Latest news with #foreign
Forbes
4 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
Foreign Grantor Trusts, Section 679, And U.S. Taxes
IRS foreign grantor trust Grantor trusts are treated differently from other trusts for federal income tax purposes. Whereas many trusts are respected as separate entities, grantor trusts are disregarded with the grantor (or deemed owner) of the trust required to report the trust's tax items (e.g., income, deductions, credits, etc.). Generally, a trust is characterized as a grantor trust if the trust meets one or more of the requirements set forth in the grantor-trust rules (i.e., sections 671 through 679). Foreign trusts often qualify as grantor trusts under the grantor-trust rules. Indeed, section 679 of the Code specifically targets foreign trusts for this tax treatment if the trust has a U.S. transferor and U.S. beneficiaries. Where section 679 applies, the U.S. transferor is treated as the grantor of the trust, requiring the transferor to report the trust's income and other items on a tax return and corresponding international information returns such as IRS Form 3520-A, Annual Information Return of Foreign Trust with a U.S. Owner. Because many tax professionals and taxpayers are unaware of the nuances of section 679, the provision often acts as a trap for the unwary. Prior to discussing section 679, it is important to understand the term 'foreign trust' as section 679 only applies to these types of trusts. Under federal tax law, a trust means an arrangement in which a trustee takes title to property for the purpose of protecting or conserving it for the benefit of third-party beneficiaries. To determine whether a foreign entity is a trust or another type of legal arrangement (e.g., a foreign corporation), taxpayers must analyze applicable foreign law against the backdrop of U.S. tax principles. If the arrangement constitutes a trust for U.S. tax purposes, the next inquiry is whether the trust is foreign. Generally, a trust is foreign if a U.S. court lacks the authority to exercise primary supervision over the trust or a U.S. person lacks the authority to control the decisions of the trust. All other trusts are considered domestic trusts and not subject to section 679. Section 679 applies if a U.S. person transfers property or cash to a foreign trust and the foreign trust has a U.S. beneficiary. For these purposes, U.S. persons and beneficiaries include U.S. citizens and residents. To qualify as a U.S. beneficiary of a foreign trust under section 679, the U.S. beneficiary must have rights to trust income or corpus. Therefore, a foreign trust has a U.S. beneficiary under section 679 if: (i) any part of the trust's income or corpus may be paid or accumulated during the tax year to or for the benefit of a U.S. person, or (ii) if the trust was terminated in the tax year, any part of the trust's income or corpus could be paid to or for the benefit of a U.S. person. Trust income and corpus is deemed accumulated even if the U.S. person's interest in the trust is contingent on future events. Generally, the trust's governing documents and applicable foreign law determine whether a U.S. beneficiary has rights in the income or corpus of a trust. However, section 679 recognizes that U.S. persons may enter into oral understandings concerning the trust's administration—accordingly, section 679(c)(5) provides that the IRS may look beyond the trust's written documents to determine whether there is a U.S. beneficiary. In some instances, foreign persons may establish a foreign trust and relocate to the U.S. Under section 679(a)(4), a foreign trust becomes subject to the section 679 grantor-trust rules if a nonresident alien individual transfers property or cash to a foreign trust and becomes a U.S. resident within five years of the transfer date (assuming the foreign trust also has a U.S. beneficiary). A nonresident alien individual's starting date for these purposes is governed under section 7701(b)(2)(A). For example, an individual who becomes a lawful permanent resident (e.g., a green-card holder) and who does not meet the substantial presence test in that tax year has a starting residency date based on that person's first day present as a lawful permanent resident. If the individual satisfies the substantial presence test, the starting residency date is the first day in which the individual was physically present in the U.S. Section 679 also provides a special rule for domestic trusts that are later treated as foreign trusts. Under this rule, section 679 applies if a U.S. citizen or resident transfers property to a domestic trust and the trust becomes a foreign trust during that person's lifetime. Where this rule applies, the U.S. person is deemed to make a transfer of property to the foreign trust as of the date the trust becomes foreign. Notably, section 679(d) contains a provision that presumes that a foreign trust has U.S. beneficiaries (i.e., that it falls within the scope of section 679). Therefore, if a U.S. person transfers property or cash to a foreign trust, the IRS may treat the trust as having U.S. beneficiaries unless the person: (i) submits any requested information to the IRS, and (ii) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the IRS that the trust does not have U.S. beneficiaries. Foreign trusts often hold investments and other income-producing properties. Although foreign trusts are often not subject to U.S. income tax, they become subject to such taxes when section 679 applies. In these instances, the U.S. transferor must report the foreign trust's income under the grantor-trust rules. In addition, the U.S. transferor must often prepare and file substitute IRS Forms 3520-A on behalf of the trust to report the trust's activities to the IRS. The failure to understand the broad scope of section 679 can result in adverse U.S. tax consequences, including required payment of prior year income taxes, interest, and significant penalties.
Irish Times
11-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Irish Times
Donald Trump says the US is in danger of ‘messaging and propaganda' from international cinema. Pull the other one
Over the past decade or so, much air has been wasted on debating whether the world should take Donald Trump literally or seriously. Or neither. Or both. The only indisputable conclusion is that no proposed scheme is too deranged for him to give it at least a half-hearted crack. Who can therefore blame the world's film-makers for wincing at the US president's recent proposal to slap a 100 per cent tariff on films 'produced in Foreign Lands'? 'Honestly, we're all scratching our heads,' Ed Guiney, one of the founders of the Irish production company Element Pictures, said this week. The film community had some difficulty making sense of the scattershot statement. Trump's initial focus on 'Other Countries' (he lives to capitalise all things Abroad) offering incentives to US film-makers suggested his concern was Hollywood productions shooting overseas. READ MORE It has long been commonplace for the American industry, profiting from tax incentives and lower labour costs, to film thousands of kilometres from Sunset Boulevard. Ireland has done well from such incoming investment over the past decades. Who would not be concerned? But the statement, in its most bizarre passage, appeared to be also swiping in a different direction. 'This is a concerted effort by other nations and, therefore, a national security threat,' he said. 'It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda!' [ Trump film tariffs could hit thousands of jobs in Ireland, industry figures warn Opens in new window ] What the hell is he talking about? We must surely read this as concern at films originating in foreign parts (or should that be 'Foreign Parts'?) poisoning frail American minds with their decadent social attitudes. The upcoming Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning was shot largely in the UK, with additional filming in Malta, South Africa and Norway. On the evidence of the last M:I film, we are unlikely to see much anti-American 'propaganda'. What there is will surely have little to do with the film touching down in Valletta and the English Lake District. The 'messaging' would be the same if Tom Cruise were doing his abseiling in Cleveland. No, Trump here seems to be railing against actual foreign movies. You know? Films in French, Spanish and Mandarin. Maybe even one or two in Irish. He seems to believe overseas cinema is having an undue influence on the American mind. How to put this delicately? As if! There are suggestions of the quota China imposed on films not produced by domestically licensed production companies. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this strategy, the authorities can point to American films that have landed enormously in China. Avengers: Endgame took about $500 million there. The Fast & Furious films are also hugely popular. There is no such challenge from abroad at the US box office. Get away from the nut-loaf art houses of the coastal metropolises and there is nothing but the Rock and the Cruise from sea to shining sea. There were, towards the end of Trump's first term, signs of his uneasiness about pesky foreign titles polluting American souls. In early 2020, after Bong Joon Ho's Parasite became the first film not in English to win the best-picture Oscar, Trump pulled on the nativist tabard and ran up the corresponding flag. 'What the hell was that all about? We've got enough problems with South Korea with trade. On top of it they give them the best movie of the year?' he said. 'Let's get Gone with the Wind. Can we get, like, Gone with the Wind back, please?' It may be only a coincidence that he picked a film romanticising the antebellum south over a ruthless satire on economic inequality. (To be fair, he also mentioned Sunset Boulevard, revealing at least a smidgen of good taste.) But the impression remained of a man keen on shutting out all disruptive foreign influences. You know? Like Enver Hoxha in postwar Albania. In truth, the US has never had much affection for movies originating outside the 50 states. Even British films can be a hard sell. Just observe how, earlier this year, Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy , ultimately a smash in most other anglophone territories, was not even granted a theatrical release in Trumpland. You will struggle to find a genuinely foreign film among the 100 highest-grossing films released in the United States in 2024. No, Bob Marley: One Love , at number 23, was developed and financed by Paramount. Okay, Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga , a box-office disappointment at 33, is an Australian story, but it would never have made it on to the screen without Warner Bros. The closest to a genuine overseas release is the Japanese animation Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba, way down at 76. So, no, the US is in no danger of 'messaging and propaganda' from international cinema. There is as much possibility of such indoctrination happening via free jazz, imagist poetry or equestrian dressage. Chance would be a fine thing.
Yahoo
10-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Dear Abby: My fiancée treats me like her special needs child
DEAR ABBY: I'm engaged to a delightful woman from a foreign country. She's a divorcee, and her 19-year-old son is doing well in college. She essentially raised him herself. Because of some spectrum disorder and ADHD symptoms, her son was apparently a handful. I am healthy, have multiple advanced degrees (including an M.D. and a Ph.D.), and have enjoyed a successful and lucrative career. I have raised six happy, healthy and independent children. I've worked very hard and have a substantial bankroll. My concern is that she tends to treat me like she might treat her son. She asks me (repeatedly) if I'm cold and suggests that I wear more clothes. She asks me if I'm hungry, thirty or tired, and if I should exercise. I don't think she does it maliciously. I think she genuinely cares for me and is expressing her love with these matronly concerns. I have suggested repeatedly that she doesn't need to provide advice on clothing, hunger, etc. — that I'm an adult and have successfully figured out those things for a very long time. She has much less money than I do, and I help to support her. But I cannot continue to tolerate her maternalistic attitude. I have told her several times that I need a lover, not a mother, but it doesn't seem to penetrate. How can I get this woman whom I love to treat me as an adult and not to question my mature decisions? — NOBODY'S CHILD IN NEW YORK DEAR NOBODY'S CHILD: Your fiancée may not be trying to infantilize you. Many, if not most, women who love the men in their lives fuss over them. Because her efforts are not pleasing and are having a negative effect, you are going to have to be more direct in your message, and by that, I mean tell her it is such a turnoff for you that you are considering ending the relationship. Stating it just that way may help the message to penetrate. And if it doesn't, then you aren't the man for her. DEAR ABBY: I have been in a relationship with my partner for 10 years. While the first two years were good, things have slowly deteriorated. For example, we used to go to movies and dinner at least one day a weekend. Now we don't do anything unless he wants to play cards. I'm getting bored with cards all the time. I feel like I'm wasting my life sitting at home with him. There's no excitement. And to top it off, when we do go places, we invariably end up taking my car, and I must pay for the gas and wear and tear. It's getting old. Any advice? — FED UP IN MISSOURI DEAR FED UP: You appear to be the passive partner in this relationship. If you would like to change the balance of power, assert yourself. Because you find playing cards so often boring, and he isn't up for going to a show or out for dinner, go with a girlfriend. I wish you had mentioned why you provide all the transportation, because changing that pattern should be as easy as saying, 'No, I prefer we use YOUR car this time.' Remember, nothing will change unless you change. Dear Abby is written by Abigail Van Buren, also known as Jeanne Phillips, and was founded by her mother, Pauline Phillips. Contact Dear Abby at or P.O. Box 69440, Los Angeles, CA 90069.
Daily Mail
06-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
How Hollywood execs reacted to Trump's new tariff policy
By Major studios like Netflix and Disney went into 'damage-assessment mode' after Donald Trump announced plans to tariff films produced on foreign soil Sunday night. A studio executive told Status the situation was still 'fluid and evolving' on Tuesday, as the industry continues its tailspin. An announcement to Truth Social Sunday was the cause - and a proposed 100 percent tariff on 'any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands.' The post came with little detail but caused shares of entertainment companies to immediately crater. Execs across the industry remain terrified about their studio being the first to be targeted by the president, insiders said. They're also reportedly reluctant to speak out - with Disney , Netflix, Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount Global all choosing not to address Trump's announcement in official statements. Privately, they're hoping someone can convince the president to change his mind, insiders said. Netflix boss Ted Sarandos was among the steady stream of bigwigs meet with President Trump late last year. The two enjoyed 'a nice long dinner together' at Trump's mansion in Mar-a-Lago, he said 'It was interesting,' he said at Q&A at a Paley Media Council event in NYC moderated by Semafor's Ben Smith last month. Asked whether Trump had tried to sell him on the Melania Trump doc bought by Jeff Bezos and Amazon for a reported $40million weeks later, Sarandos said no. 'For $40 million, 'I hope it's great,' he added, when asked about the widespread consensus that his rival overpaid. When sked if he felt pressure 'to be a little careful now' under the new administration, Sarandos, 60, said 'No... We program exactly the same.' The president's public attacks on firms like Paramount loomed large as he spoke - as did his increased oversight into legacy broadcast stations. He has accused such organizations of pedaling cultural propaganda - a claim echoed in his chaos-inducing Truth Social post that also insisted foreign markets were luring American filmmakers with tax breaks. 'Hollywood, and many other areas within the U.S.A., are being devastated,' he wrote following a meeting with well-known MAGA loyalist Jon Voight at Mar-a-Lago over the weekend. 'This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat. 'Therefore, I am authorizing the Department of Commerce, and the [US] Trade Representative, to immediately begin the process of instituting a 100 percent Tariff on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands.' The meeting with Voight, 86, just before, also included the actor's manager and the president of Paul's production company, Status learned. It was called in hopes of 'reviv[ing] the American film industry,' insiders said. The trio submitted to Trump what was billed as a 'comprehensive plan' to do so - paving the way for his post. Zaslav, meanwhile, was one of many business leaders who originally expressed hope the then-president-elect would implement policies that would ease media woes once elected, as analysts now warn of the increasingly real prospect of fewer films. Movies that are more costly to make could also be an unforeseen fruit of the Republican's plans, analysts at firms like Morgan Stanley have warned. Questions also remain as to what constitutes a 'foreign'-made film, and whether productions like television shows will be subject to the president's proposed policy. Netflix (NFLX), Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD), and Paramount Global (PARA) each slipped around 2 percent total Monday, following steeper losses seen earlier in the day. Shares have stayed steady since.
Daily Mail
06-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
How stunned Netflix and Hollywood execs privately reacted to Trump's 'Make Movies Great Again' policy behind the scenes
Major studios like Netflix and Disney went into 'damage-assessment mode' after Donald Trump announced plans to tariff films produced on foreign soil Sunday night. A studio executive told Status the situation was still 'fluid and evolving' on Tuesday, as the industry continues its tailspin. An announcement to Truth Social Sunday was the cause - and a proposed 100 percent tariff on 'any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands.' The post came with little detail but caused shares of entertainment companies to immediately crater. Execs across the industry remain terrified about their studio being the first to be targeted by the president, insiders said. They're also reportedly reluctant to speak out - with Disney, Netflix, Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount Global all choosing not to address Trump's announcement in official statements. Privately, they're hoping someone can convince the president to change his mind, insiders said. Netflix boss Ted Sarandos was among the steady stream of bigwigs meet with President Trump late last year. The two enjoyed 'a nice long dinner together' at Trump's mansion in Mar-a-Lago, he said Major studio bosses like Netflix's Ted Sarandos - seen here at the world premier of The Crown in 2022 - went into 'damage-assessment mode' Monday following Donald Trump's plans to tariff films produced on foreign soil 'It was interesting,' he said at Q&A at a Paley Media Council event in NYC moderated by Semafor's Ben Smith last month. Asked whether Trump had tried to sell him on the Melania Trump doc bought by Jeff Bezos and Amazon for a reported $40million weeks later, Sarandos said no. 'For $40 million, 'I hope it's great,' he added, when asked about the widespread consensus that his rival overpaid. When sked if he felt pressure 'to be a little careful now' under the new administration, Sarandos, 60, said 'No... We program exactly the same.' The president's public attacks on firms like Paramount loomed large as he spoke - as did his increased oversight into legacy broadcast stations. He has accused such organizations of pedaling cultural propaganda - a claim echoed in his chaos-inducing Truth Social post that also insisted foreign markets were luring American filmmakers with tax breaks. 'Hollywood, and many other areas within the U.S.A., are being devastated,' he wrote following a meeting with well-known MAGA loyalist Jon Voight at Mar-a-Lago over the weekend. 'This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat. It proposed 100 percent tariff on 'any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands' 'Therefore, I am authorizing the Department of Commerce, and the [US] Trade Representative, to immediately begin the process of instituting a 100 percent Tariff on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands.' The meeting with Voight, 86, just before, also included the actor's manager and the president of Paul's production company, Status learned. It was called in hopes of 'reviv[ing] the American film industry,' insiders said. The trio submitted to Trump what was billed as a 'comprehensive plan' to do so - paving the way for his post. Zaslav, meanwhile, was one of many business leaders who originally expressed hope the then-president-elect would implement policies that would ease media woes once elected, as analysts now warn of the increasingly real prospect of fewer films. Movies that are more costly to make could also be an unforeseen fruit of the Republican's plans, analysts at firms like Morgan Stanley have warned. Questions also remain as to what constitutes a 'foreign'-made film, and whether productions like television shows will be subject to the president's proposed policy. Netflix (NFLX), Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD), and Paramount Global (PARA) each slipped around 2 percent total Monday, following steeper losses seen earlier in the day. Shares have stayed steady since.
