Owing A Million Dollar Penalty

What caught my attention was the size of the penalty.

The story involves Letantia Russell, a dermatologist from California who has been in the professional literature way too much over too many years. The story started with her attorneys reorganizing her medical practice into a three-tiered structure and concealing ownership through use of nominees. Then there was the offshore bank account.

Let’s talk about that offshore account.

Back when I came out of school, one had to report foreign accounts above a certain dollar balance. The form was called the “TD 90-22.1.” I remember accountants who had never heard of it. It just wasn’t a thing.

The requirement hasn’t changed, but the times have.

If you have an overseas bank account, you are supposed to disclose it. The IRS has a question on Schedule B (where you report interest and dividends) whether you have a foreign bank account. If you answer yes, you are required to file that TD 90-22.1. The form does not go to the IRS; it instead goes to the Treasury Department. Mind you, the IRS is part of Treasury, but there are arcane rules about information sharing between government agencies and whatnot. Send to Treasury: good. Send to IRS: bad.

The rules were fairly straightforward: bank account, balance over $10 grand, own or able to sign on the account, required to file. There was no rocket science here.

Don’t play games with account types, either. A checking account is the same as a savings account which is the same as a money market and so on. Leave that hair-splitting stuff to the lawyers.

About a decade or so ago, the government decided to pursue people who were hiding money overseas. Think the traditional Swiss bank account, where the banker would risk jail rather than provide information on the ownership of an account. That Swiss quirk developed before the Second World War and was in response to the unstable Third Republic of France and Weimar government of Germany. Monies were moving fast and furious to Switzerland, and Swiss bankers made it a criminal offense to break a strict confidentiality requirement.

Thurston Howell III joked about it on Gilligan’s Island.

Travel forward to the aughts and the UBS scandal and the U.S. government was not laughing.

Swiss banks eventually agreed to disclose.

The IRS thundered that those who had … ahem, “underreported” … their foreign income in the past might want to clean-up their affairs.

The government dusted-off that old 90-22.1 and gave it a new name: FinCen 114 Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts.

The IRS was still miffed about that government-agency-sharing thing, so it came up with its own form: Form 8938 Statement of Foreign Financial Assets.

So you had to report that bank account to Treasury on the FinCen and to the IRS on Form 8938.  Trust me, even the accountants were trying to understand that curveball.

Resistance is futile, roared the IRS.

Many practitioners, me included, believed then and now that the IRS went fishing with dynamite. The IRS seemed unwilling to distinguish someone who inherited his/her mom’s bank account in India from a gazillionaire hedge-fund manager who knew exactly what he/she was doing when hiding the money overseas.

And you always have … those people.

Letantia Russell is one of those people.

The penalties can hurt. Fail to fail by mistake and the penalty begins at $10,000. Willfully fail to file and the penalty can be the greater of

·      $100,000 or

·      ½ the balance in the account

Letantia dew a $1.2 million penalty on her 2006 tax return. I normally sympathize with the taxpayer, but I do not here. One has to be a taxpayer before we can have that conversation.

It went to District Court. It then went to Appeals, where her attorneys lobbed every possible objection, including the unfortunate trade of Jimmy Garappolo from the New England Patriots to the San Francisco 49ers.

It was to no avail. She gets to pay a penalty that would make a nice retirement account for many of us.

The Foreign Income Exclusion When You Leave Mid-Year

We have a client who worked as a contractor in Afghanistan last year.

Let’s talk foreign income exclusion.

There are ropes.

The first is simple: to get to that exclusion you (a) must be a bona fide resident of a foreign country or (b) you have to be outside the United States for a certain number of days.

The bona fide exception is few and far between, and I doubt Afghanistan-as-a-destination would ever enter the conversation. In my experience, bona fide means a military, military-contractor or foreign service person (or family) who went overseas and did not return. There are only so many of those folks.

Nope, you and I (likely) have to meet a second test: the “physical presence” test. You and I have to be outside the United States for at least 330 days in a 365-day stretch.

A few things about this:

(1) 365 days does not necessarily mean a calendar year. It just needs to be 365 successive days. It does not have to end on December 31 or start on January 1.

(2) Let’s say that you are overseas for years. You can reset that 365-day period every year, as long as you can get to 330 days each time you reset.

(3) It does not mean that you have to be in the same country for 330 days. It just means that you have to be outside the United States. You can travel like a fiend – as long as you do not come back to the U.S.

(4) This is an all-or-nothing test. Botch the 330 days and you get nothing. There is no participation trophy here.

The maximum 2016 foreign income exclusion is $100,800.

Wait! There is a second calculation.

You have to prorate $100,800 by the number of days you were outside the U.S.

Huh?

Leave the U.S. late in the year – say August – and most of the exclusion disappears. Why? An August departure means the most you can claim is 5/12 of the maximum exclusion.

This second calculation very much means a calendar year.

And there you have the reason for much confusion in this area: there are two 12-month tests. The first one does not care whether your 12 months line-up with the calendar. The second one definitely means a calendar year.

Let’s recap:

(1) Take a 365-day period. It does not have to start on January 1; you can start it whenever you want.

a.    You need 330 days.

b.    Implicit in that statement is that some of those 330 days may have occurred in the calendar year before or following. It doesn’t matter. The 365 does not need to be in the same calendar year.

c.     Fail this test and you are done.

d.    Pass this test and you have a shot at winning the $100,800 prize.

(2) Next calculate how many days you were outside the U.S. in 2016. Divide that number by 365, giving you a ratio. We will call the ratio Mortimer.

a.    Multiply Mortimer by $100,800.

b.    The result is your maximum 2016 foreign income exclusion.

The first year can be a tax surprise for an American working overseas. It was for our client.

Why?

He was counting on the full $100,800.

What went wrong?

He did not leave the United States until April.

He was not happy.

“Destination-Based” “Border Adjustment” “Indirect Tax” … What?

The destination-based border adjustment tax.

I  have been reading about it recently.

If you cannot distinguish it from a value-added tax, a national sales tax, a tariff or all-you-can eat Wednesdays at Ruby Tuesday, you are in good company.

Let’s talk about it. We need an example company and exemplary numbers. Here is one. Let’s call it Mortimer. Mortimer’s most recent (and highly compressed) income statement numbers are as follows:

Sales			10,000,000
Cost of sales			(3,500,000)
Operating expenses			(4,000,000)
Net profit			2,500,000

How much federal tax is Mortimer going to pay? Using a 34% federal rate, Mortimer will pay $850,000 ($2,500,000 * 34%).

Cue the crazy stuff….

A new tax will bring its own homeboy tax definitions. One is “WTO,” or World Trade Organization, of which the U.S. is a part and whose purpose is to liberalize world trade. The WTO is a fan of “indirect taxes,” such as excise taxes and the Value Added Tax (VAT). The WTO is not so much a fan of “direct taxes,” such as the U.S. corporate tax. To get some of their ideas to pass WTO muster, Congressional Republicans and think-tankers have to reconfigure our corporate income tax to mimic the look and feel of an indirect tax.

One way to do that is to disallow deductions for Operating Expenses. An example of an operating expense would be wages.

As a CPA by training and experience, hearing that wages are not a deductible business expense strikes me as ludicrous. Let us nonetheless continue.

Our tax base becomes $6,500,000 (that is, $10,000,000 – 3,500,000) once we leave out operating expenses.

Not feeling so good about this development, are we?

Well, to have a prayer of ever getting out of the Congressional sub-subcommittee dungeon of everlasting fuhgett-about-it, the tax rate is going to have to come down substantially. What if the rate drops from 35% to 20%?

I see $6,500,000 times 20% = $1,300,000.

Well, this is stinking up the joint.

VATs normally allow one to deduct capital expenditures. We did not adjust for that. Say that Mortimer spent $1,500,000 on machinery, equipment and what-not during the year, What do the numbers now look like? 

• Sales                                       10,000,000
• Cost of Sales                            3,500,000
• Operating Expenses                 4,000,000
• Capital Additions                       1,500,000 

I am seeing $5,000,000 ($10,000,000 – 3,500,000 – 1,500,000) times 20% =  $1,000,000 tax.

Still not in like with this thing.

Let’s jump on the sofa a bit. What if we not tax the sale if it is an export? We want to encourage exports, with the goal of improving the trade deficit and diminishing any incentive for companies to invert or just leave the U.S. altogether.

Here are some updated numbers:

• Sales                                        10,000,000 (export $3,000,000)
• Cost of Sales                             3,500,000
• Operating Expenses                  4,000,000
• Capital Additions                        1,500,000 

I see a tax of: (($10,000,000 – 3,000,000) – (3,500,000 + 1,500,000) * 20% = 2,000,000 * 20% = $400,000 federal tax.

Looks like Mortimer does OK in this scenario.

What if Mortimer buys some of its products from overseas?

Oh oh.

Here are some updated, updated numbers:

• Sales                                       10,000,000
• Cost of Sales                            3,500,000 (import $875,000)
• Operating Expenses                 4,000,000
• Capital Additions                       1,500,000 

This border thing is a two-edged blade. The adjustment likes it when you export, but it doesn’t like it when you import. It may even dislike it enough to disallow a deduction for what you import.

I see a tax of: ($10,000,000 – (3,500,000 - 875,000) – 1,500,000) * 20% = 5,875,000 * 20% = $1,175,000 federal tax.

Mortimer is not doing so fine under this scenario. In fact, Mortimer would be happy to just leave things as they are.

Substitute “Target” or “Ford” for “Mortimer” and you have a better understanding of recent headlines. It all depends on whether you import or export, it seems, and to what degree.

By the way, the “border adjustment” part means the exclusion of export income and no deduction for import cost of sales. The “destination” part means dividing Mortimer’s income statement into imports and exports to begin with.

We’ll be hearing about this – probably to ad nauseum – in the coming months.

And the elephant in the room will be clearing any change through the appropriate international organizations. The idea that business expenses – such as labor, for example – will be nondeductible will ring very odd to an American audience.

  

Talking Expatriation (And A Little Latin)

A friend contacted me recently. He was calling to discuss the tax issues of expatriating. As background, there are two types of expatriation. The first is renouncing citizenship, which he is not considering. The second is simply living outside the United States. One remains an American, but one lives elsewhere.

It is not as easy as it used to be. 

I have, for example, been quite critical of Treasury and IRS behavior when it comes to Americans with foreign bank accounts. If you or I moved overseas, one of the first things we would do is open a bank account. As soon as we did, we would immediately be subject to the same regime as the U.S. government applies to the uber-wealthy suspected of stashing money overseas.  

Some aspects of the regime include:

(1) Having to answer questions on your tax return about the existence of foreign accounts. By the way, lying is a criminal offense, although filing taxes is generally a civic matter.

(2) Having to complete a schedule to your tax return listing your foreign financial and other assets. Move here from a society that has communal family ownership of assets and you have a nightmare on your hands. What constitutes wealthy for purposes of this schedule? Let’s start at $50,000, the price of a (very) nice pickup truck.

(3) Having to file a separate report with the Department of Treasury should you have a foreign bank account with funds in excess of $10,000. The reporting also applies if it is not your account but you nonetheless have authority to sign: think about a foreign employer bank account. It should be fun when you explain to your foreign employer that you are required to provide information on their account to the IRS.

(4) Requiring foreign banks to both obtain and forward to the IRS information about your accounts. Technically the foreign banks have a choice, but fail to make the “correct” decision and the IRS will simply keep 30% of monies otherwise going to them.

To add further insult, all this reporting has some of the harshest penalties in the tax Code. Fail to file a given tax form, for example, and take a $10,000 automatic penalty. Fail to file that report with the Treasury Department and forfeit half of your account to the government.

Now, some of this might be palatable if the government limited its application solely to the bigwigs. You know the kind: owners of companies and hedge fund managers and inherited wealth. But they don’t. There cannot be ten thousand people in the country who have enough money overseas to justify this behavior, so one is left wondering why the need for overreach. It would be less intrusive (at least, to the rest of us 320 million Americans) to just audit these ten thousand people every year. There is precedence: the IRS already does this with the largest of the corporations.

Did you know that – if you fail to provide the above information – the IRS will deem your tax return to be “frivolous?” You will be lumped in there with tax protestors who believe that income tax is voluntary and, if not, it only applies to residents of the District of Columbia.

There is yet another penalty for filing a frivolous return: $5,000. That would be on top of all the other penalties, of course. It’s like a party.

Many practitioners, including me, believe this is one of the reasons why record numbers of Americans overseas are turning-in their citizenship. There are millions of American expats. Perhaps they were in the military or foreign service. Perhaps they travelled, studied, married a foreign national and remained overseas. Perhaps they are “accidental” Americans – born to an American parent but have never themselves been to the United States. Can you imagine them having a bank close their account, or perhaps having a bank refuse to open an account, because it would be too burdensome to provide endless reams of information to a never-sated IRS? Why wouldn’t the banks just ban Americans from opening an account? Unfortunately, that is what is happening.

So I am glad to see the IRS lose a case in this area.

The taxpayer timely filed his 2011 tax return. All parties agreed that he correctly reported his interest and dividend income. What he did not do was list every interest and dividend account in detail and answer the questions on Schedule B (that is, Interest and Dividends) Part III. He invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and he wrote that answering those questions might lead to incriminating evidence against him.

Not good enough. The IRS assessed the penalty. The taxpayer in response requested a Collections Due Process Hearing.

Taxpayer said he had an issue: a valid Fifth Amendment claim. The IRS Appeals officer did not care and upheld the penalty.

Off to Tax Court they went.

And the Court reviewed what constitutes “frivolous” for purpose of the Section 6702 penalty:

(1) The document must purport to be a tax return.

(2) The return must either (i) omit enough information to prevent the IRS from judging it as substantially correct or (ii) it must clearly appear to be substantially incorrect.

(3) Taxpayer’s position must demonstrate a desire to impede IRS administration of the tax Code.

The first test is easy: taxpayer filed a return and intended it to be construed as a tax return.

On to the second.

Taxpayer failed to provide the name of only one payer. All parties agreed that the total was correct, however. The IRS argued that it needed this information so that it may defend the homeland, repair roads and bridges and present an entertaining Super Bowl halftime show. The Court asked one question: why? The IRS was unable to give a cogent reply, so the Court considered the return as filed to be substantially correct.

The IRS was feeling froggy on the third test. You see, the IRS had previously issued a Notice declaring that even mentioning the Fifth Amendment on a tax return was de facto evidence of frivolousness. Faciemus quod volumus [*], thundered the IRS. The return was frivolous.

The Court however went back and read that IRS notice. It brought to the IRS’ attention that it had not said that omitting some information for fear of self-incrimination was frivolous. Rather it had said that omitting “all” financial information was frivolous. You cannot file a return with zeros on every line, for example, and be taken seriously. That however is not what happened here.

The IRS could not make a blanket declaration about mentioning the Fifth Amendment because there was judicial precedence it had to observe.  Previous Courts had determined that a return was non-frivolous if the taxpayer had disclosed enough information (while simultaneously not disclosing so much as to incriminate himself/herself) to allow a Court to conclude that there was a reasonable risk of self-incrimination.

The Court pointed out the following:

(1) The taxpayer provided enough information to constitute an accurate return; and

(2) The taxpayer provided enough information (while holding back enough information) that the Court was able to conclude that he was concerned about filing an FBAR. The questions on Schedule B Part III could easily be cross-checked to an FBAR. Given that willful failure to file a complete and accurate FBAR is a crime, the Court concluded that the taxpayer had a reasonable risk of self-incrimination.

The Court dismissed the penalty.

The case is Youssefzadeh v Commissioner, for the at-home players.

I am of course curious why the taxpayer felt that disclosure would be self-incrimination. Why not just file a complete and accurate FBAR and be done with it? Fair enough, but that is not the issue. One would expect that an agency named the Internal “Revenue” Service would task itself with collecting revenue. In this instance, all revenue was correctly reported and collected. With that backdrop, why did the IRS pursue the matter? That is the issue that concerns me. 

[*] Latin for “we do what we want”

Pfizer Wants To Decrease Its Taxes By Moving To Britain

I am reading the following headline at Bloomberg Businessweek: “Pfizer’s $99 Billion Bid for AstraZeneca Is a Tax Shelter.”

No, it is not. This is a tax shelter the same way I am Floyd Mayweather Jr.’s next opponent.

It is sign of a problem, though.

Pfizer is based in New York City. AstraZeneca is based in London. Pfizer has proposed the deal, but AstraZeneca has not yet accepted. The deal may fall yet fall through. There are any number of reasons why a drug company would buy another drug company, but this one would move one of the largest U.S. multinationals to London. The term for this is “inversion.”

Mind you: the Pfizer executives are not moving. They will remain in New York, and Pfizer research facilities will remain in Connecticut. Pfizer will however go from being a U.S.-based multinational to a U.K.-based one. How? There will be a new parent company, and that parent will be based in London. Voila!

Inversions are more complicated than they used to be. In 2004 Congress passed IRC Section 7874, which denies tax benefits to an inversion unless certain thresholds are met. For example,

·       If the former shareholders of the former U.S. parent own 80% or more of the foreign corporation after the inversion, then the inverted company will continue to be considered – and taxed – as a U.S. company.

You can quickly assume that new – and non-U.S. shareholders – will own more than 20% of the new Pfizer parent.

What if you own Pfizer stock? In addition to owning less than 80% of the new parent, code Section 367 is going to tax you when Pfizer inverts. This is considered an “outbound” transaction, and there is a “toll” tax on the outbound. What does that tell you? It tells you that there has to be cash in the deal, otherwise you are voting against it. There has to be at least enough cash for the U.S. shareholders to pay the toll.

Let’s say the deal happens. Then what?

I cannot speak about the drug pipeline and clinical trials and so forth. I can speak about the tax part of the deal, however.

As a U.S. multinational, Pfizer has to pay taxes on its worldwide income. This means that that it pays U.S. taxes on profits earned in Kansas City, as well as in Bonn, Cairo, Mumbai and Sydney. To the extent that a competitor in Germany, Egypt, India or Australia has lower tax rates, Pfizer is at an immediate disadvantage. In the short term, Pfizer would be less profitable than its overseas competitor. In the long term, Pfizer would move overseas. Congress realized this and allowed tax breaks on these overseas profits. Pfizer doesn’t have to pay taxes until it brings the profits back to the United States, for example. Clever tax planners learned quickly how to bend, pull and stretch that requirement, so Congress passed additional rules saying that certain types of income (referred to as “Subpart F” income) would be immediately taxed, irrespective of whether the income was ever returned to the United States. The planners responded to that, and the IRS to them, and we now have an almost incomprehensible area of tax Code.

Take a moment, though, and consider what Congress did. If you made your bones overseas, you could delay paying taxes until you brought the money back to the U.S. Then you would have to pay tax – but at a higher rate than your competitor in Germany, Egypt, India or Australia. You delayed the pain, but you did not avert it. In the end, your competitor is still better off than you, as he/she got to keep more of his/her profit.

What do you do? Well, one thing you cannot do is ever return the profit to the United States. You will expand your overseas location, establish new markets, perhaps buy another – and foreign – company. What you will not do is ship the money home.

How much money has Pfizer stashed overseas? I have read different amounts, but $70 billion seems to be a common estimate.

When Pfizer inverts, it may be able to repatriate that money to the U.S. without paying the inbound toll. That is a lot of money to free up. I could use it.

The U.S. also has one of the highest – in truth, maybe the highest – corporate tax rate in the world. The U.K. taxes corporate profits at 20%, compared to the U.S. 35%. The U.K. also taxes profits on U.K. patents at 10%, an even lower rate. This is a pharmaceutical company, folks. They have more patents than Reese’s has pieces. And the U.K. taxes only the profits generated in the U.K., which is a 180 degree turn from Washington’s insistence that it can tax profits of an American company anywhere on the planet.

Now, Pfizer does not get to avoid U.S. taxes altogether. It will still pay U.S. tax on profits from its U.S. sales and activities. The difference is that it will not pay U.S. taxes on sales and activities occurring outside the United States.

Since 2012 approximately 15 large U.S. companies have moved or announced plans to move offshore. Granted, there are numerous reasons why, but a significant – and common – reason has to be the benighted policy of U.S. multinational taxation. What has the White House proposed to stem the tide? Increase the ownership threshold from 20% to 50% before the company will be deemed based outside the U.S.

Brilliant.  To think that Washington at one time pulled off the Manhattan Project, Hoover Dam and landing a man on the moon. How far the apple has fallen.

The issue of corporate inversion has been swept up as part of the larger discussion on tax reform. That discussion is all but dead, unfortunately, although perhaps it may resurrect after the Congressional elections. The Camp tax proposal wants to move the U.S. to a territorial tax system rather than the existing worldwide system, which is an acknowledgement of the problem and a very good first step. It will not stop Pfizer, but we may able to stop the next company to follow.