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.
The proposed Reg’s provide some answers, such as calculating GILT on a consolidated approach, but has punted (subject to later guidance) on GILTI foreign tax credits, the Sec. 250 deduction which also is applicable for the FDII provision, definitive guidance on a separate GILTI basket (although noting its expectation) and application of Sec. 163j re: interest expense.
Complex rules are set forth to determine a particular US shareholder’s portion of GILTI. These rules were necessary as the separate shareholder approach was further clarified as a consolidated calculation which does alleviate unnecessary planning to accomplish that result.
Additionally, anti-abuse provisions were included to combat perceived abuse, some of which have already sparked heated controversy. As an example, a CFC’s tested loss does not represent a loss carryover against future year’s tested income. “Donut hole” planning initiated by many taxpayers has also been reversed by this guidance.
The guidance further confirms that each controlled foreign corporation (CFC)’s income calculation is to be based on the concept of a US tax return and principles approach. Additionally, ADS depreciation is to be used regardless of the acquisition date of the foreign tangible property.
Practitioners will be absorbing this new complexity to change their calculations for Q3 Annual ETR calculations, while also finalizing the SAB 118 one-year period to finalize the Sec. 965 deemed repatriation tax provisions effective in Q4 2017 for a calendar-year taxpayer.
Technical/practical articles and webinars have already started in earnest, as everyone is learning about these new rules simultaneously.
A reference to the proposed Regulations are included for reference.
The US Tax Act GILTI regulations are under review, and should be released before the end of Q3, that will require review and incorporation into the annual ETR. The regulations are expected to address a consolidated, vs. separate shareholder, approach for the calculation as well as some guidance re: US expense allocation. EY’s Global Tax Alert summarizes the status of this guidance.
Additionally, guidance was recently released on Sec. 162(m) compensation, also necessitating review for Q3 reporting.
The proposed regulations that were released for Sec. 965, deemed repatriation tax, are expected to be followed up by final regulations by June 2019. The third quarter 2018 marks the end of the SAB 118 period to finalize such amounts, notwithstanding additional guidance in the future. Note, these regulations should provide definitive guidance on some pending items (inclusion of PTI for a E&P deficit foreign corporation; calculation of Sec. 986 gain for Sec. 965b E&P) that may require amending 2017 corporate income tax returns.
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.
As multinationals commence to calculate the US Tax Act’s provisions for Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI), the literal language of the law and the Conference Report present a myriad of confusion. The name of this provision is also a misnomer, as the income to be measured is not limited to that sourced from intangibles.
The intent of the provision, as explained in the Conference Report, is to provide a 10.5% (for 2018) tax on low-taxed earnings of foreign affiliates, as reduced by 10% of its tangible personal property measured by US tax principles. This would be accomplished with an 80% foreign tax credit, thus legal entities in countries with a tax rate not exceeding 13.125% would not be subject to this additional minimum tax on foreign earnings.
Due to the speed of enactment, the technical details of the enacted law does not mirror this intent. As a result, different US-based multinationals may be taking different approaches for measurement, ranging from the Conference Report intent to the enacted law which may not allow for any foreign tax credits based on the separate foreign basket approach coupled with uncertainty for the allocation of US expenses to such income.
This confused state will also present difficulties in measuring different aspects of this provision for different companies, depending on their interpretation and calculation.
Hopefully, this confusion will be clarified to align the law with the intent of the Conference Report. Without such guidance, this provision will present undue costs, complexity and subjective interpretation going forward.
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.