M&A Insights


新税务改革-商业利息开支限制

posted Jul 13, 2018, 6:55 PM by John Ye

2018年开始执行的减税和就业法Tax Cuts And Jobs Act - TCJA)是美国30年来最大的一次税法改革。新法律反映了一系列的商业净减税政策但是,我们都知道,所有的减税政策肯定有需要从财政上考虑赤字的问题。如果没有相对的税收资源补助,光靠减税来带动经济在短期的执行上是很难照顾国库和财政上的需要。因此,TCJA税法改革中有一个法案是用来补救预算赤字的可能,目的在于减少商业利息开支的有用程度,从而间接地增加税收的补助。Limitation on the deduction of net business interest expense - 商业利息开支限制就是该法案。

税法改革前,商业利息开支限制的用法主要是用于打击美国公司付到境外股东的商业利息开支。一般来说,境外股东可以享有普通债主应该得到的利息。但是,如果太多利息开支同时减低美国公司的税务责任,而避免到分红利益需要交的第二次交税,所谓双重课税的美国税务系统就会受到躲避。所以,税法163(j)有对这种商业利息开支有约束。该法立定每年的商业利息开支不能超过商业收益的50%。多余的利息开支只能推迟到来年再用。

税法改革后,商业利息开支限制有了新的做法。首先,美国公司毛利润按集团总计算来说如果不高于$25MM,可以不受限制。第二,美国公司的商业利息开支不管是付给谁,都一事同人。第三,商业利息开支的上限有减缩,从原来的商业收益的50%降低到30%。总的来说,新的商业利息开支限制的用法主要是用在大公司的业务上。它的用法不再是针对境外的股东躲避双重课税的负担,因为税法改革后,公司税率由原来的35%降低到21%了。新的商业利息开支限制针对的是大公司相对付的税务就不高,如果它们不交多一点的税,又享有新降低后的公司税率,对国库收入是不利的。不过稍微不同的是,该法案对房地产的业务有一点放松。如果房地产商选择放慢房产的折旧速度,房地产商可以享有该法案的豁免。

由此看来,房地产的业者需要注意如何分析该法案的应用。税法改革前,房地产的业者一般注重于房产的折旧上。这是因为房地产投资的税务有特别的优惠。举个例子,如果陈先生买到一栋商业楼,每年的收入在房产折旧前为0,等于没有税务的不同。但是,在房产折旧后,如果每年有$30万的亏损,个人的商业亏损可以用于个人收入的减税上。如果这$30万的亏损按37%的税率来算,价值会等于是每年$11.1万。如果这栋商业楼市价没有任何变动,过了10年后,再卖出的时候,可以说有需要为$300万的增值交税。这时后,优惠在于增值的税率是20%。等于是$60万。大家可以看到,如果陈先生每年得到$11.1万的税务好处,10年的总值是$111万。十年后,陈先生只需要付回$60万,等于在十年中,每年有$4.1万的免税收入。这就是为什么投资房地产有背后的税务好处。

税法改革后,房地产的业者需要平衡为了能够享有该法案的豁免,而不得不放弃一点房产折旧上的好处。这是因为税法改革后,个人和公司的商业亏损利用程度都有被减低。如果折旧本身就有相当的商业亏损,再加上太多的商业利息开支的话,等于制造不必要的商业亏损。同时,如果分析不对,为了保守一点,而选了该法案的豁免,在生意好的情况下,往往又不再能充分利用折旧上的好处。如果是公司的商业利息,分析上应该注重应否取重于避免双重课税的负担,还是担心太多的不必要的商业亏损。因为税法改革后,商业亏损能用的上限只有是商业收益的80%.

由此看来,税法改革后,商业利息开支限制对大公司和房地产的业者来说是一些不少的烦扰。如果计划得好,其影响的程度还是可以相对降低的。

新税务改革企业收入税率

posted Jun 26, 2018, 5:50 PM by John Ye

2018年开始执行的减税和就业法Tax Cuts And Jobs Act - TCJA)是美国30年来最大的一次税法改革新法的核心是把公司收入税率从35%永久性地减少至21%。总的来说,新企业收入税率应该可以对美国在全世界的税务竞争力有优越的提升和推进。新企业收入税率也同时也会给美国国内的经济和就业带来长期的鼓励和支持。以下是我对该税率的一些分析和看法。

对于20171231日后开始的纳税年度,该法案永久性地将公司所得税税率设定为21%。因此,在双重课税系统下,总的最高联邦所得税税率C公司分配给其股东的收入作为合格的股息将是税前公司的36.8%收入(21%+79%x35%)。此外,高收入投资者也可能在分配到个人的股息收入后会触及净额投资所得税net investment income tax而更增加3.8%的额外税率。

对于房地产行业是否应用公司进行商业地产投资,新企业收入税率的影响将会是因为选择实体活动而再次成为一个重要的决定。关键的决定因素包括:(a)资产基础包括可能的房地产或其他资产(如无形资产)随时间升值(b)保持生意资本增长的需要和(c)吸引外国或免税投资者的资本。举个例子,新企业收入税率改革前,中国投资者进入美国房地产行业一般有两个企业模式选择:(1)以中国公司的美国分部直接投资(2)以合伙人公司间接购买美国房地产。中国投资者选择企业模式(1)的考虑是其模式能保护中国投资者不会有美国遗产税的顾虑,因为投资者拥有的只是公司的股份,而避免了拥有美国房地产的个人责任。此外,中国公司的美国分部没有双重课税的负担,因为中美税务条约有对美国遣送回中国的利润有分公司利润税的豁免。但是改革前的分公司税率是相对比较高的35%。相反,选择企业模式(2)的考虑因素就是因为其分配的增值效益有享受20%的优惠税率。但是,因为合伙人公司的透明程度比较高,往往带有美国房地产的个人责任,包括可能有的40%美国遗产税。

新企业收入税率改革后,中国投资者应该首先选择企业模式(1,这是因为低税率的效果。现有的企业模式(2)的业务如果有可能的话,也应该改成企业模式(1)的做法。另外需要考虑的是, TCJA将会增加了新461l)条的个人业务亏损限制。461l)的个人业务亏损限制将会对企业模式(2)效益带来不良的打击。这时候,选择企业模式(1)能完全避免有可能的461l)的个人业务亏损限制。再者,如果中国投资者有可能成为美国居民的话,选择企业模式(1),我们谈到过的净额投资所得税也能完全避免。最后,我们还需要考虑企业模式(2)对合伙企业的优惠。199A其符合条件要求的业务收入扣除20%的税务。扣除数目一般按照这些符合条件要求的业务内雇员工资或应用财产的比例来计算。

所以,我对公司收入税率的看法原则上是肯定的。但是,在不同的业务和其它新企业收入税率的改革下,我觉得每一个项目都要有充足的独立考虑。

新税务改革-商品销售利润来源

posted Jun 26, 2018, 5:48 PM by John Ye

2018年开始执行的减税和就业法Tax Cuts And Jobs Act - TCJA)是美国30年来最大的一次税法改革。新法律反映了一系列的商业净减税政策其中一项名为New Sourcing Rule 新利润来源地的税法863(b),用法有明显的表示了税法改革的自我信心。

税法改革前,跨国公司集团有跨国生产销售的业务。美国的税法对于这些跨国业务的征税一般保持中立的执行。美国的税法除了对转让定价(transfer pricing)有承认外,还承认生产和销售利润各分半的做法。销售指的是货物所有权的交换,所以比较容易调换。由于美国的技术水平高,跨国公司集团中有相当大的高利润产品在美国境内开发和生产。这时候,跨国公司集团往往为了省一点美国的税,有不公平地把美国也能做的销售业务带出美国,而选在海外建立销售机构 - 通过生产和销售利润各分半的道理,直接损害了美国境内的生产利润的比例

这些跨国公司集团的做法不一定能通过转让定价的办法彻底解决,因为需要尊重国际税务条约中已有的一系列的价位计算办法。同时,由于TCJA中的新税率的降低和一系列鼓励生产业的政策,有助于很多以前离境的生产业务能重新踏脚于美国。因此,国会有信心通过立法的手段,重新把生产业务的税务方向指回偏向美国。

在谈过新利润来源地规则的政治背景后,我们继续谈谈该法律的用法。新税法863(b)的内容指的是跨国公司集团如果有跨国生产销售的业务,总利润将会不再尊重销售地的部分,而按各生产地的资本分配来决定。譬如,iPhone的开发在美国,资产占20%,零配件有30%在美国生产,加起来等于是总资本的50%。这时候,美国的毛利比例需要按50%来分配。如果一个iPhone的销售价是$500,其中美国的毛利要求会是$250。这跟以前的分配方法中可能出现的只有20%$100)的美国分配有相当大的区别。

例外由于iPhone例子中有$250是美国的收入,如果跨国公司集团的国外子公司有需要得到美国收入的分配,就有可能被认为是有在美国通过美国的集团成员进行业务合作而拿到effective connected incomeECI - 有效的关联收入),而成为需要在美国报税的责任。这时候,美国的报税就会有作为国外公司需要遵守所有美国税务法律的来源。譬如,TCJA中新加的税务global intangible low-taxed income(GILTI - 全球无形低税收入)也将纳入为税务计算中。

再举个例子,如果以上提过的国外子公司有给iPhone提供其需要的知识产权,占了iPhone开发的资产的50%,等于有$50的收入。那国外子公司的美国报税就有$50的毛利。可能国外子公司有买到第三者的知识产权,花了$20$20是开支的一笔。再有,如果国外子公司再有其自己的子公司,从而再花了$30成本买到需要的内部知识产权。本来子公司之间的知识产权应该就是开支的,等于纯利润是$0,但是由于有GILTI的要求,纯利润需要再修改。除了硬资本的8%的比例是真正成本为,其它的部分都是子公司的GILTI。如果硬资本只有$100,那GILTI$22。这时候,GILTI10.5%的税率来交税。等于国外子公司在美国有$2.31的税务。

由此看来,新利润来源地税法863(b)对美国本土生产的产品有很高的自我承认。由于减税和国内生产的推动政策,美国国会不再担心生产业的海外流失。所以,相对的,新法律对跨国公司集团的利润分配也有自我保护的提高了。

新税务改革法律要点

posted Jun 26, 2018, 5:47 PM by John Ye

2018年开始执行的减税和就业法Tax Cuts And Jobs Act - TCJA)是美国30年来最大的一次税法改革TCJA包括的范围和结构可以说是对美国整个传统税法的一次重大翻新。总的来说,TCJA应该可以对美国在全世界的税务竞争力有优越的提升和推进。TCJA也同时也会给美国国内的经济和就业带来长期的鼓励和支持。

新法律反映了一系列的商业净减税政策,10年预算期内约为1.456万亿美元。企业税务内的变更非常广泛,包括税收优惠以及增税。以下是TCJA中关于商业的典型条文。

首先新法的核心是把企业收入税率从35%永久性地减少至21%。同时新法律也废除了企业替代最低税率(AMT)。新法暂时能使主要的资本成本回收时间得以降低。税法章168(k)条第一年奖励把折旧减免额增加到100%,允许纳税人立即抵消购买的成本,如厂房和设备等。 这种抵消制度比以前有限折旧的政策更进一步,折旧通用于新的和旧的财产应用上。

再有新法律允许某些非公司业者(即个人所有者,信托或遗产),某些合伙企业,S公司和独资企业对符合条件要求的业务收入扣除20%。扣除数目一般按照这些符合条件要求的业务内雇员工资或应用财产的比例来计算。

在国际税的范围内,新法大幅度消除了外国收入的延税要求。如在一个以美国为总部的跨国集团内,海外的收入某些需要按照赚取的收入当年征税,或某些会被永久豁免美国税收。除非是剩余类别的永久性豁免外,新法律一般保留F消极收入部分全额征税并立即对通过颁布前的已经有税务责任的海外收入征税新法律还设定了的而且是非常广泛的收入类别(全球无形低税收入,当年的全球无形低税收入得按相对低一点的税率来立即征税。然而,新法律的确也有相对的外国无形资产收入的低税率鼓励。

新法律限制了净营业亏损(NOL)的应用数额, 在特定年份内只有能扣除80%的应纳税额收入。对于颁布后产生的损失,新法律也废除了以前法律允许的NOL往回抵消的条款。但是,新法律颁布后产生的损失有能永久不过期的使用好处。

新法修改后的第163j)条将会限制扣除商业中超过业务收入30%外的利息费用。超过业务收入30%外的利息开销会被当成是年后的利息费用,而不会被永久限制。同时163j)有对中小企业和房地产企业的豁免优惠。另外,新法第461l)条把每年的个人的商业损失限制于25万以内。最后是有关新的1031交换延迟交税条款。该条款在新法修改后只能适用于交换房地产的资产了。

Reducing the Impact of Section 382 Built in Loss rules for Intangible Assets

posted Mar 14, 2014, 12:26 PM by John Ye

An opportunity may exist for a corporation, that otherwise would be subject to a Section 382 limitation, to realize beneficial tax treatment on the sale of intangible assets. If a company wishes to sell high-basis, low-value intangibles, the Section 382 limitation generally prohibits the company from recognizing the built-in loss on the disposition. For business reasons, the company has no desire to continue to use or own the property, but would prefer to retain the benefits of the built-in loss upon disposition of the intangible.

Generally, when intangible assets are sold within 5 years (the §382 recognition period) after a change of ownership, the taxpayer is unable to fully recognize the built-in loss because it is subject to the Section 382 limitation. However, the taxpayer will not be subject to Section 382 if the transaction is structured so that a loss is not recognized. For example, if only a portion of its high-basis, low-value intangible assets are sold, the taxpayer is not permitted to recognize a loss under Section 197(f), therefore rendering the Section 382 loss limitation inapplicable. The taxpayer, or a member of the taxpayer's controlled group, intentionally would retain ownership of the remaining portion of these high-basis, low-value Section 197 intangible assets and lease these remaining intangibles to the buyer.

Under Section 197(f), a loss from the sale of a Section 197 intangible asset may not be recognized if the taxpayer, or a member of the taxpayer's controlled group, continues to own at least one Section 197 intangible asset acquired in the same transaction. Thus, by retaining ownership of a portion of the intangible assets, the loss generated by the sale of the other intangible assets would be disallowed under Section 197 and not subject to the Section 382 limitation. The taxpayer then would be entitled to recognize the built-in loss by selling the retained Section 197 intangible assets to the lessee/buyer at least five years after the date of the ownership change that created the taxpayer's Section 382 limitation.

Williams Act

posted Jul 18, 2013, 10:00 AM by John Ye

 
Sponsored by Senator Harrison Williams.
Enacted in 1968.
Amended the Exchange Act to add Sections 13(d), 13(e), and 14(d) – (f).
Section 13(g) added in 1977 to address disclosure gaps created by the “acquisition” prerequisite (element) of  Section 13(d).
 Purpose of beneficial ownership reporting: provide security holders, issuers and the market with information relating to potential changes in corporate control, and the persons who hold that potential given their large stockholdings.
Adopted with a view toward alerting “the marketplace to every large, rapid aggregation or accumulation of securities…which might represent a potential shift in corporate control.”

Type D Reorganization (Assets for Shares)

posted Jun 3, 2013, 8:14 AM by John Ye   [ updated Jul 9, 2013, 12:44 PM ]

A Type D reorganization is an acquisition of a Target’s assets and liabilities in exchange for Buyer shares that is described in paragraph D of Section 368(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code.  A Type D reorganization is very similar to a Type C reorganization, except that the Buyer transfers assets to the Target in exchange for shares.

In general, there are two types of Type D reorganizations – acquisitive and divisive.

In an acquisitive Type D reorganization, the Buyer must transfer “substantially all” of its assets to the Target.  “Substantially all” means 90% of the Buyer’s net assets or 70% of its gross assets.

The Buyer must obtain at least 50% of the voting stock of the Target, thereby achieving control in the course of the transaction.  The Target’s shares must be distributed to the Buyer’s shareholders.

The Buyer must liquidate itself at the conclusion of a Type D reorganization.

In a divisive Type D reorganization, the Buyer is divided into two or more pieces.  New corporations are created to receive the assets of the Buyer.  The Buyer must receive at least 80% of the stock of the new corporations.  The shares of the new corporations are distributed to the stockholders of the Buyer.

There are three types of divisive Type D reorganizations – spin-offs, split-offs and split-ups.

A spin-off is a transaction in which the Buyer’s shareholders receive Target shares in exchange for Buyer assets contributed to the Target.

 

(For a larger view, click on the graphic)

 

A split-off is a transaction in which the Buyer’s shareholders receive Target shares in exchange for Buyer assets which they contribute to the Target and Buyer shares which they surrender to the Buyer.

 

 

(For a larger view, click on the graphic)

 

A split-up is a transaction in which the Buyer is split into multiple new Targets and the Buyer shareholders receive shares in the Targets in exchange for their shares in the Buyer.

(For a larger view, click on the graphic)

 

Advantages

  • Corporation may be divided without tax consequences to the shareholders

Disadvantages

  • Complex
  • In some cases requires that the Buyer be liquidated

Internal Control Defined

posted Jul 12, 2012, 6:56 AM by John Ye

Internal control is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
achievement of objectives in the following categories:
· Effectiveness and efficiency of operations
· Reliability of financial reporting
· Compliance with applicable laws and regulations
Several key points should be made about this definition:
1. People at every level of an organization affect internal control. Internal control is, 
to some degree, everyone's responsibility.  Within the University of California,
administrative employees at the department-level are primarily responsible for
internal control in their departments.
2.  Effective internal control helps an organization achieve its operations, financial 
reporting, and compliance objectives. Effective internal control is a built-in part of 
the management process (i.e., plan, organize, direct, and control).  Internal control
keeps an organization on course toward its objectives and the achievement of its
mission, and minimizes surprises along the way.  Internal control promotes
effectiveness and efficiency of operations, reduces the risk of asset loss, and helps to 
ensure compliance with laws and regulations.  Internal control also ensures the
reliability of financial reporting (i.e., all transactions are recorded and that all recorded 
transactions are real, properly valued, recorded on a timely basis, properly classified, 
and correctly summarized and posted).
3. Internal control can provide only reasonable assurance - not absolute assurance -
regarding the achievement of an organization's objectives. Effective internal control 
helps an organization achieve its objectives; it does not ensure success.  There are 
several reasons why internal control cannot provide absolute assurance that objectives 
will be achieved: cost/benefit realities, collusion among employees, and external
events beyond an organization's control.

VIE's, Intercompany Debt, and Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows

posted Mar 30, 2012, 7:22 AM by John Ye

Variable Interest Entities (VIE’s)
ØEstablished as a separate business structure
vTrust
vJoint Venture
vPartnership
vCorporation
ØFrequently has neither independent management nor employees
ØTypical purposes
  • vTransfers of financial assets
  • vLeasing
  • vResearch and development
  • vHedging financial instruments
Intra-Entity Debt Transactions - Debt Acquired from Outside
ØThe acquired debt must be treated as if it has been extinguished.
ØAny related gain or loss related to this “early extinguishment of debt” must be immediately recognized by the consolidated entity.
ØSubsequent payment of principal or interest is treated as a cash transfer.

The Internal Control for Fraud Prevention: A Checklist

posted Mar 20, 2012, 12:22 PM by John Ye   [ updated Mar 20, 2012, 12:23 PM ]

As more companies prioritize China operations as part of their future growth strategy, less than effective internal control systems in China are no longer an option. For those small and mid-sized enterprises (SMEs) that dismiss internal control systems reviews and audits as a burden of the giants, specialists warn that this is not the case.
 
As such, Yes PLLC is devoted to understanding effective internal control systems in the Chinese context and the role of audits in detecting and preventing fraud.
 
Including:
  •  Internal Control and Audit in the Chinese Business Context
  •  China’s Internal Control and Audit Regulatory Framework
  •  Operational Audits: Lessons for Internal Control
We can discuss further the Internal Control for Fraud Prevention: A Checklist.




 

1-10 of 11