Monthly Archives: June 2019

Breaking Down The Revenue Rule: Proposed US Japan Tax Treaty enhances ability of US to enforce taxation on #Americansabroad in Japan

Prologue – Tax Enforcement And The Revenue Rule


The common law revenue rule was designed so that one country will not enforce tax debts owed to another country. There is general agreement that the “revenue rule” is gradually disappearing. Specifically, the United States has negotiated tax treaties with at least five countries (Canada, Denmark, France, Sweden and the Netherlands) which abrogate the revenue rule. To learn more about the Revenue Rule, see the “Appendix” below.
I have previously suggested how the “assistance in collection provisions” facilitate U.S. citizenship-based taxation. My 2016 comment on “assistance in collection provisions” suggested that U.S. citizenship-based taxation gives the United States strong incentives to end the revenue rule. Specifically …

My point is this:
The “assistance in collection” mechanism in these five treaties can and will be used to allow the United States to enforce direct taxation on those who are “tax residents” of other nations AND on the economies of those other nations.
Given the U.S. practice of “citizenship-based taxation” I can’t understand why any country would enter into an “assistance in collection” treaty with the United States. Interestingly the Canada U.S. Tax Treaty does create an exemption for those who were Canadian citizens at the time tax debt arose. The Denmark U.S. Tax Treaty has a similar provision exempting citizens of Denmark.
Conclusion: It is quite clear that tax treaties which include “assistance in collection provisions” (abrogating the Revenue Rule) are overwhelmingly to the benefit of the United States. Only the United States (and the nation of Eritrea) impose taxation based on citizenship (and therefore impose taxation on the residents of other nations). These five treaties allow the United States to extend its tax base into the economies of other nations.

Present Day – June 25, 2019

The following tax treaty protocols were approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
The Protocol Amending the Convention between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and its Protocol, signed at Madrid on February 22, 1990 (Treaty Doc. 113-4).
The Protocol Amending the Convention between the United States of America and the Swiss Confederation for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with Respect to Taxes on Income, signed at Washington on October 2, 1996, signed on September 23, 2009, at Washington, as corrected by an exchange of notes effected November 16, 2010 and a related agreement effected by an exchange of notes on September 23, 2009 (Treaty Doc. 112-1).
The Protocol Amending the Convention between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Japan for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and a related agreement entered into by an exchange of notes (together the “proposed Protocol”), both signed on January 24, 2013, at Washington, together with correcting notes exchanged March 9 and March 29, 2013 (Treaty Doc. 114-1).
The Protocol Amending the Convention between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and Capital, signed on May 20, 2009, at Luxembourg (the “proposed Protocol”) and a related agreement effected by the exchange of notes also signed on May 20, 2009 (Treaty Doc. 111-8).

Each of these four treaty protocols has updated information exchange and/or collection provisions. The proposal in the treaty with Japan is most interesting and most worrying.
The Japan protocol includes a provision for assistance in collection that is somewhat more expansive than is contained in similar treaties (Canada, Sweden, Denmark, France and Netherlands). Japan does NOT normally allow dual citizenship. Therefore the collection provision in ARTICLE 27 the collection provision could possibly be used as a mechanism to force Japan to enforce U.S. taxation on U.S. citizens who are resident in Japan!!
Time will tell.
The new ARTICLES 26 and 27 of the U.S. Japan Tax Treaty (if approved by the Senate) will be:
Continue reading

US Treasury proposes that foreign income subject to high foreign tax be excluded from definition of #GILTI

In general – Good News For American Entrepreneurs Abroad …

On Friday June 14, 2019 US Treasury proposed in Notice 2019-12436 that any foreign income earned by Controlled Foreign Corporations be (subject to election) excluded from the definition of GILTI income. This will be particularly welcome to Americans living outside the United States, who are attempting to carry on business in their country of residence, through non-U.S. corporations.

For those who are concerned with understanding the hows and whys, I suggest you read Treasury’s Notice which includes a good history and description of the Subpart F rules, some Legislative History leading to the GILTI rules, and Treasury’s attempt to piece it all together. You will find it all here.

Treasury Notice 2019-12436

Treasury Notice 2019-12436
Continue reading

Part 32 – So, you have received a letter saying that your @USTransitiontax is also subject to the 3.8% NIIT


This is Part 32 of my series of blog posts about the Sec. 965 transition tax. I recently received a message from a person who says that he was assessed a Section 1411 Net Investment Income Tax assessment on the amount of the Section 965 transition tax. Although not intended as legal advice, I would like to share my thoughts on this. I don’t see how the transition tax could be subject to the NIIT.
Let’s look at it this way:
Why Section 965 Transition Tax Inclusions Are NOT Subject To The Sec. 1411 Net Investment Income Tax
A – The Language Of The Internal Revenue Code – NIIT Is Not Payable On Transition Tax Inclusions

I see no way that the language of the Internal Revenue Code leads to the conclusion that the transition tax can be subject to the NIIT.
My reasoning is based on the following two simple points:
1. The NIIT is based on Net Investment Income which is generally defined as dividends, interest and capital gains as per this tweet:


2. Subpart F income by legal definition (controlling case law) is NOT interest, dividends or capital gains as per this tweet


B – The Purpose Of The Section 965 Transition Tax
3. The whole point of the transition tax is to go after active income that was not subject to U.S. tax when it was earned. There is nothing about the transition tax that converts active income into investment income by making it a subpart F inclusion as per this tweet:


Therefore, (and this is speculation on my part) the NIIT charge must be based on something specific to your tax filing – likely treating the transition tax inclusion as meeting the definition of Net Investment Income – specifically Dividends, Interest or Capital Gains.
Under no circumstances should you or anybody else impacted by this simply pay a NIIT surcharge on the transition tax, without a careful and meticulous investigation of the reasons for it. Have a good look at your tax return.
The mandatory disclaimer: Obviously this is not intended to be legal advice or any other kind of advice. It is simply intended to give you the framework to discuss this issue with your tax preparer if you were one of the unfortunate victims who received an NIIT tax assessment on your acknowledged transition tax liability.
John Richardson – Follow me on Twitter @Expatriationlaw