Let's Talk Tax Inversions - Part Two

Last time we discussed the taxation of an inverting corporation.

There are three levels of tax severity to the corporation itself:

(1)   The IRS ignores the inversion completely and continues to tax the foreign company as if it were a U.S. company

(2)   The IRS will respect the foreign company as foreign, but woe to whoever tries to move certain assets out of the U.S. or otherwise use certain U.S. – based tax attributes for a period of 10 years.

(3)   The IRS will respect the transaction without reservation.

Then there is the toll-charge on the shareholders. If they own more than 50% of the new foreign company, the shareholders will pay tax on their shares AS IF they had sold them rather than exchanged them for stock in the new foreign parent.  The practical effect is that any inversion has to include cash to the U.S. shareholders, otherwise such shareholders would be reaching into their wallet to pay tax (and would likely vote to scuttle any inversion deal).

It was this toll charge that caught the attention of Congress. If you think about it, someone owning actual shares would be taxed, but someone having a future right to shares would not. Who would such a person be? How about corporate insiders: management and directors? Executives frequently receive stock options and other stock-based compensation. Congress felt that management and directors should also have “skin in the game,” thus the origin of Section 4985. 

One quickly realizes the parity Congress wanted:

(1)   First, Section 4985 applies only if gain is realized by any shareholder. If there is no toll charge on the shareholders, then there will be no toll charge on management and directors.

(2)   The Section 4985 tax will be the highest tax rate payable by the shareholders, which is the capital gains rate (15%)

There is some technical lingo in here. The tax Code dragnets all individuals “subject to the requirements of Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934” – in short, the officers, directors and 10% shareholders. It also includes their families.

So Congress wanted insiders to also pay tax. That’s great. I wanted to play in the NFL.

Let’s take a look at another Congressional attempt to “rope in” executive pay: the golden parachute limitations of Section 280G. This tax applies to “excess” compensation payments upon a change in corporate control. The insider is allowed a base amount (defined as average annual compensation for the five years preceding the year of change in control). The excess is subject to an additional 20% excise tax – in addition to the payroll and income taxes already paid.

How does it work away from the fever swamp of Washington?

It doesn’t. Corporations routinely “gross-up” the executive compensation until the tax is shifted back to the corporation.

I suspect that every tax accountant has run into a compensation “gross up” exercise. I have done enough over the years to make my eyes cross.

Let’s return to our inversion discussion. What do you think companies are doing when their executives are subjected to the 15% Section 4985 excise tax?

Yep, the gross-up.

The mathematics of a gross-up are terrible. Let’s take the example of someone who is subject to the maximum federal tax rate (39.6%), add in the ObamaCare Medicare tax (0.9%), the Section 4985 tax itself (15%) and a state tax (say 6%), and 61.5% of every dollar is going to tax (I am leaving out the deductibility of the state tax). If I am to gross-up a payroll, I am saying that only 38.5 cents of every dollar will be available to satisfy the original Section 4985 tax liability. This means that the gross-up will have to be $2.60 (that is, 1 divided by 38.5%) for every dollar of the original Section 4985 tax.

But Congress, never willing to leave a bigger mess undone, added yet another twist to Section 4985: the corporation is not allowed to deduct the gross-up. Let’s say that the excise tax was $1 million. The gross-up would be $2.6 million, none of which is deductible by the company.

Yipes!

Medtronic is a medical device maker based in Minneapolis. It operates in more than 120 countries and employs approximately 50,000 people worldwide. It has agreed to acquire Covidien, an Irish medical device company. Since we are talking about inversions, you can surmise that the new parent will be based in Ireland. For its part, Medtronic says it will be leaving its Minneapolis-based employees in Minneapolis, which makes sense when you consider that they have employees located throughout the planet.

Medtronic will of course continue to pay U.S. tax on its U.S. income. What it won’t do is pay U.S. tax on income earned outside the U.S. This is not an unreasonable position. Think about your response if California tried to tax you because you drank Napa Valley wine.

Medtronic triggered the Section 4985 excise tax on its executive officers and directors. This tax is estimated to be approximately $24 million.

Remember the loop-the-loop involved with a gross-up. How much will it cost Medtronic to gross-up its insiders for the $24 million?

Around $63 million.

None of which Medtronic can deduct on its tax return.

Can you explain to me how this can possibly be good for the shareholders of Medtronic? It isn’t, of course.

Way to play masters of the universe, Congress.

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?

Beany Baby Billionaire Caught With Secret Swiss Bank Account

I cannot understand people who go to great lengths to underreport income. I am not talking about tax planning – perhaps even aggressive tax planning – to reduce one’s tax under the law. Some actions are so routine one may not even see them as tax planning, such as moving from a higher-tax state (say Ohio) to a lower-tax state (say Florida or Nevada). 

What I am talking about is flat-out tax evasion. We have now crossed a line. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that no one is under compulsion to pay more tax than necessary, but likewise all are under compulsion to pay the appropriate tax.

Enter Ty Warner. He was responsible for the “beanie babies” from the 1990s and is the 100% owner of TY Inc and other business interests. There must be a LOT of money in beanie babies, as Forbes has ranked him as the 209th wealthiest American, with a net worth estimated at $2.6 billion.

He opens a secret bank account with UBS in 1996. In 2002 he transfers over $93 million from there to another Swiss Bank. He obfuscates the ownership of the account by tagging it with the name “Molani Foundation.” The UBS account threw off $3.2 million in income for 2002.  This income is not reported to the accountants and is not included on his tax return. Mind you, he had already reported $49.1 million on his income tax return.

QUESTION: Is it possible to have so much income that one forgets some of his/her income?

You can pretty much guess that there was no FBAR filed. How could there be? There apparently was no "foreign" account, at least to Warner.

Fast forward the conversation and UBS gets dragged into the IRS and Justice Department hunt for secret Swiss bank accounts.

Oh, oh, Warner realizes the jig is up. He tries to enter the IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program, but he was denied entry. A likely reason is that the IRS had already identified him as owner of one or more unreported accounts.

Now he has a serious problem. Could there be tax fraud? I cannot say. I can say that I recall sitting across a conference table from a client who could not tell you (or me) if his tax return – showing $33 million in gross income – included all his income for the year. Is it possible that $3.2 million got lost in Warner’s reported income of $49.1 million? It is possible, but the other actions – like fudging the name of the Swiss account or not telling the accountants – look bad.

What Warner did run into face-first is the FBAR reporting. This is the filing for foreign accounts over $10 thousand. It is mailed separately from the tax return, and it is due July 1. For decades no one paid much attention to these reports, but in the aughts the IRS decided that there was money to be found. They began the crackdown on foreign bank accounts, starting with UBS - eventually ensnaring Ty Warner. The penalties for an FBAR are confiscatorily insane, as the government somehow justifies that they can take up to half of whatever is in the account. For multiple years. Reflect for a moment that the government is saying that – should they press beyond two years - they can take from you more than you have – or ever had – in the account.

This has nothing to do with the earnings from the account. For example, for 2002 Warner’s secret account generated approximately $3.2 million in income. Did the government want taxes on the $3.2 million, which would be about $1 million? Nope. Did they want all of that $3.2 million? Nope.

What they wanted was one-half of the highest balance in the account. What was that amount for Warner? Try $53.6 million.

Warner doesn’t pay taxes on $3.2 million. Let’s be generous and say that it was $3.2 million for several years. It now costs him $53.6 million to cash-out?

Set aside whether this is confiscatory. I cannot understand why Warner –or anyone - would even go there. Let’s be honest: would he even have noticed the taxes had he correctly reported the $3.2 million to begin with?