Browse Articles:   By Category   /   By Author
HIDE

Other Publications

Insights

Publications

Saving Clementine: Improving the Code §163(j) Deduction

/
Saving Clementine: Improving the Code §163(j) Deduction

While the proposed regulations amending Code §163(j) are helpful in many instances, they do not help certain taxpayers. Those that borrow funds to make investments in real estate through partnerships will find themselves on the wrong side of the tax reform provision that limits a taxpayer’s deduction for business interest to 30% of adjusted taxable income arising from the business. Exempt from the cap are (i) taxpayers having gross receipts that do not exceed $25 million and (ii) taxpayers engaged in, inter alia, a qualifying real property trade or business, or “R.P.T.O.B.” The election for exemption is irrevocable for as long as a taxpayer conducts the R.P.T.O.B. In their article, Andreas A. Apostolides, Nina Krauthamer, and Stanley C. Ruchelman identify the fact patterns that are problematic, explain why they are not covered, and suggest that the I.R.S. may wish to revisit this matter.

Read More

India – Guidelines Issued for Determining Place of Effective Management

/
India – Guidelines Issued for Determining Place of Effective Management

In Circular No. 6/2017, dated January 24, 2017, the Central Board of Direct Taxes issued final guidelines regarding the factors that will be looked to under Indian income tax treaties when determining the place of effective management (“P.O.E.M.”) of a foreign company that is part of an Indian-based group.  Almost as important as the substantive rules, the Circular establishes the procedure that must be followed before a tax officer may determine that the P.O.E.M. of a foreign company is in India.  There are winners and there are losers in the Circular.  Ashutosh Dixit, Parul Jain, and Kaushik Saranjame of BMR & Associates L.L.P. explain the new rules.

Read More

Proposed Regulations on Nondevice & Active Business Requirements Under Code §355

/

Many jurisdictions have special provisions that apply when two businesses owned by a corporation or corporate group are divided and shares of group members are distributed to shareholders.  Sometimes referred to as a “demerger” in Europe and other times as a “butterfly” in Canada, in the U.S. these transactions are called Code §355 spin-offs, split-ups, and split-offs.  In the U.S., several hurdles must be overcome for the transaction to be free of tax at the level of the company making the distribution and the shareholder receiving the distribution.  The I.R.S. recently issued proposed regulations clarifying the application of two of these hurdles: the transaction must not be a “device” to distribute earnings, and companies conducting two or more active business must be involved.  The proposed regulations were motivated by a proposal by Yahoo! to distribute shares of Alibaba.  Rusudan Shervashidze and Andrew P. Mitchel analyze the proposed regulations and how they will apply to circumstances involving a spin-off of a corporation operating a small business but having a large investment asset.

Read More

Outbound Transfers of Stock in Code §351 “Tax-Free” Exchanges

/

The U.S. has extensive rules regarding tax-free reorganizations in a domestic context. When the transaction involves cross-border exchanges, these rules are supplemented by Code §367(a). Rusudan Shervashidze and Andrew P. Mitchel explain how the rules work when shares of a U.S. corporation are transferred to a foreign corporation in a §351 exchange.

Read More

Could an I.R.S. Employee's Comment Cause Yahoo! Stock to Fall?

/

Read Publication

Recently, the Internal Revenue Service (“I.R.S.”) Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate) announced that it may hold off on issuing ruling requests to taxpayers seeking assurance on the “active trade or business” requirement (“A.T.B.”) of a tax-free spinoff under Code §355. In light of recent market transactions, the I.R.S. is in the process of considering, how much A.T.B. is enough for a spinoff to qualify for nonrecognition treatment.

YAHOO! CIRCUMSTANCES

The announcement also placed doubt on whether ruling requests already submitted to the I.R.S. would be issued. Speaking at a District of Columbia Bar Association event, a senior technical reviewer at the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate) stated that the I.R.S. will hold off on issuing new ruling requests starting on May 19, 2015. He said that requests that were submitted before that date will be reviewed in the normal course, but that position may also change depending on what is decided in the next few months.