SubChapter M Tax: Foreign withholding issues - Deloitte | France Tax Alert - 8 July 2010 | International Tax

SubChapter M Tax: Foreign withholding issues - Deloitte | France Tax Alert - 8 July 2010 | International Tax: "Deloitte | France Tax Alert - 8 July 2010 | International Tax: 'The French Administrative Lower Court of Paris ruled on 22 April 2010 that the withholding tax levied on French-source dividends paid to an Irish UCIT violated the free movement of capital principle in the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU and EEA. The French tax authorities have four months to lodge an appeal against the decision (until August 2010), although they have not yet done so.

Under French law, dividends paid by a French company to a non-French UCIT are subject to a 25% withholding tax, whereas dividends paid by a French company to a French UCIT are exempt from taxation in France (i.e. no withholding tax and no corporate income tax at the level of the UCIT). In addition, the French tax authorities take the position that tax treaties do not apply to UCITs, unless specific provisions are included in a treaty (see, for example, France’s treaties with Germany, Spain and Sweden).'"

ICI - 2010 Tax & Accounting Conference

ICI - 2010 Tax & Accounting Conference: "Tax and Accounting Conference
September 26–29, 2010
Phoenix, AZ
For the latest information on tax, accounting, and regulatory developments, don't miss the Investment Company Institute's 2010 Tax and Accounting Conference at the JW Marriott Desert Ridge in Phoenix, Arizona. A welcoming reception will take place on the evening of Sunday, September 26. Conference sessions are scheduled for Monday, September 27 through Wednesday, September 29."

SubChapter M Tax: irs private letter ruling 201025031 - qualifying income under 851 from a CFC

SubChapter M Tax: irs private letter ruling 201025031 - qualifying income under 851 from a CFC: "This is in response to your letter dated August 9, 2009, requesting a ruling that (1) income and gain arising from the commodities-linked notes described below constitute qualifying income to Fund under section 851(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) and (2) income earned from Fund’s investment in a wholly-owned subsidiary (Subsidiary) that is a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) under section 957(a) constitutes qualifying income to Fund under section 851(b)(2)."

Taxation of Real Estate Investment Trusts: Retroactive QEF election made by REIT - IRS Private Letter Ruling 201029016

Taxation of Real Estate Investment Trusts: Retroactive QEF election made by REIT - IRS Private Letter Ruling 201029016: "This is in response to your letter received by our office on November 9, 2009, requesting the consent of the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service to make a retroactive qualified electing fund ('QEF') election under section 1295(b) of the Internal Revenue Code ('Code') and Treas. Reg. �1.1295-3(f) with respect to your investment in FC.

The rulings contained in this letter are based upon information and representations submitted by the taxpayer and accompanied by a penalty of perjury statement executed by an appropriate party. While this office has not verified any of the material submitted in support of the request for rulings, it is subject to verification on examination.

FACTS
Taxpayer is a State X corporation. Taxpayer and Company A, a Real Estate Investment Trust (Taxpayer’s indirect shareholder), both made an election to treat Taxpayer as a taxable REIT subsidiary effective Date 1. Company B (Taxpayer’s majority direct shareholder) is an operating partnership owned primarily by Company A. Taxpayer is a calendar year taxpayer and uses the accrual method of accounting."

Taxation of Real Estate Investment Trusts: State Tax Matters

Taxation of Real Estate Investment Trusts: State Tax Matters: "Effective for tax years ending on or after July 1, 2010, new law generally requires a defined captive real estate investment trust (REIT) to add back its federal dividends paid deduction, as well as requires a “captive REIT affiliated group” to file its Tennessee franchise/excise tax return on a combined basis. A captive REIT is generally defined as a federal income tax REIT under Internal Revenue Code Sec. 856(c)(1) that is not publicly traded and is 80% or more owned directly or indirectly by a single entity or individual. A captive REIT affiliated group includes any entity that is greater than 50% owned (directly or indirectly) by a captive REIT; although the law provides an exception for captive REITs owned directly or indirectly by a bank or bank holding company or a public REIT. Also, the federal dividends paid deduction add-back requirement does not apply to a captive REIT that is owned, directly or indirectly, by a bank or a bank holding company or a public REIT."

SubChapter K Tax: Qualifying Income of a Publicly Traded Partnership under IRC 7704 - IRS Private Letter Ruling 201027003

SubChapter K Tax: Qualifying Income of a Publicly Traded Partnership under IRC 7704 - IRS Private Letter Ruling 201027003: "This letter responds to a letter from your authorized representative dated February 16, 2010 submitted on behalf of X requesting a ruling under the publicly traded partnership rules of �7704 of the Internal Revenue Code.

X was organized as a limited partnership under the laws of State. It is a publicly traded partnership within the meaning of � 7704(b). X is engaged through its operating partnership, Y, and through Y's subsidiaries (hereinafter, any references to X include a reference to Y and Y's subsidiaries), in a variety of activities, including the marine transportation of crude oil, refined petroleum products and other products for a variety of charterers, including major and independent oil and gas refining companies and petroleum marketing companies. X currently provides its marine transportation services under (i) spot contracts covering a single voyage and (ii) term contracts that range from a to b in length. Vessel charters, including fully found charters, time charters, consecutive voyage charters, contracts of affreightment and single voyage charters, as currently in effect and as may be entered into in the future, are referred to herein as the “Charters”."

Little Change for PCAOB Under High Court Ruling

Little Change for PCAOB Under High Court Ruling

The Supreme Court’s 5–4 decision Monday in the constitutional challenge to the PCAOB will leave the agency virtually unchanged. The court’s ruling will not affect day-to-day operations of the PCAOB, the agency said.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. In it, he said the court was isolating, or “severing,” from the rest of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act the one constitutional flaw the court found regarding the power to remove PCAOB members. “The consequence is that the [PCAOB] may continue to function as before, but its members may be removed at will by the [SEC],” said the Court’s summary of the decision.

The court also emphasized that all other provisions of the SOX will remain in effect. “The Sarbanes-Oxley Act remains ‘fully operative as a law’ with these tenure restrictions excised,” the court said.

“The decision effectively fixes the constitutionality of the PCAOB by making board members subject to ‘at will’ removal by the SEC and therefore the president,” said AICPA President and CEO Barry Melancon. “It sustains the continued function of both the PCAOB and Sarbanes-Oxley.”