Category Archives: Form 5471

FATCA Reporting, The Banks And Their U.S. Citizen Customers: The Saga Continues

Leave a reply

Reposted with permission from The Isaac Brock Society.

In October I published a post about the U.K. division of Fidelity cleansing itself of U.S. citizen customers. Since the beginning, it has been clear that FATCA has made U.S. citizen customers a problems for non-U.S. banks. Today I was informed that FATCA reporting to the IRS has begun to find its way to U.S. citizens directly. As the above post from X.com indicates, some individual U.S. citizens are receiving communications from the IRS. The communication notes the existence of the “foreign financial asset” and that the asset should have been reported.

Significantly the letter notes the bank where the unreported account was located. In this case the bank was “Bank Hapoalim B.M” which is apparently one of Israel’s largest banks.

Interestingly on April 30, 2020 Bank Hapoalim admitted to helping U.S. citizen customers hide assets and avoid U.S. taxation. This resulted in a deferred prosecution agreement and a penalty. (The Department Of Justice Press Release is available online.) A reading of the press release strongly suggests that customers of this bank may be presumed to be guilty by association.

This is interesting news.

Of course:

“To be FORMwarned Is To Be Forearmed!”

John Richardson Follow me on X.com/Expatriationlaw

U.S. Citizens In Canada And Abroad: The Trauma Of Organizing Information For Your U.S. Tax Return

Leave a reply

Prologue

As an older post I wrote confirms, Americans abroad are subject to special provisions and those special provisions include a number of information returns!

Forms required by #Americansabroad 101 – The Explanation

My reason for writing and the purpose of this post

I am not a tax preparer. I am an expatriation lawyer. In this.capacity, I either:

– see U.S.tax returns prepared by a tax preparer; or

– discuss the necessity of U.S. tax compliance when a person wishes to become U.S. compliant through either the IRS streamlined or the IRS Relief Procedures Programs.

Americans abroad have many reasons for wishing to be U.S. tax compliant. In many cases it is associated with expatriation. In some cases it is part of estate planning (in many cases it is better to die without being a U.S. citizen). In. some cases it is to renounce and NOT create barriers to inheritance for U.S. citizen children. In some cases it is because they are likely to inherit U.S. income producing assets. In some cases it is because they fear noncompliance. In some cases (regardless of fears of penalties) they believe in. compliance with the law. The point is that U.S. tax compliance (it’s a huge industry) is an important part of people’s lives.

Regardless of one’s view of the U.S. citizenship tax regime, there are large numbers of Americans abroad who either attempt to meet their annual filing obligations or who desire to meet those obligations.

In this context I offer two important (I think) thoughts:

First, forms and tax returns are dangerous things and should be filed correctly. If you are going to file, you might as well do it correctly.

Second (and more importantly), for U.S. citizens abroad the filing of U.S. tax returns is a major cause of significant trauma in their lives. It is NOT a question of filing a. 1040 that just reports “foreign income”. It is, because of the large number of penalty-laden information returns, an accusation that is based on a presumption of “wrong doing”. (U.S. residents and their tax preparers who think this is hyperbole, just try living as a tax compliant American abroad!)

Therefore, the tax compliance question for Americans abroad is a question of how do they mange their trauma. The issue is how do they manage the tax filing issue in a way that minimizes the associated trauma. Are they likely to be audited? I don’t think so. Are they likely to think about the possibility of audit and penalties? Yes, many of them do. Furthermore, learning about previous filing mistakes is – for many people -incredibly traumatic.

The purpose of this post is to help with the management of trauma.

______________________________________________________________________

The Organization Problem – How to read this post …

Identifying the information that is needed.

I have noticed that Americans abroad have difficulty organizing their information. Remember, tax preparers are not mind readers. They know very little about you. The simply process the information you provide. Sure, they have questionnaires (with varying degrees of detail). That said, I think it would be helpful to provide an overview of what it means to file a U.S. tax return, what information is relevant and how to think about retrieving that information. Those of you who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship will want to be in a position where you can certify five years of U.S. tax compliance.

I have written this post primarily from a Canadian perspective (I live in Toronto, Canada.) Although the information is generally applicable to all U.S. citizens living outside the United States, some of the information is specific ONLY to Canada. So, please don’t be lazy. Get informed! Stay informed!

While providing an overview, the information in this post cannot be complete. It is written for the average person, with a simple life and mainstream investments that are easily understood and characterized.

Finally, if you are filing U.S. taxes abroad for the first time, I suggest you should start with the following simple question:

“What would my U.S. tax tax return contain in terms of forms, schedules, etc.?”

In any case, I am writing this post because …

Yesterday I compared the U.S. tax return and the Canadian tax return of a U.S. citizen living in Canada. The Canadian return was 14 pages. The U.S. return was 59 pages. The person had a very simple life (retired and living off the usual pensions). He did NOT owe any U.S. taxes. That said, he was NOT compliant with his U.S. tax filing obligations. The reason was that his “foreign assets” were not reported properly on Form 8938. I suspect that this person had no idea how to properly identify and organize the foreign financial asset information to properly transmit it to his U.S. tax preparer. This is perfectly understandable. Assuming no Canadian Controlled Private Corporation (a presumptive instrument of tax evasion from a U.S. perspective), or other controlled foreign corporation, most tax filers will be required to file:

– FinCEN 114 AKA FBAR

– Form 8938

– Possibly Forms 3520 and 3520A (make sure that you really are dealing with a Trust or have received a foreign gift)

– and possibly more

This post is to provide very simple advice on how to organize this information to provide to your tax preparer.

U.S. tax filings are more about the disclosure of information than about the calculation of tax

Generally, you can assume that ANY and ALL financial accounts and financial assets (brokerage accounts, pensions, individual shares in non-U.S. corporations) must be reported. The reporting issue is distinct from the tax issue.

Foreign real estate owned directly by Americans abroad is NOT (at present) subject to separate reporting (although income earned from them is taxable).

Preparation for the filing of a U.S. tax return should be viewed as four categories of. tasks:

Category A – Identifying The Relevant Information

Category B – Deciding How That Information – In Terms Of The Relevant Forms – Is To Be Reported

Category C – Reporting The Information On The Relevant Forms

Category D – Deciding Whether Any Information Returns Must Be Filed Even If A Tax Return Is Not Required (For example: Form 5471, 8621 and Form 3520 and Form 3520A may have a filing requirement even if a 1040 is not required!)

Category E – Does Your Country Of Residence Have Rules Requiring The Reporting Of Foreign Assets (similar to FBAR, Form 8938, etc.)?

Be careful!!

Canada (and other countries) have very strict rules governing the reporting of foreign assets.

Once these three tasks have been. completed, one is ready to place the income on the actual tax return (1040 or 1040NR) and Schedules.

What follows are the ten steps that should prepare you to give your information to your tax preparer.

Continue reading →

The Douglas Edelman Indictment – What Does It Mean For Americans Abroad?

Leave a reply

Prologue:

Mr. Adelman’s problems are caused by and only because of U.S. citizenship taxation.

_________________________________________________________

On March 18, 2025 an article by Margot Patrick appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

A direct link to the article is here.

Mr. Edelman was a U.S. citizen who had lived outside the United States since the 1990s. The case is NOT about his millions. The case is NOT about offshore companies. The case IS about whether Mr. Edelman’s shares in a foreign corporation were owned by Mr. Edelman personally or by his French citizen wife Delphine Le Dain. The subtitle to Ms. Patrick’s article is:

“Douglas Edelman’s glitzy European lifestyle came to a halt when he was charged with hiding income through companies put in his French wife’s name”

Mr. Edelman is a U.S. citizen. Delphine Le Dain is neither a U.S. citizen nor U.S. resident. The U.S. has limited taxing authority over Ms. Le Dain who is a nonresident alien. Therefore, the Edelman case has huge implications for Americans abroad!

The crux of the issue is who owns the Edelman interest in the corporations? Can the IRS recharacterize the ownership of assets in a marriage?

On March 20, 2025 I participated in a discussion on the Edelman case on the IRS Medic podcast.

I prepared slides for the presentation (updated since the presentation) which may be accessed here:

A pdf version of the slides is here:

Edelman 3-1

The Edelman indictment is here:

https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/usa_v_edelman_et_alindictment.pdf

A summary of the facts from Tax Notes is here:

A. Edelman’s Alleged Criminal Conduct

In May 2024, a grand jury returned a thirty-count indictment charging Edelman with one count of Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §371; two counts of False Statements to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001; fifteen counts of Tax Evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §7201 and 18 U.S.C. §2; and twelve counts of Willful Violation of Foreign Bank Account Reporting Requirements, in violation of 31 U.S.C. §§5314, 5322(b), 18 U.S.C. §2, and associated regulations. The factual allegations supporting those charges are extensive. In short, the Government alleges that Edelman perpetrated a decades-long scheme to defraud the United States of tax revenues by concealing his earnings in an intricate web of financial entities across the globe and by lying to regulators along the way.

https://www.taxnotes.com/research/federal/court-documents/court-opinions-and-orders/individual-charged-tax-evasion-scheme-has-his-release-revoked/7p57j

Additional articles and commentary of interest on the Edelman case include:

Virginia La Torre Jeker

https://www.forbes.com/sites/virginialatorrejeker/2024/07/08/mr-taxman-irs-looks-like-my-money-but-it-really-isnt/

Justice Department Press Release

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/former-defense-contractor-and-his-wife-indicted-evading-us-taxes-profits-selling-jet-fuel-us

Yaacob Jacob

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-edelman-case-game-changer-us-citizens-abroad-jacob-cpa-us–btqmf/

Mystery At Manas – Page 20

“In July 2010, after Chairman Towns had issued official subpoenas for their documents and testimony, counsel for the companies and its principals disclosed that Erkin Bekbolotov and Delphine Le Dain, the wife of Douglas Edelman, were the named owners of Mina and Red Star, each with 50 percent. Ms. Le Dain has never had any active role with the companies and, for all practical purposes, it would appear that Mr. Edelman controls the shares and is the de facto beneficial owner.47 Mr. Bekbolotov and Mr. Edelman have been the 50-50 shareholders of the companies since Red Star’s founding in 2002,48 but their ownership interests are buried under several layers of straw ownership in jurisdictions known for their corporate secrecy. Though many have tried, it is virtually impossible to determine the companies’ beneficial ownership through public records.49″

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA535786.pdf

PDF Version:

ADA535786

John Richardson – Follow me on X.com at @ExpatriationLaw

Fahry Appeal Court Rules IRC 6038(b) Is An Assessable Penalty Without Regard To IRC 6201

Leave a reply

Part A Prologue Fahry, the issue and the tax court decision:

The significance of the Fahry decision in the Tax Court – Per Arnold Porter commentary:

“Many penalties related to income tax filings are not assessable penalties. The IRS took the position that Section 6038 penalties are assessable penalties under IRC Section 6201(a). Farhy argued that the IRS had no authority for treating Section 6038 penalties as assessable penalties. The Tax Court agreed with Farhy, reasoning that Section 6038, which establishes the reporting requirement regarding foreign corporations and the consequent penalties, does not specify a mode of assessing the penalties. Notably, as the Tax Court observed, there are other code provisions establishing penalties that explicitly state that the respective penalties are assessable. Thus, the Tax Court found that the penalties for failure to file Form 5471 are not subject to the deficiency procedures.”

https://www.arnoldporter.com/-/media/files/perspectives/publications/2023/05/howforeign-info-return-penalty-case-may-benefit-t.pdf

The issue in the Tax Court: IRC 6201 and the issue of assessable penalties – dose 6201 imply that some penalties are NOT assessable and that some penalties are assessable?

26 U.S. Code § 6201 – Assessment authority

(a) Authority of Secretary The Secretary is authorized and required to make the inquiries, determinations, and assessments of all taxes (including interest, additional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable penalties) imposed by this title, or accruing under any former internal revenue law, which have not been duly paid by stamp at the time and in the manner provided by law. Such authority shall extend to and include the following:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6201JR Note: If “assessable penalty then IRS can assess the penalty.

How does one determine whether a penalty is assessable?

Continue reading →

Americans Abroad Aren’t Denouncing Because They Want To. They Are Renouncing Because They Feel They Have To

1 Reply

Introduction/background:

Denunciation of U.S. Citizenship – From the perspective from a U.S. Senator

Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship – From the perspective of a U.S. journalist

It’s hard to have a discussion about why Americans abroad are renouncing U.S. citizenship. There are many different perspectives about renunciation. There is very little “shared reality”. Tax academics (who have the resources to know better), “pensioned intellectuals”, politicians and most journalists see this from a “U.S. resident perspective”. They don’t understand the reality of the lives of Americans abroad. But, Americans abroad are NOT a monolith. The ONLY thing they have in common is that they live outside the United States. Their circumstances vary widely. There is little “shared reality” among Americans abroad of what the issues are. AT the risk of oversimplification, I have attempted to divide “Americans abroad” into four categories (as defined below). The categorization will explain why different groups of “Americans abroad” experience the U.S. extra-territorial tax regime differently.

Hint: Americans abroad aren’t renouncing U.S. citizenship because they want to. They are renouncing U.S. citizenship because they feel they have to.

Politicians, tax academics, “pensioned intellectuals” and many journalists deal in the world of opinions. The opinions they hold are often “myths”. They are not “facts”. They are entitled to their opinions (as misguided and ignorant as they may be). They are NOT entitled to their “facts”.

This post is to describe the facts about how the extra-territorial application of the Internal Revenue Code and the Bank Secrecy Act pressure many Americans abroad to renounce U.S. citizenship. Interestingly a large percentage of those renouncing owe ZERO taxes to the U.S. government. They renounce anyway!

First, a bit of background to the problem – what is the problem and who is affected?

They do NOT meet the test of being “nonresident aliens” under the Internal Revenue Code

As SEAT cofounder, Dr. Laura Snyder explains, in the first of her 16 “working papers” describing the problems of Americans abroad:

The people most affected by the U.S. extraterritorial tax system are not a monolithic group. Some left the United States recently, some left years or decades ago. Some left as adults (some young, some middle-aged, and some retirees), while others left as children (with their families), and some have never lived in the United States (they are U.S. citizens by virtue of the U.S. citizenship of at least one parent). Some intend to live in the United States (again) in the near or distant future, while others do not intend to ever live in the United States (again). Some identify as Americans while others do not. Many are also citizens of the country where they live (dual citizens) while others hold triple or even quadruple citizenships. In referring to this group, there is no one term that sufficiently reflects its full diversity. What unites them is that they do not meet the test of “nonresident alien” under the Internal Revenue Code. Depending upon the context, this series of papers will use terms such as “persons,” “individuals,” “affected individuals,” and “overseas Americans.” The latter term has a drawback, however: it emphasizes connections to the United States while minimizing the important connections that such persons have to the countries and communities where they live.

That said, what divides Americans abroad may be greater than what unites Americans abroad!

Continue reading →

Treasury 26 CFR § 301.7701-2 – Business entity definitions discriminate against Canadian Controlled Private Corporations

Leave a reply

Synopsis:

Canadian corporations should NOT be deemed (under the Treasury entity classification regulations) to be “per se” corporations. The reality is that corporations play different roles in different tax and business cultures. Corporations in Canada have many uses and purposes, including operating as private pension plans for small business owners (including medical professionals).

Deeming Canadian corporations to be “per se” corporations means that they are always treated as “foreign corporations” for the purposes of US tax rules. This has resulted in their being treated as CFCs or as PFICs in circumstances which do not align with the purpose of the CFC and PFIC rules.

The 2017 965 Transition Tax confiscated the pensions of a large numbers of Canadian residents. The ongoing GILTI rules have made it very difficult for small business corporations to be used for their intended purposes in Canada.

Clearly Treasury deemed Canadian Controlled Private Corporations to be “per se” corporations without:

1. Understanding the use and role of these corporations in Canada; and

2. Assuming that ONLY US residents might be shareholders in Canadian corporations. As usual, the lives of US citizens living outside the United States were not considered.

These are the problems that inevitably arise under the US citizenship-based AKA extraterritorial tax regime, coupled with a lack of sensitivity to how these rules impact Americans abroad. The US citizenship-based AKA extraterritorial tax regime may be defined as:

The United States imposing worldwide taxation on the non-US source income of people who are tax residents of other countries and do not live in the United States!

It is imperative that the United States transition to a system of pure residence-based taxation!

______________________________________________________________________________________

Introduction

The United States imposes a separate and more punitive tax system on US citizens living outside the United States than on US residents. There are numerous examples of this principle – a principle that is well understood (but not directly experienced) by tax preparers.

The US tax system operates through a combination of laws, Treasury Regulations, enforcement by the tax compliance community and IRS administration. There are many instances where the extraterritorial application of the US tax system results in absurdities, that are very damaging to those who try their best to comply with those laws.

Treasury regulations have an enormous impact on how the Internal Revenue Code applies to Americans abroad. In a previous paper coauthored with Dr. Alpert and Dr. Snyder, we described how Treasury could provide “A Simple Regulatory Fix For Citizenship Taxation“. Treasury regulations can be extremely helpful to Americans abroad or extremely damaging. It is therefore crucial that Treasury consider how its regulations would/could impact the lives of those Americans abroad attempting compliance with the US extraterritorial tax regime. In some cases it may be appropriate to have different regulations for resident Americans than for Americans abroad.

Treasury has demonstrated that it can be very helpful

Although this post will focus on difficulties, it’s important to note that Treasury has demonstrated that it can be very helpful to Americans abroad. It has interpreted the Internal Revenue Code in ways that have mitigated what could have been extreme damage. Here are two recent examples from the GILTI context where Treasury:

– interpreted the 962 Election to allow individuals to receive the 50% deduction in GILTI income inclusion that was allowed to corporations; and

– interpreted the Subpart F rules to mean that ALL income earned by a CFC should be entitled to the high tax exclusion

Clearly some of the news coming from Treasury has been good!

The power to regulate is the power to destroy

This post provides examples of how certain Treasury regulations contribute to the application of the United States extraterritorial tax regime. The examples are found in the following two categories of regulations:

Category A: Foreign Trusts – The Form 3520A Penalty Fundraiser – Regulations That Are Unclear Resulting In Penalties

Category B: Business Entities Designated as “per se” Corporations – Creating CFCs In Unreasonable Circumstances (Canadian Controlled Private Corporations) – Regulations That Are Clear But Over-inclusive

________________________________________________________

Continue reading →

Part 2 – The Warren “Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act of 2021” and The Wealth Of Other Nations

Leave a reply

The fact that …

Leads to the obvious question of …

Hmm…

The fact is that Senator Warren is proposing to impose her wealth tax on property located outside the United States, purchased by individuals who live outside the United States, who have no connection to the United States other than (perhaps) the circumstance of having been born in the United States. Yup, it’s true.

On March 18, 2021, FATCA will turn on 11. The Senator’s proposed wealth tax explicitly states that FATCA is to be used to enforce this tax! Finally an (il)legitimate use for FATCA.

In the 18th Century Adam Smith wrote “The Wealth Of Nations”. In the 21st Century Senator Warren is proposing to impose a wealth tax on “The Wealth Of OTHER Nations”.

Discussion And Analysis

This is the second of what I expect to be a multi-part series on Senator Warren’s proposed wealth tax of 2021. As the above tweet makes clear, the practical utility of the tax depends on US citizenship-based taxation (to whom it applies) and FATCA (how are non-US assets located). In my first post, I referenced Senator Warren’s statement that:

Continue reading →

Seriously now, who’s GILTI? Senators Wyden and Brown attempt to reinforce the punishment of GILTI Americans abroad

2 Replies

Introduction and July 2021 update …

There is wide agreement that the United States needs to improve its infrastructure. This will require massive spending. All spending necessitates a discussion of taxation. Since March 25, 2021 the Senate Finance Committee, Ways and Means Committee and the Biden administration have been exploring ways to increase taxation to pay for this. A series of SEAT submissions to the Senate Finance Committee is available here.

The community of Americans abroad has also recognized that any major tax reform creates an opportunity for a consideration of the United States transitioning to residence-based taxation. Although everybody claims to want residence-based taxation, the devil is in the details. As I have previously explained the words “residence-based taxation” mean different things to different people. The shared objective (of residence based taxation) is that the United States would cease imposing taxation on the non-US source income received by Americans abroad. That said, there are two broad ways that goal can be achieved. One way completely severs Americans abroad from US tax jurisdiction. The other leaves Americans abroad subject to US tax jurisdiction (forcing them to live in fear of every legislative change).

1. Pure residence-based taxation: Ending US tax jurisdiction over individuals who do NOT live in the United States. This would mean that Americans abroad would simply NOT be part of the US tax base. This is what residence-based taxation means in every other country of the world. In other words: you are not subject to US worldwide taxation because you don’t live in the United States. This is what I call “pure residence based taxation”. It is the only form of residence-based taxation that will solve the problems of Americans abroad. (This is what is advocated by SEAT.)

2. Citizenship-based taxation with a carve out: Continuing US tax jurisdiction over individuals who do NOT live in the United States, but relaxing the requirements that would apply to them. This proposal is what I call citizenship-based taxation with a carve out for certain people. Under this proposal, ALL Americans abroad would continue to be subject to US tax jurisdiction, but their non-US source income would (presumably) not be taxed by the United States. (This citizenship-based taxation with a carve out was the basis of the 2018 Holding bill and appears to what is being proposed by various groups. Further discussion of the Holding bill is here. It is essential that whenever a group announces that it is working toward residence based taxation that you ask them to clarify what they mean. Under the proposal, will Americans abroad remain subject to US tax jurisdiction? Will they still be defined as tax residents of the United States?)

(A more complete discussion about the difference between pure residence taxation and citizenship taxation with a carve out is here. A proposal for changes in the Internal Revenue Code that would result in pure residence-based taxation is here.)

Why completely ending US tax jurisdiction over Americans abroad (moving to pure residency-based taxation) is essential!!

The US tax code is incredibly complicated. The existence of citizenship-based taxation means that many changes in the tax code can impact Americans abroad even when the legislators are not considering the impact on Americans abroad. Since March of 2021 the Senate Finance Committee has been conducing hearings discussing tax reform for US corporations. The truth is that these proposals will affect many more individuals than corporations. Yet, Senate Finance never discusses the impact on individuals generally and individual Americans abroad in particular.

It is impossible for Americans abroad to survive when any change in the tax code could impact them without the legislators remembering that they even exist.

Let’s be clear! When it comes to Americans abroad:

It’s not that Congress doesn’t care about them. It’s that they don’t care that they don’t care!

This is why it is essential that ALL Americans abroad support and only support a movement toward “pure residence based taxation” which will ensure that nonresidents are NOT part of the US tax base.

If Americans abroad are left subject to the US tax based (citizenship-based taxation with a carve out) they will always be subject to being affected by any and all changes in US tax law.

A particularly egregious example of this in the following post. What follows is long, comprehensive and technical. Most will NOT want to read it.

But, the following post (written in 2020) is proof that ONLY pure residence-based taxation will solve the problems of Americans Abroad!

________________________________________________________________________________________

Prologue

Americans abroad who are individual shareholders of small business corporations in their country of residence have been very negatively impacted by the Section 951A GILTI and Section 965 TCJA amendments. In June of 2019, by regulation, Treasury interpreted the 951A GILTI rules to NOT apply to active business income when the effective foreign corporate tax rate was at a rate of 18.9% or higher. Treasury’s interpretation was reasonable, consistent with the history of Subpart F and consistent with the purpose of the GILTI rules.

Now, Senators Wyden and Brown are attempting to reverse Treasury’s regulation through legislation. This is a direct attack on Americans abroad. Senators Wyden and Brown are living proof of the principle that:

When it comes to Americans abroad:

It’s not that Congress doesn’t care. It’s that they don’t care that they don’t care!

Introduction

As many readers will know the 2017 US Tax Reform, referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), contained provisions which have made it difficult for Americans abroad to run small businesses outside the United States. In the common law world a corporation is treated as a separate legal entity for tax purposes. In other words the corporation and the shareholders are separate for tax purposes, file separate tax returns and pay tax on different streams of income. The 2017 TCJA contained two provisions that basically ended the separation of the company and the individual for U.S. tax purposes. In other words: there is now a presumption (at least how the Internal Revenue Code applies to small business owners) that active business income earned by the corporation will be deemed to have been earned by the individual “U.S. Shareholders”. To put it another way: individual shareholders are now presumptively taxed on income earned by the corporation, whether the income is paid out to the shareholders or not! The effect of this on individual Americans abroad has been discussed by Dr. Karen Alpert in her article: “Callous Neglect: The impact of United States tax reform on nonresident citizens“.

The expansion of the Subpart F Regime

The Subpart F rules were established in 1962. The principle behind them was that individual Americans should be prevented from, using foreign corporations to earn passive income, in jurisdictions with low tax regimes (or tax regimes that have lower taxes than those imposed by the United States). The Subpart F rules have (since 1986) included a provision to the effect that investment income (earned inside a foreign corporation) which was subject to foreign taxation at a rate of 90% or more of the U.S. corporate rate, would NOT be subject to taxation in the hands of the individual shareholder.

To put it another way (with respect to investment income):

1. It was mostly investment/passive income that was subject to inclusion in the incomes of individual shareholders as Subpart F income; and

2. Passive income that was subject to foreign taxation at a rate of 90% or more of the U.S. corporate tax rate (now 21%) would NOT be considered to be Subpart F income (and therefore not subject to inclusion in the hands of individual shareholders).

To coordinate my background discussion with the Arnold Porter submission described below, I will refer to exclusion of investment income subject to a 90% tax rate as “HTKO” (High Tax Kick Out).

The basic principle was (and continues to be):

If passive income earned in a foreign corporation is taxed at a rate of 90% or more of the U.S. corporate tax rate, that there was no attribution of that corporate income to the individual U.S. shareholder.

In its most simple terms, the Subpart F rules are found in Sections 951 – 965 of the Internal Revenue Code. They are designed to attribute income earned by the corporation directly to the U.S. shareholder, without regard to whether the corporate profits were paid to the shareholders as a dividend. Note that many developed countries have similar rules. Many developing (from a tax perspective) countries (for example Russia) are adopting Subpart F type rules. The U.S. rules are more complicated, more robust and (because of citizenship taxation) apply to the locally owned companies of individuals, who do not live in the United States.

Punishing them for their past and destroying their futures – The expansion of the Subpart F Regime to active business income

Continue reading →

Part 34 – 2019: Treasury Fails To Prevent @MonteSilver1 lawsuit against @USTransitionTax From Proceeding – Case To Be Heard On The Merits

1 Reply

What Happened

The judgment is here.

We win!!!!!

About The Transition Tax

As part of the 2017 TCJA, Congress imposed a retroactive tax, without any realization event, on the retained earnings of Controlled Foreign Corporations. Although intended to be the the “trade off” for lowering the Corporate Tax rate from 35% to 21%, it was interpreted to apply to the small business corporations owned by Americans abroad. (The tax compliance industry aggressively promoted this damaging interpretation of the law.) In any event, this imposed significant and life altering consequences on Americans abroad (particularly in Canada) for whom their small business corporations were really their pension plans. I documented the history, damage and madness of this in a series of posts about the transition tax. The law was interpreted (in various ways) and the regulations were drafted in an extremely punitive manner. What needs to be most understood is that a law intended for the Apples, Googles, etc. was interpreted to apply in the same way to individuals (your friends and neighbors) who owned small business corporations.

About The Regulatory Flexibility Act

Title 5 of the U.S. Code of Laws deals with how the U.S. Government works. Subtitle 5 is the Administrative Procedure Act. Subtitle 6 is the Regulatory Flexibility Act. At the risk of over-generalization, the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are to require the Government to consider the effect that certain rules/regulations have on small businesses and undertake specific procedural steps in relation to this consideration.

Learn About the Regulatory Flexibility Act

An excellent site providing education about the Regulatory Flexibility Act is here. Although written in the context of the EPA, the description offers the following introduction to the Regulatory Flexibility Act:

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq, was signed into law on September 19, 1980. The RFA imposes both analytical and procedural requirements on EPA and on other federal agencies. The analytical requirements call for EPA to carefully consider the economic impacts rules will have on small entities. The procedural requirements are intended to ensure that small entities have a voice when EPA makes policy determinations in shaping its rules. These analytical and procedural requirements do not require EPA to reach any particular result regarding small entities.

The key is that Government is required by law to consider the economic effect of regulations on small business entities.

And here …

Monte Silver’s Lawsuit Against the Transition Tax – Treasury Did NOT Consider The Impact Of The Transition Tax Regulations on Small Business Entities (including those run by Americans Abroad

The lawsuit was not (like other lawsuits) against the Transition Tax per se. Rather the lawsuit was about the the failure of U.S. Treasury to comply with the procedural requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Predictably, the Government argued that the lawsuit lacked standing. On December 24, 2019 a U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the plaintiff (Mr. Silver) did have standing. The reason was that his lawsuit was not against the transition tax itself. Rather the lawsuit was against U.S. Treasury causing injury resulting from the failure of Treasury to comply with the requirements mandated in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Congratulation to Monte Silver for an incredibly important win. The success of his lawsuit opens the door to many similar lawsuits (GILTI anyone?) down the road.

Earlier posts

In November of 2018 I first wrote about Mr. Silver’s lawsuit.

That post included the following earlier interviews.

Speaking with Monte Silver …

Interview 1 – October 16, 2018

Interview 2 – November 15, 2018

John Richardson – Follow me on Twitter @Expatriationlaw

To be FORMWarned is to be FORMArmed! The easiest way to receive a Form 3520A penalty would be to file a Form 3520

1 Reply

There is evidence from both tax practitioners and from individuals that Americans abroad are suffering from a “Form 3520A” penalty epidemic. Some of the best discussion of both the scope and technicalities of this problem may be found at Tax Connections. See particularly the posts here, here and here. (Mr. Carter’s original post was also reproduced at American Expat Finance.) The posts have attracted commentary from a number of tax professionals. The IRS Taxpayer Advocate has been invited to intervene.

“Tax Compliant” Americans Abroad are just a penalty waiting to happen!

Americans abroad are potentially required a very large number of IRS forms.

Continue reading →