Source: http://newjerseybusinesslawyersblog.com/category/international-business.html
Timestamp: 2018-01-22 00:40:23
Document Index: 649497717

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1202', '§ 560', '§ 560', '§ 3101', '§ 801', '§ 801', '§ 3104', '§ 3105']

International Business Category Archives - New York & New Jersey Business Lawyer Blog Published by New Jersey Business Attorneys — Samuel C Berger, PC
Articles Posted in International Business
Businesses in New Jersey and New York that import goods from overseas need to be aware of their obligations and potential liabilities under U.S. customs laws. Any individual or business that imports goods into the U.S. is responsible for paying tariffs, if any, on the goods. Various types of goods may also be subject to import restrictions or even bans. The federal government recently announced a settlement in a civil forfeiture action against a major retail company for allegedly importing cultural artifacts in violation of federal laws. United States v. Approx. 450 Ancient Cuneiform Tablets, et al., No. 1:17-cv-03980, complaint (E.D.N.Y., Jul. 5, 2017). While this is a rather extreme example, it demonstrates the complex web of laws affecting imports.
Tariffs on goods imported into the U.S., also known as customs duties, are established by the Harmonized Tariff Schedule for the U.S. (HTSUS). 19 U.S.C. § 1202. This voluminous document covers a wide range of items. To offer one example, Chapter 9 of the 2017 edition of the HTSUS covers “coffee, tea, maté and spices.” Most types of un-roasted coffee beans are not subject to tariffs, while “coffee substitutes containing coffee” are subject to a tariff of 1.5 cents per kilogram. Some tariff amounts are expressed as a percentage of the value of the goods. Imported thyme, for example, is subject to a 4.8 percent tariff.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) identifies various “prohibited and restricted” items, which may be restricted for violations of domestic laws, violations of treaty obligations, or public health or safety regulations. The alcoholic drink absinthe, for example, is restricted because of federal regulations. Drums made from animal hides in Haiti, according to the CDC, are restricted because of a possible link to anthrax cases. In the Cuneiform case mentioned above, federal laws and international treaties addressing cultural artifacts play a major role.
Updated: August 14, 2017 7:58 pm
Federal Regulations Restrict, or Prohibit, Business Transactions with Countries Subject to U.S. Sanctions
Doing business across international borders involves a careful review of numerous potential legal hurdles. In a few cases, doing business with a particular country may be restricted, or even outright prohibited, under U.S. foreign policy. New York and New Jersey businesses considering international opportunities should carefully assess whether any federal regulations will affect their plans. Even small businesses can find themselves in violation of international trade restrictions if they are not careful. The U.S. Department of the Treasury, through its Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), enforces various restrictions associated with U.S. sanctions. Last summer, it found a U.S. company with overseas subsidiaries in violation of trade sanctions against Iran. It later issued a document clarifying the rule, known as “General License H,” permitting U.S. companies to do business with that country.
The relationship between the U.S. and Iran has been strained since 1979, shortly after a revolution overthrew Iran’s U.S.-backed leader. A group of Iranians seized control of the U.S. Embassy in the capital, Tehran, and held a group of Americans hostage inside for 444 days. President Jimmy Carter issued the first set of sanctions against Iran, Executive Order 12170, on November 14, 1979, freezing billions of dollars of Iranian assets. The U.S., the United Nations, and other countries have imposed additional sanctions against Iran since then. These include a wide variety of restrictions on trade. The greater New York City area is home to a large number of Iranian immigrants and people of Iranian descent, so these regulations could have a particularly significant impact on this region.
The current sanctions regime is largely based on the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996. OFAC regulations prohibit the importation of various goods and services from Iran, investment in Iranian businesses, and other transactions. 31 C.F.R. § 560.101 et seq. While U.S. businesses remain subject to a total ban on transactions with Iran, see 31 C.F.R. §§ 560.204, 560.206, General License H allows foreign companies owned or controlled by a U.S. business to engage in limited transactions with the country. Exactly how they can do that remains unclear, but the license states that they may establish “operating policies and procedures” for transacting business with Iran, and they may set up “globally integrated…business support system[s]” for the purpose of such activities.
Updated: March 1, 2016 7:21 pm
European Commission Rules against American Company in Dispute over Offshore Taxes
The taxation of American businesses operating overseas is a controversial topic. The officers of a corporation, or the managers of a limited liability company (LLC), have a fiduciary duty to the owners of the business to maximize profits. With small businesses, the managers and owners are often the same people, but the duty remains. Minimizing a company’s tax burden is one way to do this. Some companies have developed a variety of schemes for keeping money offshore to avoid U.S. taxes. To the extent that these schemes do not violate U.S. tax laws, it is often because of loopholes in existing laws. A recent ruling from the European Commission (EC), the executive body of the European Union (EU), could have a significant impact on how American companies do business—and pay taxes—overseas.
According to some estimates, large U.S. corporations are holding over $2.1 trillion in profits in other countries, allegedly to avoid paying roughly $620 billion in income tax in the U.S. Unlike most countries, the U.S. requires both its citizens and its businesses to pay federal income tax on income derived outside U.S. territory. Why does the U.S. do this? One possible answer, albeit a rather cynical one, is that the U.S. projects its power and influence around the world, and both citizens living overseas and businesses operating abroad expect the protection of the U.S. government—and occasionally its armed forces—should they need it.
The EC is responsible for monitoring the compliance of EU member nations with EU laws and treaties. In the summer of 2014, the EC announced investigations into three companies either based in or closely tied to the United States, and their business practices in three European countries: Apple in Ireland, Starbucks in the Netherlands, and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles in Luxembourg. In October 2014, it also announced an investigation of Luxembourg’s tax treatment of Amazon. The investigations are targeted more towards the countries than the companies, but the EC’s rulings will substantially affect the companies. The EC announced rulings in the investigations of Starbucks and Fiat in October 2015.
Posted in: International Business and Tax Issues
Updated: November 3, 2015 1:47 pm
A little-known federal agency within the Department of Commerce, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), revived a reporting requirement last year for U.S. companies receiving foreign investments. It also expanded the reporting requirements for U.S. companies that directly invest in foreign businesses. Prior to the recent amendments to these rules, the reporting requirements only applied to companies directly contacted by the BEA. Now they apply to any U.S. company that meets the benchmarks for reporting.
The International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act authorizes the Executive Branch “to collect information on international investment and United States foreign trade.” 22 U.S.C. § 3101(b). The BEA is charged with carrying out this purpose. It revived Form BE-13, the “Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States,” in a final rule published in August 2014, after having discontinued the survey in 2009. 79 Fed. Reg. 47573, 15 C.F.R. § 801.7. Another final rule, published in November 2014, changed the requirements for Form BE-10/11, the “Benchmark Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad.” 79 Fed. Reg. 69041, 15 C.F.R. § 801.8.
Information provided in the surveys may only be used “for analytical or statistical purposes” by the federal government, to enforce reporting requirements, and for “augmenting and improving the quality of data collected by the Bureau of the Census.” 22 U.S.C. §§ 3104(c), (d). Failure to file reports as required can result in civil penalties of $2,500 to $25,000, as well as criminal penalties of up to one year’s imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000. 22 U.S.C. § 3105.
Posted in: International Business and Mergers and Acquisitions
Updated: March 5, 2015 12:16 pm