Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Taxation & Estate Planning Blogs -> Rubin on Tax
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Taxation & Estate Planning
: Rubin on TaxTAX PROVISIONS IN HIRE ACT IMPOSE NEW COMPLIANCE BURDENS ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE AND INVESTING
By Charles Rubin
Capital, and all of its blessings, flows to where it is treated best. The recently passed Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act of 2010 (the "HIRE" Act) imposes new obstacles to the flow of capital into and out of the U.S. While ostensibly limited to "reporting" requirements to address offshore tax evasion by U.S. persons, at some point U.S. investors will balk at the level of reporting and forego profitable investments in the world at large, and foreign investors will simply move on to greener pastures and avoid the U.S. in making capital available. While such enforcement legislation may be considered to be tax revenue enhancing, the lost national revenue from reduced capital investment and tax compliance costs doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar screen ? indeed, there is almost a complete absence of attention to the new rules in the national media. Once upon a time, U.S. tax policy was influenced by the impact of the tax code on U.S. economic growth and capital development ? sadly for the U.S. economy, such concerns have taken a backseat in the ongoing campaign to root out tax dodgers.
I have prepared a general overview of the new provisions, which can be viewed here.
In addition to increasing the compliance burden of investors and businesses (including the imposition of foreign account disclosure requirements that essentially duplicate disclosures already required under FBAR reporting), the new provisions include several traps for the unwary. For example, U.S. persons that purchase stock of a U.S. corporation from a foreign entity are required to obtain certification regarding ?substantial? U.S. ownership (or nonownership) of the foreign entity. If the U.S. person does not obtain the required certification, the U.S. buyer is obligated to withhold 30% of the purchase price from the foreign seller (at least that is how I read the new statute). If the U.S. buyer is not aware of these rules, the IRS can come after it for the 30% withholding even if the buyer has already fully paid the foreign seller. Tax and business counsel need to familiarize themselves with these rules to avoid the inadvertent application of these rules to their clients.
Full post as published by Rubin on Tax on April 02, 2010 (boomark / email).
Heart of Atlanta v United States
Supreme Court Decision: Civil Rights Act Protected by Interstate Commerce Clause
Dumb Foreign Laws
Stupid Laws of Other Countries
Landlord Tenant Laws and Provisions
State and City Laws Related to Residential House and Apartment Leases
Texas, USA
alleging the Medical Malpractice and Tort Reform Act of 2003 violates several provisions of the Constitution.
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
CIBC
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
401(k) / ERISA Stock Fraud
Internet/Technology
involving cyber law, consumer protection, internet crime, internet fraud, online gambling, e-commerce.
AT&T International Roaming Charges, AT&T lawsuit
AT&T Faces International Roaming Charges Lawsuit
Preliminary Settlement Reached With Soleus International
Soleus International Reaches Preliminary Settlement of Class Action

Simplification Plan 2008 - Ministry of Justice
Analyzing Family Ties Burdens: A Framework
Do You Have the "Compliance Blues"
E-Commerce Law Briefs: September 1, 2008
Business + Technology: Resources









