U.S. Tax Treatment of Indian Employee Provident Fund Accounts

by John Anthony Castro, J.D., LL.M.

undefined


About the Author

John Anthony Castro, J.D., LL.M., is the Managing Partner of Castro & Co., the author of International Taxation in Plain English as well as International Estate Planning in Plain English, an esteemed graduate of Georgetown University Law Center in Washington DC where he earned a Master of Laws in Taxation, an OPM Fellow at Harvard Business School, and an internationally recognized tax attorney with offices in New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago, Dallas, and Washington DC. Mr. Castro has been covered in Forbes, Tax Analysts, Entrepreneur, International Business Times, Nevada Law Journal, Sydney Morning Herald, and the SMSF Adviser. This International Tax Online Law Journal has been recognized by NYU Law Library as a reputable and authoritative legal source.


Executive Summary

Income within and distributions from a Indian Employee Provident Fund Account in the Republic of India are exempt from U.S. tax pursuant to the U.S.-Republic of India Income Tax Treaty if and only if the benefits of the treaty are properly claimed and reported on your U.S. federal income tax return. Contact our firm today to schedule a free consultation by clicking here to submit your information online and be contacted by our firm.

Treaties and Federal Laws

The Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) states that “neither the treaty nor the law shall have preferential status by reason of its being a treaty or law.”[1] As the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has explained, Congress intended to codify the so-called “later-in-time” principle when it enacted Code section 7852(d)(1), which focuses on timing to find which controls regardless of whether there is a conflict.[2] Thus, it’s not the character that controls; it’s the timing.

The D.C. Circuit’s position of an Absolute “Later-in-Time” Rule even in the absence of a conflict or express intent to supersede has led some to believe that it is inconsistent with international law, which generally requires a conflict or clear intent to supersede a treaty.[3] However, although international law generally requires a conflict or intent to supersede, these commentators fail to comprehend another principle of international law: a treaty cannot supersede a nation’s constitution.[4] Pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal laws passed by Congress and treaties ratified by the Senate have equal weight and authority.[5]

In other words, if one views a treaty just like any other law passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, it becomes clear that a future law will only supersede a prior law to the extent that it is more specific than the previous or cannot be reconciled with the prior law.

The Indian Social Security System

The U.S. Social Security Administration’s 2010 publication titled “Social Security Programs Throughout the World” analyzes the Republic of India’s overall comprehensive social security system.

The Republic of India’s current social security system is based on Act No. 19 of 1952 implementing the Employees' Provident Funds the Payment of Gratuity Act No. 39 of 1972), the Employees' Deposit-Linked Insurance Scheme G.S.R. 488(E) of 1976, Employees' Pension Scheme G.S.R. 748(E) of 1995, the National Social Assistance program OF 1995, the Unorganized Workers' Social Security Act, No. 33 of 2008, and the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Act, No 23 of 2013. These laws are all similar to compulsory contributions under the U.S. Federal Insurance Contributions Act.[6]

The four programs are the Social Insurance, Provident Fund, Employer-Liability, and Social Assistance system. The Social Insurance (old age, disability, and survivor pensions) program covers employed persons who became provident fund members on or after November 16, 1995. Voluntary coverage is available; however, self-employed persons, agricultural workers, and members of cooperatives with fewer than 50 workers are excluded. There is a special system for certain public-sector employees.

The Provident Fund covers employed persons, including those engaged in casual, part-time, daily wage, and contract work, with monthly wages of up to 15,000 rupees working in firms with at least 20 workers in one of 186 categories of covered industries (the firm remains covered even if the number of employees falls below 20), and employees of other types of businesses specified by law, including cooperatives with more than 50 employees. There is voluntary coverage for employees of covered firms with monthly wages above 15,000 rupees, with the employer's agreement, and for employees of firms with fewer than 20 workers if the employer and a majority of employees agree to contribute. Employed persons covered by equivalent private occupational plans may opt out. However, self-employed persons, agricultural workers, and members of cooperatives with fewer than 50 workers are excluded.

The Employer-Liability covers employees of factories, mines, oil fields, plantations, ports, railways, and businesses with at least 10 workers; however, self-employed persons, agricultural workers, and members of cooperatives with fewer than 50 workers are excluded. Also, there is no coverage in the states of Jammu and Kashmir. There is a special system for coal miners, railway employees, and public-sector employees.

The Social Assistance system covers elderly and low-income households. There is a special system for informal-sector programs, certain artisans, and the rural landless.

Employers who hire low-income workers without previous membership in the Provident Fund program can participate in the Pradhan Mantri Rojgar Protsahan Yojana (PMRPY) program. Under this program, the government subsidizes employer contributions to the social insurance and provident fund programs for each eligible worker for up to three years. A funeral grant is paid under Sickness and Maternity.

Indian Employee Provident Fund Accounts can most aptly be characterized as a government-managed retirement savings scheme where funds are held and managed by the government with the primary purpose of providing for income at retirement, and it is specifically recognized as social security by the U.S. Social Security Administration.[7] Furthermore, the International Social Security Association, of which the Republic of India and the United States are members, also recognizes Indian Employee Provident Fund Accounts as forming part of India’s overall comprehensive social security system.[8]

Therefore, based on the foregoing substantial and compelling authorities, it is indisputable that Indian Employee Provident Fund Accounts are social security accounts forming a part of India’s overall comprehensive social security system.

International Treaty Law and Social Security

If both the U.S. and a treaty partner were members of the Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development (“OECD”) when a treaty was drafted, U.S. courts are legally bound to mandatorily refer to OECD commentary, which is published every four years, to interpret terms in that income tax treaty.[9] The United States joined the OECD in 1961 while the India never joined. The U.S.-Republic of India Income Tax Treaty was signed in 1989 and went into effect in 1990. Therefore, U.S. courts are not legally bound to defer to the OECD with regard to interpreting treaty terms, but it will weigh heavily on a U.S. federal court’s legal analysis since it promotes international consistency.

According to the OECD, the term “social security” generally “refers to a system of mandatory protection that a State puts in place in order to provide its population with… retirement benefits.”[10] However, the OECD Model Income Tax Treaty does not specifically cover social security; it merely suggests that “payments under a social security system… could fall under Article 18, 19 or 21,” which reference pensions from government service, private sector service, or other income, respectively.[11] On the other hand, the U.S.-Republic of India Income Tax, unlike the OECD Model Income Tax Treaty, does specifically have a provision addressing taxing rights with regard to social security. Nevertheless, the OECD commentary broadly interprets “payments under a social security system” to include payments under a “worker’s compensation fund,” which is not considered “social security” in the United States, which is proof that the United States’ definition of “social security” is not the controlling factor.

Therefore, the OECD takes a very broad and inclusive approach as to what constitutes “social security” under international treaty law, which the U.S. is legally bound to recognize.

U.S. Tax Treatment of Social Security Payments

Under domestic U.S. tax law, with regard to informational reporting requirements for contributions to a nonqualified deferred compensation plan, Congress specifically exempted contributions to a foreign social security account.[12] This clearly evidences Congressional intent to disregard contributions to foreign social security for U.S. informational reporting purposes on IRS Form 3520 and 3520-A.[13] Moreover, the IRS has specifically stated that, under domestic U.S. tax law, “foreign social security benefits… are taxable as annuities.”[14] Gains within annuities are tax-deferred until the contract annuitizes and payments begin or when the owner cashes out the annuity and takes a lump sum.[15]

Although some practitioners have asserted that Indian Employee Provident Fund Accounts are reportable as foreign grantor trusts on IRS Forms 3520 and 3520-A, doing so would subject the gains within the fund to immediate U.S. taxation, which is contrary to IRS guidance.[16] However, because gains will still be subject to U.S. taxation at maturity of the Indian Employee Provident Fund Accounts based on disability or retirement, one must still consider the application of the U.S.-Republic of India Income Tax Treaty and the outcome thereunder.[17]

Under Article 20, Paragraph 2, of the U.S.-Republic of India Income Tax Treaty, “social security payments and other public pensions paid by one of the Contracting States to an individual who is a resident of the other Contracting State or a citizen of the United States shall be taxable only in the first-mentioned State.” In other words, the country of source has exclusive taxing rights to social security income. With regard to an Indian Employee Provident Fund Account, India would have exclusive taxing rights to the income.

The Saving Clausefor U.S. Citizens and U.S.Tax Residents

With regard to treaty claims by U.S. citizens and U.S. tax residents, however, one must consider the application of the Saving Clause, which allows the United States to “tax its residents… [and] citizens as if this Convention had not entered into force.”[18] Put plainly, the U.S. may disregard most treaty claims made by U.S. citizens and U.S. tax residents. It should be noted that the Saving Clause is merely a reserved right and does not automatically apply to prevent claims by U.S. citizens and U.S. tax residents.[19] The Saving Clause, however, has a few specifically enumerated exceptions; one of which is claims by made U.S. citizens and U.S. tax residents pursuant to Article 20, Paragraph 2, which covers social security gains and reserves exclusive taxing rights to the country of source.[20] Therefore, the Saving Clause is inapplicable to claims by U.S. citizens and U.S. tax residents with regard to gains, distributions, or any other income associated with an Indian Employee Provident Fund Account. Even the plain language of Article 20, Paragraph 2, unmistakably allows U.S. citizens to make claims under that provision.[21]

Proper Reporting Method for U.S. Tax Purposes

Code section 6114 requires any person relying on a tax treaty to disclose such position on his or her federal income tax return unless an exception applies.[22] IRS Form 8833 is used to make a disclosure regarding a treaty-based return position.[23] A separate form is required for each treaty-based return position taken by the taxpayer. If the treaty position results in no taxation whatsoever, then IRS Form 8833 must be filed along with a federal income tax return that only includes the taxpayer’s name, address, taxpayer identification number, and signature under the penalty of perjury. This effectively creates a de facto treaty election procedure.

If a taxpayer “fails in a material way to disclose one or more” treaty-based return positions, then a penalty is imposed on each separate payment of income or article of income even if “received from the same” payor.[24] For individuals, there is a $1,000 penalty for each non-disclosure.[25]

Furthermore, payments or the rights to receive social security benefits, the foreign equivalent of social security, or another similar program of a foreign government are not specified foreign financial assets subject to reporting on IRS Form 8938 or FinCEN Form 114.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Indian Employee Provident Fund Accounts are covered under Paragraph 2 of Article 20 as privatized individual social security accounts that are exclusively taxable in the country of source, India. As such, it is properly excludible from their U.S. tax return with proper disclosure on IRS Form 8833.

undefined

Contact Our Firm

Contact our firm today to schedule a free consultation by clicking here to submit your information online and be contacted by our firm.


Legal Disclosure

This article is not legal advice. It is improper to rely on this article as legal advice. In the U.S. tax system, generally, only a paid consultation or formal written tax opinion can be used as an affirmative defense to penalties. Free consultations may not be relied upon as legal advice for the purpose of avoiding penalties. The objective of a free consultation is to determine the client’s issue, fact pattern, and whether the firm can provide a legally viable solution with a minimum of Substantial Authority to support it.


Confidence Level Disclosure

For over 3600 years, the scientific method has been used by innovative individuals as an empirical method of acquiring knowledge. In the world of tax law, it is no different. In some cases, we offer free consultations to identify the issue, form a hypothesis, conduct legal research to work toward developing a possible solution, publish our research, apply the legal theory to a client’s real-world situation, analyze the administrative response from the IRS, and then decide whether to litigate, redefine, or withdraw the position.

If the IRS points out something we had previously not considered and the legal position cannot be redefined to cure the issue, then we would withdraw the position and issue a notice to any clients to whom it applied. If, however, the position can be cured by redefining the position, then we will do so assuming the clients’ facts support the redefinition. This would, of course, entail contacting the client to seek clarification. If, however, we do not agree with the IRS response, then we will pursue litigation to seek judicial clarification in our favor.

The Scientific Method helps our tax system mature, develop, and improve by asking new questions and developing new interpretations of our tax code, answering previously unanswered questions, testing these legal theories in the federal judiciary, and eliminating ambiguity through judicial clarification. Judicial clarification even helps eliminate the need of tax attorneys who financially benefit from legal ambiguity. Our fair and balanced tax system is one that is clear and concise with zero ambiguity. This can only be achieved through judicial clarification.

In the U.S. legal system, legal interpretations can be quantified based on the amount of legal support for it. While a portion of this quantification is subjective based on the reviewer’s legal interpretative philosophy, it is indisputable that a quantified range that encompasses all interpretative philosophies can be established. The importance of the level of legal authority is that it determines when penalties will and will not apply as well as when disclosure is and is not required to avoid said penalties. The range of levels of legal confidences are, from weakest to strongest, Reasonable Basis, Substantial Authority, More Likely Than Not, Should, and Will. In actual practice, a “Will” level opinion is never sought out by taxpayers since that would simply be a reiteration of basic textbook principles of the tax code. Likewise, a “Reasonable Basis” level opinion is rarely issued since, absent a compelling political or social purpose, it is highly unlikely to prevail in court. If, however, the topic of the “Reasonable Basis” opinion implicates a compelling political or social issue, such as the deduction for child care expenses, then our confidence in our ability to sway the federal judiciary increases, and we are, therefore, much more confident in asserting said legal position before the federal judiciary. This leaves only three confidence levels: Substantial Authority, More Likely Than Not, and Should. These are the three confidence levels within which our firm primarily operates.

A “Substantial Authority” opinion means that, if contested by the Service, the position advanced has a 35 percent to 49 percent chance of succeeding on the merits. A “More Likely Than Not” opinion means that, if contested by the Service, the position advanced has a greater than 50 percent chance of succeeding on the merits. A “Should” opinion, which is the threshold of opinion expressed in this letter, generally means that, if contested by the Service, the position advanced has a chance greater than 70 percent of success on the merits. It is important to note that these quantifications themselves are hotly contested, which implicates “void of vagueness” concerns.

The confidence level of the legal interpretation expressed in this article is: Should.


Bluebook Citation

Bluebook Citation: John Anthony Castro, U.S. Tax Treatment of Indian Employee Provident Fund Accounts, Castro Int’l Tax Blog (Dec. 6, 2019) url.


Legal Citations

[1] See IRC § 7852(d).

[2] See Kappus v. C.I.R., 337 F.3d 1053, 1057 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (citing S. Rep. No. 100-445, at 316-28 (1988).

[3] See Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190 (1888); The Chinese Exclusion Cases, 130 U.S. 581 (1889); The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. 616 (1871); Diggs v. Schultz, 470 F.2d 461 (D.C. Cir. 1972); also see Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, § 115(1)(a) (“An act of Congress supersedes an earlier… international agreement as law of the United States if the purpose of the act to supersede the [treaty] is clear or… cannot be fairly reconciled [due to a conflict].”).

[4] See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, § 115(3).

[5] See Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199 (1796) (because a treaty is the equivalent of a law passed by Congress, a state law conflicting with the treaty was nullified by the U.S. Supreme Court). Although treaty protocols relate-back to the original adoption of the treaty, regulations do not relate-back to the original adoption of the statute, so it’s not possible for treasury to promulgate regulations inconsistent with treaty obligations.

[6] See IRC §§ 3101, 3111.

[7] See Social Programs Throughout the World, U.S. Social Security Administration’s Office of Retirement and Disability Policy; also see Individual Accounts in Other Countries, U.S. Social Security Administration’s Office of Policy, http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v66n1/v66n1p31.html (Sep. 1, 2015).

[8] See Social Security Country Profiles, International Social Security Association, https://www.issa.int/countrydetails?countryId=IN&regionId=ASI.

[9] See Podd v. C.I.R., 76 T.C.M. 906 (1998) (citing U.S. v. A.L. Burbank & Co., 525 F.2d 9, 15 (2d Cir. 1975); North W. Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. C.I.R., 107 T.C. 363 (1996); Taisei Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. C.I.R., 104 T.C. 535, 546 (1995) (construing the Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income, Mar. 8, 1971, U.S.-Japan, 23 U.S.T. 969, with reference to the Model Treaty and its commentary)).

[10] See 2014 OECD Commentary, Art. 18, ¶ 28.

[11] See 2014 OECD Commentary, Art. 15, ¶ 2.14.

[12] See Treas. Reg. § 1.409A-1(a)(3)(iv).

[13] See Dominion Res., Inc. v. U.S., 681 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Treasury cannot interfere with the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress).

[14] See IRS Publication 17, Page 84; also see The International Tax Gap Series, “Most income tax treaties have special rules for social security payments. In many cases, foreign social security payments are taxable by the country making the payments. Unless specified otherwise in an income tax treaty, foreign social security pensions are generally taxed as if they were foreign pensions or foreign annuities. Unless a tax treaty allows it (see, e.g., the USA-Canada treaty), they are not eligible for exclusion from taxable income the way a U.S. social security pension might be.” https://www.irs.gov/businesses/the-taxation-of-foreign-pension-and-annuity-distributions

[15] See IRC § 72.

[16] If Indian Employee Provident Fund Accounts were foreign pension plans, they would certainly be subject to reporting on IRS Forms 3520 and 3520-A. However, being social security, they are not subject to reporting since they constitute foreign social security, which is taxable in the same manner as an annuity in accordance with IRS Publication 17.

[17] Even the IRS issued a revenue ruling indicating that due regard must be given to an applicable income tax treaty to determine whether foreign social security is exempt from U.S. tax. See Rev. Rul. 66-34. Therefore, any assertion that the U.S. would not acknowledge a foreign social security system contradicts the fact that it’s addressed in more than 60 bilateral income tax treaties and specifically required in accordance with the aforementioned revenue ruling as well as Treasury regulations. See Treas. Reg. § 1.894-1 (“Income of any kind is not included in gross income and is exempt from tax... to the extent required by any income tax convention to which the United States is a party.”).

[18] See U.S.-Republic of India Income Tax Treaty, Art. 1, ¶ 3.

[19] See Technical Explanation of the U.S.-Republic of India Income Tax, Art. 1, ¶ 3.

[20] See U.S.-Republic of India Income Tax Treaty, Art. 1, ¶ 4(a).

[21] “Social security payments and other public pensions paid by one of the Contracting States to an individual who is a resident of the other Contracting State or a citizen of the United States shall be taxable only in the first-mentioned State.” U.S.-Republic of India Income Tax Treaty, Art. 20, ¶ 2.

[22] See IRC § 6114.

[23] See Treas. Reg. § 301.7701(b)-7.

[24] See Treas. Reg. § 301.6712-1(a).

[25] See Treas. Reg. § 301.6114-1(a)(1)(ii).

Categories