FATCA Fallout: This was NOT what the IRS intended with the upcoming FATCA Regulations

This image depicts the total tax revenue (not ...
This image depicts the total tax revenue (not adjusted for inflation) for the U.S. federal government from 1980 to 2009 compared to the amount of revenue coming from individual income taxes. The data comes from the Office of Management and Budget’s record of the ‘Budget of the US Government FY 2011’, specifically the ‘Historical Tables, Table 2.1.’ The information is also here. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I have been all over FATCA since March 18th, 2010 when President Obama passed the Hires Act through Congress, aimed at getting Americans working and taxing the wealthy (isn’t that what all socialist and democratic governments do?)  Out of this Act comes FATCA, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act which is set to become law January 1st, 2013 and unlike most new taxes, FATCA changes the way taxation is administered globally.I’m going to outline why FATCA was brought in, what the US government is trying to do, and why there have been a couple of events in the past 2 weeks which have come to light which leads me to believe that this was not what the US government was thinking when they pushed the Hires Act through Congress.

So FATCA, in case you are unaware, is on its way to becoming the world’s first global tax on Americans, administered by financials institutions and non-financial entities around the world… OR else.  Can the IRS do this, you ask?  Apparently yes they can.  Why do they need to do this you are wondering?  Because US investors have been evading taxes by hiding their identities from the IRS or they have created offshore companies to hold their investments out of sight and out of reach of the IRS.  The net result here is that the IRS needed to find a way to track down all these US persons who should be filing US tax returns disclosing all their worldwide income but are either not filing, nor including these items.

The estimated lost tax revenues from these US taxpayers using offshore schemes to evade US income taxes is in excess of $100 billion dollars per year.  Think the US could use these funds?  Yeah, I thought so too.  Say hello to FATCA.
So how can the US crack down on these US persons who are hiding their funds?  Well first they tried asking some foreign banks for a list of Americans who they had on their registry.  That did not go over well at all.  The banks said, you have a specific person you want information on, we will give you details, however the IRS didn’t know, they wanted everyone and the foreign banks we not going to give us their revenue sources.  So the US government sued beginning with  Switzerland.  Not the best way to win friends, globally, by suing them, so the US government and the IRS them began pushing FATCA on everyone.
In a nutshell, it requires all foreign banks and foreign institutions to provide information to the IRS as soon as they find a US person on their system / in their bank.  The IRS intends on using this information to locate, audit and potentially prosecute US persons who are evading the paying of their fair share of taxes.  The scope of FATCA is global.  The complexity of FATCA is massive.
The IRS figures through FATCA that every organization globally will opt in to FATCA and will become agents of the IRS and within 5 years will have flushed out every US person to the IRS – both those who are complying and those and those who are not (those who are not have a catchy new name: recalcitrant).
The IRS even offers a way out of FATCA if you are an US person… Just give the IRS 1/3rd of your worldwide income and renounce your US citizenship and you’re out.  For good.
Recently, however, I came across two fantastic articles through my FATCA research which clearly shows me that the IRS and the US government may not have thought through the full implications of FATCA.
So here is problem number 1, in a great article from Bloomberg;

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-08/u-s-millionaires-told-go-away-as-tax-evasion-rule-looms.html.  This article outlines the international response to FATCA as the deadline to sign up with the IRS gets closer and closer.  Instead of gearing up systems to flush out these US investors who have been hiding millions and millions of dollars (the FATCATs), these foreign financial institutions (FFI’s) and non-financial foreign entities (NFFE’s) are going through their foreign policies to find ways to instead remove Americans from their business.  The costs associated with complying with FATCA outweighs the benefit of US monies.  Oh oh.

Does the IRS and US government really want to prohibit US persons from investing outside of the US?

Problem number 2 came recently when Brazilian-born Eduardo Saverin, the billionaire Facebook co-founder, renounced his US citizenship he gained as a teenager in advance of the company’s impending IPO and moved to Singapore to avoid paying capital gains taxes on his approximately $3 billion stake in Facebook.

This is FATCA response #2.  Renounce your citizenship and you’re out.  So instead of staying in the US and paying taxes, the very rich do not appreciate carrying the taxation burden for a tax and spend government and they take their wealth to another country where it will be appreciated.

Caught red-faced the US government needed to respond so they looked to do to Saverin what they did to the foreign banks who had US persons on their registry.  They threatened to sue.  Then they changed the law.  The US senate introduced a bill under which any expatriate with either a net worth of $2 million, or an average income tax liability of at least $148,000, will be automatically presumed to be leaving the country for tax purposes — enabling the IRS to impose a tax on any investment gains that person makes in the future.  Crazy.  Greedy.

Apparently Saverin filed to give up his US citizenship in January of 2011, but the news didn’t surface until the federal government released the information in a routine report. Saverin may be barred from re-entering the US if authorities decide he left the country for tax reasons because you don’t want a super-rich guy coming into your country and buying things!  That will show him.

Singapore doesn’t have a capital gains tax. It does tax income earned in that nation, as well as “certain foreign- sourced income.”  Saverin won’t escape all US taxes because Americans who give up their citizenship owe what is effectively an exit tax on the capital gains from stock holdings.

Saverin maintains that his renunciation of American citizenship, which actually took place last September, wasn’t a ploy to skip out on American taxes, but rather an attempt to free himself from FATCA, which he described as a burdensome restrictions on American investors abroad. US citizens are severely restricted as to what they can invest in and where they can maintain accounts.  Many foreign funds and banks won’t accept Americans so it was for financial reasons and not tax related.

It’s true that FATCA is making life more difficult for US persons, including the IRS’ global reach (many countries tax based on residency); foreign bank account reporting rules; and FATCA.  As a result of all the regulations, some foreign banks are dumping more U.S. customers.

Saverin is hardly the only one taking this particular route to big tax savings. The number of those renouncing US citizenship stands at around 1,800 last year.

While I cannot see the US government pulling back on FATCA I think they need to look again at what they are trying to accomplish and how they plan on getting there before all their high-income earners not in the US disappear from the radar within 5-10 years of FATCA being in force.  So the tax pool will grow, then diminish and the IRS will be looking for newer ways to increase tax revenues.

Form 1042-S

What is a 1042-S?

Form 1042-S, or Foreign Persons US Source Income Subject to Withholding, reports for non-US persons or entities interest payments, dividends and substitute payments in lieu and applicable US source tax withholding, thereon, from US securities paid to foreign investors.

This information is also reported to the IRS.

It is possible to receive multiple 1042-S forms reporting different types of income during a given tax year.

Box 1 contains a code indicating the type of income being reported, shown below:

Code Income Type
6 Dividends
24 Substitute payments in lieu – dividends
01 Interest
29 Deposit (credit balance) interest
30 Original issue discount
33 Substitute payments in lieu – interest
50 Referral fees

Box 2 contains the gross US source income of the type indicated in box 1. Box 5 contains the withholding tax rate applied as determined by statute or applicable US tax treaty.

Box 6 contains an exemption code if the reportable income is exempt from withholding, for example interest and original issue discount.

Box 7 is the total amount of US federal tax withheld.

Taxation of Passive Foreign Investment Company

An interesting aspect of foreign investing is the difference in the treatment of foreign investment companies, mutual funds and unit investment trusts as compared to US based mutual funds.

US vs. Foreign

In the US, generally, a mutual fund is treated in a manner similar to a partnership with respect to the income and the gains of the fund.  The income is passed through to the shareholders in proportion to their holdings and reported to the IRS on a form 1099 by the mutual fund.  A copy of the report is also sent to the shareholder to use to prepare his tax return.

Foreign investment companies or mutual funds are not subject to this kind of reporting and disclosure, nor do they want to be.  In the US, the burden is on the shareholder to determine their share of the income of the investment company.  The tax code refers to any kind of corporate mutual fund or investment company outside the US as a passive foreign investment company (PFIC).

US tax laws were set up to deter US persons from investing in mutual funds outside the US, or using a foreign corporation as an investment fund, where the income or gains of the foreign funds are not subject to current taxation, as are the gains and other income of most domestic mutual funds.  For example, if 11 (or more) US persons own equal shares in a foreign corporation, it will not meet the definition of a controlled foreign corporation  and none of the shareholders would be subject to current tax on the income of the foreign corporation, but if that same corporation is also a PFIC, the shareholders will be subject to severe tax treatment on any distributions from the PFIC unless

  • the PFIC elects to be subject to the SEC and the IRS reporting requirements or unless
  • the shareholder elects to pay tax on the undistributed current income of the PFIC (which requires the co-operation of the PFIC) or unless
  • the PFIC is listed on a national securities exchange and the shareholder elects to pay tax on any increase in the market value of the shares from one year to the next.

As a general rule, a US person would be in far better position to invest directly in the stock of foreign corporations that are not PFICs or to invest in a US mutual fund that invests in foreign stocks or foreign mutual funds. In some cases, a US person may be able to utilize a foreign variable annuity or variable life insurance contract to invest in foreign mutual funds, but the tax treatment will be based on the rules for investments in annuities or life insurance rather than for investments in the underlying stocks or mutual funds.

Tax code sections 1291 through 1297 provide the rules for US persons who invest in (PFIC).   According to the tax code, a PFIC is defined as “ … any foreign corporation if 75 percent or more of its gross income is passive income or if 50 percent or more of its assets are assets that produce or are held to produce passive income”.

There are exceptions for bona fide banks, insurance companies and foreign corporations engaged in the securities business – meaning the active marketing of securities.

A PFIC that had elected to be a “foreign investment company”, before December 31, 1962,  is subject to some older rules, which require that;

  1. the company be registered under the US Investment Company Act of 1940, or
  2. it must be engaged primarily in the business of investing or trading in securities and
  3. 50% or more of the total combined voting power of all classes of stock are held directly or indirectly by U.S. persons.

If the foreign investment company elects to distribute at least 90% of its ordinary income, and the shareholders report net capital gains whether or not distributed, the shareholders are not taxed at ordinary income tax rates on their respective share of the earnings and profits of the foreign investment company when their shares are sold or redeemed.  Basically, this will produce the same tax result as owning shares in a US mutual fund.

For companies that had not made such an election before 1963, if a foreign investment company is registered with the SEC, or if it is more than 50% owned by US persons, any gain realized by the shareholders will be treated as ordinary income unless the corporation elects to be taxed in a manner similar to US mutual funds.

If the PFIC isn’t qualified to be an electing foreign investment company or does not choose to do so, the US shareholder may elect to have the PFIC treated as a “pass through entity” – known as a “qualified electing fund” or QEF. If this election is made by the US shareholder, the shareholder must report as income his or her pro rata share of the earnings and capital gains of the QEF for the taxable year. The investor making this election may also elect to delay payment of the tax on the shareholder’s portion of the undistributed earnings of the QEF, but that deferral will be subject to an interest charge. This election is only allowed if the PFIC complies with the IRS information disclosure requirements which will enable the IRS to determine the PFICs ordinary earnings and capital gains.

If the US beneficiaries of a trust investing in a PFIC expect and agree to be taxed on the trust’s income – even though they do not expect to receive any current distributions from the trust, there should be no disadvantage to electing QEF status for every PFIC in which the trust has invested, and indeed there are enormous disadvantages from failing to do so.  If the PFIC is not a QEF for every year in which it is a PFIC, then the conversion from capital gain to ordinary income and the interest charge rules continue to apply to the extent of the company’s earnings while it was a non-QEF.  In other words, only a so-called “pedigreed” QEF which has been a QEF in every year in which it was a PFIC is excused from the interest charge and character conversion rules.  For this reason, a foreign trust agreement should provide that the trustee may not acquire any equity interest in a foreign company that qualifies as a corporation for U.S. tax purposes (unless that company is engaged in the active conduct of a trade or business) without providing notice to any US beneficiaries and their accountants so that the appropriate election to be a QEF can be made in a timely manner.  Furthermore, the trust agreement should provide that this notification requirement must be made applicable to any investment adviser engaged by the trustee to manage any trust assets.

If a PFIC does not agree to be subject to the jurisdiction of the SEC and does not provide the IRS with the annual information the IRS requires for a QEF election, then the shareholders of the PFIC are subject to;

  1. ordinary income tax on  any current distributions from the PFIC,
  2. distributions and dispositions of fund shares deemed to be from prior years earnings of the PFIC are taxed at the highest rate for ordinary income in each prior year and
  3. an interest charge on the deferred distribution.

Distributions in the first year of a PFIC are treated as ordinary income. Future distributions are also treated as ordinary income to the extent that the distributions are no more than 125% of the average distributions for the previous three (or fewer) years.  Thus, planned distributions can be used to minimize the tax on distributions of accumulated income.

Dispositions of PFIC shares by gift, at death or by other means (such as some redemptions) are treated like distributions but are not eligible for the ordinary income tax treatment described above.

The Taxpayer’s Relief Act of 1997 introduced some changes that are intended to eliminate some conflicting and overlapping provisions of the rules applicable to a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) that is also a PFIC.  Basically, a foreign corporation that would otherwise be a PFIC will not also be subject to the pass-through rules for a CFC for the 10% or greater US Shareholders of the CFC. This change is applicable for tax years after 1997. However, where a PFIC is not a QEF (qualified electing fund), any stock held by a US person who owns 10% or more of the stock is either (1) subject to a current tax and an interest charge on the deferred distributions, or (2) is subject to the rules for a PFIC. In addition, if a CFC shareholder ceases to be a 10% shareholder but remains as a shareholder, the shareholder will immediately be subject to the PFIC rules.

Another “simplification rule” in the 1997 law permits US owners of a stock in a PFIC that is traded on a national securities exchange to make a “mark-to-market” election (IRC section 1256) based on the market value of the PFIC shares at the end of each year. However, any gains recognized by the shareholder will be treated as ordinary income and any losses are limited to gains previously recognized. In addition, the IRS has introduced proposed regulations that will make it very difficult for many foreign mutual funds to qualify for the “mark-to-market” election.