international tax advisors inc. miami ft. lauderdale doral international tax accountant CPA 2019 interns 2 sit

ITA Welcomes 2019 Interns!

international tax advisors inc. miami ft. lauderdale doral international tax accountant CPA 2019 interns 1 stand

The summer is bright with intern energy

International Tax Advisors, Inc. is pleased to introduce our 2019 interns: William Pereira and Gretter Codina Miranda.

Ms. Codina Miranda is a third-year law student at St. Thomas University.  She is considering pursuing her LLM in taxation, and has already taken federal taxation. 

Mr. William Pereira is in his fourth year of a Joint JD/Taxation LLM at the University of Miami School of Law.  Mr. Pereira has taken several international tax courses, covering both inbound and outbound international tax concepts.

We are proud to have Ms. Codina Miranda and Mr. Pereira on the ITA team, and excited to share career opportunities in tax structuring and international tax services.

Miami real estate international tax advisors inc international tax accountant estate tax nonresident aliens

More Foreign Investors May Become Subject to U.S. Estate Tax

Tax Havens Enact “Economic Substance” Legislation Post EU Sanctions

Reacting to threatened sanctions from the European Union (EU) (see March 12th report), tax havens have already enacted “economic substance” legislation locally.  This will have a direct impact on how foreign individuals should structure their investment in the U.S. 

European commission logo international tax advisors inc non-cooperative tax jurisidictions economic substance BVI drew edwards

Zero or low-tax jurisdictions, such as the British Virgin Islands (BVI), have long served as locations for offshore holding companies.  In regard to U.S. real estate, a foreign individual could use a holding company in a jurisdiction such as the BVI to help “block” U.S. estate tax which only applies to individuals, not corporations.  This “BVI Blocker” is a powerful tool considering nonresident alien individuals holding U.S. situs assets (e.g., U.S. real estate, U.S. stock) can be subject to a 40% U.S. estate tax with only a $60,000 exemption (as opposed to the $11.4M exemption in 2019 for U.S. tax residents). 

The annual operating cost to achieve “economic substance” may not outweigh avoiding U.S. estate tax.

BVI international tax advisors inc international tax accountant CPA miami ft. lauderdale

Economic Substance

Under the British Virgin Islands Economic Substance Act of 2018, economic substance is met when:

   (a) the relevant activity is directed and managed in the Virgin Islands;

   (b) having regard to the nature and scale of the relevant activity;

      (i) there are an adequate number of suitably qualified employees in relation to that activity who are physically present in the Virgin Islands;

      (ii) there is adequate expenditure incurred in the Virgin Islands;

      (iii) there are physical offices or premises as may be appropriate for the core income-generating activities; and

       (iv) where the relevant activity is intellectual property business and requires the use of specific equipment, that equipment is located in the Virgin Islands.

Holding Companies

A pure equity holding entity, which carries on no relevant activity other than holding equity participations in other entities and earning dividends and capital gains, has adequate substance if it:

   (a) complies with its statutory obligations under the BVI Business Companies Act, 2004 or the Limited Partnership Act, 2017 (whichever is relevant);

   (b) has adequate employees and premises for holding equitable interests or shares and, where it manages those equitable interests or shares, has adequate employees and premises for carrying out that management.

Effective Immediately

The BVI enacted substance requirements on January 2, 2019, effective January 1, 2019.                                              

Link to BVI law

The Cayman Islands enacted substance requirements on December 17, 2018, effective January 1, 2019.

Link to Cayman Islands law

Non-Cooperative Tax Jurisdictions

EU non cooperative tax jurisdictions international tax advisors inc international tax accountant CPA miami doral

Following up on efforts originally outlined in 2016 to address tax abuse and unfair tax competition, the EU, liaising closely with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”), created a list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions. The listing criteria includes: transparency, fair tax competition, and Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“BEPS”) implementation.

During December 2017, the EU Member States agreed on the first EU list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions.  These jurisdictions were generally given until December 2018 to comply or face sanctions.

Possible EU Sanctions

  • Deny funding from many EU programs (European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD), the European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI) and the External Lending Mandate (ELM))
  • Sanctions to apply at a national level against the listed jurisdictions. These include measures such as increased monitoring and audits, withholding taxes, special documentation requirements and anti-abuse provisions

Reality of Economic Substance

Are small island nations able to immediately react with housing and infrastructure for what could be millions of people who may now be required to be physically present in such jurisdictions to fulfill the new “economic substance” requirements?  Beyond infrastructure concerns, where will these millions of required qualified employees come from?

Link to local BVI Article

Proactive Partnering

International Tax Advisors, Inc. can help you understand how to react to this new legislation and maintain effective strategies to avoid overpaying tax.  Call us today 786-762-4266

international tax accountant CPA international tax advisors inc. drew edwards cpa tax reform miami ft. lauderdale international tax consulting GILTI active foreign business

How the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Changed International Tax Planning

Tax Reform and GILTI's Impact on International Tax Structures

In this International Tax Advisors, Inc. blog post, our discussion is limited to the international tax provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) and more narrowly, the impacts of the Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) regime under section 951A.  GILTI is relevant for U.S. based persons (e.g., individuals and corporations) who own foreign companies (i.e., U.S. persons subject to outbound taxation).

Prior to the TCJA, the U.S. shareholder of an active foreign company may not have been subject to the Subpart F and Passive Foreign Investment Company (PFIC) anti-deferral tax regimes; therefore, the U.S. shareholder would not be subject to immediate U.S. taxation on the foreign earnings of such active foreign company (i.e., U.S. tax deferral could occur). 

Now, that same active foreign company will likely be subject to immediate U.S. taxation under GILTI.  Read further to understand if your foreign operations should be restructured in light of the TCJA.

What is the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act?

On November 2, 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was introduced in the House of Representatives and later became public law on December 22, 2017.  The TCJA is comprehensive tax reform, which amended the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) of 1986 and altered the way international tax planning had been approached for the past 30 years.

International Tax Planning prior to the TCJA

U.S. persons were, and generally still are, subject to tax on their world-wide income.  Therefore, tax efficiencies could be achieved if foreign source profits were not repatriated back to their U.S. owner, but rather remained inside of the foreign country (typically a low-tax jurisdiction). With the proper facts, U.S. taxpayers could defer foreign profits from U.S. taxation by keeping them in offshore entities – referred to as foreign deferral.

Anti-Deferral prior to the TCJA

Even prior to the TCJA, the IRC had mechanisms to prevent foreign deferral, namely the Subpart F and Passive Foreign Investment Company (PFIC) regimes.  Without going into detail, these “anti-deferral” regimes as they can be called, generally only applied to passive-type businesses. 

For example, if a U.S. person loaned money to foreign businesses and earned foreign source interest income, such U.S. person could potentially move to a low-tax jurisdiction and receive that easily movable income subject to little or no tax.  Income such as dividends, interest, rents, and royalties are all typically considered mobile, but such types of income also have in common that they are generally passive income.  

The Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS’) reasoning for subjecting passive-type business income (as opposed to active-type business income) to anti-deferral regimes, is that active-type businesses (such as manufacturing) are more difficult to physically move purely for tax reasons.  Hence, both the Subpart F and PFIC regimes contain exceptions from anti-deferral for active-type foreign businesses.

international tax accountant CPA international tax advisors inc. drew edwards cpa tax reform miami ft. lauderdale international tax consulting GILTI active foreign business

Impact of Anti-Deferral

If anti-deferral regimes such as Subpart F and PFIC apply to a U.S. person, that person must include the foreign source income (FSI) in their current year’s U.S. tax base and pay U.S. tax on such FSI.  This U.S. tax on FSI is due even though the U.S. person did not receive an actual cash distribution (i.e., there is no cash repatriated to the U.S. to pay the U.S. tax with – this problem is referred to as “phantom income”).

Beyond the issue of phantom income (i.e., paying cash taxes on cash not yet actually received), anti-deferral prevents additional wealth from accumulating.  The benefit of deferral is based on the time value of money concept, which holds that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow.  For example, if a taxpayer can defer paying $100 of taxes for 1 year, that $100 can be invested to create a 10% return, such that $100 today is worth $110 in one year. 

Before the TCJA was released, international tax accountants and consultants could have achieved foreign deferral if a client had the facts and circumstances to support an active business designation.

International Tax Planning after the TCJA​

The TCJA contained many changes, particularly the addition of GILTI which is broad enough to capture the majority of foreign businesses (see below).  The expansive nature of GILTI has created a shift in international tax planning; international tax accountants now also consider domestic deferral rather than foreign deferral. 

Domestic deferral refers to retaining profits inside of a US C-Corporation, such that it would not be subject to the second layer of individual tax because the income is not distributed to the individual U.S. shareholders.  Prior to the TCJA domestic deferral created no advantages because the highest C-Corp rate was 39.6%.  The C-Corp rate is now 21%, creating deferral benefits when compared to the highest individual tax rate of 37%.  We will discuss this topic in a future article.

Anti-Deferral after the TCJA

Under section 951A, the TCJA introduced the anti-deferral concept of GILTI.  GILTI is sort of a misnomer, in that it does not only apply to “intangible” income in the general sense of the word.  Rather, GILTI assumes if a foreign company is able to generate more than a 10 percent return on its foreign business assets (defined as Qualified Business Asset Investment, QBAI), the excess must be from intangibles and should be included in the gross income of U.S. shareholders in the year earned.  This 10 percent return on assets definition creates a very wide net and will mean the majority of foreign businesses will be captured under GILTI. 

Example 1. Consider a U.S. shareholder who owns a foreign-based service business which generates no passive income (i.e., service income only).  Prior to the TCJA, this foreign company may not have been subject to the Subpart F or PFIC rules because it did not earn dividends, interest, rents, or royalties; therefore, the foreign earnings were not subject to immediate U.S. taxation.

After the TCJA, we must consider GILTI.  If laptops and office furniture comprise the majority of the foreign business assets (QBAI), then net income as little as $20,000 could likely exceed the adjusted basis of the QBAI, and subject the U.S. shareholder to GILTI (i.e., immediate U.S. taxation on foreign earnings not yet received). 

Example 2. Consider a U.S. shareholder who owns a foreign-based manufacturing business which does generate passive income above the de minimis thresholds (e.g., generates royalty income related to a machine process).  Prior to the TCJA, this foreign company may not have been subject to the Subpart F or PFIC rules because it met an active-type business exception for the royalty income.

After the TCJA, there are no active-type exceptions to GILTI.  Therefore, the same foreign manufacturing business will likely be subject to the new GILTI anti-deferral regime if such business generated more than a 10 percent return on its QBAI.

If you own a foreign business, consult with an experienced international tax advisor to help make the needed changes to your existing structure, or help structure a new foreign business after tax reform.  International Tax Advisors, Inc. builds easy-to-understand Excel models to help calculate your potential tax liability based on your specific facts and numbers.

Share on print
Share on email
Share on linkedin
Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter