The recently enacted tax reform legislation significantly expanded the application of Subpart F, adding a new inclusion rule for non-routine controlled foreign corporation (CFC) income, termed global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI). The GILTI rules apply higher tax rates to GILTI attributed to individuals and trusts that own CFC stock than to C corporation shareholders. There are several steps which individuals and trusts may take to defer or reduce the effect of the GILTI rules on individuals and trusts.
Recent broad tax reform legislation which applies to both US and non-US multinationals with cross-border operations has, among other things, reduced the corporate income tax rate and reformed the US international tax system. Several of the provisions could increase a foreign multinational entity's (FMNE's) US tax liability and compliance and administrative burdens. As such, FMNEs should thoroughly review their US operations, paying particular attention to cross-border payments to non-US related parties.
The 2017 tax reform act is now law, leaving private equity and M&A professionals to digest these significant changes and reconcile the new provisions with how they do business. Among other things, the act provides for a permanent reduction of the corporate tax rate to a flat rate of 21% and repeals the corporate alternative minimum tax. The act will be subject to corrections by and guidance from the US Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service in the coming months.
In an effort to offset the revenue loss associated with proposed tax cuts, both the House of Representatives tax reform bill and the corresponding Senate draft take aim at the tax treatment of several popular employer-provided fringe benefits. At this early stage of the legislative process, it is important to note that these proposals are subject to change. Nevertheless, it is important for employers to know which of their programmes may be cut or eliminated as soon as 2018.
Taxpayers that are not afforded the opportunity to seek review by Internal Revenue Service appeals after a case has been docketed in the Tax Court should seek to elevate the matter up the chain to obtain reconsideration and reversal of such a decision. If that course of action is unsuccessful, taxpayers should consider other options. In this regard, the outcome of Facebook's recent case in the District Court for the Northern District of California may be instructive.
The Tax Court recently rejected an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) attempt to expand on the privilege waiver principles set out in a previous case. The court concluded that the IRS was not entitled to any documents from the period after a notice of deficiency was issued, making clear that subpoenas are not for broad-based 'fishing expeditions'. The case is consistent with the IRS's recent pattern of arguing aggressively against the assertion of privilege and work-product protections in tax audits.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently published an Office of Chief Counsel IRS memorandum, which deals with a merchant bank's claim that its revenue from merchant discount fees qualifies as domestic product gross receipts under Internal Revenue Code Section 199. The memorandum is further proof that taxpayers and the IRS do not see eye to eye.
Coca-Cola is seeking a redetermination in the Tax Court of certain Internal Revenue Service (IRS) transfer-pricing adjustments relating to its 2007 to 2009 tax years. The IRS has moved for partial summary judgment seeking a ruling that a 1996 Internal Revenue Code Section 7121 closing agreement executed by the parties is not relevant to the case before the court.
Faced with the prospect of potential tax liability after an unsuccessful audit, taxpayers can file a petition in the US Tax Court before paying the liability or pay the liability, make a claim for refund and sue the government for a refund in a local district court or the Court of Federal Claims. For taxpayers that select the Tax Court route, sometimes a question later arises as to whether they can seek to dismiss their case in order to refile in a different forum.
The US Department of the Treasury recently submitted a report to the president recommending the withdrawal, revocation or revision of eight Treasury regulations in order to eliminate or otherwise mitigate the "burdens imposed on taxpayers". This action springs from Executive Order 13789, which called on the Treasury to identify and reduce tax regulatory burdens that impose undue financial burdens on US taxpayers or otherwise add undue complexity to federal tax laws.