Category Archives: Section 962

Part 37 – 2023: US Supreme Court To Hear Moore Appeal In Lawsuit Against @USTransitionTax – Great News!

Leave a reply

June 26, 2023 – Great News! – The US Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Moore 965 Transition Tax Case!

A direct link to the Supreme Court site which will track the progress and filings of all briefs (including what are expected to be a large number of amicus briefs) is here.

The brief from the CATO Institute frames the question addressed to the Supreme Court as follows:

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether Congress may levy income tax on a tax-payer who has not realized income.

What follows is a twitter thread (which I will continually update) which includes commentary, resources and general information about the appeal.

Litigation against the 965 Mandatory AKA transition tax has come from two sources.

The first source was from U.S. tax lawyer Monte Silver. His challenge to the tax was based generally on procedural grounds and specifically on the failure of U.S. Treasury to comply with the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Despite a heroic, valiant and determined effort the Supreme Court refused to hear his cert petition. As a result, in May 2023, his challenge came to an end. Monte Silver’s challenge focused on the legality of the Treasury Regulations insofar as they applied to US citizens living outside the United States.

The second source is the Charles Moore case. This case is arguing that the tax is unconstitutional. Although brought on behalf of an individual shareholder of a CFC, the case makes no mention of the application of the tax to Americans abroad. On June 26, 2023 (about a month after denying the cert petition in the Silver case) the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the Moore case. To be clear, this case is attacking the constitutionality of the tax (not the procedural aspects) head on. Much will be written about this issue and the case.

On September of 2019 I wrote a post describing the Moore lawsuit arguing that the Section 965 Transition Tax AKA Mandatory Repatriation Tax is unconstitutional. Although the Moore’s were not successful in the District Court and Appeals court, the Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear the case!

The Cert Petition

The Cert petition was based on an appeal from the 9th Circuit and a dissenting judgment from the plaintiff’s application to rehear the case in the 9th Circuit.

The original 9th Circuit decision is here.

The decision of the 9th Circuit denying the request (with the dissent) to rehear the Moore case is here.

An excellent article discussing the history of the Moore “Transition Tax” ligation is here.

The cert petition in CHARLES G. MOORE and KATHLEEN F. MOORE, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Respondent, includes:
Continue reading →

Post 36 – The Little Red @USTransitionTax Book – About the 965 Mandatory Repatriation Tax

Leave a reply

June 2023 – The fight against the 965 Transition AKA Mandatory Repatriation Tax Continues

On June 26, 2023 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the Moore appeal to the constitutionality of the U.S. Transition Tax. For those who don’t know, the transition is found in S. 965 of the Internal Revenue Code and was part of the 2017 TCJA. It was intended (in part) to be a “trade off” pursuant to which:

1. U.S. corporations would have the corporate tax rate lowered from 35% to 21%.

2. The U.S. Claimed to adopt “territorial taxation” for its corporations. Generally this meant that profits earned outside the United States would not be taxed by the United States.

3. The U.S. adopted the 951A GILTI rules which exposed the lie of moving to territorial taxation (the profits earned outside the United States were taxed before being distributed. They were then not taxed a second time on distribution).

4. The U.S. adopted that 965 transition AKA mandatory repatriation tax which was a retroactive tax on the retained earnings of CFCs which had not been distributed and therefore not subjected to U.S. taxation.

In a nutshell:

The 965 transition tax was a one time retroactive tax (going back to profits accrued since 1986) on earnings that were not subject to taxation at the time that they were earned. This is incredible stuff!!

But, (as usual) little thought was given to the fact that some CFCs were owned by individuals. No thought was given to the fact that many Americans living outside the United States had small business corporations in their country of residence.

For U.S. citizens in Canada, their small business corporations (in many cases) were actually their private pension plans. To put it simply:

The 965 transition AKA mandatory repatriation tax confiscated the pension plans of many Americans abroad. Frankly this is/was one of the most egregious offences against Americans abroad ever perpetrated by Congress and the Treasury.

In 2018 I began writing a number of blog posts about various aspects of this issue. These are written mostly from the perspective of Americans abroad who are dual “tax residents” (of other countries and of the United States). I don’t think the Moore’s are tax residents of India.

I haven’t written about the transition tax for a long time. That said, the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court is going to hear the Moore Case has reminded me of this issue. This means that more posts will be written. Each post is really a chapter. The posts have been designated as chapters which collectively compose the “Little Red Transition Tax Book”.

Therefore, this post (which I will add to) is “The Little Red Transition Tax Book”.

The posts include:

Continue reading →

US Senate Finance Hearing Affects Americans Abroad AKA Mini-Multinationals – Action Needed!

Leave a reply

Introduction

The background: The US Senate Finance Committee has begun hearings for the purpose of discussing further reform of the rules of International Tax. These reforms would appear to include raising the GILTI tax and raising US corporate tax rates in general. Each of these would have a massive negative effect on Americans abroad. The reasons are detailed in the rest of this post.

Bottom line: Americans abroad need to send their views (presumably objections) to the Committee. The rest of this post provides the background, SEAT’s understanding of the issue and templates individuals can use to email Senate Finance.

Please forward this post to anybody who you believe would be affected by this (anybody who runs a small business through a corporation.)

Okay ….

Continue reading →

Proposal by @JoeBiden to increase the GILTI tax has particularly vicious implications for #Americansabroad

Leave a reply

Introduction

Taxation is what America is about and America is about taxation.

Perhaps it’s better to say that:

Politics is about taxation and taxation is about politics.

Once Upon A Time In America

The primary legislative achievement of President Trump’s first term was the 2017 TCJA. It’s important to note that the TCJA had it’s genesis in the work of Michigan Congressman Dave Camp and was the result of a long term project of reworking the US tax system. It is absolutely incorrect to suggest that the TCJA was developed by the Trump Administration. It should not be referred to as “Trump Tax Reform”. That said, because of the “politics” involved in enacting the TCJA, the Trump Administration and Republican Controlled Ways and Means Committee, did impact the legislation at the margins. (Rate of repatriation tax, etc.)

Like all tax legislation the TJCA had clear winners and clear losers.

The TCJA Winner(s)

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

Part 33 – US residents bring suit alleging that the Section 965 US Transition Tax is Unconstitutional

Leave a reply

A lawsuit alleging that the Section 965 transition tax is unconstitutional affords the opportunity to write Part 33 in my series of posts about the U.S. Transition Tax.

Part 22 of this series included a discussion of a paper by Sean P. McElroy which argued that the Section 965 repatriation tax was unconstitutional for the following reasons explained in the abstract:

Continue reading →

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

Leave a reply


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

US Treasury interprets Section 962 Election to mean that individual shareholders are entitled to 50% exclusion of #GILTI income when calculating income attributed

Leave a reply

On March 4, 2019 as described by Helen Burggraf at American Expat Finance:
My comment included:

Also welcoming the news of the changes in the tax treatment of Americans’ overseas small businesses was John Richardson, a Toronto-based lawyer at CtizenshipSolutions.ca, who specializes in assisting Americans abroad with their tax and citizenship issues. The Treasury, Richardson said, should be congratulated for taking a “purposive” approach “when interpreting how Sec. 951A interacts with Sec. 962” of the relevant regulations.
In layman’s terms, Richardson noted, the new regulation means that “American expats may now deduct 50% of the active business income defined as GILTI, thus reducing the amount of GILTI they would be expected to have to pay tax on.”
However, the new regulations don’t affect the so-called Section 965 “transition tax,” he noted.
“It appears that Treasury heard and understood the problems faced by individual shareholders of CFCs [Controlled Foreign Corporations].
“I suspect that organisations representing S Corps [a type of closely-held corporation, as defined by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service] also made submissions to Treasury and had an influence on this decision.
“All Americans abroad should be encouraged by this. Instead of interpreting the law in the most literal and punitive way, it appears that Treasury has recognized the problems that individuals, whether living inside or outside America, faced.
“The bottom line is that small business owners abroad will now, for the most part, be able to defer U.S. taxation on the active business income of their corporations by using the Sec. 962 election, provided that their corporations are paying sufficient local tax. They will of course have to pay U.S. tax when the income is distributed to them.
“But [even here], the distributions will be subject to local tax which can then be used, via the FTC rules, to offset U.S. tax owing – for active business income.
“In other words, this is excellent news for Americans abroad.”

Full discussion here …


An example of the 50% discount and the Section 962 election here …


John Richardson – Follow me on Twitter at @ExpatriationLaw