Let's Talk Tax Inversions - Part One

You may have read recently that Burger King is acquiring Tim Hortons Inc, a Canadian coffee and donut chain. What has attracted attention is the deal is structured as an inversion, which means that the American company (Burger King) will be moving its tax residency to Canada. I suppose it was hypothetically possible that the deal could have moved Tim Hortons Inc to the U.S. (think of it as a reverse inversion), but that would not have drawn the attention of the politicians.

The combined company will be the world’s third-largest fast-food company, right behind McDonalds and Yum! Brands (think KFC and Taco Bell). While the U.S. will have by far the largest number of locations, the majority of the revenue – again by far – will be from Canada.

An issue at play is that U.S. companies face a very harsh tax system, one in which they are to pay U.S. tax on all profits, even if those profits originated overseas and may never be returned to the U.S. Combine that with the world’s highest corporate tax rate, and it becomes fairly easy to understand why companies pursue inversions. In certain industries (such as pharmaceuticals), it is virtually imperative that the some part of the company be organized overseas, as the default tax consequences would be so prohibitive as to likely render the company uncompetitive.

Let’s talk a bit about inversions.

Inversions first received significant Congressional scrutiny in the 1980s, when McDermott Inc did the following:

·        McDermott organized a foreign subsidiary, treated as a controlled foreign corporation for U.S. tax;

·        The subsidiary issued stock in exchange for all the outstanding stock of McDermott itself; and          

·        Thus McDermott and its subsidiary traded places, with the subsidiary becoming the parent.

In response Congress passed IRC Sec 1248(i), requiring any future McDermott to report dividend income – and pay tax – on all of its subsidiary’s earnings and profits (that is, its undistributed profits).

In the 1990s, Helen of Troy Corp had its shareholders exchange their stock for stock of a new foreign parent company.

In response the IRS issued Reg 1.367(a)-3(c), requiring the U.S. shareholders to be taxable on the exchange because they owned more than 50% of the foreign company after the deal was done.

In the aughts, Valeant Pharmaceuticals paid a special dividend to its shareholders immediately before being acquired by Biovail, a Canadian corporation. Valeant paid out so much money - thereby reducing its own value - that the Valeant shareholders owned less than 50% of the foreign company.

Interesting enough, this did not (to the best of my knowledge) draw a government response. There is a “stuffing” rule, which prohibits making the foreign corporation larger. There is no “thinning” rule, however, prohibiting making the U.S. company thinner.

Then there was a new breed of inversions. Cooper Industries, Nabors Industries, Weatherford International and Seagate Technologies did what are called “naked” inversions. The new foreign parent incorporated in the Cayman Islands or Bermuda, and there was no effort to pretend that the parent was going to conduct significant business there. The tax reason for the transaction was stripped for all to see – that is, “naked.”

That was a bridge too far.

Congress passed IRC Sec 7874, truly one of the most misbegotten sections in the tax Code. Individually the words make sense, but combine them and one is speaking gibberish.

Let’s break down Section 7874 into something workable. We will split it into three pieces:

(1)  The foreign company has to acquire substantially all the assets of a domestic company. We can understand that requirement.

(2)  The U.S. shareholders (referred to “legacy” shareholders) own 60% or more of the foreign parent. There are three sub-tiers:

a.     If the legacy shareholders own at least 80%, the IRS will simply declare that nothing occurred and will tax the foreign company as if it were a U.S. company;

b.     If the legacy shareholders own at least 60% but less than 80%, the IRS would continue to tax the foreign company on its “inversion gain” for 10 years.

                                                              i.      What is an “inversion gain?” It involves using assets (think licenses, for example) to allow pre-inversion U.S. tax attributes to reduce post-inversion U.S. tax. The classic tax attribute is a net operating loss carryover.

c.      If the legacy shareholders own less than 60%, then Section 7874 does not apply. The new foreign parent will generally be respected for U.S. tax purposes.

But wait! There is a trump card.

(3)  The IRS will back off altogether if the foreign company has “substantial business presence” in the new parent’s country of incorporation.

There is something about a trump card, whether one is playing bridge or euchre or structuring a business transaction. The tax planners wanted a definition. Initially the IRS said that “substantial business presence” meant 10% of assets, sales and employees. It later changed its mind and said that 10% was not enough. It did not say what would be enough, however. It said it would decide such issues on “facts and circumstances.” This sounds acceptable, but to a tax planner it is not. It is the equivalent of saying that one need not stop at a stop sign, as long as one is not “interfering” with traffic. What does that mean, especially when one has family in the car and is wondering if the other driver has any intention of stopping?

After three years the IRS said that it thought 25% was just about right. Oh, and forget about any “facts and circumstances,” as the IRS did not want to hear about it.

The 25% test was a cynical threshold, figuring that no one country – other than the U.S. – could possibly reach 25% by itself. Even the E.U. market – which could rival the U.S. – is comprised of many individual countries, making it unlikely (barring Germany, I suppose) that any one country could reach 25%.

Until Pfizer attempted to acquire AstraZeneca, a U.K. based company. The White House then proposed reducing the 80% test to a greater-than-50% test and eliminating the 60% test altogether. It also wanted to eliminate any threshold test if the foreign corporation is primarily managed from the United States.

The Pfizer deal fell through, however, and there no expectation that this White House proposal will find any traction in Congress.

And there is our short walk through the minefield of tax inversions.

There is one more thing, though. You may be wondering if the corporate officers and directors are impacted by the tax Code. Surely you jest- of course they are! There is a 15% excise tax on their stock-based compensation. How does this work out in the real world? We will talk about this in our next blog, when we will discuss the Medtronic – Covidien merger. 

On Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway and PFICs

We have spoken before about passive foreign investment companies, or PFICs (pronounced pea-fick). There was a time when I saw these on a regular basis, and I remember wondering why the IRS made the rules so complicated.

I am thinking about PFICs because yesterday I read a release for IRS Notice 2014-28. The IRS is amending Regulations concerning the tax consequences of U.S. persons owning a passive foreign investment company through an account or organization which is tax-exempt. Think a hospital, pension plan or IRA, for example. 

Granted, this is not as interesting as Game of Thrones or Sons of Anarchy.

Could you walk unknowingly into a PFIC? It is not likely for the average person, but it is not as difficult as you might think.

PFICs came into the tax Code in 1986. They were intended to address what Congress saw as a loophole. I agree that there was a loophole, but whether the tax fly required the sledgehammer response it received is debatable.

There were a couple of ways to get to the loophole. One way would be to form a foreign corporation and have the corporation invest in stocks and bonds. This means you are forming a foreign mutual fund. There are a couple of issues with this, the key one being that it would require a large number of investors in order to avoid the rules for a controlled foreign corporation. To the extent that 10%-or-more U.S. shareholders owned more than 50% of the foreign corporation, for example, one would have a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) and would be back into the orbit of U.S. taxation.

The second way is to invest in an existing foreign mutual fund. Say that you invested in a German fund sponsored by Deutsche Bank, for example.

And the average person would say: so what? You invested in mutual fund.

Here s what the IRS did not like: the mutual fund could skirt the taxman by not paying dividends or distributions.  The value of the fund would increase, as it would accumulate its earnings.  When you sold that foreign mutual fund, you would have capital gains and you would pay U.S. tax.

Well, the IRS was unhappy with that, as you did not pay tax on dividends every year and, when you did pay, you paid capital gains rather than ordinary income tax. How dare you?

Why the sarcasm? Because you can get the same tax result from owning Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffet does not pay a dividend, and never has. You hold onto your shares for a few years and pay capital gains tax when you sell. The IRS never receives its tax on annual dividends, and you pay capital gains rather than ordinary tax on the sale.

Why the difference between the Berkshire Hathaway and Deutsche Bank? Exactly my point. Why is there a difference?

So we have PFIC taxation. Its sole purpose is to deny the deferral of tax to Americans investing in foreign mutual funds.

There are three ways to tax a PFIC.

The default scheme is found in Code Section 1291. You are allowed to defer taxation on a PFIC until the PFIC makes an “excess” distribution. An excess distribution is defined as one of two events:

(1)   The PFIC distributes an amount in excess of 125% of the average distribution for its preceding three years; or

(2)   You sell the PFIC stock.

Let’s say that we use the default taxation on the PFIC. What does your preparer (say me) have to do next?

(1)   I have to calculate your additional tax per year had the distribution been equally paid over the period you owned it (this part is relatively easy: it is the highest tax rate for that year); and

(2)   I have to calculate interest on the above annual tax amounts.

You can imagine my thrill in anticipation of this magical, career-fulfilling tax opportunity. There are severe biases in this calculation, such as presuming that any income or gain was earned pro rata over your holding period. I have seen calculations where - using 15 to 20 year holding periods - the tax and interest charge can approach 100%. This is not taxation. This is theft.

The second option is to annually calculate a "mark to market" on the PFIC. This works if there is a published trading or exchange price. You subtract the beginning-of-year value from the end-of-year value and pay tax on it. I have never seen a tax professional use this option, and frankly it strikes me as tax madness. With extremely limited exceptions, the tax Code does not consider asset appreciation to be an adequate trigger to impose tax. There would be no 401(k) industry, for example, if the IRS taxed 401(k)s like they tax PFICs.

The third option is what almost everyone does, assuming they recognize they have a PFIC and make the necessary election to be taxed as a “qualified election fund,” or QEF for short.

   OBSERVATION: Tax practitioners like their acronyms, as you can see.

There are two very important factors to a QEF:

           

(1)   You have to elect.

a.     No election, no QEF.

(2)   The foreign fund has to agree to provide you numbers, made up special just for its American investors. The fund has to tell you what your interest and dividends and capital gains would have been had it actually distributed income rather than accumulate.

You can fast forward why: because you are going to pay tax on income you did not receive.

What happens in the future when you sell the fund? Remember, you have been paying tax while the fund was accumulating. Don’t you get credit for all those taxes when you finally sell?

Yes, you do, and I have to track whichever of three calculations we decide on in a permanent file. For every fund you own.

BTW there had better be a specific form attached to your tax return: Form 8621. If you were required to disclose a foreign financial account (which a PFIC would be) and did not do so, either on Form 8621 or on another form intended for that purpose, the IRS might be able to "toll" the statute of limitations. Tolling means "suspend" in tax talk. This means the IRS could assess taxes, penalties and interest many years after the tax year should normally have closed. 

This applies only to rich people, right? Not so much, folks. This tax pollution has a way of dissolving down to affect very ordinary Americans.

How? Here are a couple of common ways:

(1)   You live abroad.

You live abroad. You invest abroad.

I intend to retire abroad, so some day this may affect me. Me and all the other tax CPA billionaires high-stepping it out of Cincinnati. Yep, we are a gang of tax-avoiding desperados, all right.

(2)   You work/worked in Canada.

And you have a RSSP. The RRSP is invested in Canadian mutual funds. How likely is this to happen? How about “extremely likely.”

There you have two ordinary as rain ways that someone can walk into a PFIC.

Keep in mind that the IRS is convinced that anyone with a nickel overseas is hiding money. We have already gone through the FBAR and OVDI fiascos, and tax literature is thick with stories of ordinary people who were harassed if not near-bankrupted by obscure and never-before-enforced tax penalties. The IRS is unabashed and wonders why you – the average person – cannot possibly keep up with its increasingly frenetic schedule of publishing tax rules, required disclosures, Star Trek parodies, bonuses to deadbeat employees and Fifth Amendment-pleading crooks.

Beginning in 2014, FATCA legislation requires all “foreign financial institutions” to report to the IRS all assets held by U.S. citizens and permanent residents. The U.S. citizen and permanent resident in turn will disclose all this information on new forms the IRS has created for this purpose – assuming one can find a qualified U.S. tax practitioner in Thailand, Argentina or wherever else an American may work or retire. Shouldn’t be a problem for that overseas practitioner to spot your PFIC – and all the related tax baggage that it draws in its wake - right?

What happens if one doesn’t know to file the PFIC form, or files the form incorrectly? I think we have already seen the velvet fist of the IRS with FBARs and OVDI. Why is this going to be any different?

The IRS Is Looking For Hundreds of Thousands of Canadian Trust Returns

The IRS wants us to believe that there are hundreds of thousands of Americans who have failed to file required U.S. tax returns for their Canadian trusts.

Nonsense.

Let’s go over this, as it reflects a relentless demand by Treasury and the IRS for ever-more information on any financial transaction that may have –even remotely - an American connection. 

If an American funds or receives a distribution from a foreign trust, he or she is supposed to file tax Form 3520 with his/her Form 1040. If an American has a continuing interest in the trust (the likely reason is that he/she is a beneficiary), then he/she also has to file Form 3520-A annually. 

If one is so obstinate as to not file the 3520 or 3520-A, the IRS has a penalty of $10,000 they will gladly drop on you. You can get out of the penalty by showing “reasonable cause” for not filing, but the IRS reserves the right to define reasonable cause. 

  

The issue with reasonable cause is that it presumes both parties are reasonable, a presumption the IRS is near to abrogating. For example, whose brilliant idea was it to impose an automatic $10,000 penalty? The penalty for late filing of your personal tax return is 5% of the tax due per month – not $10,000. Late file a partnership return and the penalty is $195 per K-1 per month – not $10,000.  Why is this penalty different? Does the Treasury suspect that we are all hiding hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars overseas? If so, where is mine?

Am I being heavy-handed? Let me give you three examples of what the IRS considers to be Canadian trusts:

• registered education savings plans (RESPs)
• tax free savings accounts (TFSAs)
• registered disability savings plans (RDSPs)

A RESP is a Canadian Section 529 plan, but with a twist. Like the American 529 plan, you open the account at a bank, broker or other financial institution. You or other family members can contribute. Unlike a 529, however, Canada will match your contribution, up to a certain percentage. Like a 529, there will be taxes when the child withdraws money to attend college.

There is no U.S. equivalent to a tax-free savings account. There is no deduction for the contribution, but there is no tax on withdrawals either. This aspect resembles an American Roth, but the Canadian TFSA is not limited to retirement savings. There are limits on how much one can contribute, of course, and for low-income taxpayers the government will contribute 500 hundred dollars Canadian.

Once again, there is no U.S. equivalent to a registered disability savings plan. The government will match one’s contribution, and for low-income taxpayers it will contribute up to 2 thousand dollars Canadian. Its purpose is self-descriptive.

The issue with the above three is that most people – even financially astute people – would not consider these vehicles to be trusts. We see savings vehicles, perhaps government-subsidized, but we do not see trusts. The problem however is that the IRS sees them as trusts. The IRS has defined a dog as a four-legged animal, and it now doesn’t know how to undefine any four-legged animal from being a dog. We are sitting ducks for that $10,000 penalty. 

What if you decide not to file prior IRS returns and just begin filing for the current year? One could easily come to this decision if there isn’t much money involved. This technique is known as “quiet disclosure.” Many practitioners, including me, have used it. The IRS does not care for it. The IRS has three reservations about quiet disclosures:

(1) Using quiet disclosures undermines the incentive to use government-approved disclosure programs, such as the most recent OVDP with its 27.5% penalty on the account’s highest balance over the last eight years. That is on top of any other applicable IRS penalties.

(2) Taxpayers using quiet disclosures may pay fewer penalties than those using the government-approved programs.

(3) Quiet disclosure is antithetical to general fairness, meaning that some taxpayers receive more favorable treatment than others do.

OBSERVATION: After the 501(c)(4) scandal, one will forgive my extreme cynicism on argument (3). Perhaps I will relent some when IRS bigwigs go to jail. It's only fair.

Reread (1) and (2) and you can see the real reason the IRS does not like quiet disclosures. It is not sufficient merely to bring someone back into compliance.

How is a reasonable person supposed to comply with the tax law, when the law is capricious? Consider that ignorance of the tax law is not defined as “reasonable cause” and you begin to see the box that the IRS is placing you in. They can pass any ludicrous demand – perhaps they want the napkin from your third lunch in the fifth week of alternating quarters – and then, with a straight face, say that your ignorance of their requirements is not an excuse.

It is also how they can say that hundreds of thousands of American citizens have failed to file for their Canadian trusts.

New Plan for U.S. Expats to Comply With The IRS

There is good tax news for many U.S. expats and dual citizens. Beginning September 1^st, the IRS is starting a new program allowing many expats to catch-up on late tax returns and late FBARs without penalties.

This new program is different from the “Offshore Voluntary Disclosure” programs of the last few years. For one thing, this program is more geared to an average expat. Secondly, and more important to the target audience of the OVD programs, this program does not offer protection from criminal prosecution. That is likely a nonissue to an average expat who has been living and working in a foreign country for several years and has not been trying to hide income or assets from the U.S.

Under this new program, an expat will file 3 years of income tax returns and 6 years of FBARs. This is much better than the 8 years of income tax returns and 8 years of FBARs for OVD program participants.

All returns filed under this program will be reviewed by the IRS, but the IRS will divide the returns into two categories:

Low Risk – These will be simple tax returns, defined as expats living and working in foreign countries, paying foreign taxes, having a limited number of investments and owing U.S. tax of less than $1,500 for each year. Low risk taxpayers will get a pass – they will pay taxes and interest but no penalties.

NOTE: When you consider that the expat will receive a foreign tax credit for taxes paid the resident country, it is very possible that there will be NO U.S. tax.

 Higher Risk – These will be more complicated returns with higher incomes, significant economic activity in the U.S., or returns otherwise evidencing sophisticated tax planning. These returns will not qualify for the program and (likely) will be audited by the IRS. This is NOT the way to go if there is any concern about criminal prosecution. However, it MAY BE the way to go if concern over criminal prosecution is minimal. Why? The wildcard is the penalties. Under OVDP a 27.5% penalty is (virtually) automatic. Under this new program the IRS may waive penalties if one presents reasonable cause for noncompliance.

NOTE: This is one of the biggest complaints about the OVD program and its predecessors: the concept of “reasonable cause” does not apply. The IRS consequently will not mitigate OVD penalties. This may have made sense for multimillionaires at UBS, but it does not make sense for many of the expats swept-up by an outsized IRS dragnet.

The IRS has also announced that the new program will allow resolution of certain tax issues with foreign retirement plans. The IRS got itself into a trap by not recognizing certain foreign plans as the equivalent of a U.S. IRA. This created nasty tax problems, since contributions to such plans would not be deductible (under U.S. tax law) and earnings in such plans would not be tax-deferred (under U.S. tax law). You had the bizarre result of a Canadian IRA that was taxable in the U.S.

QUESTION: If your tax preparer had told you that this was the tax result of your Canadian RSSP, would you have believed him/her? Would you have questioned their competency? Sadly, they would have been right.