blogger visitor

Saturday, April 28, 2007

U.S.- BRAZIL EXCHANGE OF TAX INFORMATION AGREEMENT

The U.S. does not presently have an income tax treaty with Brazil. Due to differences in opinion between the two countries as to the proper scope and provisions of such a treaty, it is unknown if one will ever be forthcoming.

Nonetheless, the U.S. and Brazil have now entered into an Exchange of Information Agreement. Such agreements provide a mechanism for each country to assist the other in tax investigations and administration.

The Agreement only provides for the delivery of tax information upon request by one country of the other. It does not have any provisions for spontaneous exchange (that is, where one country has an obligation to deliver tax information to the other country because the first country simply thinks it would be of interest to the other country.

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/braziltiea2007.pdf for the text of the Agreement.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

IRS PROPOSES MAJOR REWRITE OF THE RULES IN REGARD TO ESTATE TAX DEDUCTIONS

Section 2053 of the Internal Revenue Code allows for the deduction of funeral expenses, administration, claims against the estate, and certain indebtedness of a deceased in computing federal estate tax. Under the estate tax, the value of assets against which the estate tax is applied is measured on the date of death (or under the alternative date election, 6 months after the date of death.) Likewise, the amount of deductions is generally computed as of the date of death. However, some deductions clearly arise after death (e.g., funeral expenses and administrative expenses) so these are not fixed as of the date of death. Further, the question of what post-death events can be considered in determining the deductible amount of a claim against an estate has been the subject of numerous (and inconsistent) pronouncements by the courts and the IRS.

What happens with claims against an estate that are contested, contingent, unenforceable, become unenforceable after the decedent's death, or are not in fact presented for payment? How much can an estate deduct on its return? Oftentimes, a fair amount of speculation and guesswork goes into such determinations (both by taxpayers and the IRS). Further, if the IRS does not agree with the amount claimed, expensive and time consuming administrative proceedings and court cases result.

In an effort to bring more certainty to the deduction question, and to limit disagreements between the IRS and taxpayers, the IRS has issued proposed regulations that radically vary the current procedures. Under the proposed regulations, for claims against an estate arising in contract or tort, an estate may not deduct such a claim under Section 2053 UNTIL THE CLAIM IS PAID BY THE ESTATE. The regulations specifically provide that post-death events are thus considered.

A principal effect of these rules will be that for claims not paid by the time the estate tax return is filed, no deduction will be initially allowed, and thus tax may be overpaid. If the claim is later paid, a claim for refund can then be filed based on the deduction that is then allowable. If the statute of limitations for filing for a refund has expired, the estate is generally out of luck – however, it can file to extend the statute of limitations by filing a protective refund claim before the statute of limitations expires (if the protective claim is not timely filed, the later refund claim will not be allowed) to allow for a later claim.

If a claim becomes unenforceable, and it is paid after that, no deduction will be allowed. The regulations also provide for a presumption against the validity of claims to related parties and entities. The proposed regulations also provide rules when a court decree can be relied upon to fix a deduction amount, and when a settlement of a claim will be respected for this purposes.

These new rules would be a mixed blessing for taxpayers. On the plus side, taxpayers would have more certainty in regard to what should be reported as deductible claims, and will also spend less time and money fighting with the IRS on those issues. They can also avoid the problem of underestimating a claim and thus not getting a full deduction if the final claim amount is not determined until after expiration of the statute of limitations for refund. On the negative side, and this is a big negative, estates must first pay estate taxes without a deduction for contested or uncertain claims, and then later ask for taxes back once the claim is paid. This can have significant cash flow implications to estates.

The proposed regulations are not yet effective, and will not be until final regulations are actually issued.

Sunday, April 22, 2007

LESSOR CANNOT ARBITRARILY WITHHOLD CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE [Florida]

An important provision in leases is assignability. Usually, the landlord is very interested in requiring its consent to an assignment of a lease since it wants to control who its tenant is. The tenant usually wants the ability to assign the lease so it can minimize its economic loss if it wants to move or otherwise cease to be the tenant during the term of the lease.

In SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA, LLC, v. TROPIC ENTERPRISES, INC., SUNOCO, INC. (R&M), and MASCOT PETROLEUM COMPANY, INC., the lease provided that "Lessee shall not assign or transfer this lease, or any interest therein, without the prior written consent of Lessor." The tenant sought to assign the lease to a third party, and the Lessor refused to consent. In legal proceedings, the landlord argued that per the express terms of the lease, it could refuse to consent to an assignment, and was not obligated to be reasonable in its refusal. The trial court agreed.

On appeal, the 2nd District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court. It held that even though there is no express obligation that the landlord needed to act reasonably in reviewing a request to assign the lease, the implied covenant of good faith that is present in all contracts imposes a duty of commercial reasonableness on the landlord.

This probably does not mean that a landlord always has to act reasonably in determining whether to approve a lease assignment. The 2nd DCA noted that the lease did not expressly provide that the landlord's discretion to withhold consent was "absolute." Presumably, if the lease had expressly provided for "absolute discretion" in the landlord on this issue, then the duty of commercial reasonableness would not have been applicable.

SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA, LLC, Appellant, v. TROPIC ENTERPRISES, INC., SUNOCO, INC. (R&M), and MASCOT PETROLEUM COMPANY, INC., 32 Fla. L. Weekly D1032b (2nd DCA, April 20, 2007).