By Anthony Diosdi
In the individual foreign investor setting, inbound tax planning often requires a balancing of U.S. income tax considerations and U.S. federal gift and estate tax considerations. While U.S. federal income tax rates on the taxable income of an individual foreign investor are the same as those applicable to a U.S. citizen or resident, the federal estate and gift tax as applied to individual foreign investors can and often results in a dramatically higher burden on a taxable U.S. estate or donative transfer of a foreign investor than for a U.S. citizen or domiciliary. As a result, for many individual foreign investors, the most important U.S. tax consideration is the U.S. federal estate and gift taxation.
The United States imposes estate and gift taxes on certain transfers of U.S. situs property by “nonresident citizens of the United States.” In other words, individual foreign investors may be subject to the U.S. estate and gift tax on their investments in the United States. The U.S. estate and gift tax is assessed at a rate of 18 to 40 percent of the value of an estate or donative transfer. An individual foreign investor’s U.S. taxable estate or donative transfer is subject to the same estate tax rates and gift tax rates applicable to U.S. citizens or residents, but with a substantially lower unified credit. The current unified credit for individual foreign investors or nonresident aliens is equivalent to a $60,000 exemption, unless an applicable treaty allows a greater credit. U.S. citizens and resident individuals are provided with a far more generous unified credit from the estate and gift tax. U.S. citizens and resident individuals are permitted a unified credit of $11,700,000.
For U.S. citizens and residents that may be subject to the estate and gift tax, there are a number of planning opportunities available to mitigate the harsh consequences of the tax. The article will discuss estate and gift tax planning opportunities available to foreigners who own real property in the United States.
Owning the Real Property Directly
The simplest planning estate and gift tax planning option available to a foreign investor is to own U.S. real property directly and sell the property before he or she dies. The problem is this type of planning depends on one’s ability to predict his or her own death. Although directly holding U.S. is risky, there are planning options available to individual investors that could reduce or eliminate the estate and gift tax. First, in certain cases, a foreign investor may utilize a very limited number of estate tax and/or gift treaties to reduce or eliminate the U.S. estate tax (The United States has entered into a relatively small number of tax treaties that address the estate tax). Second, a foreign investor may use nonrecourse financing to reduce his or her exposure to the estate tax. A foreign investor may potentially reduce his or her exposure to the estate and gift tax through nonrecourse financing (A nonrecourse loan is a secured loan that is secured by a pledge of collateral, typically real property, but for which the borrower is not personally liable). Property that a nonresident decedent owns at death is subject to the U.S. estate tax, its value enters into the computation of the value of the decedent’s gross estate. Deductions are authorized by statute against the “taxable estate” for creditors’ claims. Properly structured, nonrecourse financing may be fully deductible from the taxable estate of a foreign investor.
Holding U.S. Property Through a Foreign Corporation
Historically, foreign investors have made their direct investments in U.S. property principally through corporate ownership structures. Frequently, a foreign corporation was used as either the direct investment owner or as a holding company for a U.S. subsidiary (which, in turn, owned the direct U.S. real property). Individual foreign investors have frequently preferred use of corporate structures to avoid the U.S. estate and gift tax. While holding U.S. property through a foreign corporation will typically enable the foreign investor to avoid the U.S. estate and gift tax, there are significant U.S. income tax consequences associated with investing in the U.S. real estate through a foreign corporation. We will discuss these consequences in more detail below.
One of the benefits of having a foreign corporation acquire U.S. real estate, rather than having an individual directly own shares of a U.S. company, is the avoidance of U.S. estate tax. This is because for estate and gift tax purposes, the U.S. estate and gift tax is assessed only on U.S. situs assets. Stock of a U.S. corporation is U.S. situs and stock of a foreign corporation is foreign situs, regardless of place of management or location of stock certificates. Since a foreign corporation has foreign situs for purposes of the estate and gift tax, transferring U.S. real property to a foreign corporation enables the foreign investor to avoid exposure to the U.S. estate and gift tax.
For income tax purposes, corporate structures no longer have the benefit of preferential long-term capital gains tax treatment on the sale of the property. Although the 21% percent corporate tax rate is similar to the 20 percent capital gains rate, there is a great deal of uncertainty about the future of the U.S. tax system and corporate tax rates. The cost of losing the preferential capital gains rates is made worse by the branch profits tax. The branch profits tax specifically treats the deemed repatriation of already taxed profits from the United States by a foreign corporation as an occasion to impose a second tax under Section 884. Internal Revenue Code Section 884 describes this second tax as the “dividend equivalent amount” of the “effectively connected earnings and profits” with certain adjustments. This second tax is known as the “branch profits tax.” The branch profits tax is intended to be the functional equivalent of earnings distributed as dividends by a subsidiary either out of current earnings not invested in subsidiary assets or out of accumulated earnings withdrawn from such investment. The branch profits tax imposes a tax equal to 30 percent of a foreign corporation’s dividend equivalent amount for the taxable year, subject to treaty reductions (in limited cases).
The use of foreign corporate structures to hold U.S. real estate may also tax disadvantages for U.S. heirs. Although a foreign structures avoid U.S. estate and gift taxes, at the death of the foreign investor, U.S. beneficiaries may inherit so-called “cursed” shares in a foreign corporation. Depending on the number of shares inherited, the foreign corporate shares could be taxed as either a Controlled Foreign Corporation (“CFC”) or a Passive Foreign Investment Company (“PFIC”). There are significant U.S. tax disadvantages to inheriting stocks classified as CFC or PFIC.
Holding U.S. Real Property through a Domestic Corporation
Given the disadvantages of playing U.S. real property in a foreign corporation, foreign investors may elect to utilize a domestic corporation to hold U.S. real property. From an income tax point of view, a domestic corporation will be subject to federal income tax on any future capital gain at up to 21 percent. On the sale of the real property, any distribution of the proceeds other than in liquidation of the corporation will be dividend to the extent of the corporation’s E&P and therefore subject to tax at a flat rate of 30 percent or a lower treaty rate. Any amounts distributed from a domestic corporation would likely be subject to withholdings under the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act (“FIRPTA”) and/or Fixed, Determinable, Annual, Periodical Income (“FDAP”) provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.
For gift tax purposes, a foreign investor may make gifts of domestic corporate shares without being subject to U.S. gift tax. The consequence of the death of the foreign owner depends on the structure of the ownership of the domestic corporation. If the foreign corporation is owned directly by the foreign owner, the taxable estate will include the shares, and the estate will be subject to estate tax on those shares upon the owner’s death. This is because stock in the domestic corporation has a U.S. situs for estate tax purposes. In certain limited cases, domestic stock can be exempt through an estate tax treaty.
If the domestic corporation is owned by a trust, the consequences will depend on whether any of Section 2036 (transfers with retained life estate), 2038 (revocable transfers), and 2041 (powers of appointment) apply to the foreign decedent. If so, the value of the stock in the domestic corporation will be includable in the estate of the foreign owner; otherwise, there will be no estate tax, except in unusual circumstances, possibly when the foreign corporation is treated as an alter ego during the foreign investor’s lifetime. See Home Thoughts From Abroad: When Foreigners Purchase U.S. Homes, Taxnotes Federal, August 17, 2020, p. 1165.
Holding Real Property through a Partnership
Although not often considered by foreign investors, the use of a traditional partnership (regardless of whether it is domestic or foreign, general or limited) has the very significant advantage of enabling the individual foreign investor to obtain the benefits of avoiding entity level tax (at the federal level) on all of the U.S. trade or business income being generated. However, there may be some risk that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) will assert that a traditional partnership interest should be classified as “U.S. situs property” (and, thus subject to the U.S. estate tax on nonresident aliens) when the partnership is engaged in a U.S. trade or business. With that said, this is the conclusion one may seemingly extract from an analysis of Treasury Regulation Section 20.2104-1(a), which provides what appears to be, in broad conception terms, a comprehensive list of the assets that may constitute “property within the United States.” Under this regulation, both real property and tangible property located in the United States are U.S. situs assets, as are shares in U.S. corporations and debts issued by U.S. persons and U.S. governmental bodies (with certain exceptions). Quite importantly, in the case of decedents dying before November 14, 1966 (when the Foreign Investors Tax Act of 1966 went into effect), there also was a rule that “the written evidence of intangible personal property which is treated as being property itself, such as a bond for the payment of money, (will be U.S. situs property) if it is physically located in the United States.” This was the so-called “physical presence test,” and it applied to an even broader spectrum of intangible assets when it was first adopted by the Treasury Regulations in 1924. At that time, the physical presence test applied not only to all bonds, but also to shares of non-corporations. See The U.S. Tax Effects of Choice of Entities For Foreign Investment In U.S. Real Estate And Businesses And The Taxation of Dispositions of U.S. Partnership Interests, Baker & McKenzie, Miami, Robert F. Hudson, Jr. 2015.
Further, the 1934 Treasury Regulations expanded the physical presence test to cover “intangible personal property which is treated as being the property itself.” Thus, starting in 1934, the physical presence test applied to all forms of intangible property interests that had intrinsic value in and of itself, other than shares in U.S. corporations, which from inception had been classified as a U.S. situs asset, regardless of where such U.S. corporate shares were held. These 1934 Treasury Regulations were issued some 18 months after the IRS had achieved its significant victory before the U.S. Supreme Court in Burnet v. Brooks 288 U.S. (1933) which held that the non-U.S. stocks and bonds and other U.S. securities that had been physically maintained in the United States at the time of the decedent’s death were property subject to the physical presence test of the 1924 Treasury Regulations and, therefore, were U.S. situs assets and subject to the U.S.estate tax on nonresident aliens. Consistent with this broad application of the physical presence test, the 1934 Treasury Regulations also adopted a general “catch all rule” providing that “intangible personal property has a situs within the United States if consisting of a property right issuing from or enforceable against a corporation (public or private) organized in the United States or a person who is a resident of the United States.” Importantly, this “catch all rule” from 1934 when the physical presence test reigned supreme is substantially the same “catch-all intangible situs rule” that currently appears in Treasury Regulation Rule 20.2104-1(a)(4). Specifically, the current version of this catch-all intangible situs rule provides that U.S. situs property includes “intangible personal property” the written evidence of which is not treated as being the property itself, if it is “intangible personal property the written evidence of which is not treated as being the property itself, if it is issued by or enforced against a resident of the United States or a domestic corporation or a governmental unit.” See Id.
Under Treasury Regulation Section 301.7701-5, a partnership is deemed to be a resident of the United States whenever it is engaged in a U.S. trade or business, regardless of where it is formed. Thus, Treasury Regulation Section 20.2104-1(a)(4) could be read as saying that interests in partnership (assuming such interests are “intangible personal property the written evidence of which is not treated as being the property itself”) are U.S. situs if issued by a partnership that is engaged in a U.S. trade or business (and, therefore, is a U.S. “resident” partnership).
As noted above, when the original “catch-all rule” for uncovered intangibles was adopted by the 1934 Treasury Regulations, the “physical presence test” was predominant situs rule for all intangibles other than shares issued by U.S. corporations. During this same period, there were dicta in some otherwise authoritative cases that suggested that the physical presence test for the situs of intangibles might also be met if the foreign entity (whose equity interests were being tested) was itself engaged in a U.S. trade or business. For example, in Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Minnesota, 280 U.S. 204 (1930) the United States Supreme Court observed that “[we] recognize the principle that choices in action may acquire a situs for taxation other than at the domicile of their owner if they have become integral parts of some local business [but the] present record gives no occasion to inquire whether such securities [should be so treated].” Similarly, in Sanchez v. Bowers, 70 F2d 715 (2d Cir. 1934) after already finding that the “sociedad de gananciales” (an entity under the then applicable Cuban law) was deemed liquidated upon the death of Sanchez such that the underlying securities which sociedad de gananciales had maintained in New York were under the physician presence test), resulted in the court speculated as to the following:
“It may be that a foreign corporation by its activities can also so subject itself to the power of Congress as to be ‘present’ as obligor, for the purpose of taxing the devolutions of its shares or dets, just as it may make itself ‘present’ for personal judgment. In that event the question here would be how continuously and substantially Sancehez carried on the ‘business’ of the “sociedad de gananciales’ in New York. If his [the sociedad de gananciales] activities were enough, his individual estate could be made liable for the devolution of some part of his dividend in liquidation, which is all we are holding it for anyway.” See Sanchez v. Bowers, 70 F2d 715 (2d Cir. 1934).
Sanchez v. Bowers appears to come closest to articulating that the concept that a business presence of a foreign entity might be sufficient to cause the equity interests in the foreign entity to be deemed physically present in the United States under the then applicable physical presence test for determining situs of intangibles. However, several points must be considered. First, neither Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Minnesota nor Sanchez v. Bowers come to the conclusion that a business presence of a foreign entity is sufficient to cause its equity interests to be deemed “present” in the jurisdiction (outside of its country of incorporation) where it is engaged in a trade or business for U.S. estate tax purposes, and certainly there is nothing in either decision either decision to suggest that such a rule, if adopted (which it was not), should apply when the foreign entity is only deemed to be engaged in a U.S. trade or business (as would be the case when a second-tier partnership holds an interest in a lower-tier partnership that is engaged in a U.S. trade or business only because of the artificial attribution rule Internal Revenue Code Section 875(1)). See Id.
Second, Sanchez v. Bowers illustrates that there is no stand-alone “U.S. trade or business of a foreign entity causes its equity interests to be U.S. meet the situs” rule. Instead, it is evident from a careful review of the discussions in the pertinent case law, that the idea of a U.S. trade or business having any impact on the situs of an intangible only came into speculative possible application in the context of deciding whether the intangible had sufficient nexus with the United States to be deemed “present” under the then applicable “physical presence test.” In other words, the consideration of whether a U.S. trade or business should be taken into account was only a potential sub-analysis under the “physical presence test”- it was never a stand alone test adopted and applied by any U.S. federal court in the U.S. estate tax context. Thus, to the extent that the catch-all situs rule for intangibles first included in the 1934 Treasury Regulations purported to adopt a “U.S. trade or business test” when referring to whether an intangible interest was issued by or enforceable against a “person who is a resident of the United States,” then it obviously was already making an extension of the case law that the courts had not adopted or applied. And as of this date, the courts never subsequently did so.
On the other hand, given the seemingly significant sweep of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in favor of the physical presence test in Burnett v. Brooks and the seemingly supportive dicta of the Supreme Court in Sanchez v. Bowers, the introduction of such a “U.S. trade or business” test for determining physical presence in a catch-all rule might have seemed like a reasonable extension of the then evolving precedents in the early 1930s. However, as we shall see, what arguably might have been a reasonable extension of the statutory interpretation today when the physical presence test effectively has been repealed are two entirely different stories. Starting in at least 1958 and ending in November 1966 with the enactment of the Foreign Investors Tax Act of 1966, the “physical presence test” was abandoned and replaced by situs rules that turns on where the underlying entity is organized, regardless of whether engaged in a U.S. trade or business and where the physical certificates may be held. By 1958, the Treasury Regulations had already been amended to provide that shares in a non-U.S. corporation would be classified as a non-U.S.-situs assets, mirroring the long-standing rule that U.S. corporate shares were always U.S. situs. This, of course, was a retreat from the physical presence test and the holding in Burnett v. Brooks that the non-U.S. shares involved therein were U.S. situs because they were physically maintained in the United States at the time of the decedent’s death. The last remnants of the physical presence test were eliminated by the Foreign Investors Tax Act of 1966, and the Treasury Regulations were amended to provide the new test for “the written evidence of intangible personal property which is treated as being the property itself, such as a bond for the payment of money” no longer would depend on the physical presence of such intangibles. See Treas. Reg. Section 20.2104-1(a)(3).
As a result, since 1966, under U.S. tax law, we have ended up with the physical situs rule providing 1) that real and tangible personal property are situs based on where physically located and 2) that stocks and bonds are situs based on the place of incorporation of their issuer or obligor, with no consideration of where such entities are engaged in trades or businesses or where the physical certificates of such corporate entities are held. Thus, if the catch-all intangible situs told is intended to be simply analogous to the principal entity situs rule that turns on the place of incorporation of the issuer or obligor, then it would be a logical extension of the principal corporate intangible situs rule and one might accept that such a rule’s application to a partnership interest should be that 1) if the partnership is formed in the United States, then its interest will have a U.S. situs, whereas 2) if the partnership is organized outside the United States, its interests are non-U.S. situs. On the other hand, if the continuing reference to a “resident” of the United States is intended to import a “U.S. trade or business test” in the case of partnerships, then it would appear to be a wholly unreasonable interpretation and an arbitrary and capricious adoption of a rule that lacks both statutory and judicial precedents, specially following the effective repeal of any remaining use of the “physical presence test” by the Foreign Investors Tax Act of 1966.
If the current catchall rule of Treasury Regulation Section 20.2104-1(a)(4) is intended to be simply analogous to the principal rule that the situs of corporate stock and bond interest turns on the place of incorporation of the issuer, then the analogous rule would provide that if a partnership is formed in the United States, its equity and debt interests will have a U.S. situs. As a result, it would be most prudent for a partnership to be formed outside the United States if a nonresident wishes to achieve non-U.S. situs treatment for its equity and debt interests. Furthermore, it is generally thought to be prudent to ensure that the foreign partnership is regarded (under local, foreign law) as an entity separate from its partners and that the death of the partner in question does not terminate the partnership. See The U.S. Tax Effects of Choice of Entities For Foreign Investment In U.S. Real Estate And Businesses And The Taxation of Dispositions of U.S. Partnership Interests, Baker & McKenzie, Miami, Robert F. Hudson, Jr. 2015.
The principal authorities most frequently cited for these “foreign entity” issues are Sanchez v. Bowers and GCM 18718, 1937-2 C.B. 467. As noted in Sanchez v. Bowers, after analyzing the Cuban law applicable to the “sociedad de gananciales,” Justice Hand of the Court concluded that it terminated from the sociedad to the extent it was attributable to intangible assets physically located in the United States. As a result, this decision is generally interpreted as standing for the proposition that if a partnership is deemed to terminate upon the death of a partner, a nonresident alien partner will be considered as owning his fractional share of the partnership’s assets, with the result that the normal situs rules will be applied to such underlying assets. In this regards, it is significant to understand that Treasury Regulations 1.708-1(b)(1)(i)(a) provides that “upon the death of one partner in a two-member partnership, the partnership shall be considered as terminated if the estate or other successor in interest of the deceased partner continues to share in the profits or losses of the partnership business.” The corollary to this finding would be that if the sociedad de ganancials had not been terminated, its equity interests would have been a non-U.S. situs asset.
In GCM 18718 (1937), which was declared obsolete by Rev. Rul. 70-59, a French citizen and resident had been a partner in a French civil law partnership (i.e., a “societe en commandite simple”) that was, in turn, a partner in a U.S. partnership engaged in the real estate business in the United States. The IRS determined that the “legal personality of the societe en commandite is as complete contemplation of the law of Franceas that of a corporation organized under French law.” GCM 18718 goes on to hold that the French partnership interest constituted independent personal property and that the decedent was not deemed to own the assets of the U.S. or French partnership. Thus, GCM 18718 rejects the “look-through” approach that had been adopted by a year-earlier GCM that GCM overruled. Moreover, GCM 18718 did not raise the issue of whether the French partnership might be deemed to be engaged in a U.S. trade or business (via its partner in the U.S. partnership that was engaged in a U.S. trade or business) as being relevant to the determination of the French partnership interest situs. Instead, GCM 18718 held that because the partnership interest was in a French entity, it necessarily constituted a non-U.S. situs property interest without the necessity of analyzing whether it was engaged in a U.S. trade or business. Although GCM 18718 was declared obsolete, it is noteworthy that the GCM was not “revoked” per se. Instead, GCM 18718’s being declared obsolete in 1970 would appear consistent with the abolishment of the remaining remnants of the physical presence test by the Foreign Investors Tax Act of 1966, and consist with the fact that the Treasury Regulations also had been amended by that date to drop any such physical presence analysis in favor of the place of incorporation tests of the principal types of intangibles, which is the same principle for which this GCM effectively stood.
The second principal argument for the non-U.S. situs of partnership interests owned by nonresident alien domiciaries is that intangible property has its situs at the domicile of its owner under the maxim “mobilia sequuntur personam,” as was held by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Blodgett v. Siberman, 277 U.S. 1 (1928). In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the basic question of whether the State of Connecticut had the right to impose its state inheritance tax on a Connecticut decedent who had owned an interest in a New York partnership whose assets were principally within, and its business was conducted principally in, the state of New York. In reaching the conclusion that Connecticut did not have authority to tax the Connecticut decedent on his New York partnership interest, the U.S. Supreme Court essentially decided two subsidiary issues. First, it concluded that the common law maxim of “mobilia sequuntur personam” applied, so that “intangible personality has such a situs at the domicile of its owner that its transfer on his death may be taxed there.” Having concluded that Connecticut would have the authority to tax the New York partnership interest if it constituted intangible personality, the Court went to analyze whether the partnership interest was “a choice in action and intangible personality.” After analyzing the applicable New York partnership law and finding that a partner does not have a direct ownership right in the underlying assets of the partnership, but rather the partner has “simply a right to share in what would remain of the partnership assets after its liabilities were satisfied,” the Court concluded “it was merely an interest in the surplus, a chose in action.” The New York partnership interest was, therefore, an intangible personality subject to the mobilia sequuntur personam rule. Thus, Blodgett v. Silberman, can be read as standing for the proposition that a partnership interest is a separate intangible asset, and the location of its assets or the place where the partnership carries on its business is immaterial in determining the situs of the intangible interest.
A second situs theory case was decided in Estate of Paul M. Vandenhoeck, 4 T.C. (1944). In this case, the United States Tax Court stated, in dicta, that “the rule [of mobilia sequuntur personam] merely means that the situs of personal property, for purposes of taxation, is the domicile of the owner unless there is a statute to the contrary. Because there are no explicit Internal Revenue Code provisions dealing with the situs of partnership interest (domestic or foreign), the principle of mobilia sequuntur personam, thus, can be said to control the situs of a partnership interest. As a consequence, a nonresident alien domiciliary would be exempt from U.S. estate tax on partnership interests (formed or domestically or abroad), that constitute intangible personal property simply by virtue of their own nondomiciliary status, because there is no Internal Revenue Code provision that would override the maxim of mobilia sequuntur personam. Moreover, while authorities such Burnet v. Brooks, severely eroded the scope of the doctrine of mobilia sequuntur person when the physical presence test was deemed to be the controlling statutory rule for determining the situs of certain intangibles (notably non-U.S. stocks and bonds), those cases were rendered moot and inapplicable once the last vestiges of the physical presence test were put to rest by the Foreign Investors Tax Act of 1966. Thus, in the absence of what at one time was seen as an overriding statutory authority (the physical presence test), consistent with the unequivocal holding of Blodgett v. Silberman and the more recent dicta of Paul M. Vandenhoeck, the doctrine of mobilia sequuntur personam should be seen as having sprung back into being the controlling legal determinant for the situs of intangibles whose situs is not otherwise explicitly determined by the statute (or regulations consistent with the enunciated statutory principles). Nonetheless, notwithstanding the evident logic and strong legal precedents for this nondomiciliary finding for partnership interests under the doctrine of mobilia sequuntur personam, it would appear that foreign investors maybe well advised to utilize a foreign partnership in order to have access also to the preceding “foreign entity exemption theory,” as well as the maxim or mobilia sequuntur personam.
Ownership of U.S. Property Through a Trust
Finally, a foreign investor may hold U.S. property in an irrevocable trust. The trust can be domestic of foreign. An irrevocable trust is potentially an attractive vehicle for newly acquired residential property. This type of planning will depend on following the foreign grantor trust rules of Internal Revenue Code Sections 671 through 679. Trusts are taxed at rates applicable to individuals and there is a preferential rate of 20 percent now applicable to long term capital gains.Trusts are taxed at rates applicable to individuals, albeit with essentially no progression through the brackets, and are therefore entitled to the preferential rate of 20 percent now applicable to long-term capital gains.Properly structured, a foreign irrevocable trust will avoid the U.S. estate and gift tax. However, as with foreign corporate entities, a tax trap lucks for trust distributions to U.S. beneficiaries.
U.S. beneficiaries may be subject to a special tax on distributions from a foreign trust known as distribution net income or DNI which could reclassify capital gains into ordinary income. In addition, accumulation distributions from a foreign trust could be subject to Section 668(a) interest surcharge at the floating underpayment penalty interest rates (compounded daily) of Section 6621.
Conclusion
Foreign investors generally have the same goals of minimizing their income tax liabilities from their U.S. real estate and business investments, as do their U.S. counterparts, although their objective is complicated by the very fact they are not U.S. persons. Foreign investors have a number of options when investing in the U.S. real estate market. As in many areas of international tax planning, one size does not fit all. A careful analysis must be done by a qualified tax attorney to determine the best estate and gift planning for each individual foreign investor.
Anthony Diosdi is one of several tax attorneys and international tax attorneys at Diosdi Ching & Liu, LLP. As a domestic and international tax attorney, Anthony Diosdi advises both U.S. and international individuals in relation to a broad range of personal taxation and estate planning matters. He has extensive experience of advising on complex cross-border estate planning matters. Anthony Diosdi is a frequent speaker at international tax seminars. Anthony Diosdi is admitted to the California and Florida bars.
provides international tax advice to individuals, closely held entities, and publicly traded corporations. Diosdi Ching & Liu, LLP has offices in San Francisco, California, Pleasanton, California and Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Anthony Diosdi advises clients in international tax matters throughout the United States. Anthony Diosdi may be reached at (415) 318-3990 or by email: adiosdi@sftaxcounsel.com.
This article is not legal or tax advice. If you are in need of legal or tax advice, you should immediately consult a licensed attorney.