§ 1.903-1. Taxes in lieu of income taxes.

¶(i) It is a foreign tax; and

¶(ii) It satisfies the substitution requirement of paragraph (c) of this section.

¶(i) Existence of generally-imposed net income tax. A separate levy that is a net income tax (as described in § 1.901-2(a)(3)) is generally imposed by the same foreign country (the “generally-imposed net income tax”) that imposes the tested foreign tax.

¶(ii) Non-duplication. Neither the generally-imposed net income tax nor any other separate levy that is a net income tax is also imposed, in addition to the tested foreign tax, by the same foreign country on any persons with respect to any portion of the income to which the amounts (such as sales or units of production) that form the base of the tested foreign tax relate (the “excluded income”). Therefore, a tested foreign tax does not meet the requirement of this paragraph (c)(1)(ii) if a net income tax imposed by the same foreign country applies to the excluded income of any persons that are subject to the tested foreign tax, even if not all persons subject to the tested foreign tax are subject to the net income tax.

¶(iii) Close connection to excluded income. But for the existence of the tested foreign tax, the generally-imposed net income tax would otherwise have been imposed on the excluded income. The requirement in the preceding sentence is met only if the imposition of such tested foreign tax bears a close connection to the failure to impose the generally-imposed net income tax on the excluded income; the relationship cannot be merely incidental, tangential, or minor. A close connection must be established with proof that the foreign country made a cognizant and deliberate choice to impose the tested foreign tax instead of the generally-imposed net income tax. Such proof must be based on foreign tax law, or the legislative history of either the tested foreign tax or the generally-imposed net income tax that describes the provisions excluding taxpayers subject to the tested foreign tax from the generally-imposed net income tax. Thus, a close connection exists if the generally-imposed net income tax would apply by its terms to the excluded income, but for the fact that the excluded income is expressly excluded, and the tested foreign tax is enacted contemporaneously with the generally-imposed net income tax. A close connection also exists if the generally-imposed net income tax by its terms does not apply to, but does not expressly exclude, the excluded income, and the tested foreign tax is enacted contemporaneously with the generally-imposed net income tax. Where the tested foreign tax is not enacted contemporaneously with the generally-imposed net income tax and the generally-imposed net income tax is not amended contemporaneously with the enactment of the tested foreign tax to exclude the excluded income or to narrow the scope of the generally-imposed net income tax so as not to apply to the excluded income, a close connection can be established only by reference to the legislative history of the tested foreign tax (or a predecessor in lieu of tax). Not all income derived by persons subject to the tested foreign tax need be excluded income, provided the tested foreign tax applies only to amounts that relate to the excluded income.

¶(iv) Jurisdiction to tax excluded income. If the generally-imposed net income tax, or a hypothetical new tax that is a separate levy with respect to the generally-imposed net income tax, were applied to the excluded income, such generally-imposed net income tax or separate levy would meet the attribution requirement described in § 1.901-2(b)(5).

¶(i) Withholding tax on nonresidents. The tested foreign tax is a withholding tax (as defined in section 901(k)(1)(B)) that is imposed on gross income of persons who are nonresidents of the foreign country imposing the tested foreign tax. It is immaterial whether the tested foreign tax is withheld by the payor or is imposed directly on the nonresident taxpayer.

¶(ii) Non-duplication. The tested foreign tax is not in addition to any net income tax that is imposed by the foreign country on any portion of the net income attributable to the gross income that is subject to the tested foreign tax. Therefore, a tested foreign tax does not meet the requirement of this paragraph (c)(2)(ii) if by its terms it applies to gross income of nonresidents that are also subject to a net income tax imposed by the same foreign country on the same income, even if not all nonresidents subject to the tested foreign tax are also subject to the net income tax.

¶(iii) Source-based attribution requirement. The income subject to the tested foreign tax satisfies the attribution requirement described in § 1.901-2(b)(5)(i)(B).

¶(i) Facts. Country X imposes a tax at the rate of 3 percent on the gross receipts of companies, wherever resident, from furnishing specified types of electronically supplied services to customers located in Country X (the “ESS tax”). No deductions are allowed in determining the taxable base of the ESS tax. In addition to the ESS tax, Country X imposes a net income tax within the meaning of § 1.901-2(a)(3) on resident companies (the “resident income tax”) and also imposes a net income tax within the meaning of § 1.901-2(a)(3) on the income of nonresident companies that is attributable, under reasonable principles, to the nonresident's permanent establishment within Country X (the “nonresident income tax”). Under Country X tax law, a permanent establishment is defined in the same manner as under the 2016 U.S. Model Income Tax Convention. Both the resident income tax and the nonresident income tax, which are separate levies under § 1.901-2(d)(1)(iii), qualify as generally-imposed net income taxes. Under Country X tax law, the ESS tax applies to both resident and nonresident companies regardless of whether the company is also subject to the resident income tax or the nonresident income tax, respectively.

¶(ii) Analysis. Under § 1.901-2(d)(1)(iii), the ESS tax comprises two separate levies, one imposed on resident companies (the “resident ESS tax”), and one imposed on nonresident companies (the “nonresident ESS tax”). Under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, neither the resident ESS tax nor the nonresident ESS tax satisfies the substitution requirement, because by its terms the income to which the gross receipts subject to the ESS tax relate is also subject to one of the two generally-imposed net income taxes imposed by Country X. Similarly, under paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, the nonresident ESS tax is not a covered withholding tax because by its terms it is imposed in addition to the nonresident income tax. The fact that nonresident taxpayers that do not have a permanent establishment in Country X are in practice subject to the nonresident ESS tax but not to the nonresident income tax on the gross receipts included in the base of the nonresident ESS tax is not relevant to the determination of whether the ESS tax meets the substitution requirement under paragraph (c)(1) of this section. Therefore, neither the resident ESS tax nor the nonresident ESS tax is a tax in lieu of an income tax.

¶(i) Facts. The facts are the same as those in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section (the facts in Example 1), except that under Country X tax law, the nonresident ESS tax is imposed only if the nonresident company does not have a permanent establishment in Country X. If the nonresident company has a Country X permanent establishment, the nonresident income tax applies to the profits attributable to that permanent establishment. In addition, the statutory language and legislative history to the nonresident ESS tax demonstrate that Country X made a cognizant and deliberate choice to impose the nonresident ESS tax instead of the nonresident income tax with respect to the gross receipts that are subject to the nonresident ESS tax.

¶(ii) Analysis—

¶(i) Facts. YCo, a resident of Country Y, is a controlled foreign corporation wholly-owned by USP, a domestic corporation. In Year 1, YCo grants a license to XCo, a resident of Country X unrelated to YCo or USP, for the right to use YCo's intangible property (IP) throughout the world, including in Country X. Under Country X's domestic tax law, all royalties paid by a resident of Country X to a nonresident are sourced in Country X and are subject to a 30% withholding tax on the gross income, regardless of whether the nonresident payee has a taxable presence in Country X. Country X's withholding tax on royalties is a separate levy under § 1.901-2(d)(1)(iii). In Year 1, XCo withholds 30u (units of Country X currency) tax from 100u of royalties owed and paid to YCo under the licensing arrangement, of which 50u is attributable to XCo's use of the YCo IP in Country X and 50u is attributable to use of the YCo IP outside Country X. The United States and Country X have an income tax treaty (U.S.-Country X treaty); under the royalties article of the treaty, Country X agreed to impose its withholding tax on royalties paid to a U.S. resident only on royalties paid for IP used in Country X. Country X and Country Y do not have an income tax treaty.

¶(ii) Analysis. Under § 1.901-2(d)(1)(iv), the Country X withholding tax on royalties, as modified by the U.S.-Country X treaty, is a separate levy from the unmodified Country X withholding tax to which YCo was subject (because YCo is not a U.S. resident eligible for benefits under the U.S.-Country X treaty). The Country X withholding tax on royalties, unmodified by the U.S.-Country X treaty, does not meet the attribution requirement in § 1.901-2(b)(5)(i)(B) because Country X's source rule for royalties (based upon residence of the payor) is not reasonably similar to the sourcing rules that apply under the Internal Revenue Code. Thus, under paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section, the Country X withholding tax paid by YCo is not a covered withholding tax, and none of the 30u of Country X withholding tax paid by YCo with respect to the 100u of royalties for the use of the IP is a payment of foreign income tax.

¶(i) Facts. The facts are the same as in paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section (the facts of Example 3), except that XCo only uses the IP in Country X and the 100u of royalties paid to YCo in Year 1 is all attributable to XCo's use of the IP in Country X.

¶(ii) Analysis. The result is the same as in paragraph (d)(3) of this section (the analysis of Example 3). Because Country X's source rule for royalties (based upon residence of the payor) is not reasonably similar to the sourcing rules that apply under the Internal Revenue Code, the withholding tax paid by YCo does not meet the attribution requirement in § 1.901-2(b)(5)(i)(B). Under paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section, the Country X withholding tax paid by YCo is not a covered withholding tax, and none of the 30u of Country X withholding tax paid by YCo with respect to the 100u of royalties for IP used in Country X is a payment of foreign income tax.

¶(i) Facts. Country X imposes a net income tax within the meaning of § 1.901-2(a)(3) on the income of nonresident companies that is attributable, under reasonable principles, to the nonresident's activities within Country X (the “trade or business tax”). The trade or business tax applies to all nonresident corporations that engage in business in Country X except for nonresident corporations that engage in insurance activities, which are instead subject to two different taxes (“insurance taxes”). The insurance taxes apply to nonresident corporations that engage in insurance activities that are attributable, under reasonable principles, to the nonresident's activities within Country X. The insurance taxes do not satisfy the cost recovery requirement in § 1.901-2(b)(4). The trade or business tax and the two insurance taxes were enacted contemporaneously, and the statutory language of the trade or business tax expressly excludes gross income derived by nonresident corporations engaged in insurance activities from the trade or business tax.

¶(ii) Analysis. The insurance taxes meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section because Country X has a generally-imposed net income tax, the trade or business tax, and neither the trade or business tax nor any other separate levy that is a net income tax is imposed by Country X on a nonresident's gross income to which the amounts that form the base of the insurance taxes (the “excluded income”) relate. The Country X tax law expressly provides that the trade or business tax does not apply to nonresident corporations engaged in insurance activities. In addition, the two insurance taxes were enacted contemporaneously with the trade or business tax. Therefore, it is demonstrated that Country X made a cognizant and deliberate choice to impose the insurance taxes in lieu of the generally-imposed trade or business tax, and the insurance taxes meet the requirement in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section. If the trade or business tax also applied to the excluded income, the trade or business tax would meet the requirement in § 1.901-2(b)(5)(i)(A), because it would apply only to income attributable, under reasonable principles, to the nonresident's activities within the foreign country. Thus, the insurance taxes meet the requirement in paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section. Therefore, the insurance taxes satisfy the substitution requirement in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

¶(i) Facts. The facts are the same as those in paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section (the facts in Example 5), except that one of the two insurance taxes applies only to nonresident corporations engaged in the life insurance business in Country X and was enacted five years after the enactment of the trade or business tax and the other insurance tax enacted contemporaneously with the trade or business tax. The legislative history to the later-enacted insurance tax shows that Country X intended to increase the tax imposed on nonresident corporations engaged in life insurance activities and, instead of amending the first insurance tax to increase the rate applicable to life insurance companies, it enacted the second insurance tax that only applies to life insurance corporations.

¶(ii) Analysis. The later-enacted insurance tax meets the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section because Country X has a generally-imposed net income tax, the trade or business tax, and neither the trade or business tax nor any other separate levy that is a net income tax is imposed by Country X on the income attributable to the activities that form the base of the later-enacted insurance tax. The later-enacted insurance tax meets the requirement in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section because the legislative history to the later-enacted insurance tax demonstrates that Country X made a cognizant and deliberate choice to impose the later-enacted insurance tax on life insurance companies instead of the trade or business tax. The later-enacted insurance tax also meets the requirement of paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section for the reasons set forth in paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of this section. Therefore, the later-enacted insurance tax satisfies the substitution requirement in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

¶(i) Facts. Country X imposes an excise tax that does not satisfy the cost recovery requirement in § 1.901-2(b)(4), and a net income tax within the meaning of § 1.901-2(a)(3). The excise tax, which is payable independently of the net income tax, is allowed as a credit against the net income tax. In Year 1, A has a tentative net income tax liability of 100u (units of Country X currency) but is allowed a credit for 30u of excise tax that it paid that year.

¶(ii) Analysis. Pursuant to § 1.901-2(e)(4), the amount of excise tax A has paid to Country X is 30u and the amount of net income tax A has paid to Country X is 70u. The excise tax paid by A does not satisfy the substitution requirement set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of this section because the excise tax is imposed in addition to, and not in substitution for, the generally-imposed net income tax.