Category: Tax

Illinois Trust Taxation Deemed Unconstitutional

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

In Linn v. Department of Revenue, the Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court reviewed the state’s statutory framework for taxing trusts. Linn v. Department of Revenue, 2013 Il App (4th) 121055.  On constitutional grounds, the court limited Illinois’ power to impose taxes under its “once subject to tax, forever subject to tax” regime.

This case creates planning opportunities to minimize Illinois income taxes.  However, it should be noted that the Linn case applies to trusts that pay Illinois income tax on trust dividends, interest, capital gains or other income retained by the trust and not distributed to a beneficiary.  This case does not apply to income distributed to an Illinois beneficiary; that income clearly can be taxed by Illinois.

Illinois Trusts

Illinois trusts are subject to a 5 percent income tax plus a 1.5 percent personal property replacement tax.  A nonresident trust is subject to taxation only on income generated within Illinois or apportioned to the state.  Resident trusts, on the other hand, are subject to tax on all income, regardless of the source of that income.  For an individual, state income taxation on a resident basis generally requires domicile or residence within the taxing state.  With respect to a trust, one or more of the grantor, trustees and beneficiaries may have contacts with a state sufficient to uphold as constitutional a tax on all of the trust income.

Illinois defines a resident trust based solely on the domicile of the grantor. 35 ILCS 5/1501(a)(20).  A resident trust means:

  • A trust created by a will of a decedent who at death was domiciled in Illinois or
  • An irrevocable trust, the grantor of which was domiciled in Illinois at the time the trust became irrevocable.  For purposes of the statute, a trust is irrevocable when it’s no longer treated as a grantor trust under Sections 671 through 678 of the Internal Revenue Code.

The Illinois statute would forever tax the income generated by the trust property, regardless of the trust’s continuing connection to Illinois.  One can analogize the Illinois statute to a hypothetical statute providing that any person born in Illinois to resident parents is deemed an Illinois resident and subject to Illinois taxation no matter where that person eventually resides or earns income.  Many lawyers believe that the Illinois statute is unconstitutional.

Linn

Linn involved a trust established in 1961 by A.N. Pritzker, an Illinois resident.  The trust was initially administered under Illinois law by trustees who lived in Illinois.  In 2002, the trustee exercised a power granted in the trust instrument to distribute the trust property to a new trust (the Texas Trust).  Although the Texas Trust generally provided for administration under Texas law, certain provisions of the trust instrument continued to be interpreted under Illinois law.  The Texas Trust was subsequently modified by a Texas court to eliminate all references to Illinois law, and the trustee filed the Texas Trust’s 2006 Illinois tax return as a nonresident.  At that time:

  • No current trust beneficiary resided in Illinois;
  • No trustee or other trust officeholder resided in Illinois;
  • All trust assets were located outside Illinois; and
  • Illinois law wasn’t referred to in the modified trust instrument

The Illinois Department of Revenue (the IDR) asserted that the trust was a resident trust for 2006 and that, as such, the trust pay Illinois income tax on all income.  The trustee countered that the imposition of Illinois tax under these circumstances was unconstitutional as a violation of the due process clause and the commerce clause.  The court held the statute was unconstitutional based on due process grounds (not reaching the commerce clause arguments), and stated that the following are the requirements for a statute to sustain a due process challenge:  (1) a minimum connection must exist between the state and the person, property or transaction it seeks to tax during the period in issue and (2) the income attributed to the state for tax purposes must be rationally related to values with the taxing state. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298, 306 (1992).

This was the first case in Illinois on this issue so the court cited cases from other jurisdictions, including Chase Manhattan Bank v. Gavin, 733 A. 2d 782 (Conn. 1999), McCulloch v. Franchise Tax Board, 390 P.2d 412 (Cal. 1964), Blue v. Department of Treasury, 462 N.W.2d 762 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990) and Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Murphy, 242 N.Y.S.2d 26 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963).  Gavin, which upheld the application of the Connecticut income tax on the undistributed income of a lifetime trust created by a Connecticut grantor, was cited at length by the court.  A critical fact in that case was that the beneficiary resided within the state for the year in question and the court assumed that the beneficiary would receive all trust property shortly.  In Linn, the court noted, there were no Illinois beneficiaries.  Relying on Blue and Mercantile, the court found that a grantor’s residence within a state isn’t itself enough to satisfy due process.

The IDR argued that significant connections with Illinois existed, maintaining that the trust owed its existence to Illinois law and listing legal benefits Illinois provides to the trustees and beneficiaries. The IDR cited some cases that involved trusts created by a will (i.e.,testamentary trusts).  The Illinois court disagreed with the testamentary trust cases the IDR relied on, finding that a lifetime trust’s connections with a state are more attenuated than in the case of a testamentary trust.  Further, the court found that the Texas Trust wasn’t created under Illinois law, but rather by a power granted to the trustees under the original trust instrument.  The court proceeded to dismiss the trust’s historical connections to Illinois and focused on contemporaneous connections, finding that “what happened historically with the trust in Illinois courts and under Illinois law has no bearing on the 2006 tax year.”  Linn at ¶30.  For 2006, the court concluded that the trust received the benefits and protections of Texas law, not Illinois law.

Steps to Consider

The IDR did not appeal the Linn decision to the Illinois Supreme Court.  We anticipate that additional cases will test and define the boundaries of the Linn decision.  Of course, Illinois might change its statute. For the time being, however, the Linn decision is binding authority for trustees of trusts that can eliminate all contact with Illinois.

Trustees of resident trusts with limited contacts to Illinois (in particular, those trusts without trustees, assets or non-contingent beneficiaries in Illinois) should consider the following issues.

  • Review state taxation:  The trustee should review connections to Illinois and consider whether actions could be taken to fall within theLinn holding.  Contacts with other states and those states’ rules for taxing trusts should also be reviewed.
  • File Illinois return with no tax due:  Pending guidance from the IDR, the trustee could consider filing an IL Form 1041, referencing theLinn case and reporting no tax due.  For each tax year, a tax return must be filed in order to commence the running of the statute of limitations.  An Illinois appellate court decision that supports the taxpayer’s position will ordinarily provide a basis for the abatement of tax penalties. 86 Ill. Admin Code Section 700.400(e)(8). However, if the facts are not exactly like those in Linn, a penalty cold be imposed on the trustee.  A safer method for trusts when the facts are not the same as in Linn would be to file and pay the Illinois tax in full but then file a claim for refund.  This should eliminate penalties but likely will result in a dispute with the IDR.
  • Amend prior tax returns:  The trustee could consider filing amended tax returns for prior years and claim a refund.  A trustee that has timely filed prior year tax returns may file an amended tax return at any time prior to the third anniversary of the due date of the tax return, including extensions.  For example, the 2010 tax year return may be amended at any time prior to October 15, 2014.

Other Considerations

Given the holding in Linn and uncertainty regarding trust tax law, trusts that offer flexibility and can adapt to changing circumstances may have a distinct advantage.

  • Officeholders:  Carefully consider the residency of trustees and other trust officeholders (such as investment advisers) and provisions regarding the appointment and removal of those officeholders.
  • Decanting provision:  Consider providing the trustee with broad authority to distribute trust property in further trust.
  • Lifetime trusts:  While the legal basis for the continued income taxation of a testamentary trust may also be questionable, testamentary trusts can be avoided by creating lifetime trusts.
  • Situs and administration:  Consider establishing and administering the trust in a state that doesn’t assess an income tax against trust income.
  • Governing law:  Consider including trust provisions that allow the trustee to elect the laws of another state to govern the trust.
  • Discretionary dispositive provisions:  Consider including discretionary rather than mandatory trust distribution provisions, as some states may tax a trust based on the residence of beneficiaries with non-contingent trust interests.
  • Division provisions:  Consider including provisions authorizing a trustee to divide a trust without altering trust dispositive provisions.  This type of provision may allow a trustee to divide a trust into separate trusts and isolate the elements of a trust attracting state taxation.  For example, a trust may simply be divided into two separate trusts, one trust for the benefit of a child and his descendants that live in Illinois and a second trust that might not be subject to Illinois taxation, for a child and his descendants that don’t live in Illinois.
Article By:

James H. Cundiff
L. Timothy Halleron
Of: 
McDermott Will & Emery

 

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies That Severance Pay is Taxable—in Most Cases

DrinkerBiddle

On Tuesday, March 25, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-0 decision, ruled that severance payments made to employees who are involuntarily terminated are taxable wages under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA).  Quality Stores, Inc., et al., 12-1408.  The Court reversed the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in favor of Quality Stores, which was seeking a $1 million tax refund based on its argument that severance payments were not covered by FICA and were excluded from taxation based on the Internal Revenue Code.  The Court’s ruling resolved a split between the Sixth Circuit and the Federal Circuit, and ended a legal battle with more than $1 billion at stake in potential tax refunds to employers involved in 11 separate cases with more than 2,400 refund claims.

Quality argued that its severance payments to terminated employees were actually supplemental unemployment compensation benefits (SUB), which are not considered “wages” under the Internal Revenue Code.  According to the company, “a SUB payment is a type of payment that—although made by an employer to [its] former employee—nonetheless does not meet the statutory definition of ‘wages’ because it is not remuneration for services.”  The Court noted that the severance payments were made only to employees and were based on employment-driven criteria including the position held, the employee’s length of service with the company and salary at the time of termination.  Relying on the “broad definition of wages under FICA,” the Court ruled that severance payments to employees who are terminated involuntarily are taxable under FICA.

However, in its decision the Court noted IRS revenue rulings that severance payments tied to the receipt of unemployment compensation benefits “are exempt not only from income tax withholding but also FICA taxation.”  Thus, employers appear to continue to be able to make severance payments not taxable through a carefully crafted structure linking the severance payments to the employee’s receipt of unemployment compensation benefits.

Article By:

Mark D. Nelson
Alejandra Lara
Of:
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Has Your Trust Lost Touch With Illinois? If So, It May Not Be Subject to Illinois Income Tax

MUCHblue

 

Overview

In December 2013, an Illinois Appellate Court of the Fourth District held that an inter vivos trust – that had no connections with Illinois other than the fact that the settlor of the trust was residing in Illinois when the trust was created – was not subject to Illinois income taxation.  Linn v. Department of Revenue, 213 IL App (4th) 121055.  Even though the Illinois Department of Revenue (“IDOR”) had the opportunity to appeal the ruling, it did not do so.  As a result, there may be an opportunity for inter vivos trusts established by an Illinois settlor to avoid Illinois income tax – if such trusts no longer have sufficient contact with the State of Illinois.

Background

The relevant portion of the Illinois Income Tax Act defines an Illinois resident as “[a]n irrevocable trust, the grantor of which was domiciled in [Illinois] at the time such trust became irrevocable.” 35 ILCS 5/1501(a)(20)(D).  The trust at issue in Linn was established in 1961 when the grantor and trustee of the trust were Illinois residents.  At the time the trust was established, the beneficiary of the trust resided in Illinois, and the trust assets were deposited in Illinois.  The trust instrument provided that Illinois law would govern the construction, administration and validity of the trust.

In 2007, the trust filed a 2006 nonresident Illinois income tax return – as the trustee and beneficiaries were no longer residents of Illinois and the trust had no Illinois situs income.  Additionally, the trust agreement had been modified in 2002 to provide that it shall be construed and regulated under Texas law.  Due to the lack of sufficient contact with Illinois, the Illinois Appellate Court held that the imposition of Illinois income tax on the trust was unconstitutional in violation of the due process clause – as the trust did not meet any factors that would give Illinois personal jurisdiction over the trust.

Review of Existing Irrevocable Trusts

As a result of the decision in Linn, there may be an opportunity for certain trusts that have no contact with Illinois to avoid Illinois income tax.  In spite of Illinois law that deems a trust to be an Illinois resident if the grantor of a trust resides within the State when it becomes irrevocable, the decision in Linn effectively invalidates that law when a trust no longer has any connections to Illinois.  In the wake of Linn decision, we recommend that you review any irrevocable trusts established by a grantor who resided in Illinois (at the time of creation) to consider the following:

  • The current residence or location of the trustee and the beneficiaries, and the present location of the trust assets.
  • Whether the trust agreement contains provisions that (i) allow a trustee to be appointed outside the State of Illinois, or (ii) permit the law governing the trust to be changed to another state.
  • Whether the trust allows “decanting” – which is a process authorized by a recent Illinois statute that allows the transfer of assets to a new trust, which could be governed by the law of another state.
  • Whether a trust with no connections to Illinois for the past several years (and which filed Illinois income tax returns and paid Illinois income taxes) should file a claim for refund.  Generally, there is a three year period from the due date (or filing date) of an income tax return to file an amended return and claim a refund.

Conclusion

The Linn decision is now the law in Illinois.  Therefore, if you are a beneficiary or a trustee of a trust originally created in Illinois (or an advisor to any such beneficiary or trustee), you should examine whether the trust has sufficient connections to Illinois to be taxed.

Article By:

 
Of:

 

Letters Of Intent For On-Site Solar Energy Transactions

Sills-Cummis-Gross-607x84

An increasing number of retail, office, industrial and warehouse/distribution property owners are utilizing electricity generated by on-site photovoltaic (also referred to as “pv” or “solar”) systems to meet a portion of their properties’ electrical energy needs. The pv systems can be located on the roofs of buildings, in parking fields, on open areas of the property or on two or more of these locations.

One of the most common methods that property owners are using to obtain such on-site solar-generated electricity is to enter into a power purchase agreement, often referred to as a “PPA,” with a solar developer, frequently referred to as a “provider.” In a PPA, the property owner, often called a “host,” provides leasehold or license rights on its property to the provider for the installation and operation of the pv system, and the provider sells the electricity that the pv system generates to the host. The provider generally owns all of the governmental and utility company incentives provided in connection with the pv system, and the host usually owns the net metering rights for the pv system.

However, the negotiation of a PPA frequently takes more time and is more complex than the economic benefits of the PPA to the provider and the host warrant. One of the major reasons for this problem is that the typical initial letter of intent (“LOI”) for a PPA transaction frequently fails to address the issues that often cause the most difficulty when the host and provider attempt to negotiate and finalize the PPA itself. The balance of this article sets forth several of these additional issues that should be included in a PPA LOI and explores methods of ameliorating the conflicts they create between the provider and the host.

Electricity Rate Cap

Many LOIs include a cap on the rate that the provider will charge the host for the electricity that the pv system generates. The cap usually provides that the rate that the provider charges to the host cannot exceed the rate that that host’s regulated local electrical utility, referred to in this article as the “Utility,” or the host’s third-party power supplier, charges the host for electricity at the property in question.

However, in setting this cap, it is important to remember that the Utility charges the host, whether or not the host also has a third-party power supplier, for many items other than the electricity itself, some of which are based on electricity consumption and some of which are static. Accordingly, when the host and provider agree on the rate cap in the LOI, they should clearly state what portions of the Utility and third-party power provider rate are included in determining the cap.

Interconnection Agreement

In order to operate a pv system and to obtain net metering for the excess electricity that the pv system generates, the Utility requires that its customer, usually the host, sign an interconnection agreement. The terms of the interconnection agreement are set forth in the Utility’s tariff and are, hence, non-negotiable. While the host must sign the interconnection agreement, most of the undertakings in the interconnection agreement are the responsibility of the provider under the PPA. Accordingly, the LOI should provide that the host will sign the interconnection agreement and that each party will agree to perform its obligations under the interconnection agreement, while indemnifying the other party for its failure to do so.

Purchase Of Excess Electricity

Pv systems by their nature cannot provide all of a property’s electricity needs all of the time. Additionally, in most jurisdictions, either the Utility or a government regulator limits the size of the pv system, so that it will not generate more than a maximum percentage (for example, 80 percent) of a property’s electricity usage. However, notwithstanding these circumstances, there are times when the pv system will generate more electricity than the property is using, causing the Utility meter to run backwards, referred to as “net metering.” In many jurisdictions, usually by means of the interconnection agreement, the Utility will pay the host or credit the host’s future electric bills for the amount of this excess electricity.

For this reason, most PPAs provide that the host will purchase all of the electricity the pv system generates and own all the net-metering credits. However, before entering into a PPA, a host should review its third-party electricity supply contracts to make sure that they do not contain prohibitions against pv or other on-site systems or do not contain minimum usage requirements. The PPA and LOI should

also address the situation where the property becomes vacant, because most net-metering programs have limitations on how much excess electricity the Utility has to buy.

Electricity Production Guaranty

Many hosts assume, in their financial planning for a property’s operation, that the pv system will generate a minimum amount of electricity in each calendar year. Accordingly, they request a production guaranty. If the host wants a production guaranty, this should be set forth in the LOI. Additionally, the adjustments to the guaranty for weather, system shutdowns and force majeure events should be spelled out.

Taxes

Many jurisdictions provide limited sales and use tax exemptions on the sale of electricity from on-site pv systems and exclusions from increases in real property taxes by reason of their location on a property. However, other jurisdictions do not provide such exemptions or the exemptions are very narrow and do not apply to every situation. Accordingly, the host and provider should determine whether or not a tax exemption exists or applies before they enter into a LOI. If the exemption is available, the LOI should set forth which party is responsible for obtaining it. If no exemption applies, the LOI should set forth which party is responsible for the particular tax.

SNDAs

Most properties are subject to mortgage secured debt. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, as adopted in most jurisdictions, the PPA can provide that the pv system is the personal property of the provider, not a fixture, and thus not subject to the lien of the mortgage on the property. However, most loan and security agreements for most mortgages also provide for security interests in the personal property located at the property. The language in these documents is often extremely broad. Additionally, the provider needs access rights over the property to install and repair the pv system and rights to place the pv system on the property. PPAs generally provide these rights as leasehold or license rights. Finally, many mortgages require mort- gagee consent for the installation of pv systems on the property.

Accordingly, the LOI should set forth whether or not, and at whose cost, the host will obtain subordination, non-disturbance, attornment and lien waiver agreements (“SNDAs”) from all current and future holders of mortgages on the property. Such a provision can provide for the sharing of the cost to obtain the SNDA between provider and host, with a waiver or cancellation option if the cost exceeds a certain amount.

Non-interference With PV System And Property Access

Many retail tenants, in particular, have consent rights over the roofs of their stores, rights to install HVAC systems and antennas on their roofs and exclusive rights over certain parking lots and common areas. The provider cannot allow its pv system to be moved, damaged or shaded. Additionally, the provider needs laydown, storage and parking areas for its installation, repair and maintenance of the pv system. Accordingly, the LOI should address tenant consents and lease and OEA amendments, if required, in order to insure non-interference with the pv system and necessary provider access. The LOI should also address which party is responsible for obtaining the consents and access and non-interference rights and at whose cost. Additionally, the LOI can provide for a non-penalty termination of the PPA if these consents and rights cannot be obtained.

Temporary PV System Relocation, Removal Or Shutdown Most PPAs have a term of 15 to 20 years. During such a time period, roofs often have to be repaired and parking lots resurfaced. The cost to relocate or temporarily remove and reinstall a pv system is significant. Additionally, the cost to the provider in lost electricity revenue and more importantly lost incentive revenue can be substantial. Accordingly, the LOI should set forth which party will bear these costs or how they will be shared. Cost sharing may shift later in the term of the PPA because the provider’s loss of incentive revenues will likely be less and the need for repairs will be more likely to occur.

PV System Purchase Options

If the PPA is going to provide for a purchase option, the LOI should address at what times in the term the host can exercise its option and set forth the method for determining the fair market value of the pv system at the time of the exercise of the option, including what factors will be used in determining the value of the pv system.

Assignment

The LOI should state when, under what terms and to whom the parties can assign their rights under the PPA and whether a party and, if applicable, its guarantor, remains obligated under the PPA after an assignment.

Limitations On Liability

The LOI should specify whether the parties will be responsible for consequential damages, whether there will be absolute limitations on all damages, including indemnification obligations, and the dollar amount of these limitations.

Parental Guaranties

Most pv systems are owned through a single-purpose entity whose only asset is the pv system, and most shopping centers are owned by single-asset, single-purpose entities. Accordingly, the provider and the host should determine in the LOI if they are going to provide parental guaranties to each other and under what terms.

Conclusion

While the list of issues this article covers is by no means exhaustive, the author hopes that it will be helpful in streamlining the negotiation of PPAs.

This article appeared in the March 2014 issue of The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Sills Cummis & Gross P.C. Copyright © 2014 Sills Cummis & Gross P.C. All rights reserved.

Article by:

Kevin J. Moore

Of:

Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

The Complicated Landscape of US Estate Tax

Altro Levy Logo

Canadians who own assets in the U.S. may be subject to U.S. estate tax.

This tax is based on the fair market value of all U.S. assets owned at the time of death. It can reach 40%, depending on the value of U.S. assets and the world-wide estate.

But not all Canadians who own U.S. assets will be subject to U.S. estate tax. A close look at the new U.S. estate tax rules will help you determine whether your Canadian clients are exposed to U.S. estate tax.

New U.S. estate tax rules

On January 2, 2013, President Obama signed the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2013 (the Act) into law. The Act resolves many of the issues raised by the fiscal cliff.

Pursuant to the Act, U.S. estate tax liability of non-U.S. residents depends on the answers to the following two questions:

  1. Is the value of the U.S. estate more than $60,000?
  2. Is the value of the worldwide estate greater than $5,250,000?

If the fair market value (FMV) of U.S. assets is less than $60,000 on the date of death, then there is no U.S. estate tax. If the value of U.S. assets on death exceeds $60,000, a Canadian’s estate may still be exempt from U.S. estate tax if the value of his or her worldwide estate upon death is less than what is known as the “exemption.”

Worldwide exemption for 2013 and beyond

The Act provides an exemption from U.S. estate tax if a non-resident dies with a worldwide estate with a FMV of less than $5,250,000. This exemption amount is inflation-adjusted. Everything counts when calculating a Canadian client’s worldwide estate—including RRSPs and life insurance.

Additionally, when advising a married couple about U.S. estate tax exposure, it’s important to calculate the value of both spouses’ estates combined.

Clients often ask whether the U.S. estate tax is on the worldwide estate. The answer is no; the IRS does not tax a Canadian resident (who is not a U.S. citizen) on his or her worldwide estate.

The only assets that are subject to U.S. estate tax for Canadians are U.S. assets.

What are U.S. assets?

Common U.S. assets include real estate in the U.S. and personally held stocks of U.S. corporations, both public and private.

Here’s a complete list of U.S. assets subject to U.S. tax:

  • real estate property located in the U.S;
  • certain tangible personal property located in the U.S., such as furniture, vehicles, boats and airplanes;
  • golf club equity memberships;
  • shares of U.S. corporations, regardless of the location of the share certificates (even inside RRSPs or RRIFs);
  • interests in partnerships owning U.S. real estate or carrying on business in the U.S.;
  • U.S. pension plans and annuity amounts (IRAs and 401K plans);
  • stock options of a U.S. company;
  • U.S. mutual funds;
  • money owed to Canadians by American persons; and
  • money market accounts with U.S. brokerage firms.

The following is a list of U.S. assets not subject to U.S. estate tax:

  • U.S. bank deposits;
  • certain debt obligations, such as U.S. government bonds;
  • American depository receipts;
  • term deposits/guaranteed investment certificates;
  • real estate situated outside the U.S.;
  • Canadian mutual funds denominated in U.S. dollars that invest in U.S. stocks;
  • life insurance proceeds payable on the death of a Canadian citizen and resident who is not an American citizen; and
  • non-U.S. stocks, bonds and mutual funds.

Many Canadians own assets subject to U.S. estate tax with vacation homes and shares of U.S. corporations topping the list. How can you help clients who own these assets?

The following scenario provides some answers.

Strategies for Canadians who own U.S. assets

Richard is a Canadian citizen and resident, single, with a worldwide estate of $10 million. He owns an $800,000 property in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.

Richard’s inherited 25% of the shares of four Florida corporations from his deceased father, which he estimates have a value of $200,000. Each corporation owns an apartment building in South Florida.

The chart “Example estimates” (this page) approximates Richard’s 2013 exposure to U.S. estate tax.

Tax planning for U.S. real estate

The goal of any tax-planning for a Canadian owner of U.S. real estate is to ensure the estate of the Canadian decedent is not subject to U.S. estate tax. Consequently, title should not be in his or her name. Alternative ownership structures include:

  • corporation;
  • cross-border trust (irrevocable or revocable); and
  • limited partnership.

These ownership structures avoid probate and guardianship proceedings in the case of incapacity and can defer or avoid U.S. estate tax.

Tax planning for stocks

Although Richard’s shares of U.S. stock are considered U.S. assets, there are tax-planning techniques for avoiding U.S. estate tax.

01 Sell

This may trigger capital gains tax in Canada, though Richard may have some capital losses to apply against it.

02 Create a Canadian holding corporation

Transfer the shares of U.S. stocks on a tax-free basis into a Canadian corporation, of which Richard is the shareholder.

Should Richard pass away with U.S. stock in his Canadian holding company, there will be no U.S. estate tax because Richard no longer owns shares of a U.S. company; he only owns shares of a Canadian holding corporation that owns shares of the Florida companies that Richard’s father passed on to him.

The U.S. Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act (FIRPTA) may apply to Richard’s transfer of U.S. stocks into a Canadian company. FIRPTA requires that 10% of the sale price or transfer value of U.S. real estate by a non-resident of the U.S. be withheld and remitted to the IRS. Richard can avoid this with proper structuring and reporting, which we’ll explain next time. No withholding will be required and no disposition will have occurred.

Example estimates of U.S. Estate Tax Payable for 2013

Article by:

David A. Altro

Of:

Altro Levy LLP

“Dual” Employment Contracts for US Executives Working in the UK

VedderPriceLogo

 

Background

February 2014

Individuals, whether of British or foreign nationality, who reside in the UK are, in principle, taxable on their worldwide employment income. Many US executives who are “seconded” by their US employer to work in the UK may therefore become UK tax resident.

Such US executives who have not been UK resident in the three previous tax years and are not UK domiciled need not pay UK tax on their overseas earnings if they do not bring the income to the UK. Other US executives resident in the UK over the longer term may incur liability for UK tax on their overseas income unless their employer structures their employment duties under separate employment contracts, one with the UK subsidiary for their UK duties and another with the US parent for their overseas duties. These have become known as “dual contracts”. If the non-UK domiciled executive keeps the income earned under the overseas contract outside the UK, no UK income tax should arise on that income. He or she will pay UK income tax on the income earned in the UK under his or her UK contract.

“All Change”

In December 2013 HM Government announced that it would be clamping down on the artificial use of dual contracts for longer-term UK residents and has now published draft legislation that makes offshore employment income in a dual-contract arrangement taxable in the UK in certain cases.

The New Rules

Under the new anti-avoidance rules, which come into force on 6 April 2014, the dual-contract overseas income of US executives resident in the UK will be taxed in the UK if:

  • the executive has a UK employment and one or more foreign employments,
  • the UK employer and the offshore employer either are the same entity or are in the same group,
  • the UK employment and the offshore employment are “related”, and
  • the foreign tax rate that applies to the remuneration from the offshore employment is less than 75 percent of the applicable rate of UK tax. The current top rate of UK income tax is 45 percent, and 75 percent of this rate is 33.75 percent.

The UK employment and the offshore employment will be “related” where, by way of non-exhaustive example:

  • one employment operates by reference to the other employment,
  • the duties performed in both employments are essentially the same (regardless of where those duties are performed),
  • the performance of duties under one contract is dependent on the performance of duties under the other,
  • the executive is a director of either employer, or is otherwise a senior employee or one of the highest earning employees of either employer, or
  • the duties under the dual contracts involve, wholly or partly, the provision of goods or services to the same customers or clients.

Action

US corporations should urgently review the use of dual contracts for their non-UK domiciled executives seconded to their UK subsidiaries before the 6 April 2014 start date. The proposed legislation is widely drafted and has the potential to catch even genuine dual-contract arrangements. If one of the dual contracts is with a group employer in a low-tax jurisdiction, that contract may be especially vulnerable. Dual contracts will not necessarily become extinct, but in the future, careful cross-border tax advice should be sought in their structuring.

Article by:

Of:

Vedder Price

It’s That Time of the Year Again Re: Wisconsin Property Taxes

Michael Best Logo

It’s time to open up the unwelcome envelope with your property tax bill inside. Property taxes are necessary, of course, for roads and schools and all of the other services your property receives, but you should take some time to make sure that you are not paying more than your fair share of these taxes.

Wisconsin’s State Constitution has a provision requiring that all real estate be taxed “uniformly.” Regular real estate and personal property is taxed by the local municipality. Property which is used for manufacturing purposes, is taxed by the State of Wisconsin, in an effort to make sure that manufacturing property throughout the State is taxed in the same manner. Land which is in agricultural use enjoys a separate “use value assessment” system, which not only allows a lower assessment for land in that use, but also requires a per-acre penalty if that land is removed from the ag use, as defined by those statutes.

Of course, each of those taxing categories is controlled by pages of regulations containing definitions and limitations which are too complicated to insert into this article. Be aware that if you bought a parcel during calendar year 2013, your tax assessment may rise next year to the sale price named on the Transfer Tax Return filed with that deed, and you will receive a notice next spring of that increased assessment. The notice will tell you the procedure for contesting that new higher assessment and the time period, usually very short, during which you must file an appeal or lose the opportunity for another year. However, if your tax assessment should have been reduced and was not, you might not receive a notice at all, which means you must affirmatively seek out the date for filing the tax challenge and the forms needed to preserve the right to challenge. You must affirmatively notify the assessor if you demolished a building, lost a tenant, suffered a casualty loss, signed new leases for lower rents or had to offer rent concessions to renew a lease, or moved a parcel of land into or out of ag use, if you want to be sure the tax assessment is properly calculated for the actual use of the land and actual income from it. We can help you evaluate behind the scenes if the property is accurately assessed, and if it is not, file and defend a claim for you. We often charge a nominal amount for the investigation and then take the tax challenge on a contingency basis so you are only billed if we secure a tax savings for you.

Article by:

Nancy Leary Haggerty

Of:

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Same Sex Marriages: Are You Filing Your Taxes Properly?

Poyner Spruill

 

In late 2013, I met with my first same sex couple clients since the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) last year.  If you recall, DOMA  was the federal law barring the federal government from recognizing same sex marriages legalized by states.  It was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court as violative of the Fifth Amendment.  The IRS issued a statement on August 29, 2013 that provided that same sex couples legally married in a jurisdiction that recognizes their marriage would be treated as married for federal tax purposes regardless of the laws of their domiciliary state.  As a result, same sex couples married in a state that legally recognizes their marriage will be entitled to the estate and gift tax marital deduction, and they must also file their federal income tax returns with the status of married or married filing separately.  (The Department of Labor issued a similar statement in Technical Release No. 2013-4, meaning that for purposes of ERISA, legally married couples are treated as married, regardless of the laws of their domiciliary state.)

North Carolina does not recognize same sex marriage as valid, so for purposes of North Carolina taxes, where does that leave our North Carolina-residing same sex couple clients that were legally married in another state?  NCDOR directive PD-13-1 provides that “Because North Carolina does not recognize same-sex marriage as valid… individuals who enter into a same-sex marriage in another state cannot file a North Carolina income tax return using the filing status of married. Such individuals who file a federal income tax return as married must each complete a separate pro forma federal return for North Carolina purposes with the filing status of single  to determine each individual’s proper adjusted gross income, deductions and tax credits allowed under the Code for the filing status used for North Carolina purposes.”

My clients are considering getting married in a state that recognizes same sex marriage, but they want to understand the legal implications for them if they do.  They are concerned about the “marriage penalty” for federal income tax purposes and the complexity of having different laws and rules for federal and  state purposes. They do not have an estate tax problem, so the availability of the unlimited estate tax marital deduction is of no consequence to them. However, they are considering retitling the house currently owned by one of them into their joint names.  I cautioned them that such transfer would constitute a taxable gift to the extent the value of the interest transferred exceeded the donor owner’s $14,000 annual exclusion. In fact, one partner’s use of funds for the benefit of the other in excess of the donor-partner’s annual exclusion in any year will require the donor-partner to file a gift tax return. If they are legally married, there would be no taxable gifts in those circumstances due to the unlimited marital gift tax deduction. My clients each have a 401(k) plan, so if they were to marry, under ERISA, they must be designated beneficiary of each other’s accounts unless the spouse waives that right.

As an advisor, if you have same sex couple clients who have been married in a state that recognizes same sex marriage and they have paid taxes or used exemptions (income, gift or estate tax) based on separate status, you may consider whether they can and should file amended returns based on married filing status to recoup taxes or exemptions. And they should be advised to revisit their beneficiary designations and their estate planning documents if they have not done so already.

Article by:

Westray B. Veasey

Of:

Poyner Spruill LLP

Show Me the Money: When Can I Expect My Tax Refund?

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

 

Tax filing season got a late start this year thanks to the 2013 government shutdown; the IRS pushed back its official return acceptance date from January 21 to January 31. Now that IRS is accepting returns, when can taxpayers expect to see their refund?

The IRS claims that 9 out of 10 refunds are issued in less than 21 days. The IRS website has a tool called, “Where’s My Refund?” that can be used to check the status of a return 24 hours after the agency receives it electronically or 4 weeks after it is received by mail (i.e., paper return).

The IRS and tax professionals alike strongly encourage taxpayers to file electronically. Doing so can result in a quicker refund. In addition, how a taxpayer elects to receive a refund, via direct deposit or paper check, can affect wait times. Generally, the closer to the deadline (April 15th) that a return is filed, the longer the wait will be (as a majority of filers tend to wait until the deadline approaches).

It is important to note that a return can be filed without immediate payment. No penalty or interest will be levied until the April 15th deadline. Of course, there is always the option of filing for an extension, but generally speaking it is better to timely file your return, and it is important to remember that payments are still due by April 15th even when an extension has been timely filed.

In some cases, individuals can receive tax breaks and refundable credits even if they do not have to pay income tax for a given year. Thus, just because a tax return is not filed does not mean that an individual cannot benefit from professional assistance.

Don’t delay – April 15th will be here before you know it!

Article by:

H. Trigg Mitchell

Of:

McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

Bulgaria Adopts New Gambling Tax Regime

Dickinson Wright Logo

 

Bulgaria has a new gambling taxation regime effective January 1, 2014, which, together with the reasonable and balanced regulations currently in place, makes the country attractive for local licensing and gambling operations based upon a low corporate tax and highly qualified and low-priced technical specialists. One and a half years after theGambling Act (“Act”) was introduced, the tax base for gambling has been changed and is now in line with good business practices: switching from a turnover base to aGross Gaming Revenue (“GGR”) base.

On December 19, 2013, amendments in the Act (“Amendments”) for liberalizing gambling regulation in Bulgaria passed successfully the second reading in the Bulgarian Parliament amidst tense disputes. The Amendments were promulgated in the National Gazette on January 3, 2014, and came into force effective January 1, 2014.

The Amendments assure that as of January 1, 2014, the taxation of any online games in Bulgaria will be based on GGR with a 20% tax rate. For games in which fees and commissions are collected (such as poker), the tax rate will be 20% of the collected fees. In addition, there is a single fee for issuing and maintenance of a five-year license in the amount of approximately EUR 50,000 (BGL 100,000). No annual fee will be required during the five years’ validity of the license.

Offline bingo and keno will be taxed at a 10% corporate tax rate.

The GGR-based taxation is not a part of the common tax system, but rather it is an administrative fee regulated entirely in the Act instead of the tax laws. Nevertheless, any operator who decides to have an establishment in Bulgaria can take advantage of a favorable and stable corporate tax – only 10%. The low corporate tax rate would apply only to operators who decide to establish a local company in Bulgaria, which might be strongly supported from other economic arguments – for example, a very well-educated and qualified labor force at insignificant costs.

The Amendments introduce a new requirement for any licensed operator not established in Bulgaria but established in any other EU/EEA country or Switzerland. Such operators must have an authorized representative in Bulgaria, but this would not constitute having a local business in the country for purposes of obtaining the 10% corporate tax rate. An operator, in all events, is required to have a local representative in Bulgaria, who should be authorized for representation before Bulgarian authorities and courts.

From a regulatory perspective, the Bulgarian gaming regime is now one of the most balanced in Europe. It does not require a local establishment and main server in Bulgaria for any foreign operator who decides to obtain a local Bulgarian license (nevertheless, a local control server in Bulgaria is required). There are no specific requirements for performing payments through a local bank or to make certain investments in the country. The operators are not required to operate a dot bg domain. Foreign operators – registered, investing, and having a main server anywhere within EU, EEA, and Switzerland – can apply for a license. Nevertheless, the restrictions the Act imposes on an applicant whose shareholder is an offshore company should be carefully considered in light of provisions of the Act relating to economic and financial relations with companies registered in preferential tax regime jurisdictions and their actual shareholders.

A significant number of online gambling operators are expected to apply for a license in Bulgaria. The first online operators have already submitted applications. They are eager to enjoy not only reasonable taxation but also liberal regulation. The Bulgarian government has further stimulated the licensing of online operators by approving amendments that allow the operator to be removed from the blacklist even before being granted a license if the online operator applies for such removal not later than March 31, 2014.

The Amendments also permit the operators to perform any other business activity apart from organized gambling, which was not the case until now.

The efforts of the Bulgarian Parliament are of major significance. Instead of concentrating on blocking measures (such as ISP and/or payment blocking), the government has focused on best practices and introduced regulations that motivate the online gambling operators to get a license and work not only in a balanced regulatory environment but also under a favorable tax regime. These changes are aimed at balancing and optimizing the new sector regulation model that was introduced back in 2012. They give the online operators promising conditions to work legally in the Bulgarian market. At the same time, the new regulations impose stricter administrative sanctions on illegal online gambling operations.

Nadya Hambach, of Velchev & Co., authored this article.

Article by:

Dickinson Wright PLLC