US Inbound: Separate business entities

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

US Inbound: Separate business entities

fuller.jpg

forst.jpg

Jim Fuller


David Forst

The IRS National Office in LTR 201305006 ruled that an agreement between a US and foreign corporation gave rise to a separate business entity. While the arrangement was a US outbound investment, a similar arrangement could give rise to material US tax issues if it involves inbound investment. The ruling addresses two parties, a US corporation (taxpayer) and its foreign affiliate (affiliate) that entered into a profit participation agreement under which the affiliate would acquire a profits and capital interest in all of taxpayer's branches in a certain region in exchange for a cash investment. The ruling states that no separate juridical legal entity will be created as a result of the agreement and thus taxpayer will retain legal ownership of all assets, liabilities, and contractual obligations of the branches.

The agreement was to be governed by foreign law. The taxpayer and affiliate agreed to exclusive jurisdiction of foreign courts in respect of any matter arising out of the agreement.

The IRS ruled that the Agreement will create a separate business entity for federal income tax purposes (even though no separate juridical entity was created), and that it will be treated as a foreign entity. The ruling is consistent with US tax law, which provides that a separate entity can be created, irrespective of classification of the entity under local commercial law, if two or more parties jointly conduct a business in which they each have a proprietary interest. Commissioner v. Culbertson, 337 US 733 (1949).

In the ruling, the taxpayer stated that a check-the-box election would be made to treat the business entity formed by the Agreement as a corporation for US federal income tax purposes. If such an election had not been made, the entity would have been treated as a partnership.

If the income of the business entity included income that was effectively connected with a US trade or business (and in the case of a treaty, attributable to a permanent establishment), then the foreign member, absent the corporate check-the-box election, would have been subject to US income and branch profits tax. Therefore, US inbound investors would be well advised to be sensitive to arrangements that may give rise to a separate business entity for US tax purposes.

Jim Fuller (jpfuller@fenwick.com)

Tel: +1 650 335 7205

David Forst (dforst@fenwick.com)

Tel: +1 650 335 7274

Fenwick & West

Website: www.fenwick.com

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

In-house teams who want a balance of internal control and external expertise for pillar two should seriously consider co-sourcing models, Russell Gammon of Tax Systems argues
The OECD has vowed to continue working with the US despite the president effectively pulling the country out of the organisation’s global minimum tax deal
Norton Rose Fulbright highlights a Brazilian investment fund as a practical example of how new Dutch tax rules will require significant attention from foreign companies
Thomson Reuters now has ‘end-to-end capability’ for its tax workflow business, according to its president for tax accounting and audit professionals
Patrick O’Gara, who is rated as a ‘highly regarded practitioner’ by World Tax, had spent over 20 years at Baker McKenzie
If approved, it would become the first ‘big four’ firm to practise law in the US; in other news, Morrison Foerster hired a new global tax co-chair
The ‘birth date’ of the service, which will collect tariffs, duties and other foreign revenue, will be January 20
Awards
Submit your nominations to this year's WIBL Americas Awards by February 28
Awards
Research for the annual Women in Business Law Awards has begun – submit your entries by February 28
In-house counsel across a number of regions are unimpressed with their tax advisers’ CSR efforts, according to ITR+ research
Gift this article