In this section of Jnet, we provide brief updates on legislative, judicial, and administrative developments in tax that may impact Japanese companies operating in the United States.
The International Accounting Standards Board recently issued IFRIC 23, "Uncertainty over Income Tax Treatments," to clarify the application of recognition and measurement requirements in IAS 12, Income Taxes, when there is uncertainty over income tax treatments. Companies may need to reassess current practice in recognizing and measuring uncertain tax treatments in financial statements prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).
For companies reporting financial information under both IFRS and U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (U.S. GAAP) and for preparers with a history and knowledge of the U.S. GAAP guidance in this area, understanding the differences in the requirements between the two bases of accounting may be an important distinction.
On October 4, the U.S. Treasury Department publicly released a final report with recommendations for specific actions to mitigate the burden imposed by regulations previously identified as either imposing an undue financial burden on taxpayers, or adding excessive complexity to the tax system. The purpose of this release is to provide text of Treasury's final report.
A related Treasury release states, among others:
President Trump in April 2017, signed an executive order (Executive Order 13789) directing the U.S. Treasury to examine "significant tax regulations" issued on or after January 1, 2016; to issue an interim report no later than 60 days after April 21; and to submit a final report to the president by September 18, 2017.
The IRS on July 7, 2017, released Notice 2017-38 [PDF 38 KB] providing an interim list of the eight tax regulations identified as either imposing an undue financial burden on taxpayers, or adding excessive complexity to the tax system (none of the regulations was identified as exceeding statutory authority).
A report of state and local tax developments concerning technology-related tax issues, for the third quarter of 2017, provides updates in table format and covers topics such as access to web-based services, guidance on digital equivalents, taxability of software, and other items.
Read the KPMG report [PDF 101 KB] of state and local technology-related tax developments for the third quarter of 2017.
On October 10, the IRS Large Business and International (LB&I) division publicly released a "practice unit" that provides guidance concerning certain failures to file Form 5471, "Information Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Corporations." The title of the practice unit released today is: Failure to File the Form 5471 – Category 2 and 3 Filers – Monetary Penalty.
The practice unit is part of a series of IRS examiner "job aides" and training materials intended to describe for IRS agents leading practices for specific international and transfer pricing issues and transactions. It is available on the IRS practice unit webpage (released date of October 10, 2017).
The practice unit explains that when a U.S. person is required to file a Form 5471 (an international information return) under section 6046(a), it is filed by attaching it to an individual income tax return, a partnership return, a corporation return, an estate return or a trust return. It must be filed by the due date including extensions for that return.
Category 2 and Category 3 filers are defined as a U.S. person who is: (1) a citizen or resident of the United States, (2) a domestic partnership, (3) a domestic corporation or (4) an estate or trust that is not a foreign estate or trust defined in section 7701(a)(31).
Under section 6679(a), any U.S. person required to file an information return under section 6046(a) who fails to file the return at the time provided in such section—or who files a return which does not show the information required pursuant to such section—is subject to a penalty of $10,000, unless it is shown that the failure is due to reasonable cause.
In addition, a continuation penalty of $10,000 per Form 5471 may be assessed for every 30-day period (or fraction thereof) beginning 90 days after the U.S. person was notified that a failure exists. The maximum continuation penalty for Form 5471 is $50,000. These penalties may apply to each required Form 5471 on an annual basis. In certain instances, criminal penalties may also apply for failure to file the information required by section 6046.
On October 19, the IRS released an advance version of Rev. Proc. 2017-58 that provides the annual inflation adjustments for more than 50 tax provisions, including the tax rate schedules and other tax amounts for 2018 (and thus generally will be used by individuals on their 2019 returns) as adjusted for inflation for 2018. Rev. Proc. 2017-58 [PDF 95 KB] provides details about these annual adjustments. The tax year 2018 adjustments generally are used on tax returns filed in 2019.
As briefly explained in a related IRS release—IR 2017-178 (October 19, 2017)—the following items reflect the inflation adjustments for 2018:
|Taxpayers||2018 amount||Compared to 2017 amount|
|Married filing jointly||$13,000||Up from $12,700|
|Single / married filing separately||$6,500||Up from $6,350|
|Heads of households||$9,550||Up from $9,350|
Personal exemption: $4,150—Up from $4,050
Personal exemption phase-out:
39.6% income tax rate: For tax year 2018, the 39.6% tax rate applies for:
Itemized deduction limits
Foreign earned income exclusion
For tax year 2018, the foreign earned income exclusion is $104,100 (up from $102,100 for tax year 2017).
Earned income credit (EIC)
The tax year 2018 maximum EIC amount is $6,444 for taxpayers filing jointly who have three or more qualifying children (up from a total of $6,318 for tax year 2017).
For tax year 2018:
Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs)
|Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs)||Self-only coverage||Family coverage|
|Minimum annual deductible||$2,300 (up $50)||$4,600 (up $100)|
|Maximum annual deductible||$3,450 (up $100)||$6,850 (up $100)|
|Maximum annual out-of-pocket expenses||$4,600 (up $100)||$8,400 (up $150)|
Estate and gift tax amounts
U.S. House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-TX) announced on October 26 that the House Republican tax reform bill will be unveiled on November 1, 2017, and the committee will begin acting on the bill on November 6, 2017. The November 1 release will be the long-awaited first look at the House bill by the public.
Chairman Brady's announcement followed today's approval by the U.S. House of Representatives of the FY18 budget resolution by a vote of 216 to 212. This approval was a major step forward in the progression of the tax reform process.
By approving the same version of the budget that was passed by the Senate on October 19, 2017 (read TaxNewsFlash), the path for processing tax reform has potentially been accelerated by days or even weeks.
The budget that was approved today by the House and previously by the Senate will allow Congress to use the budget reconciliation process for a tax reform bill. Use of reconciliation will allow the Senate to potentially avoid a filibuster and, thus, be able to pass a tax reform bill with only a simple majority of 51 votes (a minimum of 50 senators, plus a potential tie breaking vote by Vice President Mike Pence). This is a more attainable goal for the 52 Senate Republicans than achieving the 60 votes needed to overcome a potential filibuster.
The budget that was passed by the House and Senate allows Congress to pass a tax bill that could contain a net tax cut of up to $1.5 trillion (over a 10-year window). However, it is important to keep in mind that in order to maintain the filibuster protection afforded by the reconciliation rules, the tax bill will be required to comply with a number of very complex procedural requirements that are required by the rules governing the consideration of reconciliation legislation.
Today was a very significant day in the tax reform process but it is important to keep in mind that a long road still lays ahead. With the announcement by Chairman Brady of a schedule for Ways and Means Committee action, a very aggressive timeframe has been set forth in the House. If the Senate pursues an equally aggressive schedule, it is possible that a year-end deadline for tax reform could be met. However, a hiccup at any of the many necessary process steps along the way could cause a cascading effect that could doom the legislation or, at minimum, extend the process into early 2018.
In a recent Letter of Findings, the Department of Revenue addressed whether a taxpayer was able to avoid throwback because its foreign IP Subsidiary was subject to tax in foreign jurisdictions where the taxpayer made sales of tangible personal property. In a prior audit, the Department required the taxpayer to include in its Indiana return royalty income from the foreign IP Subsidiary that licensed the taxpayer's intellectual property to foreign affiliates. The foreign royalty income was also included in the taxpayer’s Indiana sales factor denominator. In this particular situation, the taxpayer argued that it should not have to throw back to Indiana receipts from sales attributable to foreign countries where its affiliate’s activities exceeded P.L. 86-272.
The Department noted that Indiana is not a mandatory combined reporting state and therefore does not generally apply the so-called Finnigan concept (other than to those companies that file unitary combined returns in Indiana). However, in the instant case the Department determined that application Finnigan was appropriate as a matter of equity. Specifically, by allocating the royalty income to the taxpayer, the Department's prior audit implicitly considered that the subsidiary’s nexus could be attributable to the taxpayer. Therefore, for purposes of computing the taxpayer’s sales factor for the tax year at issue, the Department agreed to apply Finnigan and consider the foreign IP subsidiary's nexus in determining where the taxpayer's income from foreign jurisdictions should be sourced. However, the Department ultimately determined that the taxpayer had only provided adequate documentation to support its position in eight of the forty-two countries where it had made sales. Please contact Marc Caito at 317-951-2434 with questions on this Letter of Findings.
U.S. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi (R-WY) on September 29 released a proposed budget resolution for FY 2018 that has implications for tax reform legislation.
As noted in a Budget Committee release, the proposed FY 2018 budget resolution would allow the Senate Finance Committee to promulgate legislation to reduce revenues and change outlays that would increase the deficit by up to $1.5 trillion over a 10-year period (through 2027).
Importantly, assuming that a number of procedural rules are followed, this legislation may be considered by the Senate under budget reconciliation rules that allow a bill to not be subject to Senate filibuster. As a result, a bill may be approved with a simple majority—rather than a super-majority—of senators’ support. The Finance Committee is instructed to report legislation to the Budget Committee by November 13, 2017 so that the Budget Committee may forward the legislation to the Senate for floor consideration.
The resolution also directs the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation to incorporate the macroeconomic effects in revenue estimates of major legislation considered in the Senate.
The Budget Committee has scheduled markup of the resolution beginning October 4.
Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) issued a statement that the budget proposal has allowed the Senate to take "a critical first step to advance a tax overhaul to turn our nation’s economic tide."
Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden (D-OR) issued a statement that the proposal "a giant step in the opposite direction of developing real tax reform that is long-term, bipartisan and is at least as progressive as current law."
The proposed budget instructions to the Finance Committee only specify a net deficit target to the committee—the budget proposal does not dictate to the Finance Committee what the nature of the legislative changes proposed to achieve that target number should be. It is expected that tax reform will be the focus of this legislation, but it is possible under the terms of the budget proposal (although not expected) that the Finance Committee could decide to address other areas of policy that are within its jurisdiction in addition to tax matters. However, any matters included in a reconciliation bill will need to meet all of the complex procedural and statutory requirements applicable to reconciliation legislation—one of which is that all such proposals must have a non-incidental budgetary impact.
On August 1, the U.S. Treasury Department released for publication in the Federal Register a quarterly list of countries that require (or may require) participation in, or cooperation with, an international boycott (within the meaning of Internal Revenue Code section 999(b)(3)).
Section 999(a)(3) directs the Treasury Secretary to maintain and publish, at least on a quarterly basis, a list of countries that require (or may require) participation with an international boycott.
Today's Treasury release [PDF 181 KB] is provided under the U.S. international boycott rules, and contains the same list of countries as provided under prior lists—no new countries are added, and no countries are removed from the prior quarterly list. The countries on the current list are:
U.S. taxpayers that have operations in or related to a boycotting country, or with the government, a company, or a national of a boycotting country (and members of a controlled group that has a member with such operations) generally may be required to file Form 5713, International Boycott Report, annually with their U.S. tax return. In addition, U.S. taxpayers that derive income in connection with participation in or cooperation with an international boycott generally are subject to special tax rules, including rules that may reduce their foreign tax credits.
Section 999(a)(3) requires the Treasury Secretary to maintain and publish a list of countries that require (or that may require) participation in or cooperation with an international boycott not sanctioned by the United States.
The IRS issued a release on August 8 announcing that it had started the process of mailing letters to more than one million taxpayers with expiring individual taxpayer identification numbers (ITINs) and reminding these persons to renew their ITINs as quickly as possible to avoid tax refund and processing delays.
Today’s IRS release—IR-2017-128—states that ITINs with middle digits 70, 71, 72 or 80 are set to expire at the end of 2017, and that the IRS letter being mailed explains steps that taxpayers with these ITINs need to take to renew the ITIN if they intend to include it on a U.S. tax return filed in 2018. The IRS letters will be mailed over a five-week period beginning in early August 2017. Today’s IRS release states that taxpayers who receive the notice, but have acted to renew their ITIN, do not need to take further steps unless another family member is affected.
In June 2017, the IRS announced that renewal applications were being accepted for the ITINs set to expire at the end of 2017. The renewal process for 2018 began three months earlier than last year. Under the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act of 2015, any ITIN not used on a federal tax return at least once in the last three years will no longer be valid for use on a tax return as of January 1, 2018. The IRS release in June 2017 explained that taxpayers with ITINs that have not been used on a federal income tax return in the last three years will not be able to file a return unless their ITINs are renewed, and ITINs with middle digits 70, 71, 72 or 80 will also expire at the end of the year.
The Colorado Department of Revenue held a public rulemaking hearing concerning Rule 39-21-112(3.5), that once finalized, would provide guidance on the state's use tax notice and reporting requirements.
The current version of the proposed rule largely follows an emergency rule adopted on June 30, 2017. There are, however, changes from the version of the rule adopted in 2010 (shortly after the use tax notice and reporting requirements were enacted).
After years of litigation, Colorado's use tax notice and reporting requirements became effective on July 1, 2017. Under these requirements, retailers that do not collect sales or use tax on sales into Colorado (non-collecting retailers) must:
Non-collecting retailers that violate the notice and reporting requirements are subject to a $5 penalty for each failure to provide the required transactional notice; a $10 penalty for each failure to provide an annual statement to the customer; and a $10 penalty for each customer that should have been included in the annual report to the Department.
The IRS has released a list that shows the status of discussions with other countries regarding the exchange of country-by-country (CbC) reporting data under a bilateral competent authority arrangement (CAA) pursuant to an income tax treaty, a tax information exchange agreement, or an agreement on mutual administration assistance in tax matters permitting automatic exchanges of information.
The IRS table includes jurisdictions that are currently in negotiations for a CAA; have satisfied the U.S. bilateral data safeguards and infrastructure review; and have consented to be listed.
The IRS cautioned that taxpayers cannot rely on this information for assurances that CAAs with the competent authorities of these jurisdictions will be concluded by the end of 2017. Additionally, there may be other countries that are also currently in negotiations with the IRS, but have not consented to be listed.
The table also includes jurisdictions with which the IRS and the jurisdiction's competent authority have concluded and signed a CAA.
For more information, please contact:
Mie Igarashi | +1 404 222 3212 | email@example.com
The information contained herein is of a general nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. Applicability of the information to specific situations should be determined through consultation with your tax adviser. This article represents the views of the authors only, and do not necessarily represent the views or professional advice of KPMG.