US Inbound: IRS issues portfolio interest payment clarification

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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


US Inbound: IRS issues portfolio interest payment clarification

fuller.jpg

forst.jpg

Jim Fuller


David Forst

A recent IRS Chief Counsel Advice Memorandum (CCA 201434021) addressed a situation where a US payor of interest to non-US, non-resident alien individuals sought, after the payments, to obtain the required documentation to qualify the payments as portfolio interest, and thus as exempt from US withholding tax. The US payor had not withheld any amounts on the original interest payments. Treasury Regulation § 1.1441-1(b)(7)(ii) provides that proof of a reduced rate of withholding may be established after the date of payment on the basis of a valid withholding certificate or documentary evidence furnished after that date, but states that additional proof may be required "if it is determined that the delays in obtaining the withholding certificate affect its reliability".

Treas. Reg. § 1.1441-1(b)(4)(i) states that portfolio interest is exempt from US withholding provided that documentation establishing foreign status is furnished for interest on an obligation in registered form. Treas. Reg. § 1.871-14(c)(3)(i) states that interest on a registered obligation qualifies as portfolio interest if the withholding certificate or documentary evidence that must be provided is furnished before expiration of the beneficial owner's period of limitation for claiming a refund of tax with respect to the interest.

Two fact patterns were considered in the CCA: (1) the non-resident alien individual did not file a US tax return or pay any US tax for the year in which the payments were made; and (2) the non-resident alien individual filed a US tax return and paid tax unrelated to the interest payments for the year in which the payments were made.

The Chief Counsel Advice held that the withholding agent was not barred from obtaining the documentation in situations in which the non-resident alien individual had not filed a US tax return and had not paid any tax for the year in which the interest payments were made. The non-resident alien's statute of limitations for seeking a refund was still open. However, the withholding agent may be required to provide additional proof of entitlement to a reduced rate of withholding under Treas. Reg. § 1.441-1(b)(7)(ii) to the extent that the reliability of the documentation is affected by the delay in obtaining it.

In situations where the non-resident alien filed a US tax return and paid tax for the year in which the interest payments were made, the Chief Counsel Advice stated that the withholding agent may be barred under Treas. Reg. § 1.871-14(c)(3)(i) from obtaining the documentation. The filing of a return and the payment of tax both cause a non-resident individual's period of limitations under § 6511(a) to begin. The withholding agent, according to the CCA, has until the expiration of that period to obtain the required documentation.

The solution presented in the Chief Counsel Advice was messy at best, requiring the US payor of interest to ascertain tax return information of the payee(s). Any US person who does not make necessary withholdings of interest is liable under § 1461 for the tax owing. Thus, the payor of the interest will have to pursue the required documentation.

Jim Fuller (jpfuller@fenwick.com) and David Forst (dforst@fenwick.com)

Fenwick & West

Tel: +1 650 335 7205; +1 650 335 7274

Website: www.fenwick.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

In a seminal development for big law, the 95-year-old firm is set to cease operations after a series of high-profile partner departures
UK Chancellor John Healey extended a VAT cut, suspended tariffs, increased a bank surcharge and vowed to increase funding for HMRC
Kristine Riisberg warned that TP decisions can determine top-up tax exposure under pillar two, while global consensus over the rules remains unsettled
Both Germany’s NIS2 and the EU AI Act now determine whether a tax function can meet its obligations – and both can make management personally accountable
Originators, loan purchasers and securitisation vehicles may need to revisit servicing agreements and pricing after a key judgment narrowed the VAT credit management exemption
Opening doors for existing talent within Baker McKenzie and a desire for enhanced legal capabilities informed Ricardo Perera’s switch from KPMG
Boaz Goren’s move to the upstart PE-backed firm takes the number of senior UK tax professionals who have left EY this year to 13
The allegations against Deloitte Cyprus raise uncomfortable questions about how far the big four can distance themselves from misconduct at member firms
The UAE accounted for most Middle East promotions and new rankings, as A&M Tax, Baker McKenzie, Dhruva Consultants and DLA Piper breached the top tier
Spanish-headquartered multinationals lead on reporting quality, while US and Swiss groups lag in the Fair Tax Foundation’s expanded analysis
Gift this article