税收

  • Holland&Knight拥有90多名税务律师,定期为各种规模的客户就其结构、交易和资本扩张计划的联邦、州、地方和国际税务影响提供咨询,以确保全球税务合规。
  • 我们的税务团队解释,结构和谈判客户交易,并设计最大化税收福利并尽量减少税务责任的策略。
  • 我们的税务团队注重增值,除了提供补救服务外,还采取积极主动的方法,帮助客户制定预防措施,限制其纳税义务,并制定策略,从可用的税收抵免中获益。
硬币

概述

Holland&Knight的税务业务直接涉及所有级别的税务事务——国际、联邦、州和地方、员工福利和高管薪酬。我们的服务是预防性和补救性的。我们帮助客户避免税务陷阱,并协助有效的交易结构,以避免多付税款的义务。我们还通过使用经验丰富、敬业的税务诉讼律师,促进客户在有争议的税务诉讼中的利益。我们的重点始终是为客户增加价值。

我们是国际,国家,州和当地酒吧协会的税务部分领导者。我们为各种委员会提供在此实践领域提高律师的道德和专业行为。我们不断监控我们的内部活动,以确保向我们的税务相关事项提供给客户的建议是质量和诚信的最高水平。

我们的律师发表了大量关于税收政策的文章,这些文章在国会和州立法机构的最高级别上进行了辩论。我们认为我们的责任是保护客户的利益,避免交易造成不正当的表现。

我们的客户包括财富100.公司对个人保护他们的个人和企业资产。该公司的多办公室平台使我们能够在每个主要市场中心吸收经验丰富的从业人员,以提供广泛的知识和能力,从广泛的行业和商业模式。我们所带来的价值是具有广泛背景、经验和观点的专业人士的共同努力,以帮助确保我们的客户在任何地方都能获得最新的税务和商业机会解释。我们可以帮助您解决最棘手的税务问题和争议。新万博manbetx官网下载manbetx万博app下载

联邦税

我们的税务律师在外国和国内有限合伙企业、有限责任合伙企业、有限责任公司、银团、公共和私人慈善组织以及合资企业的税务规划和结构方面,以及在传统的组织形式、兼并和收购、重组方面处于领先地位,为企业、金融机构、医疗保健和其他商业客户提供资本扩张计划。我们与债券、房地产、公司和证券律师合作,就免税融资、公共和私人证券发行、合并、收购和资产剥离发表税务意见。

我们亦就诉讼事宜提供意见,并就股东协议、雇佣合约、买卖协议、企业继任计划、遗产计划及符合及不符合条件的递延薪酬安排等复杂的经营安排进行筹备及谈判。我们华盛顿特区办事处的律师与联邦政府保持密切联系,使我们能够接触我们的立法者,并对联邦税收立法产生重大影响。

国际税收

我们为国内外个人和实体提供适用于在美国和国外开展业务的联邦、州和地方税法建议。从拥有全球业务的大公司到拥有本地业务和全球抱负的小公司,我们担任首席或助理税务顾问。

此外,我们还就各种税务问题向受监管和不受监管的普通承运人提供咨询。例如,我们与国内外航空公司和海运公司合作进行税务规划,并对影响单个航空公司和整个行业的州和地方税务行动提出质疑。我们的国际税务律师还为那些计划在海外建设或已经在海外运营的公司提供重要建议。

在规划国际客户方面,我们已经获得了对各种外国司法管辖区的法律的广泛了解,包括发达国家和新兴市场的条约和非处理国家。我们的税务律师在移民前税收计划和出境外籍人士进行了大量经验,包括起草和构建外国和国内信托和全球税务合规性。

州地税

我们有结构化的新方法来减少税收对各种交易的影响,并授予国家和地方税收问题的房地产律师,包括豁免,分类和估值租赁权益,商业和政府拥有的物业。此外,我们提出意见并代表涉及公司所得税,销售税,销售税的争议的客户从价计征物业税和纪录片/无形税务问题。我们还经常向客户提供关于互联网销售和类似电子商务等多余税收问题的客户。代表客户包括公用事业,主要国家和跨国公司,房地产开发商和大量矿产和农业利益的业主。

有争议的税务事项

处理争议是我们的优势之一。在内部收入服务和国家部门,我们代表了联邦,州和地方行政税务纠纷中的所有类型的纳税人。

我们在美国税务法院、美国地区法院和美国联邦索赔法院的积极税务诉讼实践涉及农业合作社的免税地位、FIRPTA合规事项、杠杆租赁避税、ERISA/递延补偿事项、估价问题,国内外公司、金融机构重组及公司间定价。我们的律师在联邦、州、县和市各级就税务问题进行诉讼。在房地产部门执业的律师在以下方面具有重要的诉讼技能:从价计征税收问题。

公共财政

我们与我们的公共财政实践合作,创造免税债券融资技术,并设计融资结构,以避免替代性最低税收或分配国家总量上限。此外,我们直接与政府官员打交道,以尽量减少套利回扣,并确保涉及回扣时遵守适用规则。我们华盛顿特区办事处的税务律师特别擅长市政财政事务;我们的税务和市政金融服务结合在一起,使公司在国家债券法律顾问中赢得了很高的声誉。

免税实体

我们税务机构的律师精通适用于各种免税组织的税法。我们的客户包括国家和国际慈善机构、家庭和企业基金会、大学、私立学校和特许学校、学生交流组织、文化机构、社会服务机构和研究组织、贸易和专业协会、社会俱乐部、宗教组织和宣传团体。我们还为其他类型的非营利组织提供法律顾问,包括为低收入家庭或残疾人提供住房、医院、医学研究组织和其他医疗保健组织、教堂和其他宗教组织、大学和其他类型的教育机构,社区基金会、工会、全国大学生联谊会、社会福利组织、行业协会和商业联盟、政治组织。

代表我们的客户,我们获得联邦和州的税收豁免,提供有关如何保留和充分利用税收豁免状况,特别是公共慈善机构的持续咨询。我们的企业和税务律师定期向客户提供无关的企业应税收入规则,最近的IRS条例对“过度福利交易”施加中级制裁,普遍禁止免于私人水密和私人利益,即税收豁免组织必须始终考虑,对税收豁免实体的游说和政治活动的特殊限制。我们还拥有各种私营基金会规定的丰富经验,包括年度分布要求和国内外授权制定规则,以及禁止自我交易,危及投资,过度的商业持有和应税支出。

我们为免税债券融资提供第501(c)(3)节税务意见,并就低收入住房和学生住房的管理规则向客户提供建议。我们的律师还协助客户获得和维持不动产免税。

事务服务

税务小组与我们其他业务领域的律师密切合作,帮助解释、组织和协商客户交易,以最大限度地提高税收优惠和降低税收成本。虽然我们在商业交易中的税务建议主要关注联邦税务影响,但我们也设计了计划和结构,以尽量减少交易对整体商业计划的税务影响。

通过使用有限责任公司,伙伴关系,土地信托和其他专业车辆,我们已经保存了客户的大量交易税。此外,我们提出了提供文件和草案的税收披露部分,并使与交易相关的税收意见。我们的税务律师的几个提供了与房地产开发和投资事业有关的服务,其中许多是合资企业或其他利润参与安排。我们也经历了谈判,记录和结束主要房地产和业务相关交易。

案例研究

多媒体

Holland & Knight ofreció un seminario web en vivo sobre los aspectos relevantes de la nueva regulación en materia de subcontratación. Durante la presentación, los expositores trataron temas laborales, fiscales, corporativos y petroleros. Los panelistas incluyeron el socio Alejandro Landa Thierry, los senior counsel Leslie Palma y Eugenio Grageda, y Lourdes Landa Thierry, la Directora Internacional Legal y Fiscal para JSL International LLC.

\n

Duración: 55:37

","link":{"label":"Aspectos relevantes, implicaciones y alcance de la nueva regulación en materia de outsourcing","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/04/aspectos-relevantes-implicaciones-y-alcance-de-la-nueva-regulacion","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/04/aspectos-relevantes-implicaciones-y-alcance-de-la-nueva-regulacion","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2021/04/media_first100dayspodcastep3_still.jpg","alt":"White House with blue sky in background"},"description":"

In the third episode of our Public Policy & Regulation Group's \"The First 100 Days of the Biden Administration\" podcast series, Trade Partner Nasim Fussell and Tax Attorneys Alan Granwell and Joshua Odintz continue a discussion on the current state of the digital economy and digital services taxes (DST). They provide an update on DSTs in the U.S. and abroad and look at the United States Trade Representative's (USTR) plans for addressing DSTs and working with the OECD.

\n

For more in-depth info on the Biden Administration's Made in America Tax Plan and its interaction with OECD Inclusive Framework, read our recent alert.

\n
\n

Podcast Transcript

\n

Nasim Fussell: Welcome back, everybody, to our second podcast on the digital economy and tax. I am Nasim Fussell. I'm a partner in the trade group at Holland & Knight, and I am joined once again today by two of our Holland & Knight tax gurus, Josh Odintz and Alan Granwell. We hope you had the opportunity to listen to our last podcast, essentially laying the framework for you on what is going on with digital services taxes. What are these taxes? Why the proliferation of these taxes around the world? And what is the United States and its trading partners doing to address these taxes and find an agreement on the global stage? So, with that, today we are going to just spend some time updating you on what has happened since we were last all together, talking about this very interesting topic.

\n

An Update on USTR and DSTs

\n

Nasim Fussell: On the trade front, when we got together last time, I gave you a brief overview of the latest actions taken by the Biden Administration. If you go back to last year when the last USTR started a number of investigations under the auspices of Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, essentially they started these investigations and concluded before leaving office that these taxes were, in fact, discriminatory and unfairly targeting U.S. companies. However, they didn't take action. There was a lot of anticipation that that they would take action on their way out the door and impose tariffs, but they did not do so and they left that for the Biden Administration. At the end of March, the Biden Administration, through USTR, announced that it was going to seek comment from the public on a potential trade action against a number of the countries that USTR had investigated. That includes Austria, India, Italy, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom. USTR asked for public comment and also announced multijurisdictional as well as individual hearings on these various investigations that will be happening in the beginning of May. So if you are interested in commenting, we encourage you to get your comments in. If we can be of assistance, we would be very happy to and please feel free to reach out. The comments are due by April 30, and USTR is also asking if companies or organizations would like to appear at the hearing, that they submit their request for appearance by April 21, along with testimony. Again, these hearings will be held in early May, ranging from May 4 through May 11. Now another interesting development, at the end of March USTR announced that it would not be proceeding with investigations. At the last, USTR had begun on the DSTs that had been proposed by the European Union, the Czech Republic, Brazil and Indonesia. USTR indicated that these jurisdictions had not adopted or implemented the taxes, that it would be terminating the investigation. So that's where we are now on the trade front. Notably, USTR also said that it was going to continue to remain focused on the OECD process and committed to finding a solution there, but that it wanted to maintain its options, including tariffs in the meantime. With that, I want to hand it over to Alan to talk to us about what is going on in the tax universe. There's just been a flurry of activity and it all may very well determine what happens when it comes to the trade actions or not. So, Alan, over to you. Maybe you can clear some of this up for us.

\n
USTR also said that it was going to continue to remain focused on the OECD process and committed to finding a solution there, but that it wanted to maintain its options, including tariffs in the meantime.
\n

An Update on Taxes in the U.S. and Abroad

\n

Alan Granwell: Thank you so much and welcome, everybody. There, as Nasim has mentioned, really been a frenetic force of activities in the last week or so, every day something else comes out. Let me summarize it and then Josh and I will sort of chat about this in high-level terms. As you are undoubtedly aware, last week, the president announced his jobs plan, this major initiative to invest in American infrastructure, research, technology, green energy, which is more than the hard type of infrastructure, roads, airports and other types of facilities. This plan is proposed to be funded primarily by increases in corporate taxation, which we'll describe, and it's summarized in another document the administration released called the Made in America Tax Plan. Under this particular plan, the U.S. corporate income tax rate would be increased from 21 to 28 percent. There would be an adoption of a 21 percent global minimum tax on foreign profits of U.S. multinational corporations. There would be incentivization for U.S. corporates to invest in the U.S. and in jobs, and a disincentive of the U.S. corporates to invest abroad and jobs, and also a disincentive in terms of profit shifting. All of this would be monitored by increases in the IRS budget on the compliance front. Well, the reaction to the infrastructure is one thing. I think the parties agree that infrastructure should be improved, but there has been a significant counter reaction to the increase in corporate rates to fund this particular plan. At the same time, while all of this is going on, as Nasim had mentioned and as we discussed in our first podcast, there are the imposition of the unilateral digital services taxes by countries around the world and how the U.S. reacts against those. As we mentioned, there is this project going on at the OECD to resolve these issues, which is the Pillar One and Pillar Two, to deal with profit allocation and nexus initiatives and also a global minimum taxation. What is so interesting in terms of what the Biden Administration did is they tied their corporate tax increases to what is going on in the OECD. In other words, to maintain U.S. competitiveness in view of the proposed increase of the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, the U.S. has actively engaged with the OECD Inclusive Framework dealing with this Pillar One and Pillar Two, and in the Pillar Two context has urged countries around the world to adopt a robust minimum taxes and to provide for disincentives. And if they don't adopt these minimum taxes, these countries would be subject to disincentives, potentially the denial of deduction of payments to these low tax countries. Likewise, in terms of how to address digital service taxes and the proliferation of those types of taxes worldwide, the United States is mentioning to the U.S. that that type of issue has to be resolved in order to really create a uniform international tax structure. The proposals being made currently by the U.S. would provide a simpler method to deal with the process, allocation and nexus, as opposed to the complex ways that previously had been proposed. Simpler ways would reduce compliance, administrative burdens, provide certainty in principle and not be discriminatory against large U.S. companies. If this all works, the idea would be that there would be a resolution of this DST problem and concomitantly an increase in the global minimum tax, so countries then would not be racing to the bottom. Josh, am I getting this right? What do you think the takeaways of this unusual initiative are?

\n
What is so interesting in terms of what the Biden Administration did is they tied their corporate tax increases to what is going on in the OECD … to maintain U.S. competitiveness in view of the proposed increase of the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, the U.S. has actively engaged with the OECD Inclusive Framework dealing with this Pillar One and Pillar Two.
\n

Josh Odintz: Alan, you absolutely nailed it, and there's a lot to unpack. I think it's interesting, looking at the OECD and Inclusive Framework process, just reminding everyone that back in 2020 the last administration created a new hurdle for Pillar One and said that Pillar One would be a safe harbor for Amount A. Amount A, once again, is the IP return that would be ceded to the market jurisdiction. Secretary Yellen noted that the U.S. changed its negotiation position and that Pillar One, Amount A would no longer be a safe harbor and the U.S. would change its negotiating position. So that led to, I think, some very positive developments and showed the U.S.' willingness to move in a direction to reach agreement at the Inclusive Framework. It's clear that the Biden infrastructure proposals are fairly similar to what is under discussion at the OECD on Pillar Two. What we have not seen is how Pillar One would operate in the U.S. system, but perhaps the U.S. will move forward on changes to guilty and changes to the BEAT, or the base erosion and anti-abuse tax, and will then make further revisions to align us with Pillar One if an agreement is reached.

\n

Nasim Fussell: Does this mean we're going to end up with tariffs? Because what you guys just described sounds incredibly ambitious, but there also seems to be this great deal of ambition backing the goals. So are we going to get there? Are we going to avoid tariffs? Where do you see this going?

\n

Josh Odintz: So I think there are different pieces of what's in the Biden tax proposal. It's possible that we end up with multiple rounds of corporate tax and international tax changes. I think raising the rate, for example, is fairly easy. If one looks at the polling, it's a fairly popular message to increase corporate taxes in exchange for paying for better infrastructure - that even polls well among Republicans. So I think it's possible we could see a corporate tax increase, and then on the OECD Inclusive Framework and guilty BEAT side, we need to see more details to see the advanced thinking of Treasury. We will see that when the Treasury releases its full budget and green book, and we'll get a sense of what the connections are between the different provisions. It's possible that may not be ready for passage in the near term and it might be a Fall exercise. At the same time, what we've seen at the OECD so far, the two public documents, Pillar One and Two, contain detail, but not sufficient detail for implementation. So we don't really know the timeframe for implementing Pillars One and Two, they will require uniform legislation and a multilateral instrument. Both of those could take years once a deal is reached, to flesh out the details. I'd say we're in this period of flux. Alan, there is some cryptic messaging about unilateral measures. What do you think? Where are we on the path for agreement?

\n
If one looks at the polling, it's a fairly popular message to increase corporate taxes in exchange for paying for better infrastructure - that even polls well among Republicans.
\n

Alan Granwell: Thanks, Josh. I mean, interestingly, I think the idea is to sidestep all the trade issues by having countries adopt a uniform and robust global minimum tax. By happenstance, I was speaking to various colleagues today in Switzerland and Ireland, and the U.S. is proposing a 21 percent rate, in certain instances in Switzerland, under the various cantonal tax regimes, the rate is 13 percent, and the rate that is sort of the headline rate in Ireland is 12.5 percent. So in terms of reaching agreement on a 21 percent rate of corporate minimum tax, you will have countries such as Switzerland, Ireland and Hungary, which has a 9 percent rate, not much in favor of it, but subject to the unilateral approach the U.S. might take at denying deductions and applying then to parties in those other countries. So I think all of this has a long way to go to get resolved, but I think the underlying premise now of the administration is to reduce the race to the bottom. It's important for countries around the world to agree to a uniform rate, but that whole arrangement will not get that far through the continuation of the imposition of unilateral taxation through these DSTs or other types of crawlspaces taxation. Therefore, it's necessary to have a stable system. As Josh was mentioning, you have to resolve who's within scope, how does this all work, can you achieve certainty, and from the U.S. point of view that it doesn't discriminate against the large U.S. taxpayer. So I think, Josh, this is a huge challenge, not only in terms of doing all of that, but also maybe equally challenging in relation to how all of this is going to be passed by the U.S. Congress, which is probably a topic for another day.

\n
It's important for countries around the world to agree to a uniform rate, but that whole arrangement will not get that far through the continuation of the imposition of unilateral taxation through these DSTs or other types of crawlspaces taxation.
\n

Nasim Fussell: Indeed. Well, thank you both. I find that I learn so much from both of you about everything that is happening in parallel in the tax and trade world right now, and really, one is so dependent on the other in terms of outcome. At the end of the day, whether it's taxes or tariffs, it's all taxes in the end. So please do reach out if you would like to talk to us more about any of this, and we are going to continue coming together to bring you more content.

","link":{"label":"Podcast: An Update on the Digital Economy and DSTs","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/04/podcast-an-update-on-the-digital-economy-and-dsts","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/04/podcast-an-update-on-the-digital-economy-and-dsts","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2021/04/mediapwsimmigrationstill.jpg","alt":"Navigating the U.S. Immigration System in a Time of Uncertainty"},"description":"

Immigration attorney Leon Fresco, national security attorney Jason Klitenic and private wealth attorney Lauren Klein co-hosted a webinar discussing how to navigate U.S. immigration and taxation laws when significant wealth is involved. In recent years, wealthy non-U.S. individuals have established a greater presence in the United States, generally through direct investment in U.S. assets, student visas or other avenues. Our attorneys discussed how to determine the right visa classification based on the client's present and future goals, what to do when encountering and addressing national security issues arising in connection with U.S. visas, and other immigration matters. They also analyzed U.S. federal tax considerations for various U.S. visa classifications.

\n

Duration: 52:24

\n

Upcoming Webinars

\n
    \n
  • Tax Controversy, Thursday, May 13, 2021
  • \n
  • Nonprofits, Thursday, June 10, 2021
  • \n
  • Tax Planning for International Clients in Three Parts, July 2021
  • \n
  • International Private Equity Planning, August 2021
  • \n
  • International Estate Administration, September 2021
  • \n
","link":{"label":"Navigating the U.S. Immigration System in a Time of Uncertainty","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/04/navigating-the-us-immigration-system-in-a-time-of-uncertainty","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/04/navigating-the-us-immigration-system-in-a-time-of-uncertainty","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2021/03/media_first100dayspodcastep2_still.jpg","alt":"The First 100 Days of the Biden Administration - Episode 2: The Digital Economy and Tax"},"description":"

In the second episode of our Public Policy & Regulation Group's \"The First 100 Days of the Biden Administration\" podcast series, Trade Partner Nasim Fussell leads a discussion with Tax Partners Alan Granwell and Joshua Odintz on the current state of the digital economy and digital services taxes (DST). They provide a comprehensive overview of DSTs and look at the United States' current relationships with other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, particularly through the administrational changes.

\n

For an update on these topics, listen to Episode 3: An Update on the Digital Economy and DSTs.

\n
\n

Podcast Transcript

\n

Nasim Fussell: Welcome, everyone, to the first in a series of podcasts on the digital economy and digital services taxes with Holland & Knight. My name is Nasim Fussell and I am a partner in the international trade group at Holland & Knight. I work with our Public Policy Group extensively, and particularly in this area of digital economy and digital services taxes with two of my colleagues and partners that I have here with me today who are key to knowledge and the pathway on this topic. So in this podcast, we're going to provide an overview for you on what is going on with digital services taxes today, not just domestically, abroad and at the multilateral forum. We're also going to talk about why the trade and tax aspects of DSTs, as they are known, are such important issues for companies engaging in international commerce. In latter podcasts, which will follow in the coming weeks, we will delve more into the technical detail and invite other experts to join us for a discussion to update you on the current developments in these areas. So, let me start by introducing you to my colleagues. Alan Granwell is a tax attorney with more than 50 years' experience in the area of international taxation. Alan is a former international tax counsel at the Treasury Department and brings a wealth of knowledge and perspective to these issues. Joshua Odintz is a tax attorney in our D.C. office, where he focuses on tax policy, tax controversy and tax planning. Josh also served at Treasury, as well as the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over all things tax. So, thank you both for being here today.

\n

What are the Digital Economy and Digital Services Taxes (DST)?

\n

Nasim Fussell: Let's start with some basics. What is the digital economy? An economy based on digital computing technologies, although in our world today, it is commonly perceived as conducting business through market based on the Internet and using the World Wide Web. Here are some fast facts. The digital economy is equivalent to 15 and a half percent of global GDP, and it's growing two and a half times faster than global GDP over the past 15 years, according to the World Bank. Governments in which digital economy customers are located want to tax revenues derived from the digital economy through a new form of tax that we are discussing today known as digital services taxes. Why? We'll get to that in this podcast today where we plan to lay the groundwork for you. What is a DST? I'm going to hand that over to Josh to tell us a little bit more about this, and then we're going to dove into why all of this is happening. So, Josh, over to you. What is a DST?

\n

Joshua Odintz: Thanks, Nasim. So, a DST is basically a tax that applies to businesses selling digital services to consumers located within a jurisdiction. There are roughly more than 40 DSTs in effect or under consideration, but there are some common themes or elements to it. The first is it's generally imposed on gross revenues and second, it's generally imposed on companies or entities that meet a certain revenue threshold, either in a jurisdiction or globally. DSTs are also targeted at a small number of large digital companies, so think of it as social media companies, e-commerce marketplace companies, cloud services and web-based service platforms. So looking by example, the European Commission proposed a DST back in 2018 that would have imposed a temporary DST of a three percent rate on revenues derived from online advertising services, receipts from digital intermediary service activities and sales of user collected data. So the European Commission version would have applied to businesses with worldwide revenues of 750 million euros in taxable revenues within the EU exceeding 50 million euros. Ultimately, the EU did not adopt that proposal, but several EU countries have gone off and created their bespoke versions of a DST.

\n
A DST is basically a tax that applies to businesses selling digital services to consumers located within a jurisdiction. 
\n

How Do DSTs Work?

\n

Joshua Odintz: So there's a range of flavors of DSTs from the tax rate, ranging from 1.5 to 7.5 percent on receipts from sale of advertising space, the provision of digital intermediary services such as the operation of online marketplaces and the sale of data collected from users. So generally, what we've seen is a common theme that there must be a group level threshold and then a domestic level threshold, and then the taxes are designed to hit certain services that, once again, involve the collection of data. Alan will get into in a minute how we ended up here, but it's just worth observing that there's a lack of understanding of how digital economy companies make their money. It's generally through data collection and use of data, and so the DSTs are targeted at those companies that you collect and are able to manipulate that data. So DSTs are theoretically temporary taxes until there's a global consensus at the OECD, and we'll get into the details of the work at the OECD, but certainly these taxes are growing and, like I said, the number has exceeded 40 in number. So as far as criticisms - from the U.S. perspective, DSTs are targeted at U.S. multinationals. That is certainly a view that has been raised to USTR, and Nasim will get into that later in our broadcast, and these are taxes that are targeted at large U.S. multinationals and provide an advantage to home country businesses that fall beneath the threshold. These are also taxes that are likely to be passed on to customers, and some businesses in the digital economy will be able to pass this along to customers, while other businesses will not be able to because of the competition and the business models. We've seen that some of the digital economy businesses have increased their costs and prices and will pass those along to the consumers of their services. There's also a significant theme that we will touch upon in subsequent podcasts, but there's the potential with the DST for double taxation, and that could occur where two or more countries consider a certain revenue, stream a source there and seek to tax the same revenue stream. Only the UK has a provision that would address double taxation. So there is a true risk that if countries are not coordinated, they could seek to tax the same stream of revenue more than once.

\n

Nasim Fussell: That was a really helpful foundation and raises a question for me as not a tax person, and Alan, I'm going to pose this to you. Why can't the current international tax system simply apply to digital services? Why are we where we are today?

\n

Why Digital Services Are Taxed Differently

\n

Alan Granwell: Thank you, Nasim. I think that's really the crux of the issue and the simple answer is, and then I'll get into it a bit more, is that digital is a virtual type of methodology. You don't have a physical presence. It all goes through the computer or the Internet or something which is not physically situated in the particular country. When we examine our international tax system and the norms that apply to our international tax system, which incidentally are followed by most of the world through the OECD documentation and studies and model treaties and commentaries, we find that under non-digital situations for a tax payer, not resident in the local country, the source country, in order to be taxable in that source country, the same U.S. taxpayer has to have a form of physical presence in the country and do business in that country. The physical presence can either be an office/fixed place of business, or it could be an agent which has certain authorities to bind the principal in that country and if you do not have that nexus with the particular country, income from transactions related to that country generally are not subject to taxation in that country. There obviously are exceptions, but that is the general rule. When we think of the digital economy, we are thinking of something which doesn't have that fixed presence, and if you don't have the fixed presence, then under our bilateral tax treaty system, a U.S. company which doesn't have a presence but is doing things in that other country generally would not be subject to local country taxation. So we have this conundrum in terms of the source countries, where various of the major U.S. companies who have digitized their business can undertake transactions in that country. Based on our current system of treaties and also the local laws of the country, the U.S. entity would not be subject to tax. Because of the growth in this area, through the statistics you had mentioned, these local countries are seeking to find a way to tax income from what they perceive should be taxable because of value creation in their countries. I think at this stage, let me just sort of turn it back to Josh to describe what is going on in terms of the OECD considerations of that issue and the initial studies. This is sort of the birth of this whole inquiry as to how to more appropriately tax the digitization economy.

\n
When we think of the digital economy, we are thinking of something which doesn't have that fixed presence, and if you don't have the fixed presence, then under our bilateral tax treaty system, a U.S. company which doesn't have a presence but is doing things in that other country generally would not be subject to local country taxation.
\n

Joshua Odintz: Thanks, Alan. Let's go back a little bit in history to 2013. So the OECD, which is an organization that is comprised of 37 members and was formed after World War II, back in 2013, focused on base erosion and profit shifting, or the BEPS Project. There were 15 action items that the OECD explored. Action item number one was the digital economy, and the question at that time was whether the digital economy should be ring fenced, or should it be taxed in a way that is consistent with norms? Do the norms have to be changed? So that was action item one. Within the other 14 action items, the OECD issued a series of reports and, in some cases, model legislation. It also updated the multilateral instrument. So those items were adopted by countries and are continuing to be adopted by countries. The OECD issued a report in 2015 on action item one, the digital economy. That report noted that because the digital economy is increasingly becoming the economy itself, it's not possible to ring-fence the digital economy from the rest of the economy for tax purposes. The United States was pretty firm in that position during the Obama Administration, and the work continued behind the scenes and there was a change in administration in the United States. Then in 2018, the G20 and the Inclusive Framework, which involves more than 130 countries, continued to work on the issue and deliver an interim report in March 2018. Then in 2019, the members of the Inclusive Framework, that includes the 37 OECD countries, plus almost 100 countries that normally are not involved in these matters, so the OECD brought them into the tent to try to drive or create consensus. In 2019, the Inclusive Framework agreed to examine the digital economy and unresolved tax issues from BAPS in two pillars, and that could lead to a consensus solution to tax challenges arising from the digital economy.

\n

Alan Granwell: Josh, just to interject, what you are describing with this Inclusive Framework is really an undertaking by the nearly 140 countries to recalibrate our basic international tax system. So this is really a fundamental change in how countries can impose tax on entities from other countries which don't have a physical presence in the local country.

\n
\n
This Inclusive Framework is really an undertaking by the nearly 140 countries to recalibrate our basic international tax system.
\n

Joshua Odintz: I think another way of putting it, is that it would take us away in transfer pricing from the arm's length standard. In the case of Pillar One, it would say that a digital company would have to cede some of its profits to a market-based country. This reflects the view of the marketplace countries that it's the market, and not the technology or the intellectual property, that is responsible for profits.

\n

Alan Granwell: Indeed. So that's where we are.

\n

The Trade Impact of DSTs

\n

Nasim Fussell: Wow. Well, thank you both for really laying out what is a fascinating, though clearly very complicated issue. Let me say a little bit now that we've discussed the tax side of this issue about why I'm here. For our audience, you may be wondering now that we're deeply ingrained in tax, why is this trade person here? Well, let's think about the trade impacts of these DSTs and also talk a little bit about how the United States has responded to the proliferation of beasties around the world. So we talked a bit about the digital economy and Alan, thank you for answering my question about why we are where we are. I think that the way you answer the question really hit the nail on the head from a trade perspective as well. You know, historically, when we talked about trade, we were talking about the trade in goods, the movement of goods across borders, while increasingly we're talking about trade in services and even more increasingly, trade in digital services. So put simply, the movement of these digital services around the world by virtue of what these services provide.

\n

Nasim Fussell: The issue here now is that these DSTs essentially serve as a trade barrier to these services trades and, in particular, with the increasing number of DSTs popping up around the world and the way that they have been set up, there has been a strong perception that these unilaterally enacted DSTs unfairly target and discriminate against large U.S. technology companies. During the last administration, there were a number of Section 301 investigations launched into DSTs in Austria, Brazil, the Czech Republic, the European Union, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom. There was a lot of bipartisan support for the Trump Administration launching the Section 301 investigations, which is really noteworthy because they were launched in a period of time during which the Trump Administration had launched and taken terrorist action on imports from China under the purview of Section 301. A lot of retaliation had been put in place by the Chinese as a result. The Trump administration had taken action under a number of other statutory authorities to impose tariffs as well, all of which had also invited retaliation. So while there was a lot of bipartisan consternation about tariffs, there was a lot of bipartisan support for these Section 301 investigations into these DSTs. Again, I think it has a lot to do with this very strong and again, very bipartisan perception that these DSTs were unfairly targeting and discriminating against these large U.S. technology companies.

\n

So, you know there, as I said, were a number of these investigations and just at the end of 2020 - and I must add that these investigations were going on while all of the processes that Alan and Josh described for you at the OECD were taking place. While this is all taking place, the administration conducted its investigations and at the end of 2020, there was an expectation with heading into the New Year, the Biden Administration coming in and all of the bipartisan support that I noted earlier, that the Trump Administration would likely take action if not on all of the investigations, then at least on the French DST, which is where it started its Section 301 investigation process. In fact, I'm going to take a moment to speak about the French investigation and how that unfolded, because I think it'll provide a good illustration of some of the decision making that occurred in parallel with the talks at the OECD. So in July 2020, the Trump Administration, after going through its process investigation under Section 301 and determining that the French DST was in fact discriminatory and unfairly targeting U.S. companies decided to impose tariffs. Under Section 301, it also has the authority to consult with the other party and that is what it chose to do with the French government. The two governments, the U.S. government and the French government agreed to pause on the tariffs and to allow the OECD process to unfold in an effort to try to reach a deal there so that there would not have to be forward movement on Paris. Well, that process unfolded a bit, and we reached July 2020 when a conclusion had not been reached yet and the Trump Administration announced that they were going to impose tariffs on the French, but that they would wait another 180 days before imposing them. So I'm going to stop there for just a moment, to see if Alan and Josh want to provide some parallel input on what was happening in Paris at the OECD at the time, and some insight into why that pause might have been taken by USTR. 

\n
I think it has a lot to do with this very strong and very bipartisan perception that these DSTs were unfairly targeting and discriminating against these large U.S. technology companies.
\n

The United States and the OECD Inclusive Framework

\n

Joshua Odintz: Absolutely. So a few things. One, Congress - and this was bipartisan, bicameral - supported the OECD Inclusive Framework process, but it did not support necessarily the outcome because as we'll discuss the later podcasts, the outcome would require potentially legislation and a modified model U.S. tax treaty. So the United States supports a process but does not support the outcome that is reserved for a later date. The United States participated in the Inclusive Framework, sat at the table, the then deputy assistant secretary for International Tax Affairs was actively involved in the negotiations, but there was a letter from Secretary Mnuchin on one of the pillars that provided that Pillar One and specifically Amount A, which goes to the IP returns in the digital economy, that that would be a safe harbor. That was viewed as not constructive by the Inclusive Framework and created some problems in negotiations. Its second, different countries were focused on different pieces of the Inclusive Framework. Some of the countries wanted to adopt Pillar Two and were less interested in Pillar One. Some of the market countries were focused like a laser on Pillar One. So the negotiations led to two reports for which we have received comments. There have been public consultations, but there are two reports that were issued by the secretariat at the OECD. So they do not reflect the views of the countries, they just reflect the view of the OECD. That is currently where we are with respect to documents. The United States recently indicated with the new Biden Administration that it is changing its position with respect to Pillar One. The United States is willing to consider Pillar One not as a safe harbor, but as part of a broader package for the Inclusive Framework that would be mandatory.

\n

Alan Granwell: I just wanted to make a very brief comment. First, Pillar One is dealing with DSTs as Josh had described, Pillar Two is dealing with global minimum taxes and the interaction with our U.S. minimum tax under the guilty regime. Why is all of this important for U.S. multinationals? The reason is, it could change the way these multinationals are taxed abroad and whether they will get what we call foreign tax credit for any local taxes imposed. We will get to all of this in future podcasts and go through the current mind numbing sort of analysis of these two pillars, but best to do that for another day.

\n
Why is all of this important for U.S. multinationals? The reason is, it could change the way these multinationals are taxed abroad and whether they will get foreign tax credit for any local taxes imposed.
\n

Nasim Fussell: Thanks, Alan. So let me pick back up on trade, because the way the story ended in early 2021 with the Trump Administration is a determination not to take action after concluding all of these investigations and determining across the board that there was, in fact, targeted discrimination against U.S. companies. Why? You know, it was highly speculated that perhaps focus should remain at the OECD. What USTR indicated, however, was that it would not take immediate action, but would continue to evaluate all available options and leave it for the Biden Administration to determine what steps to take.

\n

Where the Biden Administration Is Now

\n

Nasim Fussell: So where are we now? We have a new Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, and we have a new USTR, Katherine Tai. Secretary Yellen has already engaged at the OECD and had bilateral discussions with key counterparts like French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire. Ambassador Tai said in her Senate confirmation hearing that she will work closely with Treasury to address digital services taxes at the OECD, signaling that our focus really is going to be on getting this resolved multilaterally. However, notably on March 26, Tai's USTR made its first big announcement regarding next steps in its investigation of digital services taxes. USTR announced that it would be preserving its procedural options under Section 301 for taking possible trade actions on the investigations conducted on Austria, India, Italy, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom. As we noted earlier, the previous USTR found that the DSTs adopted by these trading partners do discriminate against U.S. digital companies. In its announcement, USTR also, however, noted once again that it's committed to finding a solution on the multilateral level, signaling that there will continue to be a focus on finding a solution at the OECD with our trading partners. USTR also announced that it would be terminating the investigations that the previous USTR did regarding the DSTs proposed by Brazil, the Czech Republic, the European Union and Indonesia. It indicated that none of these had adopted or implemented the DSTs that were under consideration when the investigations were conducted last year. So if any of these countries do proceed with adopting or implementing a DST, USTR may very well initiate new investigations. I think very notably, this announcement on March 26 was silent on the French DSTs, which we have discussed today and the taxes in place. One can speculate whether that is because any action taken now would be outside of the statutory period permitted under Section 301 or just a really a firm commitment perhaps between the United States and France in trying to resolve this multilaterally, but we shall see. This is something that we will be able to dove into and analyze a bit more deeply on a future podcast.

\n
","link":{"label":"Podcast: The Digital Economy and Tax","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/04/podcast-the-digital-economy-and-tax","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/04/podcast-the-digital-economy-and-tax","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2021/03/media_intl_private_client_march_webinar_still.jpg","alt":"Ongoing Post-Election Coverage Issues for International Clients"},"description":"

Private Wealth Services attorney Sean Tevel and tax attorney Joshua Odintz discussed the current state of the tax reform landscape and provided guidance on the best ways that private clients and their advisors can be prepared for potential tax reform. There has been much discussion on tax reform under the Biden Administration, and although no formal legislative proposals have been released, reform could come about with respect to U.S. federal transfer taxes and U.S. federal income taxes. These potential changes could significantly affect the way international families transfer their wealth, recommended structures for foreign investment into the United States and planning for U.S. persons with businesses and investments abroad.

\n

Duration: 50:57

\n

Upcoming Webinars

\n
    \n
  • Immigration, Thursday, April 8, 2021
  • \n
  • Tax Controversy, Thursday, May 13, 2021
  • \n
  • Nonprofits, Thursday, June 10, 2021
  • \n
  • Tax Planning for International Clients in Three Parts, July 2021
  • \n
  • International Private Equity Planning, August 2021
  • \n
  • International Estate Administration, September 2021
  • \n
","link":{"label":"Ongoing Post-Election Coverage Issues for International Clients","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/03/ongoing-post-election-coverage-issues-for-international-clients","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/03/ongoing-post-election-coverage-issues-for-international-clients","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2021/03/media_casas_valencia_amcham_webinar_still.jpg","alt":"Play button on top of woman with brown hair in front of a painting of apples in a basket"},"description":"

Corporate Services Attorney Susana Casas Valencia participated in a presentation organized by the Colombian-American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham Colombia) explaining the principal themes included in the most recent edition of AmCham's Business Mail magazine. Mrs. Casas discusses the application of the most favored nation clause in Double Taxation Agreements signed by Colombia, emphasizing the potential benefits for contributors, business owners and other persons doing business in the country. She also describes possible conflicts in the interpretation of this clause.

\n

Duration: 41:40 (Mrs. Casas begins speaking at 29:40)

","link":{"label":"Tax Reform for Recovery?","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/03/la-reforma-tributaria-para-la-recuperacion","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/03/la-reforma-tributaria-para-la-recuperacion","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2021/02/media_international_private_client_webinar_still.jpg","alt":"Title Slide"},"description":"

Private Wealth Services Attorneys Stewart Kasner and Liam Crane reviewed significant legislative changes that affect deductibility and income taxation of alimony payments made to and received by former spouses. Made effective in 2019, these changes need to be considered in the 2020 tax year.

\n

Withholding tax rules in which the former spouse receiving the alimony payments is a non-U.S. person and the payor spouse is a U.S. person have been affected. The rules are further complicated by the differences in how alimony is taxed in other countries, which can create double taxation unless a tax treaty exists and rectifies the whipsaw effect. Additionally, the division of property between former spouses, where either spouse is not a U.S. person, can trigger unanticipated income tax consequence and withholding tax exposures not often contemplated, particularly where the transfer of U.S. real property is involved.

\n

Duration: 1:01:17

\n

Upcoming Webinars

\n
    \n
  • Ongoing Post-Election Coverage Issues for International Clients, Wednesday, March 17, 2021
  • \n
  • Immigration, Thursday, April 8, 2021
  • \n
  • Tax Controversy, Thursday, May 13, 2021
  • \n
  • Nonprofits, Thursday, June 10, 2021
  • \n
  • Tax Planning for International Clients in Three Parts, July 2021
  • \n
  • International Private Equity Planning, August 2021
  • \n
  • International Estate Administration, September 2021
  • \n
","link":{"label":"Divorce in a Post-Tax Reform World with a Focus on Cross-Border Issues","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/02/divorce-in-a-post-tax-reform-world-with-a-focus-on-cross-border-issues","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/02/divorce-in-a-post-tax-reform-world-with-a-focus-on-cross-border-issues","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/media_audio_still.jpg","alt":"sound waves"},"description":"

*Please Note: NBAA log-in necessary to view webinar*

\n

Business Aviation Partner John Hoover joined the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) News Hour to discuss the impact of new federal excise tax (FET) rules. Final rules from the IRS provide aircraft management companies and owners much-needed clarity on their federal excise tax (FET) obligations but, taxpayers must carefully review the rules to determine how they apply to specific aircraft ownership and operating structures. Mr. Hoover highlighted the importance of carefully drafting aircraft lease agreements for purposes of the FET exemption.

\n

“One structure that causes me concern is the single-member LLC that owns an aircraft,” said Mr. Hoover. “If that single-member LLC draws up a lease to me, then I’m deemed the owner and I can hire management services and qualify for the FET exception, but if I forget to draw up the lease and then hire a management services company, I’m not a deemed owner because the single-member LLC is the owner, and I’m not a lessee as I didn’t draw up a lease, so there is a concern that in that structure I may not qualify for the FET exception.”

","link":{"label":"Determining The Impact Of New Federal Excise Tax Rules","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/01/determining-the-impact-of-new-federal-excise-tax-rules","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/01/determining-the-impact-of-new-federal-excise-tax-rules","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/media_audio_still.jpg","alt":"sound waves"},"description":"

Taxation Partner William Lane was interviewed on The Florida Bar Tax Section Podcast about his path to a career in tax law. The “Hall of Champions” Interview Series aims to record and preserve the wisdom of lawyers who have had a significant impact on the development of tax law and policy in Florida. In the conversation, Mr. Lane shares his journey through law school noting how he started with the goal of becoming a civil rights attorney, but ended up finding a passion for tax law. As a practitioner, Mr. Lane explains how he has found a way to navigate the complexities of the tax code and has developed the ability explain it in terms that make sense to those who have not dedicated their life and education to the code's notions and nuances.

\n

Duration 27:56

","link":{"label":"Hall of Champions: William R. Lane Jr.","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/01/hall-of-champions-william-r-lane-jr","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/01/hall-of-champions-william-r-lane-jr","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2020/11/media_hnwtaxpayers_still.jpg","alt":"HNW Taxpayers webinar"},"description":"

Holland & Knight and Chambers and Partners co-hosted a webinar discussion on the possible impacts of the U.S. elections on high-net-worth (HNW) taxpayers. Private Wealth Services Partners Sean Tevel, Mark Haranzo and Christopher Boyett covered topics including how to prepare for possible changes in U.S. income tax, estate tax and gift tax laws; how to prepare for new structures for foreign investment in U.S. real estate, securities and operating businesses; and how to prepare for possible changes for multijurisdictional families with U.S. persons owning assets and operating businesses abroad.

\n

Registration is required to view this program.

","link":{"label":"Planning During Uncertain Times: How The U.S. Elections May Impact HNW Taxpayers","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2020/11/planning-during-uncertain-times-how-the-us-elections-may-impact-hnw","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2020/11/planning-during-uncertain-times-how-the-us-elections-may-impact-hnw","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/media_audio_still.jpg","alt":"sound waves"},"description":"

Consulting Counsel Robert Katzberg joined an episode of the Modern Law Library for the ABA Journal to discuss his book, The Vanishing Trial: The Era of Courtroom Performers and the Perils of Its Passing. Part memoir, part practical advice for litigators and part warning to the public, the book shares stories from Mr. Katzberg’s four decades of litigation experience in New York City and around the country. In this podcast Mr. Katzberg explains why he chose to praise and criticize people by name and why jury duty is such a valuable experience.

\n

Duration: 47:15

","link":{"label":"What's Lost When Jury Trials Vanish?","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2020/07/whats-lost-when-jury-trials-vanish","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2020/07/whats-lost-when-jury-trials-vanish","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2020/06/mediahooverstill.jpg","alt":"Webinar Thumbnail Image"},"description":"

Finance Partner John Hoover participated in a FuelerLinx webinar titled, \"CARES Act – Suspension of FET.\" The session discussed the CARES Act holiday for federal transportation excise tax and fuel tax. 

\n

Password to view recording: 7b+k8xOn

\n

Duration 56:13, Mr. Hoover's presentation begins at 11:20

","link":{"label":"CARES Act – Suspension of FET","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2020/05/cares-act-suspension-of-fet","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2020/05/cares-act-suspension-of-fet","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2020/05/media_hoover_nbaa_still.jpg","alt":"Hoover NBAA Webinar Still"},"description":"

Partner John Hoover spoke on a National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) webinar panel about the suspension of federal excise taxes (FET) for commercial aviation operations. The suspension was carried out as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) and lasts until the end of the year. The panelists discussed how the suspension applies to business aviation and addressed questions about charter invoices, payments for trips before the CARES Act was passed and fuel tax credits/refunds.

\n

Duration: 53:31

","link":{"label":"COVID-19 & The Federal Excise Tax Suspension: Does it Apply to Your Business?","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2020/05/covid19-and-the-federal-excise-tax-suspension","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2020/05/covid19-and-the-federal-excise-tax-suspension","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/media_audio_still.jpg","alt":"sound waves"},"description":"

Members of Holland & Knight's Taxation Team gave a live webinar presentation on recently published IRS guidance dealing with nonresident aliens stranded in the U.S. as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our attorneys addressed how a nonresident alien can avoid resident alien classification, which implicates worldwide taxation and onerous tax filing and reporting obligations, as well as planning steps to consider in light of the new guidance. This program was designed for professional advisors, including attorneys, accountants, certified tax experts and financial advisors.

\n

Presenters:

\n

Seth J. Entin | Partner, Miami
\nAlan Winston Granwell | Of Counsel, Washington, D.C.
\nWilliam M. Sharp | Partner, Atlanta, San Francisco and Tampa
\nWilliam B. Sherman | Partner, Fort Lauderdale

","link":{"label":"IRS Guidance on Stranded Nonresident Aliens","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2020/04/irs-guidance-on-stranded-nonresident-aliens","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2020/04/irs-guidance-on-stranded-nonresident-aliens","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/events/2020/04/nonus-tax-and-financial-advisors-webinar-still.jpg","alt":"Non U.S. Tax and Financial Advisors Webinar Still"},"description":"

Holland & Knight hosted a live webinar presentation providing an overview of COVID-19 governmental responses impacting domestic and cross-border tax matters. This highly informative program was designed for non-U.S. professional advisors, including attorneys, accountants, certified tax experts and financial advisors.

\n

Topics included:

\n
    \n
  • the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) provisions amending the U.S. Internal Revenue Code
  • \n
  • an overview of the tax provisions impacting businesses and individuals
  • \n
  • planning opportunities and pitfalls arising under the CARES Act
  • \n
  • how certain provisions may benefit domestic planning but detriment international tax planning
  • \n
  • IRS administrative releases impacting 2019 federal tax payments and filing
  • \n
  • unresolved issues impacting nonresident alien individuals and foreign corporations from nonresident cross-border workers/high-net-worth individuals stranded in the United States
  • \n
  • the income tax residence status of stranded nonresident aliens – and potential triggering of U.S. worldwide taxation and resultant tax compliance burdens for 2020
  • \n
  • the creation of U.S. trade, business or permanent establishment status and the related tax and compliance aspects
  • \n
  • the residence status of a company (effective place of management)
  • \n
  • a high-level overview of state and local tax agency relief responses
  • \n
\n

Presenters

\n

Nicole M. Elliott | Partner, Washington, D.C.
\nSeth J. Entin | Partner, Miami
\nAlan Winston Granwell | Of Counsel, Washington, D.C.
\nDenise M. Mudigere | Partner, Dallas
\nWilliam M. Sharp | Partner, Atlanta, San Francisco and Tampa
\nWilliam B. Sherman | Partner, Fort Lauderdale

","link":{"label":"What Non-U.S. Tax and Financial Advisors Should Know About U.S. Taxation Relief in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2020/04/what-nonus-tax-and-financial-advisors-should-know","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2020/04/what-nonus-tax-and-financial-advisors-should-know","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2020/04/bosco_elliott_robertson_media_still.jpg","alt":"Bosco_Elliott_Robertson_Media_Still"},"description":"

Partners Mary Beth Bosco, Nicole Elliott and Joel Roberson discuss the federal response to coronavirus (COVID-19) and federal funding opportunities, including the Small Business Administration Paycheck Protection Program established by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.

\n

Duration: 1:01:12

","link":{"label":"Understanding the Coronavirus Emergency Loan Program for Small Businesses","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2020/04/understanding-the-coronavirus-emergency-loan-program","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2020/04/understanding-the-coronavirus-emergency-loan-program","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2020/03/media_al_paredn_vicente_umaa_still.jpg","alt":"Vicente Umaña Still"},"description":"El socio del área Laboral de Holland & Knight, Vicente Umaña Carrizosa, participó en el programa Al Paredón con Jorge Hernán Peláez, periodista colombiano con el Diario de la República. El socio analizó desde la óptica laboral y jurídica los decretos del Gobierno de Iván Duque relacionados con asuntos laborales, tributarios y sobre la población vulnerable.
\n
\nDuración: 16:18","link":{"label":"Al Paredón con Jorge Hernán Peláez","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2020/03/al-paredon-con-jorge-hernan-pelaez","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2020/03/al-paredon-con-jorge-hernan-pelaez","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/media_audio_still.jpg","alt":"sound waves"},"description":"

The National Business Aviation Association's (NBAA) newsletter distributed a recent podcast featuring Holland & Knight Partner John Hoover and Ernst & Young Washington Council Co-Leader Gary Gasper describing the NBAA's requests to the IRS and the U.S. Department of the Treasury for guidance with respect to certain aircraft-related provisions in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The NBAA Flight Plan podcast discusses the association's requests regarding depreciation, business entertainment and commuting issues.

\"NBAA requested guidance on three bonus depreciation issues: definition of property previously used by the taxpayer, the binding written contract rules for self-constructed property and the definition of binding written contract,\" said Hoover, who serves as vice chair of the NBAA Tax Committee.

Duration: 17:02


","link":{"label":"NBAA Offers Guidance on Tax Reform Provisions","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2019/02/nbaa-offers-guidance-on-tax-reform-provisions","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2019/02/nbaa-offers-guidance-on-tax-reform-provisions","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2018/11/midterm-post-election-briefing-2018/videostillimage/mediapostelectionbriefingstill.jpg","alt":"Midterm Post Election Briefing 2018"},"description":"

Bloomberg Government and Holland & Knight's Public Policy & Regulation Group presented a live stream of our post-election briefing, during which panelists provided in-depth analysis of the 2018 midterm elections results. During the program, our featured panelists explored what the results might mean for key industry sectors, including trade, infrastructure and transportation, energy and environment, and healthcare and life sciences.

View the slides from the program and follow the conversation on Twitter with #askBGOVHK.

What Happened in 2018?

\"\"
Watch the video »

  • Greg Giroux, Reporter, Bloomberg Government

Transportation and Infrastructure

\"\"
Watch the video »

  • Heather Rothman, News Director, Bloomberg Government 
  • Shaun Courtney, Federal Transportation Reporter, Bloomberg Government 
  • Michael Friedberg, Senior Counsel, Holland & Knight 
  • Shawna Francis Watley, Senior Policy Advisor, Holland & Knight

Healthcare/Pharmaceuticals

\"\"
Watch the video »

  • Heather Rothman, News Director, Bloomberg Government
  • Alex Ruoff, Health Policy Reporter, Bloomberg Government
  • Michael Werner, Partner, Holland & Knight
  • Miranda Franco, Senior Policy Advisor, Holland & Knight

Energy and Environment

 \"\"
Watch the video »

  • Abby Smith, Reporter, Bloomberg Environment 
  • Dimitrios Karakitsos, Partner, Holland & Knight 
  • Benjamin Dunham, Senior Policy Advisor, Holland & Knight

Trade and Tariffs

\"\"
Watch the video »

  • Loren Duggan, Editorial Director, Bloomberg Government 
  • Sarah Babbage, Legislative Analyst, Bloomberg Government 
  • Ronald Oleynik, Partner, Holland & Knight 
  • Jim Davis, Partner, Holland & Knight
","link":{"label":"Midterm Post Election Briefing 2018","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2018/11/midterm-post-election-briefing-2018","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2018/11/midterm-post-election-briefing-2018","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2016/11/an-overview-of-what-to-expect-from-the-trump-admin/videostillimage/mediatrumpadministrationwebinarstill.jpg","alt":"An Overview of What to Expect From the Trump Administration"},"description":"

With a new presidential administration on the horizon, Holland & Knight presents an overview of what to expect from the incoming Trump Administration and the first session of the 115th Congress, including issues ranging from energy, taxation, environment, healthcare and local governments.

\n

Our senior lobbyists and lawyers provide analysis and respond to questions. In what is sure to be a year of change and historical importance, set your policy direction with the aid and insight of Holland & Knight's seasoned professionals in this webinar presentation.

\n

View the program materials.

\n

Duration 2 hrs and 44 minutes

","link":{"label":"An Overview of What to Expect From the Trump Administration","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2016/11/an-overview-of-what-to-expect-from-the-trump-admin","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2016/11/an-overview-of-what-to-expect-from-the-trump-admin","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2016/01/the-new-brazil-tax-amnesty-laws-seminar/videostillimage/mediabraziltaxstill.jpg","alt":"The New Brazil Tax Amnesty Laws Seminar"},"description":"

Brazil recently passed legislation to enact its first ever offshore voluntary disclosure program (Regime Especial de Regularização Cambial e Tributária – RERCT), which allows taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts or assets to come forward and correct their noncompliance issues.

Flavio Rubinstein and Gustavo G. Vettori, partners at Vettori, Rubinstein and Foz Advogados, join Holland & Knight Partners Kevin Packman and William Sherman to discuss  the new Brazilian tax amnesty program.

","link":{"label":"The New Brazil Tax Amnesty Laws Seminar","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2016/01/the-new-brazil-tax-amnesty-laws-seminar","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2016/01/the-new-brazil-tax-amnesty-laws-seminar","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2014/09/podcast-attorney-bill-sherman-discusses-taxation/videostillimage/mediaaudiostill.jpg","alt":"Podcast: Attorney Bill Sherman Discusses Taxation"},"description":"Partner William Sherman discusses corporate taxation and offshore earnings on Bloomberg's \"Taking Stock\" podcast.","link":{"label":"Podcast: Attorney Bill Sherman Discusses Taxation","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2014/09/podcast-attorney-bill-sherman-discusses-taxation","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2014/09/podcast-attorney-bill-sherman-discusses-taxation","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2014/07/attorney-glenn-adams-on-fun-at-work-lawyers-who-ye/videostillimage/mediaglennadamsobjstill.jpg","alt":"Attorney Glenn Adams on Fun at Work, Lawyers Who Yell and Why He’s Not a Doctor"},"description":"

In an interview with the Orlando Business Journal, Partner Glenn Adams discusses how he came to be an attorney and offers business advice.

Mr. Adams also shared a leadership lesson. He said, \"I try to live by the Golden Rule: Treat others with respect and how you want to be treated. You’re much more effective if you treat another with respect, whether it be in person or over the telephone. Overall, it becomes much more effective on either side of the table.\"

You can also read the related article.

","link":{"label":"Attorney Glenn Adams on Fun at Work, Lawyers Who Yell and Why He’s Not a Doctor","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2014/07/attorney-glenn-adams-on-fun-at-work-lawyers-who-ye","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2014/07/attorney-glenn-adams-on-fun-at-work-lawyers-who-ye","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2013/05/holland--knights-bradley-van-buren-provides-best-p/videostillimage/mediavanburenpepartnersfundstill.jpg","alt":"Holland & Knight’s Bradley Van Buren Provides Best Practices for PE Partners on Fund Formation"},"description":"

When forming a new fund, private equity partners should consider carefully how to structure their ownership interests, advises Partner Bradley Van Buren, a member of the Private Investment Fund Formation Team, in this video conversation with Mergers & Acquisitions editor-in-chief Mary Kathleen Flynn, shot at ACG InterGrowth 2013. Watch the video to learn about the benefits of planning, including paying lower taxes and gaining protection from potential creditors, and read Van Buren’s guest article, “Planning Helps PE Pros Save on Taxes.”

Duration: 2 minutes

","link":{"label":"Holland & Knight’s Bradley Van Buren Provides Best Practices for PE Partners on Fund Formation","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2013/05/holland--knights-bradley-van-buren-provides-best-p","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2013/05/holland--knights-bradley-van-buren-provides-best-p","target":"","rel":""}}]">

狗万软件

Holland & Knight Alert"],"link":{"label":"Large Corporations and Wealthy Taxpayers Beware: The Taxman is Coming","url":"/en/insights/publications/2021/05/large-corporations-and-wealthy-taxpayers-beware-the-taxman-is-coming","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/publications/2021/05/large-corporations-and-wealthy-taxpayers-beware-the-taxman-is-coming","target":"","rel":""},"icon":{"url":null,"alt":null},"image":{"url":null,"alt":null},"date":"May 7, 2021","readingtime":"9 Minutes","source":null},{"metaData":["Holland & Knight Alert"],"link":{"label":"Biden's American Families Plan Proposes Income Tax Hikes","url":"/en/insights/publications/2021/04/bidens-american-families-plan-proposes-income-tax-hikes","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/publications/2021/04/bidens-american-families-plan-proposes-income-tax-hikes","target":"","rel":""},"icon":{"url":null,"alt":null},"image":{"url":null,"alt":null},"date":"April 29, 2021","readingtime":"9 Minutes","source":null},{"metaData":["Holland & Knight Alert"],"link":{"label":"Tax Liability Issues to Consider for High-Net-Worth Couples in Divorce","url":"/en/insights/publications/2021/04/tax-liability-issues-to-consider-for-high-net-worth-couples-in-divorce","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/publications/2021/04/tax-liability-issues-to-consider-for-high-net-worth-couples-in-divorce","target":"","rel":""},"icon":{"url":null,"alt":null},"image":{"url":null,"alt":null},"date":"April 23, 2021","readingtime":"8 Minutes","source":null},{"metaData":["Holland & Knight Alert"],"link":{"label":"IRS Continues to Audit and Litigate Against Cannabis Businesses","url":"/en/insights/publications/2021/04/irs-continues-to-audit-and-litigate-against-cannabis-businesses","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/publications/2021/04/irs-continues-to-audit-and-litigate-against-cannabis-businesses","target":"","rel":""},"icon":{"url":null,"alt":null},"image":{"url":null,"alt":null},"date":"April 22, 2021","readingtime":"6 Minutes","source":null},{"metaData":["Holland & Knight Alert"],"link":{"label":"Biden Administration's Made in America Tax Plan: Interaction with OECD Inclusive Framework","url":"/en/insights/publications/2021/04/biden-administrations-made-in-america-tax-plan-interaction-with-oecd","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/publications/2021/04/biden-administrations-made-in-america-tax-plan-interaction-with-oecd","target":"","rel":""},"icon":{"url":null,"alt":null},"image":{"url":null,"alt":null},"date":"April 15, 2021","readingtime":"16 Minutes","source":null},{"metaData":["Holland & Knight Alert"],"link":{"label":"Se radica la nueva reforma tributaria en Colombia","url":"/en/insights/publications/2021/04/se-radica-la-nueva-reforma-tributaria-en-colombia","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/publications/2021/04/se-radica-la-nueva-reforma-tributaria-en-colombia","target":"","rel":""},"icon":{"url":null,"alt":null},"image":{"url":null,"alt":null},"date":"15 de abril de 2021","readingtime":"2 Minutes","source":null}]">

即将举行的活动

新闻和标题

Law360","In the Headlines"],"link":{"label":"Inversion Landscape May Remain Static Under Biden Tax Plan","url":"/en/news/intheheadlines/2021/04/inversion-landscape-may-remain-static-under-biden-tax-plan","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/news/intheheadlines/2021/04/inversion-landscape-may-remain-static-under-biden-tax-plan","target":"","rel":""},"icon":{"url":null,"alt":null},"image":null,"date":"April 28, 2021","readingtime":null,"source":null},{"metaData":["","","Press Release"],"link":{"label":"Holland & Knight Adds Public Finance Attorney Luisella \"Sella\" Perri in Washington, D.C.","url":"/en/news/pressreleases/2021/04/holland-and-knight-adds-public-finance-attorney-luisella-perri","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/news/pressreleases/2021/04/holland-and-knight-adds-public-finance-attorney-luisella-perri","target":"","rel":""},"icon":{"url":null,"alt":null},"image":null,"date":"April 26, 2021","readingtime":null,"source":null},{"metaData":["","Bloomberg","In the Headlines"],"link":{"label":"Biden Aims at Top 0.3% with Bid to Tax Capital Like Wages","url":"/en/news/intheheadlines/2021/04/biden-aims-at-top-with-bid-to-tax-capital-like-wages","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/news/intheheadlines/2021/04/biden-aims-at-top-with-bid-to-tax-capital-like-wages","target":"","rel":""},"icon":{"url":null,"alt":null},"image":null,"date":"April 23, 2021","readingtime":null,"source":null}]">