US Inbound: Separate business entities

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

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 & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Luxembourg’s reform agenda continues at pace in 2025, with targeted measures for start-ups and alternative investment funds
Veteran Elizabeth Arrendale will lead the new advisory practice, which will support clients with M&A tax structuring, post-deal integration, and more
MAP cases keep increasing, and cases closed aren’t keeping pace with the number started, the OECD’s Sriram Govind also told an ITR summit
Nobody likes paperwork or paying money, but the assertion that legal accreditation doesn’t offer value to firms and clients alike is false
Ryan hopes the buyout will help it expand into Asia and the Middle East; in other news, three German finance ministers have called for a suspension of pillar two
SKAT, which was represented by Pinsent Masons, had accused Sanjay Shah and other defendants of fraudulent dividend tax refund claims
TP managers must be able to explain technical issues in simple terms, ITR’s European Transfer Pricing Forum heard
Prudential had challenged HMRC over VAT group relief; in other news, Donald Trump unveiled timber and wood tariffs, and the European Commission published a ViDA implementation strategy
Australia’s CbCR rules have ‘widespread support’ and do not put American companies at a competitive disadvantage, the FACT Coalition said
Baker McKenzie advised two of the member firms involved, while several advisers provided transaction counsel to US-based Grant Thornton Advisors
Gift this article