AICPA Comments and Recommendations to Congress on …



January 16, 2008

Mr. John Buckley

Chief Tax Counsel

House Ways & Means Committee

1102 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, DC20515

Fax: 202-225-2610

Mr. Allen Littman

Legislation Counsel

Joint Committee on Taxation

1015 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, DC20515

Fax: 202-225-0832

Re: AICPA Comments and Recommendations on Revision of Tax Rules on Expatriation (Section 204) of H.R. 3997, Defenders of Freedom Tax Relief Act of 2007, as passed by the Senate on December 19, 2007, and (Section 305) of H.R. 3997, Heroes Earnings Assistance and Tax Relief Act of 2007, as passed by the House on December 18, 2007

Dear Mr. Buckley and Mr. Littman:

On behalf of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), the national professional association of more that 350,000 CPAs throughout the country, we would like to provide you with our comments on possible drafting corrections and policy issues regarding the expatriation tax provision (Section 204) of H.R. 3997, Defenders of Freedom Tax Relief Act of 2007, as passed by the Senate on December 19, 2007, and (Section 305) of H.R. 3997, Heroes Earnings Assistance and Tax Relief Act of 2007, and as passed by the House on December 18, 2007.

The AICPA acknowledges that Congress is interested in enacting new rules for individual expatriates and the members and staff in Congress have been studying this issue and working with the AICPA and other organizations on this for several years.

We are pleased to see legislation [H.R. 3997 as passed by the Senate on December 19, 2007, and as passed by the House on December 18, 2007, as well as H.R. 3056, HR. 3996, and S. 2345] adopting a withholding approach and many other recommendations provided in our March 2002 and March 2007 comments to Congress. In addition, we are pleased to see that both the House and Senate most recent versions of H.R. 3997: provide a prospective effective date for section 2801, refer to the section 2503(b) applicable annual exclusion for the section 2801(c) exception for certain gifts, and provide marital and charitable deductions in new Chapter 15. We also appreciate the opportunities we have had to speak with you on this issue over the past year.

In an effort to make this legislation more effective and administrable, we point out additional concerns and technical drafting points that we hope will be addressed as this legislation moves forward. We would be happy to discuss further any of these or other issues.

Specifically, our attached comments address the following:

1. Exception for United States real property interests in proposed section 877A;

2. Modification of proposed section 2801(e)(3)(B) [1] covering gifts by expatriates to foreign trusts;

3. Coordination of proposed legislation with United States treaties;

4. Equivalency of proposed section 877A(a)(3)(A) exemption amount with section 2010(c) exemption amount;

5. Threshold amount for the exception under proposed section 2801(e)(2);

6. Repeal of section 877 after enactment of proposed section 877A;

7. Uniformity of exceptions for section 877 and proposed section 877A;

8. Exemption for a covered expatriate’s principal residence in proposed section 877A(a)(2)(A);

9. Clarification of time period in proposed section 877A(h)(1);

10. Clarification of proper “adjustments” in proposed section 877A(a);

11. Guidance regarding election out of step-up on residency begining date;

12. Alleviation of double taxation; and

13. Delay of effective date of proposed section 877A until regulations are issued.

We look forward to continuing to work constructively with Congress and the Administration to achieve the most effective legislation in this area. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss the proposed legislation or to answer any questions you may have. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of assistance to your office. I can be reached at Jeffrey.Hoops@; or you may contact Evelyn Capassakis, Chair, AICPA Expatriation Tax Task Force, at evelyn.capassakis@us.; or Eileen Sherr, AICPA Technical Manager, at esherr@.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Hoops

Chair, Tax Executive Committee

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Unless otherwise provided, the term “proposed section” refers to additions or modifications to the Internal Revenue Code as a result of H.R. 3997, as passed by the House of Representatives on December 18, 2007, and as passed by the Senate on December 19, 2007.

AICPA Comments and Recommendations on Revision of Tax Rules on Expatriation[1]

The AICPA acknowledges that Congress is interested in enacting new rules for individual expatriates and the members and staff in Congress have been studying this issue and working with the AICPA and other organizations on this issue for several years.

We are pleased to see legislation [H.R. 3997, Defenders of Freedom Tax Relief Act of 2007, as passed by the Senate on December 19, 2007, and H.R. 3997, Heroes Earnings Assistance Relief Tax Act of 2007, as passed by the House on December 18, 2007, as well as H.R. 3056, HR. 3996, and S. 2345] adopting a withholding approach and many other recommendations provided in our March 2002 and March 2007 comments to Congress. In addition, we are pleased to see that both the House and Senate most recent versions of H.R. 3997: provide a prospective effective date for section 2801, refer to the section 2503(b) applicable annual exclusion for the section 2801(c) exception for certain gifts, and provide marital and charitable deductions in new Chapter 15. We also appreciate the opportunities we have had to speak with the staff of the tax-writing committees on this issue over the past year.

In an effort to make this legislation more effective and administrable, we point out additional concerns and technical drafting points that we suggest be addressed as this legislation continues to move forward. We would be happy to discuss further any of these or other issues.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

These comments address the following:

1. Exception for United States real property interests in proposed section 877A;

2. Modification of proposed section 2801(e)(3)(B)[2] covering gifts by expatriates to foreign trusts;

3. Coordination of proposed legislation with United States treaties;

4. Equivalency of proposed section 877A(a)(3)(A) exemption amount with section 2010(c) exemption amount;

5. Threshold amount for the exception under proposed section 2801(e)(2);

6. Repeal of section 877 after enactment of proposed section 877A;

7. Uniformity of exceptions for section 877 and proposed section 877A;

8. Exemption for a covered expatriate’s principal residence in proposed section 877A(a)(2)(A);

9. Clarification of time period in proposed section 877A(h)(1);

.

10. Clarification of proper “adjustments” in proposed section 877A(a);

11. Guidance regarding election out of step-up on residency begining date;

12. Alleviation of double taxation; and

13. Delay of effective date of proposed section 877A until regulations are issued.

COMMENTS

1. Proposed Section 877A Should Contain an Exception for United States Real Property Interests.

H.R. 3997, as passed by the Senate on December 19, 2007, and as passed by the House on December 18, 2007, provides:

SEC. 877A

* * * *

(c) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY. –

Subsection (a) shall not apply to –

(1) any deferred compensation item (as defined in subsection (d)(4)),

(2) any specified tax deferred account (as defined in subsection (e)(2)), and

(3) any interest in a nongrantor trust (as defined in subsection (f)(3)).”

The AICPA recommends adding:

(4) any United States real property interest, as defined in Section 897(c)(1)(A)(1), or any interest in a United States real property holding corporation, as defined in Section 897(c)(2), except that in applying Section 897(c)(2)(A), “100” shall be substituted for “50” where it appears therein.

The Joint Committee on Taxation Description of H.R. 3056 (JCX-49-07) under “Description of the Proposal – In General” second paragraph, referenced such an exception, as follows:

The deemed sale rule of the proposal applies to most types of property interests held by the individual on the date of relinquishment of citizenship or termination of residency, with certain exceptions. U.S. real property interests (which remain subject to U.S. tax in the hands of nonresident noncitizens), with the exception of stock of certain former U.S. real property holding corporations, are exempted from the proposal.

It appears that the exception for United States real property interests was intended to be in the statute and this may have been a drafting oversight. The AICPA recommends adding the real property exception to the statute.

2. Proposed Section 2801(e)(3)(B) Should be Modified to Cover Gifts by Expatriates to Foreign Trusts.

Proposed section 2801(e)(3)(B) provides that gifts by covered expatriates to foreign trusts will be subject to gift tax when distributed by the trust to a United States person. The proposed section also provides for a deduction for the amount of tax paid by a United States person with respect to a distribution by the trust.

The AICPA suggests that only distributions of corpus be subject to this provision. The fiduciary income tax rules (i.e., sections 641-679) already contain provisions that tax a receipt of income by a United States person from a foreign trust, together with an interest charge with respect to the tax on a distribution of accumulated income. Therefore, proposed section 2801(e)(3)(B) should permit a full deduction of the income and not just a deduction for the income tax to avoid double taxation.

Alternatively, if the deduction is to be limited to the amount of tax imposed, then the deduction should also include the amount of any interest charged with respect to that tax under section 668 (relating to the interest charge on accumulation distributions from foreign trusts).

Finally, in either case, the provision should include a cap similar to section 668(b) so the amount of income taxes and interest charged, when combined with the tax under proposed section 2801, will not exceed the total amount of the distribution(s) for the year.

3. Proposed Legislation Should be Coordinated with United States Tax Treaties.

The AICPA urges that the committee reports to the proposed legislation state that these new rules are consistent with the United States tax treaties in force as of the date of enactment.

For example, the United States-Australia income tax treaty and the recent protocol between the United States and Germany address the exit tax regimes found in Australia and Germany, respectively. Other current or future treaties may also include language designed to alleviate unwarranted instances of double taxation that may result from the application of one treaty partner’s exit tax regime.

The imposition of an exit tax in proposed section 877A will result in significant double taxation of individuals who expatriate to countries having either an income tax or transfer tax regime. Although the proposed legislation embraces a withholding tax approach to dealing with the taxation of certain items and does offer some relief from double taxation under some circumstances, double taxation will nevertheless result. The United States tax treaty system will be called upon to alleviate this problem. To the extent that certain treaties already have provisions addressing some of these circumstances, the legislative history should recognize that these treaty provisions are consistent with the new legislation and may continue to be used as otherwise permitted under the applicable treaty.

The committee reports that accompanied 1996 amendments to section 877 acknowledged that the amendments were generally consistent with the underlying principles of income tax treaties. Nonetheless, the committee reports stated that the amendments to section 877 should override any conflicting treaty provisions for a period of 10 years. Thereafter, the committee reports provided that any conflicting treaty provisions remaining in force would take precedence over the expatriation tax provisions as amended.

The expatriation tax rules of section 877 were amended again in 2004. The committee reports accompanying the 2004 amendments are silent regarding the interrelationship between the amendments and existing tax treaties. This silence created a great deal of confusion, especially in light of the extensive guidance provided in the committee reports accompanying the 1996 amendments.

The AICPA strongly recommends that the committee reports accompanying proposed section 877A (and the related amendments to other provisions) should clearly state the relationship between tax treaties in force as of the date of enactment and the provisions under proposed section 877A. We also recommend clarifying the relationship between the amendments made in 2004 and tax treaties in force as of the date of enactment of the 2004 amendments to section 877. In particular, we recommend treating the 2004 amendments as being consistent with tax treaties in force as of the date of enactment, and stating that the 2004 amendments were not intended to override any conflicting treaty provisions.

4. Exemption Amount in Proposed Section 877A(a)(3)(A) Should be Equal to the Section 2010(c) Exemption Amount.

Section 305(a) of H.R. 3997, as passed by the House on December 18, 2007, and Section 204(a) of H.R. 3997, as passed by the Senate on December 19, 2007, states:

SECTION 877A.

(a) GENERAL RULES- For purposes of this subtitle –

* * * *

(3) EXCLUSION FOR CERTAIN GAIN –

(A) IN GENERAL. – The amount which would (but for this paragraph) be includible in the gross income of any individual by reason of paragraph (1) shall be reduced (but not below zero) by $600,000.

The AICPA believes that the $600,000 amount should be coordinated with the estate tax exemption amount in section 2010(c). The report that accompanies the Senate version of this legislation states that “to the extent possible, an individual’s decision to relinquish citizenship or terminate residency should be tax-neutral.” The goal of tax neutrality is not served if individuals are taxed more harshly if they expatriate than they would be if they remained United States citizens or residents until they die.

Proposed section 877A(a)(3)(A) could be revised as follows:

IN GENERAL. – The amount which would (but for this paragraph) be includible in the gross income of any individual by reason of paragraph (1) shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the applicable exclusion amount in section 2010(c).

5. The Threshold Amount for the Exception Under Proposed Section 2801(e)(2) Should be Equal to the Reporting Threshold for Gifts Reportable on Form 3520 or to the Estate Tax Exemption Amount in Section 2010(c) for Non-United States Persons.

H.R. 3997, Sec. 305(b)(1), as passed by the House on December 18, 2007, and H.R. 3997, Sec. 204(b)(1) as passed by the Senate on December 19, 2007, provides:

SEC. 2801

* * * *

(e) COVERED GIFT OR BEQUEST. –

(2) EXCEPTIONS FOR TRANSFERS OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO ESTATE OR GIFT TAX.

(A) any property shown on a timely filed return of tax imposed by chapter 12 which is a taxable gift by the covered expatriate, and

(B) any property included in the gross estate of the covered expatriate for purposes of chapter 11 and shown on a timely filed return of tax imposed by chapter 11 of the estate of the covered expatriate.

The AICPA suggests that the threshold for taxation of covered gifts or bequests be aligned with the reportable amount of gifts or bequests from a foreign person on Form 3520, Annual Return to Report Transactions with Foreign Trusts and Receipt of Certain Foreign Gifts, ($100,000). The Form 3520 could easily be modified to compute the tax due, and the instructions could direct individuals reporting such gifts and bequests from foreign persons to include the tax on Form 1040.

Alternatively, the AICPA suggests that the above exceptions be modified so that if the amount of a gift or bequest is below the threshold for filing a gift tax return (the amount provided in section 2503(b), currently $12,000) or an estate tax return by a nonresident (the equivalent amount of the credit provided in section 2102(b) (i.e., $60,000)), such a transfer can also be excluded from the reporting obligations of the donee.

6. Section 877 Should be Repealed After Enactment of Proposed Section 877A.

Section 305(a) of H.R. 3997, as passed by the House on December 18, 2007, and Section 204(a) of H.R. 3997, as passed by the Senate on December 19, 2007, provides:

(a) In General. – Subpart A of part II of subchapter N of chapter 1 is amended by inserting after section 877 the following new section:

Contrary to the many prior proposals for a new section 877A put forth by the Senate Finance Committee, H.R. 3997 provides that proposed section 877A will operate in conjunction with section 877. This combination will produce significant complexity and added compliance burdens.

The AICPA suggests that proposed section 877A replace the current section 877 and that current section 877 be eliminated. If proposed section 877A is being enacted due to the perception that current section 877 is not operating effectively, repealing current section 877 upon enactment of proposed section 877A would be a more efficient solution. Retaining both sections will require taxpayers and practitioners to understand and apply both the old and new rules, as well as address complex questions on how the provisions interact, unnecessarily complicating the tax law.

7. The Exceptions for Section 877 and Section 877A Should be Identical.

The AICPA suggests for simplification and administrative reasons that the exceptions for proposed section 877A be the same as, and coordinated with, the exceptions under section 877.

8. An Exemption in Proposed Section 877(a)(2)(A) Should be Available for a Covered Expatriate’s Principal Residence.

Proposed section 877A(a)(2)(A) provides that gain from the deemed sale must be recognized “notwithstanding any other provision of this title.” Therefore, individuals who expatriate will be deemed to recognize gain as if they had sold their homes. Although they would be entitled to exclude up to $500,000 of gain under section 121 if they had actually sold their homes, they would not be entitled to this exclusion under the proposed section 877A deemed sale. The AICPA suggests any deemed sale of a principal residence that would meet the requirements of section 121, had an actual sale taken place, be eligible for the section 121 exclusion.

If an exception for United States real property interests is provided as requested in Item 1 above, the section 121 exclusion would not be necessary for deemed transfers of United States real property.

9. The Time Period in Proposed Section 877A(h)(1) Should be Clarified.

H.R. 3997, as passed by the Senate on December 19, 2007, and H.R. 3997, as passed by the House on December 18, 2007 states:

SEC. 877A.

* * * *

(h) OTHER RULES. -

(1) TERMINATION OF DEFERRALS, ETC. - In the case of any covered expatriate, notwithstanding any other provision of this title-

(A) any time period for acquiring property which would result in the reduction in the amount of gain recognized with respect to property disposed of by the taxpayer shall terminate on the day before the expatriation date, and

(B) any extension of time for payment of tax shall cease to apply on the day before the expatriation date and the unpaid portion of such tax shall be due and payable at the time and in the manner prescribed by the Secretary.

We request clarification of these subsections (A) and (B). For example, is this meant to include section 1031, exchange of property held for productive use or investment?

10. “Proper Adjustments” in Proposed Section 877A(a) Should be Clarified.

Proposed section 877A(a) (flush language), indicates that “proper adjustment shall be made in the amount of any gain or loss subsequently realized for gain or loss taken into account.”

We assume that this “proper adjustment” refers to an adjustment to the basis of assets for which a gain or loss is recognized. However, this should be clarified in the statutory language.

11. Proposed Legislation Should Provide Guidance Regarding Election Out of Step-Up on Residency Begin Date.

Proposed section 877A(h)(2) provides that a covered expatriate will receive a step-up in the basis of property that is subject to the deemed sale rules to fair market value on the first date of residency. This subsection also provides that an individual may elect not to have the step-up applied.

The AICPA requests guidance on how this rule is intended to apply to an individual who has had two or more separate periods of United States residency. We also request guidance on how to make this election, including: (1) the form of the election; (2) the date by which the election must be made; and (3) whether this election may be made for specific properties or apply to all property subject to the deemed sale rules.

12. Proposed Legislation Should Alleviate Double Taxation.

Frequently, individuals expatriate for other than tax avoidance reasons. Those who relocate to high tax jurisdictions likely will encounter double taxation. For those who relocate to such locations, it seems unfair to force them into confiscatory taxation.

One way to alleviate this is to allow a foreign tax credit for income that is subject to double taxation, similar to the credit provided for in the flush language found in section 877(b). [For further discussion, see the October 10, 2007, ACTEC letter and paper on expatriate legislation sent to the leadership of the tax-writing committees, available at .]

13. The Effective Date of Proposed Section 877A Should be Delayed Until Regulations Are Issued.

Proposed section 877A(i) authorizes Treasury to prescribe regulations necessary to carry out the intent of proposed section 877A.

The AICPA urges that the new rules not take effect until the Treasury is able to provide guidance on administration and application of proposed section 877A. Individuals expatriating shortly after the law is enacted will have no guidance on how to comply. Various tax forms will need to be issued and revised, and many provisions will need to be interpreted in order to effectively apply the new rules. Regulations should be issued prior to the effective date of the new individual expatriation rules to enable consistent and correct application of the new rules by taxpayers and practitioners. If proposed section 877A must coexist with current section 877, many complex questions will arise on how the two provisions interact.

-----------------------

[1] (Section 204) of H.R. 3997, Defenders of Freedom Tax Relief Act of 2007 (as passed by the Senate on December 19, 2007, and (Section 305) of H.R. 3997, Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2007 (as passed by the House on December 18, 2007); (Section 5) of H.R. 3056, Tax Collection Responsibility Act of 2007; (Section 504) of H.R. 3996, Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007; and (Section 308) of S. 2345, American Infrastructure Investment and Improvement Act of 2007.

[2] Unless otherwise provided, the term “proposed section” refers to additions or modifications to the Internal Revenue Code as a result of H.R. 3997, as passed by the House of Representatives on December 18, 2007, and as passed by the Senate on December 19, 2007.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download