Tattletaling on Sales Taxes

There is a tax case coming before the Supreme Court. It involves Wayfair, the online home goods company, and sales taxes.

The issue can be summarized as follows: if I do not have a building or inventory or employees in your state, can you force me to collect your taxes?

The Wayfair case is an evolution of the Quill case, decided by the Supreme Court in 1992. Quill is an office-supply company, and in 1992 the issue was whether North Dakota could tax Quill just because it sent catalogues to residents of the state.

North Dakota was adamant: Quill was regularly and systematically soliciting its citizenry. It did not care that Quill had no presence in the state. By that reasoning Norway could have also taxed Quill, but let’s not introduce common sense into this argument.

The Supreme Court was unwilling to go that far, recognizing that sales taxation was (and is) the wild west of taxation. Each state has its own rules and - depending upon the state - there can also be counties and cities imposing sales tax.  

What has changed since Quill? The internet, of course.

The new argument is that the internet has revolutionized how business is done.

But sales taxes are still eccentric, often cryptic and frustratingly inconsistent. The internet has not revolutionized that. Perhaps Amazon can wield the accounting staff necessary to comply, but a small business may have a different result.

I have a client that got mugged by the “tattletale” statutes that some states are now implementing.

Let’s look at Washington’s tattletale law.

It applies if you do not otherwise collect Washington sales tax.  

Let’s say that you sell promotional materials for old-time movies. You have a modest warehouse in a nondescript part of town, You sell exclusively over the internet, and you get paid almost exclusively through PayPal.

You have a sale in Washington state. Then two, four, ten…. You get the idea.

Washington is watching you.

Get to $10,000 in Washington sales and you have issues.

Oh, they cannot force you to collect sales taxes, but they can force you to:

(1) Conspicuously post on your website that sales taxes are due and that the purchaser must file a use tax return.

Fail to do so and there is an immediate penalty of $20,000.

Ouch.

Are we done?

Of course not.

Let’s say that you actually sell something.

(2) You must provide a notice with every sale that no sales tax is being collected, that the purchaser should file a use tax, and instructions on how to pay the use tax. The notice must be “prominently” displayed.

You write a standard notice and keep copies.

Are we done?

(3) At year end you must send the purchaser a list of everything they bought, by date. You again must provide the usual gospel on use tax and how to get information on its filing.

This starting to get expensive. Who has time for this nonsense?

Make time. The penalties begin at $5,000 and can increase exponentially.

(4) You must send a copy of that list to the state of Washington.

Fail to do so and penalties begin at $20,000.

By my math, if you sell $10,001 into Washington and do not become an unpaid agent of the Department of Revenue, you are exposed to $45,000 in penalties.

Washington of course says that it can waive penalties.

Fairy tales used to be for children. 

And the fairy tale is a one-off only. There is no second chance at a waiver.

Mind you, Washington’s state sales tax rate is 6.5%. Go to Seattle and you pick up a city sales tax, making the combined rate 9.6%

What pathological bureaucrat sets the bar at $650 in sales tax?

This is the standard structure of the tattletale laws: resistance is futile.

In ancient times – say the 1980s – there was a concept in state taxation called the Commerce Clause. This refers to the Constitution and its restriction on states to not so burden and fetter their laws so as to interfere with interstate commerce.

Seems to me that the Supreme Court should consider the Commerce Clause implications of a $45,000 penalty on $10,001 in sales when considering the Wayfair decision.

I know.

Fairy tales used to be for children.

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.

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.