TAX CONTROVERSY 360
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott Will & Schulte’s real-time tax disputes insights
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott Will & Schulte’s real-time tax disputes insights
IRS Guidance
Subscribe to IRS Guidance's Posts

Debt-Equity Regulations – A Year in Review

by | Dec 29, 2016 | ,

Section 385(a) provides that Treasury is authorized to issue regulations to determine whether an interest in a corporation is to be treated for purposes of the Code as stock or indebtedness. On April 4, 2016, Treasury and the Service issued proposed regulations (Proposed Regulations, found here) under section 385 that treat certain purported debt between related entities as stock for US federal income tax purposes. Treasury stated specifically that the regulations under section 385 had been issued to “address the issue of earnings stripping” in three ways – (1) “[t]argeting transactions that increase related-party debt that does not finance new investment in the United States”; (2) “[a]llowing the IRS on audit to divide a purported debt instrument into part debt and part stock”; and (3) “[r]equiring documentation for members of large groups to include key information for debt-equity tax analysis[.]”

Once the Proposed Regulations were issued, practitioners and industry groups of affected companies (among others) questioned whether the Proposed Regulations were narrowly tailored to serve these stated purposes, and observed that the Proposed Regulations represented a significant departure from past practice. The Proposed Regulations received widespread attention, and practitioner groups and others submitted numerous detailed formal comments before the regulations were finalized. Among the most important critiques, practitioners criticized the Proposed Regulations for their potential overbreadth in their application to foreign-to-foreign transactions, for their lack of a de minimis exception for smaller companies, and for the anticipated burden of the contemporaneous documentation requirements.

Treasury and the Service released final and temporary section 385 regulations (Final 385 Regulations, available here), which are effective as of October 21, 2016, the date of publication in the Federal Register. The Final 385 Regulations provide several exceptions not contained in the Proposed Regulations, including that the Final 385 Regulations apply only to debt instruments issued by a covered member, which is defined as a domestic corporation, to members of its expanded group. The Final 385 Regulations were accompanied by an unusually lengthy Preamble which purports to address major comments received during the notice-and-comment process.

Like the Proposed Regulations, the Final 385 Regulations contain the documentation rules that require specific substantiation in order to treat related-party instruments as debt. These rules are not effective for debt instruments issued prior to January 1, 2018. The Final 385 Regulations contain several modifications to the documentation rules. For example, the Proposed Regulations automatically recharacterized a purported debt instrument as equity in the event of a documentation failure. Under the Final 385 Regulations, if an expanded group is otherwise highly compliant with the documentation rules, then the Final 385 Regulations apply a rebuttable presumption with respect to a purported debt instrument under which a taxpayer can rebut an equity presumption by satisfying specific enumerated tests.

The Final 385 Regulations contain the recast rules issued in Prop. Treas. Reg. §1.385-3, but with significant modifications. In general terms, the Final 385 Regulations reduce the debt issuance to the extent the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Ready or Not, Here They Come! The New Partnership Audit Rules

by , and | Dec 27, 2016 | , ,

On November 2, 2015, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, (the Act), H.R. 1314, 114 Congress/Public Law No. 114-74, made significant changes to the rules governing US federal income tax audits of partnerships (New Audit Rules). The New Audit Rules are codified at Internal Revenue Code Sections 6221 through 6241. On August 4, 2016, the IRS released temporary and proposed regulations relating to certain aspects of the New Audit Rules. And, on December 6, 2016, technical corrections to the New Audit Rules (Technical Corrections) were introduced in both the House of Representatives, H.R. 6439, and in the Senate, S. 3506.

(more…)



read more

IRS Finalizes Section 367 Regulations

by | Dec 16, 2016 | ,

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has finalized regulations that tax transfers of certain property, including goodwill and going concern value, to foreign corporations in nonrecognition transactions described in Internal Revenue Code Section 367.  The final regulations replace proposed regulations published on September 16, 2015 and temporary regulations published in 1986.

We previously discussed the 2015 proposed regulations and why they were viewed as controversial when issued given the elimination of favorable tax treatment for transfers of foreign goodwill and going concern value to foreign corporations. The final regulations followed the proposed regulations on this point, which may lead to future litigation over the validity of the final regulations. Taxpayers should carefully review these final regulations and be aware of potential arguments that may exist for challenging the positions taken by the IRS.



read more

Proposed Regulations Address Applicable Adjustments to Stock and Stock Rights under Code Section 305(c)

by | Dec 8, 2016 | ,

In an apparent response to coordination questions raised by comments to proposed regulations under Code Section 871(m) (relating to certain cross-border dividend equivalent payments), the US Department of the Treasury issued proposed regulations on April 12, 2016, (the Proposed Regulations) addressing deemed distributions of stock and stock rights under Code Section 305(c). Among other stated goals, the Proposed Regulations attempt to “resolve ambiguities concerning the amount and timing of deemed distributions that are or result from adjustments to rights to acquire stock.” The Proposed Regulations also provide guidance to withholding agents regarding the current withholding and information reporting obligations under chapters three and four with respect to such deemed distributions.

In the latest issue of the Journal of Taxation of Financial Products, we have published an article outlining the Proposed Regulations, describing the types of transactions, including adjustment events, giving rise to deemed distributions with respect to stock rights, as well as describing the amount and timing thereof. A companion article in this issue of the Journal addresses the related withholding and information reporting considerations.

As discussed in the article, the Proposed Regulations, while not answering all pertinent questions, attempt to provide clarity on the question of whether certain adjustments with respect to stock rights result in deemed distributions for purposes of Code Sections 305(b) and 301. It will be interesting to see whether the regulations are finalized in their current form or will be subject to extensive comments and potentially re-proposed. It is worth noting that a number of comments to the Proposed Regulations have already been submitted, largely seeking clarifications on certain aspects of the Proposed Regulations. However, some of the comments submitted to date suggest that the regulations are inappropriate and should not be adopted, based largely on the notion that the adjustments at issue do not result in an accretion to wealth in many instances, and thus should not result in taxable income. A critical question regarding the timing and content of final regulations may ultimately depend on the views of withholding agents as to the withholding and reporting provisions.



read more

Transfer Pricing Compensating Adjustments: Another IRS Loss

by | Dec 5, 2016 | , ,

Following the resolution of a transfer pricing adjustment, there are inevitable compensating adjustment issues to be addressed. Revenue Procedure 99-32 provides the guidelines. A frequent issue concerns whether the “account” that can be elected constitutes “related-party indebtedness” for other purposes of the Internal Revenue Code. One issue has related to the long-since expired provisions of Section 965 relating to repatriations (which may arise from the dead in the Trump administration). In Notice 2005-64, the IRS indicated that it does without any analysis.

In BMC Software, Inc. v. Commissioner, 115 AFTR 2d 2015-1092 (5th Cir. 2015), the Fifth Circuit reversed a US Tax Court decision in favor of the IRS, finding, in essence, that the transfer pricing closing agreement entered long-after the taxable years in question was not indebtedness for Section 965 purposes. Its plain language interpretation was that under Section 965, “the determination of the amount of indebtedness was to be made as of the close of the taxable year for which the election under Section 965 was in effect.” Accordingly, the accounts receivable could not have existed at the end of the testing period. The court also noted that the taxpayer had not agreed to “backdate” the accounts receivable.

The Tax Court has just agreed to follow the Fifth Circuit opinion in BMC Software. In Analog Devices, Inc. v. Commissioner, 147 T.C. No. 15 (Nov. 22 2016), the Tax Court essentially followed the logic of the Fifth Circuit in a similar situation involving a IRS assertion of the same Section 965 consequence of a subsequent year closing agreement in a transfer pricing case.

Practice Point:  The relationship of closing agreement in transfer pricing cases and compensating adjustments is inevitably complex, especially in situations where there are other debt-related issues in the years in question. If the anticipated tax reform bill again introduces a repatriation incentive, these issues will arise once again. The key will be to address them in closing agreements as best as possible.



read more

IRS Changes Course on Characterization of Termination Fees

by and | Dec 5, 2016 | ,

Termination fee clauses are commonly incorporated in merger agreements to compensate a party for time and expenses incurred in the event that the deal is not consummated. Where the merger is terminated by one party, the clause generally requires either the target to pay the acquirer a termination fee (if the target terminates), or the acquirer to pay the target a reverse termination fee (if the acquirer terminates). Typically, termination fees range from 1–3 percent of the transaction value, which may result in a cash payment in the billions of dollars depending on the size of the transaction. The tax treatment of termination fees, both in terms of deductibility or income inclusion and the character of the fee as either ordinary or capital, has been the subject of past litigation, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulatory action, and informal IRS advice.

Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 165 allows a deduction for any loss sustained during the taxable year and not compensated for by insurance or otherwise. Section 162 provides deductions for ordinary and necessary business expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year. In contrast, Code Section 263 provides generally that a deduction is not allowed for new buildings or for permanent improvements or betterments made to increase the value of any property of estate. Prior to the promulgation of the INDOPCO regulations, litigation ensued over whether the payor of a termination fee could deduct such payment under Code Sections 162 or 165 or had to capitalize the payment under Code Section 263. In 2003, the IRS promulgated the INDOPCO regulations and specifically addressed the situations under which termination fees could be deducted immediately. For more background on this subject, see here.

The above-referenced litigation and the INDOPCO regulations focused on the deductible versus capital issue and did not address the character a termination fee (either paid or received). However, informal IRS guidance treated termination fees as liquidated damages, and thus ordinary income, arguably because the taxpayer had not sold, exchanged or transferred any capital asset. See, e.g., Private Letter Ruling 200823012 (June 6, 2008), available here and Tech. Adv. Memo. 200438038 (Sept. 17, 2004), available here. In the Private Letter Ruling, the IRS held that Code Section 1234A, which provides that gain or loss attributable to the cancellation, lapse, expiration or other termination of a right or obligation with respect to property which is (or on acquisition would be) a capital asset in the hands of the taxpayer is treated as gain or loss from the sale of a capital asset, did not apply. However, in, recent guidance released in September and October of this year available here and here the IRS reversed course and provided that Code Section 1234A applies to termination fees pursuant to merger agreements. The IRS’s new position is that a target’s stock to which the termination fee relates would have been a capital asset in the hands of an acquirer, had the deal been completed, and that the acquisition agreement provides [...]

Continue Reading



read more

More than 100,000 Taxpayers Become Compliant with Reporting and Tax Requirements, Paying more than $10.3 billion in Taxes, Interest and Penalties

by | Nov 16, 2016 | ,

On October 21, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service announced the most current data on the success of its Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) and Streamlined Filing Compliance Procedures (SFCP) programs. For our prior coverage on the OVDP and SFCP programs please see Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Update and Release of “Panama Papers” May Encourage New Wave of OVDP Submissions.

OVDP program has existed in several iterations off and on since 2009, and the SFCP was made available to non-willful taxpayers in 2014. The programs encourage taxpayers with undisclosed income from foreign financial accounts and assets to become compliant and current with their tax returns and information reporting obligations. The program allows taxpayers to voluntarily disclose foreign financial accounts and assets and pay lower penalties now, rather than risk detection and face more severe penalties and possible criminal prosecution later.

The programs have been successful by all accounts. As of October 21, 2016, 55,800 taxpayers have made disclosures under the OVDP program and have paid more than $9.9 billion in taxes, interest and penalties since 2009. Another 48,000 taxpayers have made disclosures under the SFCP program correcting non-willful omissions and have paid $450 million in taxes, interest and penalties.



read more

IRS Issues New IPU on FICA Rules for Employees Working Abroad

by | Nov 15, 2016 | ,

The Internal Revenue Service has made available unofficial but detailed and instructive guidance on the application of Social Security and Medicare taxes (FICA) to wages paid to employees working abroad. The new November 14, 2016, International Practice Unit (IPU) makes clear that both US citizens and resident aliens (green card holders) remain subject to payment of FICA taxes despite the fact the services are performed outside of the United States, in those instances where the employer is an American employer, certain foreign affiliates thereof, or a foreign person treated as an American employer. The IPU notes that an important exception to the general rule of FICA application is where the IRS has entered into a Totalization Agreement, a type of FICA tax treaty, with the country where the services are performed and the requirements of the Totalization Agreement have been met.



read more

Formal Document Requests – The IRS’s Tool for Collecting “Foreign-Based Documentation”

by | Nov 14, 2016 | , ,

One important feature of every audit is the request and collection of relevant taxpayer materials by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Such materials are typically collected through the rules and procedures associated with an Information Document Request (IDR).  However, for audits that involve the collection of foreign-based documentation, the Internal Revenue Code (Code) provides a modified set of rules under the Formal Document Request (FDR) procedures outlined in Code Section 982.

(more…)



read more

IRS Identifies Certain 831(b) Captives As “Transactions Of Interest”

by and | Nov 11, 2016 | ,

In Notice 2016-66, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) identified a particular § 831(b) “micro-captive” transaction as a “transaction of interest” for purposes of § 1.6011-4(b)(6) of the Regulations and §§ 6111 and 6112 of the Internal Revenue Code. The notice also alerts persons involved in such transactions to certain responsibilities and penalties that may arise from their involvement with these transactions.



read more

EDITOR IN CHIEF

Edward Froelich

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

US Tax Disputes Firm of the Year 2025
2026 Best Law Firms - Law Firm of the Year (Tax Law)
jd supra readers choice top firm 2023 badge