007-60.

India Budget makes some US style changes regarding reporting of foreign assets and accounts

Indian Finance Minister presented budget in the parliament yesterday. Along with many proposals that may affect international investors, he proposed some significant changes for the Indian residents owning foreign assets as well – reminds us of US style reporting requirements!

Accordingly, a resident taxpayer, who has any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India or has signing authority in any account located outside India, is required to furnish a return of income. This amendment is proposed to be effective from FY 2011-12.

• In case of taxpayers having asset outside India, the existing time limit of      four and six years for reopening assessment (where income has escaped assessment) has been increased to 16 years.
• In case of a person who is treated as an agent of the Non Resident, the time limit for issuing reassessment notice has been extended to six years from two years.
• The time limit for completion of assessment and reassessment is extended by three months.

IRS warns taxpayers filing under voluntary offshore program to be truthful

The IRS is aggressively using intelligence gathered from the agency’s Offshore Voluntary Compliance Program to study the movement of undisclosed funds abroad and to deter tax avoidance, an IRS official said February 18.

“When [taxpayers] come in and tell us about their offshore account in one bank in one country, they may tell us about another account in another bank in another country and about the bankers they used,” said Rebecca Sparkman, Acting Executive Director  Investigations and Enforcement Operations Division of the IRS at the American Bar Association Section of Taxation meeting in San Diego. “As you can imagine we start looking at all that intelligence and it points the way for the next criminal investigation.”

Although her comments had undertones of the recent indictment of Wegelin & Co., Switzerland’s oldest private bank, she declined to speak directly on any specific matter. The bank has been charged with aiding tax offenders move their undisclosed accounts  from UBS.

“We want to assure you that we are reviewing all the information that comes in from your clients to match up [and provide direction on] where we should look next,” she said.

She cautioned practitioners to be fully truthful when bringing their clients into compliance.

“Please be fully, fully truthful,” she told the audience. “Because there may be those folks that are tempted to only disclose that account in that one bank that they think we know about in that one country because they think we don’t know about [an account] somewhere else. But guess what? They come in, they come through the whole program, we get their name on a list for some other bank, some other country, all bets are off! Now they are facing criminal investigation because they were not fully truthful.”

Sparkman stressed that the time to come forward with all offshore account information is at the time a voluntary disclosure is made, not subsequently.

“When you walk in the door, that is the time to be fully truthful,” she said. “Don’t be hiding anything else.”

Source: RIA

IRS envisages closer coopeartion to implement FATCA – issues joint statement with 5 European countries

The Treasury Department, in a joint statement with five European countries, said on Feb. 8 that the nations intend to pursue a government-to-government framework for implementing the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).

Treasury sees this as a key step “toward addressing legal impediments” faced by financial institutions in complying with proposed FATCA regulations that were published on Feb. 8. “The statement does not contemplate an exemption from FATCA for any jurisdiction, but instead offers a framework for information sharing pursuant to existing bilateral income tax treaties and allows FFIs [Foreign Financial Institutions] to report the necessary information to their respective governments rather than to the IRS,” Treasury said. The countries that joined in the statement were France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. In the joint statement, the U.S. acknowledged that the policy objective of FATCA centers on enhanced reporting rather than collecting withheld tax.

The U.S. also affirmed its willingness to reciprocate in the collection and exchange of information on accounts held in U.S. financial institutions by residents of the five European countries. In addition, the joint statement cited the need to keep compliance costs as low as possible and the desirability of achieving common reporting and due diligence standards. Based on these considerations, the countries “have agreed to explore a common approach to FATCA implementation through domestic reporting and reciprocal automatic exchange and based on existing bilateral tax treaties,” the joint statement said. The document also offers a possible framework for an intergovernmental approach that provides a valuable insight into Treasury’s thinking on the subject.

How to split foreign taxes and claim foreign tax credit when there is combined foreign income? IRS issues final Regs.

IRS has issued final regs clarifying eligibility for the foreign tax credit. Specifically, they provide additional guidance for determining who is considered to pay a foreign tax for purposes of the foreign tax credit. The regs affect taxpayers claiming direct and indirect foreign tax credits.

Code Sec. 901 permits taxpayers to claim a credit for income, war profits, and excess profits taxes paid or accrued during the tax year to any foreign country or to any U.S. possession. In 2006, IRS issued proposed regs that would retain the general principle that tax is considered paid by the person who has legal liability under foreign law for the tax. However, they would further clarify application of the legal liability rule in situations where foreign law imposes tax on the income of one person but requires another person to remit the tax. The regs also provide detailed guidance on how to treat taxes paid on the combined income of two or more persons.

Code Sec. 909, which addresses concerns about the inappropriate separation of foreign income taxes and related income, was added by the Education, Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act, effective for foreign income taxes paid or accrued in tax years beginning on or before Dec. 31, 2010.

Under Code Sec. 909, there is a foreign tax credit splitting event if a foreign income tax is paid or accrued by a taxpayer and the related income is, or will be, taken into account by a covered person with respect to such taxpayer. In such a case, the tax is suspended until the tax year in which the related income is taken into account by the payor of the tax.

Planning to attend a Convention in Panama? Rejoice! You are now in “North America” for travel expense deduction

IRS recently announced (IRB 2011-48) that Panama is now included in the North American region for the purposes of IRC 274 in order to claim the travel expenses for attending conventions. Until recently, in order to claim expenses related to travel for convention in Panama taxpayers had to meet special conditions.

IRS Publication 463 states that “You can deduct your travel expenses when you attend a convention if you can show that your attendance benefits your trade or business. You cannot deduct the travel expenses for your family.”

It further states that “You cannot deduct expenses for attending a convention, seminar, or similar meeting held outside the North American area unless:

• The meeting is directly related to your trade or business, and
• It is as reasonable to hold the meeting outside the North American area as in it.”

The North American area per IRS includes American Samoa, Antigua and Barbados, Aruba, Bahamas, Bermuda, Costa Rica, Canada, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Puerto Rico and US Virgin Island to list only a few. The North American area also includes U.S. islands, cays, and reefs that are possessions of the United States and not part of the fifty states or the District of Columbia.

Panama is included in the list now.

IRS tightening grip – issues proposed regs on information reporting by U.S. passport applicants

IRS has issued proposed regs that set out rules on information reporting by passport applicants under Code Sec. 6039E.

Any individual who applies for a U.S. passport, or the renewal of a passport, or applies for the privilege of becoming a permanent U.S. resident  (green card application) must include with that application a statement containing certain items of tax information. (Code Sec. 6039E(a)) The information that must be included by both passport and immigrant applicants includes the applicant’s taxpayer identification number (TIN), if he has one. (Code Sec. 6039E(b)(1))

The 1992 proposed regs provided guidance for both passport and permanent resident applicants to comply with information reporting rules under Code Sec. 6039E, and indicated the responsibilities of specified federal agencies to provide certain information to IRS. Proposed regulations issued January 25th, replaces the 1992 regulations.

The new proposed regs under Code Sec. 6039E would require an individual applying for a U.S. passport, other than an individual who applies for an official passport, diplomatic passport or passport for use on other official U.S. government business, to provide certain information with his passport application. (Prop Reg § 301.6039E-1(a))

The passport applicant would have to provide:

(1) the applicant’s full name and, if applicable, previous name;

(2) address of regular or principal place of residence within the country of residence and, if different, mailing address;

(3) taxpayer identifying number (TIN); and

(4) date of birth. (Prop Reg § 301.6039E-1(b)(1))

The required information would have to be submitted with the passport application, regardless of where the applicant resides at the time it is submitted. (Prop Reg § 301.6039E-1(b)(2))

IRS could impose a $500 penalty amount on any passport applicant who failed to provide the required information. (Prop Reg § 301.6039E-1(c))

 

How much Taxpayer information is currently being exchanged by US?

PALO ALTO—U.S. participation in exchange of information agreements does not mean that the Internal Revenue Service automatically releases taxpayer information to any nation that requests it, Douglas O’Donnell, IRS assistant deputy commissioner (International), said on Jan. 20.
“Every country that’s on the receiving end of a specific request is paying very close attention to the narrative of the story that is being told by the requesting jurisdiction,” he told attendees at the 2012 Pacific Rim Tax Institute. That way, he said, countries“know whether they have met the standard to request the information.”
Since the Group of 20 launched its global initiative in 2009 to safeguard the international financial system through improved transparency, more than 700 additional EOI agreements have been signed and 81 nations—including the United States—have undergone peer reviews, O’Donnell said.

Courtesy – thetaxtimes.blogspot.com

India SC judgement gives $4 billion relief in Vodafone case

In a hitorical judgemnet which was eagerly awaited by many foreign investors, Supreme Court of India ordered the Income tax department to refund $4 billion along with 4% interest to Vodafone. Here is what “The Economic Times” reported about the implications of the judgement in an excellent manner:

“Federal courts of many countries have been relying on Indian cases. The landmark judgement in case of Azadi Bachao Andolan, which reaffirmed the validity of India-Mauritius tax treaty, is a pleasure to read even today. So, what does this judgement mean for each of the stakeholders in the Indian economy?

FOR VODAFONE: This is the end of a long drawn legal battle for Vodafone and its battery of lawyers. The SC has asked the revenue to return the tax collected along with interest of 4% p.a. and vacating the bank guarantee. There must be a feeling of justice delayed but not denied in the Vodafone camp.

FOR OTHER LITIGANTS: Encouraged by the success in the preliminary round of litigation, the revenue has raised tax claim in several other cases where shares of overseas companies have been sold. This judgement is now law of the land. The revenue may not be able to collect tax on transfer of offshore holding companies with similar fact pattern. These companies will be spared of agony and legal costs. However, the SC has left a window open for the revenue to ‘look through’ the structures in case of sham.

FOR FDI INVESTORS: They can heave a sigh of relief. The SC has upheld the separate entity principle and recognised the need for holding structures. By enunciating the ‘look at’ principle this judgement asks that the revenue should look at the entire transaction to ascertain its true legal nature. Further, the onus has been placed on the revenue to identify a scheme and its dominant purpose. So, if an investor exits at the holding company level, it cannot be taxed in India on the basis that the underlying investment is in India. It is time to focus on building value in the business and not lose sleep over taxes.

FOR MAURITIUS INVESTORS: While the treaty was not the issue before the SC, The judgement sets to rest the controversy about Azadi Bachao Andolan case. In the absence of Limitation of Benefit provisions, treaty must be respected and the tax residency certificate can not be ignored unless the treaty is abused for fraudulent purpose of tax evasion.

This means that till the time treaty is amended, the capital gains tax exemption will be available to the Mauritius sellers. A word of caution for those who interpose treaty jurisdiction as an afterthought, just before the exit. In such a case, it might be viewed as a pre-ordained transaction and the revenue may challenge the treaty claim. Need for substance and razor sharp documentation cannot be undermined.

FOR PRIVATE EQUITY INVESTORS: Assurance of treaty benefits will bring in a lot more certainty. The options for exit will increase as now the buyers may be willing to buy offshore holding companies. The pressure from the buyers who were insisting on withholding tax or obtaining a nil withholding certificate will reduce. The big booster will be the reading down of Section 195 which provides for tax withholding on payments made to non-residents.

The judgement says that where the contract is executed outside India and the payment is made outside India by one non-resident to another, withholding tax burden cannot be imposed. While this is the view of Justice Radhakrishnan, in the absence of dissent note from the Chief Justice, this might be the verdict of SC.

FOR M&A ASPIRANTS: This would mean one less hurdle to cross before closing a transaction. Tax has been a deal breaker in several M&A deals. Negotiations around tax indemnities and escrows will reduce. Rule of law and clarity and certainty in tax policy will make India a worthy destination for new investors.

FOR REVENUE: While the verdict might have come as a huge disappointment, the tax administrators and their counsels have become a lot more sharper and agile. They almost had everyone convinced that Indian law was wide enough to bring indirect transfers in the tax net. Now all the focus will be on the upcoming finance bill and how the source rules can be rewritten and taxing jurisdiction can be established.

FOR GOVERNMENT: Certainty in law in dealing with cross border investment issues is critical in attracting foreign investment. In words of Justice Radhakrishnan, this case is an eye opener of where we lack in our regulatory laws and what measures need to be taken without sacrificing national interest.

We may see a renewed attempt to renegotiate the treaties and to bring in general anti avoidance rule or substance over form rule in the current statute.

FOR JUDICIARY: This is a huge leap of faith. The judiciary’s ability to interpret law without being swayed by the stakes involved will help India regain investor confidence.

FOR PROFESSIONALS: The anxiety of foreign investors and aggressive stance of revenue had led many professionals to be circumspect of advising on tax planning. Most chose to err on the side of caution and the level of confidence in expressing an opinion was on a sliding scale. This judgement should be helpful in future once general anti avoidance rule is introduced.”

Withholding for Non Resident Aliens has changed for 2012

Per Publication 15, IRS has revised the amount that must be added to a nonresident alien employee’s wages to compute withholding, effective with wages paid beginning Jan. 1, 2012. The withholding calculations for nonresident alien employees are different than for other employees, because nonresident alien employees are not entitled to the standard deduction that is built into the withholding tables. Notice 2005-76, 2005-2 CB 947, requires employers to add an amount to wages before determining withholding under the wage bracket or percentage methods in order to offset the standard deduction built into the withholding tables. The addback amount varies by pay period (i.e., weekly, biweekly, monthly, etc.). The addback amounts for the 2012 tax year are as follows:

• Weekly Payroll: $41.35
• Biweekly Payroll: $82.69
• Semimonthly Payroll: $89.58
• Monthly Payroll: $179.17
• Quarterly Payroll: $537.50
• Semiannual Payroll: $1,075.00
• Annual Payroll: $2,150.00
• Daily or Miscellaneous Payroll: $8.27

Employers should add the above amounts to the wages that the nonresident alien employee earns during the payroll period before computing withholding. Employers must also consider the number of withholding allowances that the nonresident alien employee claimed before computing withholding (generally limited to one allowance). The addback does not apply to wages earned by nonresident alien students from India and business apprentices from India. (RIA)