foreign base company sales income
Subscribe to foreign base company sales income's Posts

Weekly IRS Roundup September 10 – 14, 2018

Presented below is our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for the week of September 10 – 14, 2018:

September 10, 2018: The IRS announced the following five new Large Business & International compliance campaigns: (1) Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 199 Claims Risk Review; (2) Syndicated Conservation Easement Transactions; (3) Foreign Base Company Sales Income: Manufacturing Branch Rules; (4) Form 1120F Interest Expense/Home Office Expense; and (5) Individuals Employed by Foreign Governments and International Organizations. We discuss these new campaigns in more detail here and have reported about previous LB&I campaigns in the below blog posts.

September 13, 2018: Treasury and the IRS released proposed regulations under Code Section 951A, the new tax on global intangible low-taxed income earned by controlled foreign corporations. The proposed regulations include a number of anti-abuse provisions.

September 13, 2018: The IRS published Revenue Procedure 2018-48, which provides guidance regarding how certain amounts included in income under Code Sections 951(a)(1) and 986(c) are treated for purposes of determining whether a REIT satisfies the Code Section 856(c)(2) gross income test.

September 14, 2018: The IRS issued Notice 2018-73, which provides updated interests rates and guidance regarding the corporate bond monthly yield curve.

September 14, 2018: The IRS released its weekly list of written determinations (e.g., Private Letter Rulings, Technical Advice Memorandum and Chief Counsel Advice).

Special thanks to Kevin Hall in our DC office for this week’s roundup.




read more

The IRS Has Never Won a Subpart F Sales or Services Case

The IRS has never won a single litigated case arguing for foreign base company sales income (and has never litigated a foreign base company services income case). Courts have consistently rejected the government’s arguments to expansively apply the definition of Subpart F sales income in order to carry out asserted congressional intent. While the courts have acknowledged that the policies informed the rules, they have not permitted the policies to eclipse the plain language of the code, even where the taxpayer engaged in tax planning that took advantage of the rules and arguably frustrated the policies underlying the rules.

Continue Reading




read more

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

jd supra readers choice top firm 2023 badge