Relief on Way to US Individuals Owning Stock in Controlled Foreign Corporations
The U.S. Department of the Treasury on March 4, released proposed regulations dealing with the application of the recent U.S. tax reform to U.S. shareholders of a controlled foreign corporation (CFC).
April 10, 2019 at 09:11 AM
5 minute read
The U.S. Department of the Treasury on March 4, released proposed regulations dealing with the application of the recent U.S. tax reform to U.S. shareholders of a controlled foreign corporation (CFC). The proposed regulations (REG-104464-18) provide relief from some of the provisions of the U.S. tax reform that apply to individual U.S. citizens or tax residents and U.S. trusts and estates who own stock in a CFC.
While the relevant provisions of the applicable U.S. tax law are quite detailed, this article provides a general summary of the relief provided to individuals.
Background
A foreign corporation is a CFC if its stock is more than 50 percent owned (by vote or value) by “United States shareholders” (such as U.S. citizens or tax residents, U.S. corporations, U.S. trusts and U.S. estates that directly or indirectly own stock in the foreign corporation).
Historically, the general rule was that the U.S. shareholders of a CFC were not taxed on the CFC's income until it was distributed to them (with the exception of certain specific types of income earned by the CFC). This allowed significant opportunities for U.S. shareholders to defer U.S. tax on the foreign income earned by the CFC.
This all changed under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) enacted at the end of 2017. Under the TCJA, a U.S. shareholder of a CFC is taxed on the global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) of the CFC. Essentially, with a few exceptions, GILTI includes all of the CFC's net income, less a deemed 10 percent return on the CFC's adjusted basis in its tangible, depreciable business assets.
Therefore, under the new GILTI rules, it is far more challenging (and in some cases impossible) for U.S. shareholders of a CFC to achieve deferral of U.S. tax on the foreign income earned by the CFC.
Treatment of GILTI to Individual U.S. Shareholders
Many have noted that the international tax provisions of the TCJA are more beneficial to corporations than to individuals. This is particularly true with respect to the taxation of GILTI.
For example, under the TCJA, a U.S. individual is taxed on the GILTI that he earns at rates of up to 40.8 percent. (The maximum ordinary income rate is currently 37 percent, and there is a 3.8 percent net investment income surtax.) The U.S. individual may also be subject to state and local tax on the GILTI.
On the other hand, under the TCJA, U.S. corporations are in general taxed at a flat corporate tax rate of only 21 percent. Moreover, they are allowed a 50-percent deduction (reduced to 37.5 percent in 2026) for GILTI income, which results in a tax rate of 10.5 percent. This 50 percent GILTI deduction is not allowed to U.S. individuals.
In addition, corporations, unlike individuals, are allowed a foreign tax credit for up to 80 percent of the foreign taxes paid or accrued by the CFC on the GILTI. This credit can offset and even eliminate the U.S. taxes paid by a U.S. corporation on GILTI. On the other hand, individuals are not allowed a foreign tax credit for the foreign taxes paid by the CFC, resulting in double taxation.
Section 962 Election to the Rescue
Many U.S. individuals have been hoping to minimize these adverse consequences by making an election under Section 962 of the Internal Revenue Code. The Section 962 election allows a U.S. individual (including trusts and estates, which are treated as individuals) to be taxed on CFC income inclusions (such as GILTI) as a U.S. corporation.
There has been no question that the Section 962 election would allow a U.S. individual to benefit from 80 percent foreign tax credit for the foreign taxes paid by the CFC on GILTI income.
However, there has been considerable uncertainty as to whether the 50-percent deduction for GILTI income would apply where a Section 962 election is made. The lack of a 50-percent GILTI deduction would cause serious tax inefficiencies to many U.S. individuals, and the uncertainty has left U.S. individuals who own stock in a CFC in a difficult position.
Fortunately, the proposed regulations answer this question and allow the 50-percent GILTI deduction where a U.S. individual makes the Section 962 election.
Conclusion
The new GILTI rules can potentially tax a U.S. shareholder of a CFC on all or most of the income earned by the CFC. Without proper planning, the new GILTI rules tax U.S. individuals more harshly than corporations. However, under the proposed regulations, a U.S. individual who owns stock in a CFC may minimize or eliminate some of the adverse consequences imposed by TCJA by making a Section 962 election.
U.S. shareholders of CFCs should consult their tax advisers for further guidance.
William B. Sherman is chair of Holland & Knight's tax team and a resident of the firm's Fort Lauderdale office. He concentrates his practice in the areas of domestic and international taxation and provides sophisticated tax planning for mergers and acquisitions, restructurings, joint ventures and investments.
Seth Entin is a tax partner in the firm's Miami office who focuses on federal income taxation, with an emphasis on international taxation. He has experience handling international taxation of high-net-worth individuals, international and domestic corporate taxation, Internal Revenue Service international tax audits and offshore voluntary disclosures.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDon’t Forget the Owner’s Manual: A Guide to Proving Liability Through Manufacturers’ Warnings and Instructions
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 2Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 3Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 4Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
- 5Freshfields Hires Ex-SEC Corporate Finance Director in Silicon Valley
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250