Tax Executives Institute, Inc. (TEI) recently provided comments to the proposed BEAT regulations, including the following:
- Use of services cost methodology should be clarified
- A payee’s Subpart F income should be excluded (i.e. avoid double taxation)
- Nonrecognition transactions should be excluded
- A payor’s recognized loss transaction should not also have BEAT implications
- No blended rates
- Anti-abuse rule should be clarified
- A recomputation approach should be available for NOL taxpayers
The thoughtful comments provide additional context of the intent for the BEAT provisions, and suggestions to carry out the intent of legislation without extending into other transactions that would have been initially thought as not within the BEAT purview.
Complex new guidance continually is rolling off the press for scrutiny, especially for year-end compliance. EY’s Global Tax Alert provides a summary of recent developments, references to IRS Notice 2019-01, IRS FAQ’s, and Proposed Regulations for BEAT are provided for reference.
- Proposed BEAT Regulations provide certainty re: Service Cost Method payments and the mark-up component that would be includable. BEAT is not limited to cash payments, and would also include amounts paid or accrued using any other form of consideration including property, stock or the assumption of a liability.
- Notice 2019-01 was issued to address the rules for repatriations, generally arising from Sec. 959(c)(1), (2) and (3) in that order based on a LIFO approach. Compliance complexity has expanded significantly, demanding more time from multinational tax departments that will require added resources, technology demands and external advisor costs.
- A new House Ways and Means tax package was introduced Dec. 10th, preserving the (correct) notion that tax year 2017 overpayments would not exclusively be attributed to the deemed repatriation tax without offset to 2018 regular tax liability. The package would also provide technical guidance for downward attribution rules.
- IRS FAQ’s have been updated, attached for reference.
- The IRS on 13 December issued proposed regulations (REG-132881-17) under Code Sections 1471–1474 (FATCA) and Sections 1441–1461.
- The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) will release a major update on its work on the taxation of the digital economy at the end of January 2019, according to Pascal Saint-Amans, Director of the OECD’s Centre for Tax Policy and Administration.
The IRS recently released Proposed Regulations on Section 163(j): an interest limitation that is applicable for the calculation of Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (“GILTI”) under the US Tax Act (“TCJA”). A copy of the Proposed Regulations are provided for reference, highlighting some areas of clarity/surprise. Comments are due within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register, with a public hearing set for Feb. 25, 2019.
- Former Proposed Regulations for Sec. 163(j), never finalized, are withdrawn
- Proposed Regulations may be elected for 2018
- General rule-Same as C corp; election (alternative method) for a CFC group
- One limit for a consolidated group (affiliated, non-cons. group, or partnership n/a)
- Adjusted Taxable Income (“ATI”) requires an adjustment for:
- Capitalizable Sec. 263A costs re: inventory/sales
- sales/dispositions of certain property
- Sec. 78 gross-up, Sec. 951(a) Subpart F, Sec. 951A GILTI, Sec. 250(a)(1)(B) deduction, without regard to Sec. 250(a)(2) limitation, related to GILTI
- Upper tier CFC members include “excess interest” of lower tier CFC’s
- Further guidance re: ordering of Code provisions, including BEAT, will be issued
- A “new” definition of interest is provided, including:
- Sec. 1275(a) and Reg. Sec. 1.1275-1(d) instruments
- Factoring income
- Accrued market discount
- Guaranteed payments of Sec. 702(c)
- Income/loss re: hedges of interest-bearing assets/liabilities
- Swaps, separated into a loan and payment swap (collateralized swap n/a)
- Commitment fees
- Debt issuance costs
- Anti-avoidance rule
- Sec. 382 attribution for pre/post-change periods
- Sec. 381 includes the attribute for disallowed interest expense carryovers
- No effect on E&P
- Sec. 163(j) limit at partnership level
- Intercompany CFC debt is included as interest income and expense, thus resulting in a net -0-; other debt will be a net adjustment to be allocated to separate CFC’s
- New Form 8990 will be required
The most contentious items, as noted in recent days, are the adjustment of Sec. 263A depreciation (thus a factory does not add back depreciation in EBITDA), add back of Sec. 78, Sec. 951(a), Sec. 951A as reduced by the relevant Sec. 250 amount, complexity including excess ATI adjustments, and the new definition of interest, which includes interest equivalent instruments/transactions that will be included as a potential limitation.
The 439 pages require several readings for a general comprehension, aided by webinars and summaries from various advisory firms.
Alot of guidance is virtually rolling off the press!
- PTI guidance for year-end financial statements
- Foreign tax credits, including application of GILTI
- Section 163(j) interest guidance
- Proposed regulations on PTI application
- Section 250 guidance
The guidance will be complex and lengthy, and it represents only one step towards achieving more certainty into the complex nuances of the US Tax Act. EY’s Global Tax Alert provides a summary for reference.
The latest US tax updates are summarized in EY’s Global Tax Alert, with a referenced link
- Tax Reform 2.0: House is moving forward with three separate bills, hoping at least one will pass, although Senate will not review prior to Nov. midterm elections
- GILTI: Additional rules re: interaction of Foreign Tax Credit and GILTI by Dec. 31, 2018 (It is hoped that the calculation of Sec. 163(j) interest limitations will be addressed re: application on a separate CFC basis, consolidated basis, or other method)
- GILTI: Final regulations June 2019
- IRS plans to establish separate webpages for the major international tax provisions enacted by the 2017 tax reform to provide informal taxpayer guidance. The webpages will follow a similar format that was adopted by the IRS to offer informal information regarding the TCJA’s transition tax.
- IRS: Restructuring the Advance Pricing and Mutual Agreement program (APMA) to consolidate resources and improve internal processes, including economists.
There is still significant uncertainty re: Sec. 965 repatriation tax, GILTI, FDII and BEAT provisions by taxpayers. It is hopeful that meaningful guidance will be issued shortly.
EY’s Global Tax Alert provides the latest US updates, noting the following:
- Regarding the TCJA’s foreign derived intangible income (FDII) provision, a Treasury official was quoted as saying the Government is actively looking at how to apply the disqualification for related-party services that are substantially similar to services provided by the related party to US taxpayers.
- A senior IRS official said the legislative history and the purpose of the provision strongly suggests that the Internal Revenue Code Section 78 GILTI gross-up should be placed in the GILTI basket. The official conceded that that interpretation is not in the statute, however.
Reflecting on the base erosion anti-abuse tax (BEAT), the official said Treasury is presently undecided if including a markup disqualifies the entire charge or just the amount of the markup for related-party services, that otherwise qualifies for the services cost method exception.
The noted highlights are very critical in estimating the impact on financial statements, as well as compliance and planning opportunities. To the extent timely guidance is not provided this year, there will be additional uncertainties in how to measure the effects of the complex Tax Act provisions.
The Tax Executives Institute, Inc. (TEI) previously issued excellent comments regarding divergent views of the Big 4 accounting firms for US GAAP tax accounting issues for the new US Tax Act aspects.
These views are still divergent today as we approach the end of March, and further issues continue to develop that impact the cash tax and tax reporting aspects for the US Tax Act. Accordingly, the same facts may provide a different repatriation tax liability and tax accounting for different multinational companies, certainly a difficult variable for comparison by tax experts and, most importantly, by investors.
As these positions may continue to diverge, position papers and discussions with the audit firm, Audit Committee of the Board of Directors and the company should be scheduled to ensure there are no surprises as earning release dates are emerging.