In this series of blog posts I try to explain GILTI (Global Intangible Low Taxed Income) in simple terms. In the first post I discussed a public comment made on behalf of the Israeli Ministry of Finance on the recent proposed GILTI regulations. My second post explained the rationale behind GILTI. In this post I’ll discuss how GILTI is measured in non-technical terms. For those of you who want to get into the detail, there’s a technical appendix on our wiki. This post will focus on the general rules applicable to Apple and Google and other US domestic corporations that are US Shareholders in Controlled Foreign Corporations (CFCs). In my next post I’ll discuss the differences that apply when the US Shareholder is not a domestic corporation. Continue reading “Explaining GILTI – Measurement”
In my last post I discussed a public comment made on behalf of the Israeli Ministry of Finance on the recent proposed GILTI regulations. GILTI is quite complex, and that post may have thrown some readers into the deep end. In this post I go back to the beginning and try to explain why the US Congress felt that the GILTI provision was an essential part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). Subsequent posts will cover more detail about what GILTI actually measures and how the GILTI computations are supposed to work.
When Congress passed TCJA, it was hailed as major international tax reform that would make US multinationals more competitive with their international counterparts. The US corporate tax rate was reduced from 35% to 21% and with much fanfare, the US moved from taxing the worldwide income of corporations to a (not quite) territorial taxation system. Now that the bill has been signed and taxpayers, the IRS, and the tax compliance industry have had some time to study it, the reality doesn’t quite live up to the hype. For non-resident individual US taxpayers, the problem could be even worse! The transition/repatriation tax (§965) and GILTI (Global Intangible Low Taxed Income – §951A) have been drafted to apply to all US shareholders of Controlled Foreign Corporations (CFCs), not just the US domestic corporations that benefit from the modified territorial tax system. Once again, Congress has failed to consider the implications of their actions on non-resident US taxpayers. Continue reading “Explaining GILTI – Rationale”
GILTI (Global Intangible Low Tax Income) is the gift that keeps on giving – claiming US tax jurisdiction over the income of corporations owned by US “persons” on an ongoing basis. While the transition tax was painful, it was a one-off. For calendar year taxpayers, GILTI will apply starting with the 2018 US tax return – so it’s actually been in place for almost 11 months now. But the IRS has only just issued some of the relevant regulations and there are many questions that remain unanswered. Comments on the first set of proposed regulations are due on 26 November, so I’m going to start by considering a comment submitted by Arnold&Porter on behalf of the Israeli Ministry of Finance. In subsequent posts I’ll go back and discuss the purpose of GILTI and whether the actual legislation does what it says.
For those who haven’t seen the news, the IRS has effectively delayed the deadline for paying the first installment of the Transition Tax. For analysis and discussion, see yesterday’s posts on The Isaac Brock Society and Citizenship Solutions.
The short version is that, for individuals with Transition/Repatriation tax liabilities of less than US$1 million, underpayment of the first installment will not trigger acceleration of the entire liability provided that:
- The §965 (transition tax) liability is reported on a timely filed return for the “inclusion year” (this would be 2017 for most individual US Shareholders);
- The §965(h)(1) election to spread payments out over 8 years is included on that timely filed return; and
- The entire first and second installments have been paid by April 15, 2019 (June 17, 2019 for taxpayers residing outside the US).
Note that there will be interest charged on the late portion of the first installment.
So, what does this mean?
First off, it’s a big win for those who were scrambling to compute and pay this tax by June 15. Small business owners will now have until October 15 (assuming they’ve applied for an extension) to compute and report their transition tax liability (and until 17 June 2019 to pay the first installment) and remain compliant with US tax law. On October 15, however, those who are sitting on the fence regarding compliance will have a difficult decision.
For the past few weeks there has been increasing speculation about the contents of a rumoured Residence Based Taxation proposal from Congressman George Holding’s office. Democrats Abroad reported that they had seen the proposal. Then Republicans Overseas were also on board. And, over on the American Expatriates Facebook Group, Keith Redmond reported on a meeting held at the offices of Americans for Tax Reform to discuss the proposal. It has been great to see such broad-based support for this much-needed reform. Continue reading “Residence Based Taxation Proposal”
The Transition Tax could be the final straw for business owners among the American diaspora.
It’s easy. Just cut and paste from one of these two letter writing campaigns:
- The original letter, initiated in Israel by Monte Silver (http://www.americansabroadfortaxfairness.org/) which has been endorsed by Republicans Overseas
- Or the version promoted by Democrats Abroad.
The letter asks the IRS to exempt nonresident individuals from the application of the transition tax and GILTI. It’s great to see bipartisan support for this effort! Continue reading “Fighting the Transition Tax”
In January, John Richardson and I recorded a conversation about the “Transition” tax that was part of US tax reform. John’s post introducing the videos is here: U.S. Tax Reform and the “nonresident” corporation owner: Does the Sec. 965 transition tax apply?
The transition tax is the provision in the tax reform bill that concerned us so much when it was introduced that we posted a Call to Action! In short, when applied to an Australian-resident US taxpayer, the transition tax asserts the right of the US to reach inside an Australian corporation and tax previously earned active business income just because a majority of the company is owned by “US Shareholders”. This is a major departure from prior law, and calendar-year taxpayers were given not much more than a week from the date the law was signed to the end of the tax year in which this new tax would be applied – certainly not enough time to understand the new law, let alone plan to avoid the inherent double taxation. Furthermore, in all of the hearings on the bill, not one Representative or Senator mentioned anything about the applicability of this provision to corporations owned by tax-residents of other countries, for whom the idea of “repatriating” profits to the U.S. is not only absurd, but also a drain on the economy of the country they call home.
One of the terrific things about living in a parliamentary democracy like Australia is that there are safeguards in place to facilitate transparency of the Australian Government and public services. One powerful tool is the Freedom of Information Act, or FOI, which provides individuals or organisations with the right of access to documents held by many government agencies. By law, most public authorities have to respond to an FOI request within 30 days. Their response will either contain the information requested, or give a valid legal reason why it must be kept confidential. Note that the government agencies may levy charges for locating and making the information available, based on prescribed rates.
Here at Fix the Tax Treaty!, we’ve often wondered whether the Australian Government adequately considered the impacts on Individuals (vs businesses) when negotiating and entering into the Australia – US tax treaty agreements and the FATCA Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA).
We decided to find out!
In this series we’ve discussed how Australian investments impact a US tax return. To finish up, this post will discuss the pros and cons of investing directly in the US as well as a quick discussion of the types of records you should be keeping to assist with US tax preparation.
This is the final installment in our series of posts discussing the ways US tax laws constrain the investment choices of US taxpayers living in Australia. This post covers investing in the US and what records should be kept. These are the areas we have covered in all five posts in this series:
- Real Estate
- Australian Managed Funds
- Australian Shares
- Business Ownership Structures
- Investing in the US
- Record keeping
This series (and everything on this website) is general information only. I am not a lawyer, tax professional, or financial planner, just someone who has learned about US tax and wants to pass on general knowledge. Many areas of tax law are interdependent, so changes in one area may have unintended consequences in another. You should consult a professional who can consider your own personal circumstances before taking any action. Continue reading “Investment Constraints 5: Final Thoughts”