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 2026

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

Tax advisers should revisit India secondment arrangements after the EY US ruling strengthened the Centrica precedent and raised fresh withholding concerns
Despite the shortfall, effective tax rates of multinationals have seen a ‘statistically significant rise’
After joining Milbank from Akin Gump, the fund tax specialist discusses sponsor demand, practice building, and the tax challenges facing asset managers
Partner payouts could also be reduced by a fifth, it has been reported
There is no logical reason not to extend an exemption from EU CFC rules to multinationals headquartered in side-by-side jurisdictions, USCIB said
While rarely the sole driver of a combination, tax is becoming an increasingly important part of firms' efforts to keep up with client expectations
New research, which suggests LLMs can silently corrupt complex documents, should alert tax and legal teams relying on AI to handle iterative drafting and compliance workflows
Maintaining increased funding for HMRC is a ‘high possibility’ if he becomes PM, ITR has also heard
Awards
ITR is delighted to reveal all the shortlisted nominees for the 2026 Europe Tax Awards
The firm has hired a team of private client lawyers from Withers to launch in New York and Connecticut, though ITR analysis suggests it faces stiff competition
Gift this article