2(A). Potential International Structures (No Longer Viable)


Disclaimer
NOTE, THE 2017 TAX ACT VIRTUALLY ELIMINATED ANY BENEFIT FROM THIS STRUCTURE.  IT'S INCLUDED HERE SIMPLY FOR HISTORY
Potential International Structure

Many Crypto companies would like to avoid taxation altogether by selling their tokens through a foreign corporation.  If the original technologist is neither a US citizen nor a US resident, this should be relatively easy to do.  A foreign corporation that does not do business in the US should not be subject to US tax on the sale of Tokens or the operation of a business (although it may still be subject to US securities law rules on the sale of tokens or other interests).

Where the original technologist is a US Person or a US corporation, however, it is much more difficult and often impossible.

US tax law makes it very hard to transfer intellectual property to a foreign corporation.  There is no reason why intellectual property exists in any specific location – and the US does not want taxpayers to deduct all the costs of development (including the development of failures) and then generate revenue through a foreign corporation where the US cannot impose taxes. 

There are at least two different rules that would apply here. 

The first is IRC section 482, which says, “In the case of any transfer (or license) of intangible property . . .  [between related parties], the income with respect to such transfer or license shall be commensurate with the income attributable to the intangible.”  So even if a US person “sells” the Crypto IP to a related foreign corporation for its current fair market value, the foreign corporation will be deemed to pay a royalty back to the US person “commensurate with income” which effectively eliminates the ability of the foreign corporation to earn income free of US tax.

There is one way around 482, which is to enter into a “cost sharing agreement”.  In a cost sharing agreement, the foreign entity and the US entity agree to jointly develop IP (sharing the costs in proportion to the projected revenue).  And in this one case, the US party can allow the foreign party to “buy in” to existing US property.  However, even where a cost sharing arrangement successfully causes the foreign entity to own the foreign rights to the Crypto IP (and the related tokens) – which implies that the cost sharing arrangement was set up when there were still material expenses of development left to be incurred – there is still a problem. 

Which brings into play the second rule that likely applies here.  The US does not have the right to require a foreign corporation that doesn’t do business in the US to pay US taxes.  Instead, what it does is it “deems” that foreign corporation to pay annual dividends to its US Shareholders out of certain income under what is called “Subpart F”.  More specifically, Subpart F provides that a foreign corporation, more than 50% of the vote or value of its equity is owned by US people who each own more than 10% of the voting power of the equity (“US Shareholders”), is a “Controlled Foreign Corporation” (a “CFC”) – and CFCs are deemed to distribute all their “Subpart F” income to their US Shareholders.  Subpart F income is generally (and I am really simplifying here), either income from transactions with affiliates or “foreign personal holding company” income (capital gains, rents, royalties, dividends, interest, etc.).  While it is not clear how income from the sale of Tokens will be treated, I believe there is a material risk that the IRS will treat it as Subpart F income – in which event the benefit of causing a foreign corporation to own the IP is effectively eliminated (or at least the risk that it is so eliminated is material).

The one situation I have seen where I believe that a US Crypto Company could benefit from setting up a foreign affiliate and entering into a cost sharing arrangement (which incidentally involves significant legal, accounting and valuation expenses), is where the Crypto Currency is an integral part of a service business (e.g., they have elements of prepaid gift cards).  In that event, the income from selling Tokens is effectively a presale of services to be provided in the future, and if the income from those services is sourced outside the US (i.e., the related services were not being performed in the US and any related goods were not produced in the US), a foreign company would generally not be subject to US tax on that income, nor would its US Shareholders have imputed dividend income (they would only have dividend income when the profits are actually distributed).

However, the vast majority of Crypto Companies I have seen do not operate in this fashion and so the creation of a foreign vehicle would be an uncertain strategy.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should I sell my Tokens and realize a loss before year end?

Disclaimer     I have now been asked almost a dozen times about the "Wash Sale Rules" and whether token holders should sell and repurchase tokens before year end. The Wash Sale rules (IRC Section 1091) provide that if you sell a security at a loss and repurchase a substantially identical security within 30 days, your loss will be disallowed (and added to your tax basis in the purchased security). People have been hearing that the Wash Sale rule doesn't apply to tokens because the IRS has not designated tokens as securities.  (Remember that the characterization of tokens as securities by the SEC or as something else by the CFTC is not relevant for tax law purposes.  Tokens may be securities for some purposes and not for others.) If that's true, you could sell your BTC today and buy back BTC an hour later and trigger a loss that you can use to offset capital gain (or up to $3,000 of ordinary income) from some other source. That's a very reasonable argument
Read more

1. So you want to do an ICO

Disclaimer The number of token offerings through ICOs or otherwise that have crossed my desk in the last 12 months has exploded.  Many of those transactions have been put together with such speed that corporate structure and tax treatment are an afterthought with expensive consequences.  Even now, most of the focus seems to be on the securities law treatment of Tokens.  The following is a brief outline of some issues that are worth considering -- primarily in order to avoid adverse tax issues for founders, issuers and investors.  Following posts will discuss different structures mentioned below in greater detail. Before we get to actual structures, however, it's important to understand what kinds of adverse things can happen to you.  Many people think that selling Tokens should be taxed the same way as a stock sale is taxed -- but there is a specific Internal Revenue Code section that provides stock sales are tax free -- and it doesn't apply to Token sales. TAXATION OF TO
Read more

New Revenue Ruling on Staking Income

  Disclaimer On August 1, 2023, the IRS issued a new Revenue Ruling ( Rev. Rul. 2023-14 ) holding that income received from delegating tokens to a validator (" Staking Income ") is taxable at the time the taxpayer has "dominion and control" over the newly received tokens. No one I know thought that was a surprise.  Arguments that staked tokens were like self created intellectual property or agricultural produce (and therefore not taxable until sold) were theoretically possible (and certainly seem to apply to genesis block tokens held by founders), but they were always a stretch.  Arguments that tokens received from staking were like stock splits or simply inflationary (slicing the pizza into more pieces) denied Treasury's fundamental need to have a clear measurement date and benchmark. The meaning of "Dominion and Control" is discussed in Rev. Rule 2019-24, which can be found here , in the context of hard forks, but if there ever was any doubt, the ne
Read more