Call us
September 30, 2008
Published on Trustmakers.com and Ruschlaw.com.
Dear Valued Reader,
Many offshore promoters are pushing Liechtenstein Foundations on the very wealthy and Panamanian Foundations on the rest of us.
Many are taken in by the term “foundation,” hoping or believing that it makes the structure a charitable foundation which is tax exempt. This is simply not true. For an entity to be tax exempt, it must be registered with the IRS as such, under IRC §501(c)(3)., and this applies to both foreign and domestic entities.
Tax tip: Only donations to charities licensed by the U.S. are deductable on your personal tax return. You can donate money to any charity or group around the world, but, if they do not have the IRS’s blessing, you are not entitled to a deduction.
Adding to the confusion, Foundations typically have multiple levels of nominee directors and boards which allegedly control the Foundation’s assets. Some promoters’ claim that, because you gave up control of your assets, you are not taxed on the interest, dividends, and earnings of the foundation. Again, this is not true. You remain the beneficial owner and have indirect control, which equals ownership in the U.S. tax code.
Most accept that a simple foreign corporation with a nominee director, or an offshore trust with a foreign trustee, does not reduce U.S. tax on earnings. But, change the ending from Inc. to foundation; add a few layers of directors, and many are willing to believe the impossible.
Taking it one step further, some foreign attorneys will issue an option stating that the Foundation is not a grantor trust under the U.S. rules. I do not see anything inherently incorrect in this statement. It seems possible that the Foundation can be classified as something other than a grantor trust. However, these statements are often used to confuse and mislead the U.S. client in to believing that there is some tax benefit to such a classification.
All of the opinions I have read say something like this: “The design and structure of the Foundation is to achieve an entity classification as other than a trust such as a partnership, corporation or disregarded entity for U.S. tax purposes.”
Keeping in mind that the U.S. citizen is taxed on his or her worldwide income, and if we agree that the foundation is not some magical tax exempt structure, the classification does not make a tax difference. Under all options, income to the foundation will be taxed in the U.S. as earned, transfers to the entity will be reportable events, and (most) transfers of appreciated property will be deemed sales.
Some opinions also have the following clause: “Furthermore, there is the option of seeking a private letter ruling from the Internal Revenue Service confirming the proper entity classification of the Foundation.” Such a statement should cause alarm...it means that the IRS has not classified the Panamanian or Lichtenstein Foundation and that U.S. citizens have no certainty regarding when, what, and how to file returns for a foundation.
What would happen if you assumed the foundation was a corporation, filed foreign corporate returns, and then it was classified as a trust? I have no idea, but I would not want to find out! In my opinion, Panamanian and Lichtenstein Foundations are potential options and competitors of the offshore Asset Protection Trust. However, I will not recommend them until the IRS provides some clarity on their status and filing requirements.
I am a big fan of Panama as a country in which to operate an international business and I hope these issues are resolved, and that promoters take a more realistic view of U.S. taxation, so that Panamanian Foundations can become legitimate Asset Protection tools.
Thank you for reading,
Chris Rusch
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Chris Rusch is a California licensed attorney who has represented clients before the IRS in many states. His practice is focused on international taxation and preparation, foreign corporate formations, and resolving complex tax controversies.
Published on Trustmakers.com and Ruschlaw.com.
Dear Valued Reader,
Many offshore promoters are pushing Liechtenstein Foundations on the very wealthy and Panamanian Foundations on the rest of us.
Many are taken in by the term “foundation,” hoping or believing that it makes the structure a charitable foundation which is tax exempt. This is simply not true. For an entity to be tax exempt, it must be registered with the IRS as such, under IRC §501(c)(3)., and this applies to both foreign and domestic entities.
Tax tip: Only donations to charities licensed by the U.S. are deductable on your personal tax return. You can donate money to any charity or group around the world, but, if they do not have the IRS’s blessing, you are not entitled to a deduction.
Adding to the confusion, Foundations typically have multiple levels of nominee directors and boards which allegedly control the Foundation’s assets. Some promoters’ claim that, because you gave up control of your assets, you are not taxed on the interest, dividends, and earnings of the foundation. Again, this is not true. You remain the beneficial owner and have indirect control, which equals ownership in the U.S. tax code.
Most accept that a simple foreign corporation with a nominee director, or an offshore trust with a foreign trustee, does not reduce U.S. tax on earnings. But, change the ending from Inc. to foundation; add a few layers of directors, and many are willing to believe the impossible.
Taking it one step further, some foreign attorneys will issue an option stating that the Foundation is not a grantor trust under the U.S. rules. I do not see anything inherently incorrect in this statement. It seems possible that the Foundation can be classified as something other than a grantor trust. However, these statements are often used to confuse and mislead the U.S. client in to believing that there is some tax benefit to such a classification.
All of the opinions I have read say something like this: “The design and structure of the Foundation is to achieve an entity classification as other than a trust such as a partnership, corporation or disregarded entity for U.S. tax purposes.”
Keeping in mind that the U.S. citizen is taxed on his or her worldwide income, and if we agree that the foundation is not some magical tax exempt structure, the classification does not make a tax difference. Under all options, income to the foundation will be taxed in the U.S. as earned, transfers to the entity will be reportable events, and (most) transfers of appreciated property will be deemed sales.
Some opinions also have the following clause: “Furthermore, there is the option of seeking a private letter ruling from the Internal Revenue Service confirming the proper entity classification of the Foundation.” Such a statement should cause alarm...it means that the IRS has not classified the Panamanian or Lichtenstein Foundation and that U.S. citizens have no certainty regarding when, what, and how to file returns for a foundation.
What would happen if you assumed the foundation was a corporation, filed foreign corporate returns, and then it was classified as a trust? I have no idea, but I would not want to find out! In my opinion, Panamanian and Lichtenstein Foundations are potential options and competitors of the offshore Asset Protection Trust. However, I will not recommend them until the IRS provides some clarity on their status and filing requirements.
I am a big fan of Panama as a country in which to operate an international business and I hope these issues are resolved, and that promoters take a more realistic view of U.S. taxation, so that Panamanian Foundations can become legitimate Asset Protection tools.
Thank you for reading,
Chris Rusch
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Chris Rusch is a California licensed attorney who has represented clients before the IRS in many states. His practice is focused on international taxation and preparation, foreign corporate formations, and resolving complex tax controversies.