Questions About D 4 Dc Withholding: Fill & Download for Free

Here, I am assuming you are asking this question as a US citizen. So, we would have two scenarios here. In scenario one, you plan on living and working physically from the US while operating your consulting business from a foreign corporation (“FC”) which you form in a particular non US country.A FC gets pays tax in the US on its effectively connected income coming from a United States Trade or Business (“USTB”) as noted in Section 882(a). Operating from the US means this FC has a USTB. And, the FC also has effectively connected income as all income coming from US sources represents this income type as noted in Section 864(c)(3). Here, the FC files a 1120 foreign corporate tax return and pays a 21% tax on its taxable income (Treasury Regulation Section 1.6012-2(g) and Section 11(b)).In addition you have annual Treasury information reporting requirements as any US person owning 25% or more of a FC files this specific four page report annually. Failure to file or filing an incomplete report results in a minimum $10,000 fine (Section 6038(b)).Planning point: you may consider forming a domestic corporation (“DC”) formed in a particular state in the US (Section 7701(a)(4)). As a DC gets taxed in the US at a favorable 21% tax rate on its taxable income (Section 11(b)). And, a DC has more favorable tax rate for foreign customers. Here, DC pays a 13 1/8% tax rate on its foreign derived intangible income less a 10% return on the DC assets under new Section 250(a)). Note: I have summarized this favorable provision as the availability for applying this tax law section hinges on an analysis of DC particulars.The DC shareholder may leave up to $150,000 in DC with no adverse tax affects under the safe harbor provisions for a personal service corporation (Section 535(c)(2)(B)).Summarizing scenario one, no tax benefit results from forming a FC ran from the US. And, a DC has potential for tax savings versus using a FC.In scenario two, you as a US citizen move to the Canary Islands. And, you run your consulting business physically from this country. Here, we are assuming the person plans on moving to the Canary Islands for non tax reasons.You form a Canary Islands corporation “CIC”) with a DC as the CIC 100% shareholder. The CIC pays you a salary. First, you may exclude approximately $105,000 of your 2019 salary from US tax in the US based on the foreign income exclusion (Section 911(a). The salary reduces CIC taxable income.And, CIC pays a 4% corporate tax in the Canary Islands. Planning point: while CIC is not required to withhold social security taxes, you would consider such if the skipped years may affect your social security payment in later years. And, you pay no tax on your salary in the Cayman Islands.The question then becomes how is the CIC taxed in the US on its taxable income after salary payment and other deductible expenses. Here, we have a couple of tax provisions coming into play. The DC shareholder of the CIC performing services represents a related party under Section 954(d)(3). And, a related party providing services means the CIC income gets transferred to DC and DC then pays tax on this income (Section 954(e). If the services get performed from the Canary Islands then this transfer of income from CIC to DC does not apply based on the fact the services originate physically in CIC’s country of incorporation (Section 954(e)(1)(B). So, this exception provision allows the CIC not to pay tax in the US.However, another provision applies which came about as part of the 2017 tax law change. Here, a foreign corporation originating in a no or low tax country, pays annual a minimum tax in the US called global intangible low taxed income (“GILTI”). Here, DC includes the GILTI on its tax return. We compute GILTI as as CIC’s tested income less a 10% return on its asset base (Section 951(b)(1)). We then takes this low taxed income and reduce the result by 50% (Section 250(a)(1)(B). Thus, DC pays a 13 1/8 % tax rate on this CIC income in the current year. As DC can offset 80% of the 4% tax paid by CIC in the Canary Islands (Section 960(d)). Planning point: only a DC gets a 50% deduction. As an example, if the DC shareholder owned CIC directly, the individual then includes the CIC low tested income directly on his/her personal return. Given this fact, the US citizen has a more favorable tax situation by owning the FC through a DC versus owing the FC directly.Additional profits beyond salary coming from CIC represent dividends. CIC may transfer dividends back tax free to a domestic corporation (“DC”), CIC dividends coming directly to you are taxable at the shareholder level (Section 245A(a)). Planning point: you may consider forming a DC, and having DC own the CIC shares. Here, all CIC dividends coming to DC may use the new dividend deduction resulting in no tax to DC on the dividends coming directly from the CIC operations. The DC shareholder then pays tax on the DC dividends at capital gain rates (Section 1(h)(11)(B)).So, a consultant making a very sizable income does have some tax savings by forming a CIC if he/she lives in the Canary Islands. As noted, the US citizen may not pay tax on up to a $105,000 salary in the US. Extra profits beyond salary gets taxed at a 13 1/8% favorable tax rate. And by releasing those profits back to the DC shareholder, the DC shareholder pays a capital gain rate on the dividends coming from DC. Note — releasing these payments to DC from CIC requires DC pay the dividend as DC may be considered a personal holding company if dividends not released from DC to the DC shareholder (Section 541).The end result, the higher the consultants’s income the more opportunity exists for tax savings.As final note, I think the reader will see from the analysis, a person has no tax advantages forming a foreign corporation in particular countries and then running the FC from the US. The person has to actually live in the low tax country for gaining a favorable tax result. And, the person requires higher income for any meaningful tax savings. As the person has annual sizable tax fees for the additional tax entity here.I have completed the above analysis based on two particular tax scenarios. Given the complexity above slight changes in fact may change tax results. www.rst.tax

Yes, but not in the way you might be thinking. Let’s look back at some history, shall we?May 2017: After President Trump dismisses FBI Director James Comey, facts quickly begin coming to light indicating that there is an attempt at a cover-up within the White House. Multiple members of Congress mention the words “obstruction of justice”. It is important to note that this is only a handful of people.[1]May 11, 2017: Sen. Richard Blumenthal-D of Connecticut says, “"It may well produce another United States v Nixon on a subpoena that went to United States Supreme Court. It may well produce impeachment proceedings, although we're very far from that possibility."[2]May 16, 2017: After Trump disclosed classified information to Russian officials, Rep. Maxine Waters-D responds to a question by saying that this “moves us closer” to impeachment.[3] The same day, after it’s discovered that Trump asked Comey to drop the investigations into several members of his Cabinet, Sen. Angus King-I brings up impeachment.[4] Also the same day, Sen. John McCain compares the current state of the White House to Watergate.[5]May 17, 2017: Representatives Pramila Jayapal-D and Al Green-D call for impeachment on the floor of the House.[6] Two Republican Representatives made their own calls for impeachment.[7][8] On this day, former FBI Director Robert Mueller is appointed special counsel to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 elections and any cover-up by the Trump administration; the Trump administration immediately begins their attempts to impede the investigation.[9] It is immediately acknowledged that Mueller can not charge Trump himself with any crimes.[10]June 11: Former US Attorney Preet Bharara says there’s enough evidence to begin a case for obstruction of justice by Trump.[11]June 12, 2017: Rep. Green and Rep. Brad Sherman-D formalize a resolution to begin impeachment proceedings and begin seeking support.[12] The overwhelming consensus among the Democrats is that there’s not enough to ensure a conviction and removal from office.July 12, 2017: Rep. Sherman formally introduces HR 438, “Article of Impeachment”.[13] It is sent to the Republican-led Judiciary Committee, where it dies.August 17, 2017: After Trump openly supports white supremacists at the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, VA, Rep. Steve Cohen-D announces that he will introduce articles of impeachment, based on both his past actions as well as on his failure of a “moral test”.[14] He’s talked out of it by Democrats who insist that it won’t go anywhere with the Republican leadership.October 11, 2017: Rep. Green raises the topic again and is again talked out of introducing the articles.[15]Later in October, Tom Steyer, a liberal activist, introduced and funded a campaign to gather signatures supporting Trump’s impeachment.[16] Within a month, it had nearly 2 million signatures.[17]November 15, 2017: Rep. Cohen and several other representatives introduce HR 621, containing 5 articles of impeachment: obstruction of justice, violation of the emoluments clause (foreign and domestic), undermining the independence of the federal judiciary, and undermining the freedom of the press.[18]The Democrats, by and large, insist it’s not yet time, as it will just be voted down by the Republicans.[19] The resolution is referred to the Republican-led Judiciary Committee, where it dies.November 17, 2017: 40% of Americans support impeachment.[20]December 6, 2017: Rep. Green again introduces articles of impeachment, HR 646.[21] House majority leader Kevin McCarthy-R moved for the resolution to be “tabled” (meaning: ignored), and it was voted down; every Republican voted for the resolution to be “tabled”. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi-D voted for the “tabling” as well, explaining, “Democrats are firmly focused on taking real, effective steps to improve the lives of hard-working Americans and defeating Republicans’ cruel barrage of attacks on the middle class…[Trump has] made statements and taken actions that are beyond the pale for most Americans…Legitimate questions have been raised about his fitness to lead this nation…Right now, Congressional committees continue to be deeply engaged in investigations into the President’s actions both before and after his inauguration. The special counsel’s investigation is moving forward as well, and those inquiries should be allowed to continue. Now is not the time to consider articles of impeachment.”[22]January 19, 2018: Rep. Green re-introduces HR 646; it is defeated again by the solid block of 234 Republicans voting en masse, as while there was more Democratic support, it was still a minority.[23]November, 2018: the House flips into solid Democratic control. Many Democrats still insist the time isn’t right for impeachment, citing the impact it would have on the nation as a whole.[24]December, 2018: Steyer’s signature list tops 6.5 million.January 3, 2019: Rep. Sherman announces HR 13, a new impeachment resolution.[25]January 16, 2019: the Inspector General of the General Services Administration issues a report stating that the president has violated the emoluments clause of the US Constitution.[26]February 27, 2019: former Trump attorney and “fixer” Michael Cohen publicly testifies before the House Oversight committee. His testimony points to at least 11 impeachable offenses committed by Trump.[27]March 11, 2019: House Speaker Pelosi says, "I'm not for impeachment, Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he's just not worth it. No. I don't think he is. I mean, ethically unfit. Intellectually unfit. Curiosity wise unfit. No, I don't think he's fit to be president of the United States."[28]March 27, 2019: Rep. Rashida Tlaib-D introduces HR 257, calling for a formal impeachment investigation.[29] It is referred to the House Committee on Rules where it dies.April 18, 2019: the redacted Mueller Report is released.[30] The Trump administration asserts executive privilege in blocking an unredacted version’s release.[31] Mueller’s report is clear that there were several actions of both Trump and his administration that were obstruction of justice; he’s also clear that he and his team could not press charges against Trump, so it was up to Congress to take action.April 22, 2019: House majority leader Steny Hoyer announces, "Based on what we have seen to date, going forward on impeachment is not worthwhile at this point."[32] Democratic leaders hold a conference call that same day to discuss impeachment and it was decided to continue with investigations and deal with impeachment later, if necessary. Most members of the Democratic caucus feel that the 2020 election will take care of matters for them, and that a move for impeachment may just strengthen Republican resolve.[33]May 18, 2019: Rep. Justin Amash-R calls for Trump’s impeachment due to the Mueller Report.[34] Rep. Tom Coleman-R follows suit a week later.[35]May 25, 2019: Rep. Sheilia Jackson Lee introduces HR 396 to initiate an impeachment investigation. It is allowed to die in committee.[36]July 17, 2019: Rep. Green introduces HR 498, articles of impeachment. It dies in committee.[37]July 26, 2019: House leadership begins impeachment investigations per the process set by the previous Republican leadership. [38]So, let’s call it like we see it. For two years, Democratic leadership were absolutely pummeled by evidence of the president behaving in a criminal nature. At every turn, they resisted, citing their desire to maintain some semblance of decorum and to not upset the nation any further than it already was. They were content to wait for the 2020 election and allow the American people to speak.Since the investigations began, we’ve now had:repeated cases of the president instructing people, oftentimes without legal right, to refuse to testify before Congress.[39]a demonstrated case of the Trump administration withholding legally-mandated aid to Ukraine unless Ukrainian officials agreed to investigate Joe Biden, a possible opponent in the 2020 election.[40]multiple lawsuits regarding the president’s violations of the emoluments clause of the US Constitution.[41] [42] [43] [44] [45]several abuses of his pardon power, including promises to the head of the Border Patrol that he would be pardoned if he knowingly broke the law.[46] [47] [48]The question asks, “If Trump didn't make that phone call, would they be trying to impeach him for something else?”The answer is obviously yes. The Democrats held off as long as they possibly could. There was no rush into an impeachment, there was no hurry. It is exceedingly clear that the Democrats in the House of Representatives were forced to begin impeachment proceedings. They didn’t want to. They were MORE than happy to wait and let the electorate decide.But at some point, they really had no choice in the matter. The list of offenses is simply too much.The Republican leadership is now up in arms, declaring how horrible and unjust this is. Their arguments are, at best, silliness.Impeachment was going to happen at some point. I mean, seriously…Trump’s staff released a purported transcript that openly documented an attempted quid pro quo to damage Joe Biden.Enough was enough.Footnotes[1] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article149758184.html[2] Blumenthal: Comey firing 'may well produce impeachment proceedings'[3] Waters: Trump's Disclosure of Classified Info to Russia Moves Us Closer to 'Impeachment'[4] CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "Are We Getting Closer" To Impeachment Of Donald Trump?[5] McCain: Trump scandals reaching 'Watergate size and scale'[6] U.S. Rep. Green calls for Trump's impeachment[7] First Republicans talk possibility of impeachment for Trump[8] GOP Rep. Amash becomes first Republican to say Trump 'engaged in impeachable conduct'[9] White House looking at ethics rule to weaken special investigation: sources[10] Reps. Green and Sherman announce plan to file articles of impeachment[11] There's 'absolutely evidence' to begin obstruction of justice case on Trump: Bharara [12] Democratic Rep. Sherman Drafts Article of Impeachment Against Trump[13] http://sherman.house.gov/sites/sherman.house.gov/files/FINAL%20Article%20of%20Impeachment.pdf[14] Trump impeachment process begins as Democrat states the president "failed test of moral leadership"[15] https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/10/11/us/politics/ap-us-congress-trump-impeachment.html[16] Trump-tweet target Tom Steyer’s impeachment campaign tops 1.4 million signatures[17] Billionaire Tom Steyer Is Doubling His Budget on These Ads to Impeach Trump[18] H.Res.621 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Impeaching Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.[19] http://www.journalnow.com/news/nation_world/house-dems-introduce-impeachment-articles-against-trump/article_d6aa0a80-888f-59c7-a3f3-8ca852b88160.html[20] Six Democrats introduce Trump impeachment articles, calling for hearings to begin immediately[21] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/646[22] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/12/06/house-democratic-leaders-oppose-texas-lawmakers-trump-impeachment-effort/[23] http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll035.xml[24] Will Donald Trump be impeached after the midterm elections? Here are the scenarios if Democrats win the House[25] Brad Sherman to introduce impeachment articles against Trump on first day of Democratic Congress[26] IG report rips gov't for punting on possible Trump emoluments violation tied to his DC hotel[27] Michael Cohen implicated Trump in at least 11 different felonies[28] Don't bother: Pelosi says Trump 'just not worth' impeaching[29] H.Res.257 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Inquiring whether the House of Representatives should impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America.[30] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Report_On_The_Investigation_Into_Russian_Interference_In_The_2016_Presidential_Election.pdf[31] Trump asserts 'executive privilege' over Mueller report in fight with House Democrats[32] Efforts to impeach Donald Trump - Wikipedia[33] Pelosi slow walks impeachment, says Dems first need to 'save our democracy'[34] GOP Rep. Amash becomes first Republican to say Trump 'engaged in impeachable conduct'[35] Ex-GOP congressman calls for impeachment, says Trump an 'illegitimate president' [36] Text - H.Res.396 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Authorizing and directing the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise the power vested by article 1, section 2, clause 5 of the Constitution in respect to acts of misconduct by Donald John Trump, President of the United States.[37] H.Res.498 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, of high misdemeanors.[38] Raising Prospect of Impeaching Trump, House Seeks Mueller’s Grand Jury Secrets[39] Nadler slams White House for blocking former aides from testifying and limiting Lewandowski[40] WSJ News Exclusive | Trump Repeatedly Pressed Ukraine President to Investigate Biden’s Son[41] Democrats Hatch Plans A, B, and C to Impeach Trump[42] Blumenthal v. Trump - Wikipedia[43] CREW and National Security Archive v. Trump and EOP - Wikipedia[44] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-alleging-trump-violated-constitution/2017/12/21/31011510-e697-11e7-ab50-621fe0588340_story.html[45] Appeals court revives foreign corruption suit against Trump[46] Trump told CBP head he'd pardon him if he were sent to jail for violating immigration law[47] ‘Sheriff Joe’ is back in court. The impeachment inquiry should pay attention - The Boston Globe[48] Trump reportedly promised pardons to aides who break the law to build border wall by 2020 election

It would depend on the evidence; and depending on the evidence, the answer is: Probably not.First and foremost, there’s nothing that Congress could collect through a subpoena that Mueller couldn’t also collect by a subpoena. If the same person or organization were subpoenaed by both Congress and Mueller for the same information, then that person or entity would be compelled to provide the same information.If that person were to share misleading or incomplete information to Mueller, but not to Congress, Mueller’s recourse wouldn’t be to ask Congress to look at their notes, but to indict the person who attempted to mislead his investigation (and, on the other side of the coin: if Congress believes that they have been misled, they can just refer the offender to the Department of Justice for prosecution).So there’s not a lot of practical necessity for Mueller to go to Congress for information when he has plenty of power to prod the primary subjects.Now, let’s say Mueller does have reason to believe that a Member of Congress or Congressional Committee has, in the course of their own investigation, somehow stumbled onto a key piece of evidence that, for whatever reason, he can’t get otherwise. So he asks Congress to turn it over, and Congress says, “No.”Obstruction of justice, right?As we might understand the term, sure; but they can’t be charged with it, because they’re protected by the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.In a nutshell[1] , the Clause exists to protect Members of Congress from being threatened with legal penalties as a result of their legislative activities. As such, it has been interpreted as a broad protection against any scrutiny of Congressional activities by either the Executive or Judicial branches of government.In 2006, the FBI raided the Washington, D.C., office of Representative William Jefferson (D-LA) in the course of their investigation into allegations of corrupt conduct on his part. Representative Jefferson challenged the search and seizure as a violation of the Speech or Debate Clause, and won in the D.C. Circuit Court. In its ruling, the D.C. Circuit said[2] :Documentary evidence can certainly be as revealing as oral communications - even if only indirectly when, as here, the documents in question do not detail specific congressional actions. But indications as to what Congress is looking at provide clues as to what Congress is doing, or might be about to do-and this is true whether or not the documents are sought for the purpose of inquiring into (or frustrating) legislative conduct or to advance some other goals․ We do not share the Third Circuit's conviction that democracy's “limited toleration for secrecy”[3] is inconsistent with an interpretation of the Speech or Debate Clause that would permit Congress to insist on the confidentiality of investigative files.In short: If Congress obtained its information through legitimate exercise of legislative activities, it has no obligation to share its information with the Executive.Now, if the information in question concerns the activities of a specific Member of Congress, then, again, it could depend entirely on the nature of the information Mueller was seeking and how the Member were involved.Returning to the Jefferson case: Even though the D.C. Circuit required the FBI to return pretty much everything they seized, they were still able to retain some non-privileged information that was relevant to their investigation; because Members of Congress may still be investigated for crimes of corruption[4] .[T]he Speech or Debate Clause must be read broadly to effectuate its purpose of protecting the independence of the Legislative Branch, but no more than the statutes we apply, was its purpose to make Members of Congress super-citizens, immune from criminal responsibility. . . .It is beyond doubt that the Speech or Debate Clause protects against inquiry into acts that occur in the regular course of the legislative process, and into the motivation for those acts. So expressed, the privilege is broad enough to insure the historic independence of the Legislative Branch, essential to our separation of powers, but narrow enough to guard against the excesses of those who would corrupt the process by corrupting its Members.More recently, Representative Chaka Fattah (D-PA) attempted to have a search warrant of his personal e-mail address in connection with a corruption investigation overturned on Speech or Debate Clause grounds, and was unsuccessful[5] .So if Mueller believed that a Member of Congress had information relevant to his investigation that they acquired outside of their legislative activities or were connected to other criminal behavior, then that Member could be reasonably expected to cooperate. However, if the Member had gained that information as part of their legislative activities and were not otherwise criminal, the Member could refuse, and Mueller’s hands would pretty much be tied.Footnotes[1] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45043.pdf[2] FindLaw's United States DC Circuit case and opinions.[3] IN RE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION, ETC[4] United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972)[5] IN RE SEARCH OF ELECTRONI | 802 F.3d 516 (2015) | 20150902098 | Leagle.com