THE FIRM BLOG OF FLOTT & CO. PC

 Once people and businesses cross borders, they by necessity encounter two legal and tax systems that must be reconciled: their own and the foreign country where they wish to operate.

ARTICLES

These publications do not constitute legal advise.  Further information regarding this notice.

Flott & Co PC Presentation on the us taxation of international shipping income

The Associates at Flott & Co PC, 2012/03/08

Presentation on the US Taxation of International Shipping Income

given to the 2nd Annual Marine Money London Ship Finance Forum

by Flott & Co. PC on 1-30-2011. All Rights Reserved.

Section 883 Exemptions – the “Look Through” Rule                                

The Associates at Flott & Co PC, 2012/02/09

This seventh in a series of articles on the US taxation of shipping income explains the “look through” rule that applies to exemptions from the tax available pursuant to Section 883.  The next article will explain what must be done to comply with the filing requirements associated with Section 883 exemptions.

The tax on USSGTI may be avoided, using one of two avenues: a reciprocal exemption provided for in Section 883 of the US Internal Revenue Code or the provisions of a US tax treaty. We have discussed treaty exemptions, and our last article began the explanation of the exemptions available under Section 883.  This article describes the “look through” rule that applies to all Section 883 exemptions.

As explained earlier, Section 883 sets out a two step qualification process.  The first step relates to the country in which the registered owner of the vessel and its charterers that earn USSGTI are organized.  Assuming the company with USSGTI meets the requirement of the first step – i.e., it is organized in a “qualified foreign country” –, it must demonstrate that it is controlled by qualified shareholders.

Section 883 mandates that legal entities (e.g., corporations, trusts, limited liability companies, partnerships, etc.) be ignored.  Ownership must be traced to the physical person or persons who ultimately control the company that seeks exemption under Section 883.  With a very few exceptions, only human beings can be what the Section 883 Regulations call “qualified shareholders” also referred to as ultimate beneficial owners or UBO.

To be a qualified shareholder a UBO must “reside” in a country which extends an equivalent exemption.  The Section 883 Regulations refers to these as “qualified countries”.   The countries listed in Revenue Ruling 2008-17, Part I or Part II, are qualified countries.  A person residing in any of these countries, regardless of the type of exemption (treaty, diplomatic note or domestic law) that the country has, can be a qualified shareholder, provided he or she meets the residency requirements specified in the Section 883 Regulations.

The Section 883 Regulations set out two residency requirements.  The first specifies that the person is a resident of a qualified country only if he or she is “fully liable” to tax in that country and the person has a “tax home” there for at least 183 days in the tax year for which the company of which he or she is a UBO seeks exemption.  The definition of “tax home” includes both a “regular or principal” place of business test and a “place of abode” test.  The Regulations specifically disqualify persons who reside in a country on a “non-domiciliary” basis, that is, persons who pay tax only on income brought into a country, not on their worldwide income.

The Section 883 Regulations apply the “look through” rule by use of “constructive ownership” or attribution rules, that is, the regulations stipulate how ownership of an entity shall be apportioned.  In the simple case of a corporation, ownership is attributed based who owns its shares.  There are constructive ownership rules for partnerships, trusts and estates, taxable non-stock corporations, mutual insurance companies, non-government pension funds, and non-profit organizations.

The Section 883 Regulations give particular attention to shares issued to bearer, commonly known as “bearer shares”.  Essentially, notwithstanding the constructive ownership rules that attribute ownership of a corporation proportionally to the holders of its shares, the Section 883 Regulations specifically do not allow bearer shares to be attributed to anyone unless the shares are in an immobilized or dematerialized book entry system.  Most off-shore jurisdictions that permit bearer shares (Liberia, Marshall Islands, Panama and Cayman Islands, to name four) do not have such systems in place.  Thus, the recent amendments to the Section 883 Regulations permitting attribution of bearer shares in such systems are of no practical use to most companies that use bearer shares.  Of course, countries that allow bearer shares also authorize companies to issue shares in the names of the shareholders.  These are sometimes called “registered” shares.

The look through rule tracks ownership up the chain to the UBO.  Thus, when a company seeking exemption under Section 883 is wholly owned by a second company, the look through rule ignores the second company and looks to its shareholders.  If qualified shareholders own less than a controlling interest in the second company, that company’s wholly owned subsidiary will not qualify for exemption under Section 883.  The same is true no matter how many layers of ownership exist above the company seeking exemption under Section 883.  The UBO must have control of the company seeking exemption.

Publicly-Traded Companies

The Section 883 Regulations contain a significant carve out from the look through rule for publicly traded companies.  That is, the regulations recognize some publicly traded companies as UBO’s.  It is very important to note that “publicly listed” does not equal “publicly traded” for Section 883 exemption purposes.  To be considered “publicly traded” under the Section 883 Regulations, a corporation must not only be listed on a recognized stock exchange, but its shares must be primarily and regularly traded.  Furthermore, more than 50% of its shares must be owned by shareholders none of whom own 5% or more of the shares.  In other words, if a shareholder of a publicly listed company owns 50% or more of the shares of that company, it will be treated as a private company under the Section 883 Regulations.

The next article will discuss the substantiation and documentation of ownership requirements associated with Section 883 compliance.

Section 883 Exemptions – the General Rule

The Associates at Flott & Co PC, 2012/02/02

This is the sixth in a series of articles on the US taxation of shipping income, and continues the explanation of exemptions from the tax available pursuant to Section 883. Future articles will cover the “look through” rule and what must be done to comply with the filing requirements associated with these exemptions.

The tax on USSGTI may be avoided, using one of two avenues: a reciprocal exemption provided for in Section 883 of the US Internal Revenue Code or the provisions of a US tax treaty. The second article in the series discusses treaty exemptions. This article deals solely with exemptions available under Section 883.

Section 883 sets out a two step qualification process.

1. The first step relates to the country in which the registered owner of the vessel or any of its charterers that earn USSGTI is organized.
2. The second step relates to the identity and residence of the physical persons who are the ultimate beneficial owner(s) of such companies.

To clear the first step, the company earning USSGTI must be incorporated in a jurisdiction that extends an equivalent exemption to companies organized in the United States. If it is not, the second step is irrelevant; that company does not qualify for exemption under Section 883.

Some countries extend an “equivalent exemption” within the meaning of Section 883 when they do not tax the international shipping income of companies organized in the US. They can do this by an exchange of diplomatic notes with the United States explicitly exempting such income – generally called Transportation Agreements.

Countries can also extend an equivalent exemption if they do not tax income from international shipping arising from sources within their countries. Section 883 sets out an objective test in this regard which is not dependent upon approval from the IRS. A company that wants to claim exemption under Section 883 based on the domestic law of the jurisdiction in which it is incorporated need only prove that the domestic law of that country does not tax income from international shipping.

Table I of IRS Revenue Ruling 2008-17 lists countries which have exchanged diplomatic notes with the United States (Part A) and those which the IRS has determined extend an equivalent exemption under Section 883 based on their domestic laws (Part B).

Part A of Table I identifies the year in which each Transportation Agreement became effective and the types of income that it covers. The footnotes are important as they alert the reader to limitations that may exist in the scope of an exemption. For example, the Belgium and Pakistan Transportation Agreements do not cover bareboat hire. The Chilean, Indian, Malaysian, Peruvian, Swedish and Venezuelan agreements exempt bareboat income only if it is incidental to operating income.

Part B of Table I lists those countries whose domestic law the IRS has officially declared to meet the “equivalent exemption” test, the date that the foreign law was reviewed, and the scope of the exemption provided by the relevant country’s domestic law. Again, footnotes spell out limitations. For example, bareboat hire is not within the scope of the British Virgin Islands, Qatar, and Spain domestic law exemptions. Bareboat, time or voyage hire are not covered by the Turkey and Uruguay domestic law exemptions.

Except for Chile and Peru countries that appear in Part A do not appear in Part B of Table I. Chile’s Transportation Agreement covers only aircraft income because its domestic law exempts shipping income. Peru’s Transportation Agreement covers only shipping income because its domestic law exempts aircraft income.

Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Greece, India, Japan, Luxembourg, Norway, Pakistan, Sweden and Venezuela have both a Transportation Agreement and a tax treaty with the US. As a result, companies organized in these countries can claim exemption from tax either under the applicable tax treaty or Section 883. However, they must meet all of the requirements applicable to whichever exemption they select and must do so for all items of income. That is, a company organized in Japan cannot use the treaty for one item of income and the Transportation Agreement for others.

Barbados, Israel, the Netherlands, Spain and Turkey have tax treaties with the United States and have been found to qualify for an equivalent exemption under Section 883 based on their domestic laws. Companies organized in these countries can also choose which exemption to claim, but must meet the requirements applicable to the one they select and cannot “pick and choose” items of income from each exemption. They must select one option or the other for all items of USSGTI.

Once past step one, as outlined above, a company seeking exemption under Section 883 must move to step two, which involves application of something called the “look through” rule. This aptly named rule refers to the statutory mandate that all legal persons (corporations, trusts, limited liability companies, partnerships, etc.) be ignored until we reach the physical person or persons who ultimately control the company seeking exemption under Section 883. That person or those persons must qualify based on the country of his or their residence.

The next article will explain the “look through” rule.

US Taxation of International Shipping Income – An Introduction to USSGTI Obligations 

The Associates at Flott & Co PC, 2012/1/26

This is the fifth in a series of articles on the US taxation of shipping income, and begins the explanation of USSGTI obligations.

Next week, we will discuss exemptions from the tax available pursuant to Section 883. Future articles will cover the “look through” rule and what must be done to comply with the filing requirements associated with these exemptions.

An earlier article in this series explained how the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (“TRA86”) substantially altered the US taxation of international shipping income. It changed the “source” rules for international shipping income, (1) deeming 50% of such income to be “US source”; (2) imposing a 4% tax on that income; and (3) creating an exemption regime that permits foreign corporations that meet certain criteria to claim exemption from tax.

TRA86 created a US tax filing obligation for every foreign corporation that has US source gross transportation income (“USSGTI”) in any tax year.  Thus, any foreign corporation that received USSGTI income during 2011 must file a US tax return on Form 1120-F by 15 June 2012, even if the corporation qualifies for exemption from the tax.  There are no exceptions to this rule. 

Companies earn USSGTI when they receive any form of income (bareboat, time, or voyage hire, i.e., freight) for the use of a vessel that transports cargo to or from the United States.  The only parties not subject to the US tax are those who pay the ultimate freight bill.

US Taxation of International Shipping Income: Treaty Limitations on Benefits and Claiming Exemptions

The Associates at Flott & Co PC, 2012/1/19

This is the fourth in a series of articles on the US taxation of shipping income, and explains treaty exemptions from the tax, what they are, how companies qualify and what must be done to comply with the filing requirements associated with the treaty exemption.

With very few exceptions (Greece is one of the exceptions), US tax treaties (and those of many other countries) contain quite extensive Limitation on Benefits clauses which are designed to do exactly what the title says, limit the benefits of the treaty.  These LOB clauses, as they are commonly referred to, range from the relatively simple to the quite complex.

For example, the US-Cyprus Tax Treaty contains a relatively simple LOB clause. A Cypriot company can only take advantage of the treaty if it is owned at least 75% by persons who are ordinary residents of Cyprus and subject to tax there on their worldwide income. Thus, most Cypriot shipowning must rely on the exchange of diplomatic notes betweenCyprusand theUS, not the treaty.  The US-UK Tax Treaty contains very complex and involved LOB clause, one provision of which precludes UK residents, who pay tax to the UK on a non-domiciliary basis, from using the treaty and disqualifies any UK company controlled by such persons, except to the extent that the company carries on an active, substantial business in the UK.

The LOB clauses in several US tax treaties with European countries contain “derivative benefits provisions” which essentially relax the requirement that legal entities organized in a specific country must be owned or controlled by residents of that country.  In effect, companies organized in a treaty country can use that country’s treaty as long as they are controlled by persons who are bona fide residents of the European Union or the European Economic Area.  For example, under the new Malta-US Tax Treaty, Maltese shipowning companies owned by persons who reside outside Malta, but within the EU or EEA, can under certain conditions take advantage of the US-Malta treaty.  Obviously, there is not enough time in this short article to cover all of the key issues associated with treaty exemptions.  However, it should be clear that each treaty exemption needs to be examined to make sure it applies.

Companies that are using a tax treaty to claim exemption from the Section 887 tax must file a US tax return on Form 1120-F and include a Form 8833, Treaty Based Return Position Disclosure.  The Form 8833 must identify the specific article in the relevant treaty that is being relied on to overrule or modify Section 887.  It must also identify the provision of the LOB clause in the treaty that allow the company to avoid the LOB clause and provide a brief summary of the facts on which the company relies to support its position.  Lastly, the company must identify the nature of the income for which it is claiming treaty benefits and provide the amount (or a reasonable estimate) of that income for the tax year.

There is a $10,000 penalty for failure to file a Form 8833.

US Taxation of International Shipping Income: TRA86 and Treaty Exemptions

The Associates at Flott & Co PC, 2012/1/16

This is the third in a series of articles on the US taxation of shipping income, and explains treaty exemptions from the tax, what they are, how companies qualify and what must be done to comply with the filing requirements associated with the treaty exemption.

As the first two articles in this series explained, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (“TRA86”) substantially altered the US taxation of international shipping income.  It changed the “source” rules for international shipping income, (1) deeming 50% of such income to be “US source”; (2) imposing a 4% tax on that income; and (3) creating an exemption regime that permits foreign corporations that meet certain criteria to claim exemption from tax.

As a result of TRA86, every foreign corporation that has US source gross transportation income (“USSGTI”) in any tax year has a US tax filing obligation, even if the foreign corporation qualifies for exemption from the tax.  Thus, any foreign corporation that received USSGTI income during 2011 must file a US tax return on Form 1120-F by 15 June 2012.  There are no exceptions to this rule.

Foreign companies earn USSGTI when they receive any form of hire (bareboat, time charter, voyage charter/freight) for the use of a vessel, which transports cargo to or from theUnited States.  The only parties not subject to the US tax are those who pay the ultimate freight bill.

The tax imposed by Section 887 on USSGTI may be avoided, using one of two avenues: the reciprocal exemption provided for in Section 883 of the US Internal Revenue Code or the provisions of a US tax treaty.  These articles will deal solely with exemptions available under US tax treaties.  A list of countries which have tax treaties with the United States can be found in IRS Revenue Ruling 2008-17. Only those countries which are listed in Part II of Revenue Ruling 2008-17  have treaties that can be used to claim exemption from the Section 887 tax.  There are other international agreements that exist between the United States and foreign countries, but only those that are considered “comprehensive tax treaties” qualify.  Diplomatic notes exchanged between the United States and other countries or agreements regarding information exchanges are not treaties.

Treaties contain different requirements depending upon the specific negotiations between the United States and the partner country.  For example, the US-Greece tax treaty requires that a Greek company seeking to use Article 5 (Transportation Income) to escape the Section 887 tax must be organized in Greece and its vessel must fly the Greek flag.  A Greek corporation that owns a vessel that does not fly the Greek flag does not qualify for treaty benefits.  Non-Greek companies, owned by Greek nationals resident in Greece, whose vessels fly the Greek flag, do not qualify for treaty benefits because they are not organized in Greece.

 Each tax treaty is the product of a bilateral negotiation between the United States and its treaty partner, and is intended to benefit persons who are subjects of the contracting countries, not those of third countries.  Individual citizens and residents of a country are generally easy to identify and separate from citizens and residents of third countries.  In a globalized word, it is far less straightforward to identify the “true identity” of legal persons.  Thus, one of the primary objectives of modern treaty negotiators is to prevent “treaty shopping”, that is, the use of a treaty by persons who are residents of third countries.

Navigating the U.S. 4% Tax

The Associates at Flott & Co PC, 2012/1/5

 Two weeks ago, we discussed some of the history of the U.S. taxation of international shipping income, known by many in the shipping industry as “U.S. Freight Tax”. This post will talk a little about USGTI tax, who it applies to, who is required to file a tax return, and when those returns are due.

Section 887 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code imposes a four percent (4%) tax on U.S. source gross transportation income (“USGTI”).  Foreign companies earn USGTI when they receive any form of hire (bareboat, time charter, voyage charter/freight) for the use of a vessel that transports cargo into or out of the United States.

The U.S. tax applies to shipowners (both registered and disponent owners) and to all charterers, including subcharterers.  Indeed, the only parties not subject to the U.S. tax are those who pay the ultimate freight bill.  The tax is a flat percentage tax levied on the gross hire received by each party in the transportation chain.  No cost – not even brokers’ commissions – may be subtracted from the hire rate shown in the relevant charterparty.

The sourcing rule dictates that 50% of the gross transportation income derived from any laden voyage that begins or ends in the United States is deemed USGTI.  As a practical matter, the tax equals 2% of the gross income received from each laden voyage. The tax applies to each participant in the transportation chain independently of the others.  Each recipient of hire from a laden voyage is responsible for the tax on its own gross income.  Furthermore, each recipient’s ability to claim an exemption is likewise separate and distinct from the ability of all of the other recipients of income to do likewise.

Who Must File a U.S. Tax Return?

• All foreign corporations, whether exempt or not, that own, have an interest in, charter in, or operate vessels that call at U.S. ports to lift or discharge cargo are required to file a U.S. tax return on Form 1120-F. A new form is issued each tax year.
• Even foreign corporations that are exempt from the tax must file a Form 1120-F that states the basis of their claim for exemption.
• A tax return is only legally required to be filed for tax years in which a vessel owned, chartered, or operated by a foreign corporation calls at U.S. ports to lift or discharge cargo.
• Owners that include a BIMCO U.S.-specific or general tax clause in a charterparty do not thereby eliminate the need to file a tax return.

Filing Deadlines

• Foreign corporations that do not have an office or place of business in the U.S. have until 15 June 2012 to file an 1120-F for 2012, if they operate on a calendar year basis.
• A foreign corporation that operates on a fiscal year basis must file an 1120-F by the fifteenth day of the sixth month following the end of its fiscal year.  For example, a foreign corporation with a fiscal year end of 31 March 2012 must file an 1120-F by 15 September 2012 (the 15th day of the 6th month following March 31).Foreign corporations can request a six month extension of the 15 June 2011 deadline by filing an application for extension on IRS Form 7004 by 15 June.

• Remember: Filing an extension does not extend the time to pay any tax that may be due.  If a corporation is not exempt, it must pay the full amount of the tax due by 15 June or such other date in accordance with its year end as described above.  Failure to pay the tax due with the Form 7004 invalidates the extension and subjects the corporation to substantial penalties for late payment of the tax due.

• Filing deadlines for foreign corporations with an office or place of business in the United States are different than those noted here.

Future articles will describe the types of exemptions that can be claimed to avoid the 4% tax, what is required to claim each type of exemption, the specific rules that apply to Section 883 exemptions, including documentation of ownership and disclosure issues.

A Contemplation on the Billable Hour

Stephen Flott, Esq & the Associates at Flott & Co PC, 2012/12/29

In our firm, the first question of many a client is how much our representation is going to cost them. For general business related work, we charge on an hourly basis unless we can develop a more suitable arrangement with the client.

Often this is difficult, as it is hard to predict how much time and effort will be involved in any particular matter. However, we are open to any kind of fee arrangement that makes mutual business sense. If our fees can be tied to certain recurrent events or certain standard deliverables, a non-hourly based fee structure could be beneficial for both sides.

While quite common today, billing on the basis of increments of time places the same value on every unit of time spent on a matter. However, practicing law is not like producing the proverbial widget. At times working on a contract or a letter proceeds swiftly; at others the drafting process is complex and difficult.

Lawyers are human, and do not produce standard, uniform outputs by the hour or any other measure. Furthermore, law is more art than science, and involves as much judgment, training, and experience as it does knowledge or information. Sometimes interruptions and cumulative pressures undermine productive thinking. Some days we are tired and dense, other days sharp and insightful. Sometimes we are struck by an inspiration in an instant, at others we struggle to put three sensible words together.

It is simply not possible to create perfect billing processes that can capture the varying value of each minute that a lawyer spends on a matter. Nor it is possible for the lawyer to stop thinking about matters at will. Thoughts on how to solve a legal puzzle may present themselves in the shower or while jogging. The client gets the benefit of that momentary insight.

The truth of the matter is, sound billing practices are rooted in respect for the client and in the client’s respect for his lawyer.

We operate by one standard – would we pay for the time that we are charging to the client? In other words, when recording time spent on a matter, we try to put ourselves in the shoes of our clients and ask, if we were the client being billed for the time that is recorded in our timekeeping system, would we be happy to pay it? Even that approach will not always provide a satisfactory answer.

So, our abiding position is: open and continuous communication with the client about any aspect of our billing practices or an individual bill.

An Introduction to the U.S. Taxation of International Shipping Income

The Associates at Flott & Co PC, 2012/12/22

This is the first in a series of articles on the U.S. taxation of shipping income.  The series will present a brief refresher course on the U.S. tax, what it is and what it covers, how the exemptions work, and the compliance and filing requirements.  This first article offers a general introduction to the history of the tax.

Although the U.S. shipping tax has been in place for almost twenty-five years, it is clear that many in the shipping industry are only vaguely familiar with the basics of  how the tax works; to whom and to what it applies, what is required to claim exemption, and how recent U.S. Treasury regulations impact qualification for exemption and the filing requirements to properly claim an exemption.

Referred to by many in the shipping industry as “U.S. Freight Tax”, this U.S. tax is levied on the gross income earned for the use of a vessel that lifts or discharges cargo in the U.S.  It is a flat percentage tax assessed on subtracting dispatch costs from the gross income derived from bareboat and time charter hire and freight, including demurrage and deadfreight.  Although it is not levied based on the volume of cargo loaded, the tax is similar to many of the taxes listed in BIMCO’s annual Freight Taxes publication.  Unlike other such taxes, however, U.S. law requires companies to file an annual tax return even if they can claim exemption from the tax.

It was the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (“TRA86”) created the U.S. taxation of international shipping income as we know is today.  Prior to TRA86, the U.S. not only did not tax the international shipping income of foreign corporations, it treated such income as 100% “foreign” source.  Accordingly, foreign corporations that operated vessels to or from the United States did not have any “U.S.” source income on which the U.S. could levy tax.

TRA86 revised the “source” rule for international shipping income of foreign corporations by (1) deeming 50% of such income to be “U.S.” source; (2) imposing a 4% tax on that income; and (3) creating an exemption regime that permits foreign corporations that meet certain criteria to claim exemption from the 4% tax.  TRA86 took effect for tax years beginning or after January 1^st, 1987.

The TRA86 changes created a U.S. tax filing obligation for every foreign corporation that has U.S. source transportation income in any tax year, even if the foreign corporation qualifies for exemption from the tax.  Thus, all foreign corporations are required by law to file a U.S. tax return on Form 1120-F for each year in which they receive U.S. source transportation income.

Doing Business Across Borders

Stephen Flott, Esq. & the Associates at Flott & Co PC, 2012/12/15

The world is getting smaller and more connected every day. Information travels at the speed of light, irrespective of national borders. Unlike never before, technology makes it is as easy to do business with someone thousands of miles away as it is with the person next door. Conducting business in this increasingly interconnected and fast paced world may be easier in many respects, but it is certainly no less complex.

The role of lawyers in this ever changing environment is also rapidly evolving. The Internet has given non-lawyers access to sources of authoritative information on many legal issues, and access to thousands of sample legal documents. Creating corporations, partnerships, drafting legal agreements, and so on, can be done without any input from lawyers.

This blog is intended to add another source of information to the many already available. A word of caution, however; raw information and sample documents are no substitute for experienced judgment and guidance. Yes, it’s true that when the hopeful businessperson is launching a venture from a basement or a perch at Starbucks, spending money on lawyers is generally an unthinkable expense.

Good lawyers understand that. It’s when that small business begins to grow that legal assistance becomes critical.

The true test of a lawyer is whether she looks to add value to the companies she counsels. A $50 solution to a $50 problem makes little sense from a business perspective. Risk is part of business and a good lawyer is mindful of that. Determining at the outset how a venture expects to make money and what risks it presents to its promoters is the first task of a lawyer who wants to add value to a client’s efforts.

Across our practice fields, we focus on providing practical, cost effective advice. We work with clients from the outset to understand what it is they want to achieve and how they believe they can best achieve it. Our input should be targeted at clarifying those objectives and providing alternative ways to accomplish them.

Once people and business cross borders, they by necessity encounter two legal and tax systems that must be reconciled: their own and the foreign country where they wish to operate. People in international transportation certainly understand this, as it is part and parcel of  daily existence. However, many other businesses overlook small differences that can add up to big tax or transaction costs simply because they fail to take into account the differences between playing “home” and “away”.

Our job is to take the mystery out of moving beyond borders, and educate our clients on

the best ways to achieve their professional objectives in the international arena. We pride ourselves in making the complex understandable, simplifying the inevitable tax compliance issues that arise when people and businesses move beyond their home countries and out into the world beyond.

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO READERS

The information contained on this blog is not legal advice.  It is provided only as general information, and may or may not reflect the most up-to-date legal developments.  This information is not provided in the course of, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.  It certainly does not substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed attorney.  Legal advice should take into account the specific facts and circumstances applicable to each individual situation.  Viewing this site and reading this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and our firm.  Likewise, sending us an email does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the firm.   While we would be happy to hear from you, Flott & Co. PC cannot represent you until we have determined that doing so will not be a conflict of interest.  The only way for you to initiate legal representation with the firm is to call us at (703) 525-5110.  If and when Flott & Co. PC enters into an engagement agreement with you, you will be a client of the firm, at which time we will be able to exchange information freely.

Unless otherwise indicated by Flott & Co. PC in writing, any US federal tax advice contained in this blog is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for either (i) avoiding penalties under the US Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matter addressed within. For further information regarding this notice, please see http://www.flottco.com/emailnotice.pdf.