Tax Practice. Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Safe Harbor
|
|
- Myles Gilbert
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 JANUARY 2014 Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Safe Harbor On December 30, 2013, the Internal Revenue Service (the IRS ) issued Revenue Procedure providing a safe harbor (the HTC Safe Harbor ) under which the IRS will not challenge allocations by a partnership to its partners of validly claimed historic rehabilitation tax credits (the Historic Credits ) under Section 47 of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code ). The IRS issued minor revisions to the HTC Safe Harbor on January 8, The Historic Credit is an investment credit that may be claimed in respect of certain types of qualifying capital improvements to certain historic structures in the year those improvements are placed in service for federal income tax purposes. The HTC Safe Harbor was issued by the IRS primarily in response to the decision in Historic Boardwalk Hall, LLC. v. Commissioner, 694 F.3d 425 (3d Cir. 2012), cert. denied, U.S., No (May 28, 2013), which had created significant uncertainty in the historic rehabilitation industry. The crux of Historic Boardwalk was the finding by the court that the taxpayer, which had invested for the relevant Historic Credits, had no meaningful upside or downside risk in its investment, accordingly had not made a bona fide equity investment, and thus was denied the ability to claim the Historic Credits. The HTC Safe Harbor provides that the IRS will not challenge the allocation of the Historic Credit by the Developer Partnership or the Master Tenant, as applicable, to the Investor if the transaction meets the safe harbor (which is similar to the conclusion provided in the Wind Credit Safe Harbor). The HTC Safe Harbor does not address whether the relevant partnership is eligible to claim the Historic Credits, or whether the Developer Partnership is the owner of the relevant improvements for tax purposes, which is not surprising because the criteria within the HTC Safe Harbor do not address either of those questions. However, the HTC Safe Harbor requires that the partnership allocations of the relevant Developer Partnership or Master Tenant satisfy the requirements of Code Section 704(b) and that the Historic Credit must be allocated in accordance with the relevant rules provided for the allocation of the Historic Credit (and other similar investment credits) under the Treasury Regulations. It may be noted that, if the Developer Partnership or Master Tenant satisfies the requirements of the Code and underlying Treasury Regulations for the allocation of the Historic Credit to its partners, the IRS could not successfully challenge that allocation. Accordingly, in that case, the HTC Safe Harbor would be redundant, at least for its stated conclusion, i.e., that the IRS will not challenge the allocation of the Historic Credit by the Developer Partnership or the Master Tenant, as applicable. In that light, this requirement highlights what is perhaps the real import of the HTC Safe Harbor, i.e., that the Investor will be respected as having made a bona fide equity investment, and thus will not be denied the ability to claim the Historic Credits. Accordingly, what the HTC Safe Harbor really provides is safety against the IRS challenging that the Investor s interest in the Developer Partnership and/or Master Tenant is not that of a bona fide equity partner (as opposed to a lender), and perhaps also in the context of the inverted lease that the Master Tenant is a separate partnership from the Developer Partnership. The apparent implication of being a bona fide equity partner is also that the Investor s investment has economic substance for purposes of Code Section 7701(o). Thus, an Investor that is allocated the Historic Credit in a manner that complies with Code Section 704(b) and the underlying Treasury Regulations may claim that distributive share of Historic Credit as a bona fide equity partner. The nature of the HTC Safe Harbor essentially follows that of the safe harbor previously issued by the IRS for partnership allocations of production tax credits 2014 Winston & Strawn LLP
2 generated by wind projects under Section 45 of the Code in Revenue Procedure (the Wind Credit Safe Harbor ). Thus, as the Wind Credit Safe Harbor applies to the commonly used partnership flip structure for the Code Section 45 tax credit for wind, the HTC Safe Harbor applies in respect of two partnership structures commonly used for an investment in the Historic Credit by a taxpayer (the Investor ). Under the first partnership flip structure, the Investor invests as a partner in a tax partnership ( Developer Partnership ) that owns and restores the improvements upon which the Historic Credit is claimed. The other project sponsor or cash equity partners of the Developer Partnership (who are authorized to act for the partnership) are the Principals. The Historic Credit is disproportionately allocated (similar to the Wind Credit Safe Harbor, not more than 99%) to the Investor as part of an allocation of not more than 99% of the income and loss of the Partnership, under the partnership tax accounting rules for special allocations. At some point (in a provided example, at the end of the Historic Credit recapture period (five years)), the Investor s percentage share of allocated income and loss may be reduced (similar to the Wind Credit Safe harbor, to not less than 4.95%). Under the second inverted lease structure, the Investor invests alongside the Principals as a partner in a tax partnership (the Master Tenant ) that acts as the lessee of the improvements upon which the Historic Credit is claimed from the Developer Partnership. The Developer Partnership elects to pass through Historic Credit to the Master Tenant. As implemented in the market, the Investor generally has a very high percentage share (e.g., 99%) of the Master Tenant and indirectly through its interest in the Master Tenant less than a majority (e.g., 49%) percentage share of the Developer Partnership. The scope of the HTC Safe Harbor is narrowly limited to the Historic Credit, and specifically may not apply to any other federal or state tax credits or any transaction that does not fully comply with the criteria of the HTC Safe Harbor (in the same manner as the Wind Credit Safe Harbor is limited in scope to transactions involving the production tax credit for wind energy facilities that strictly comply with the criteria of the Wind Credit Safe Harbor). Moreover, the HTC Safe Harbor is perhaps more explicit than the Wind Credit Safe Harbor by providing that it does not intend for any of the criteria to be an indication either of [its] views of the significance of that criterion with respect to any other federal or state tax credit transactions. However, the necessity for meaningful upside and downside generally applies for the requisite status as an equity investor across a broad category of business tax credits. Further, the statutory structure and rules for the Historic Credit are very close to those for the investment credit in respect of renewable energy facilities under Code Section 48 (e.g., nature of credit based upon investment, relevant recapture rules, and applicable partnership allocation rules). Accordingly, the Developer Partnership structure and the Master Tenant structure described in the HTC Safe Harbor are also used for transactions involving the investment credit in respect of renewable energy facilities under Code Section 48. Based upon the foregoing similarities, it is not clear why the IRS chose not to include the investment credit in respect of renewable energy facilities under Code Section 48 within the scope of the HTC Safe Harbor. In any event, despite the stated limitation on its scope, because of these similarities, the HTC Safe Harbor is at least instructive in respect of the IRS s view of what may be required for claiming the investment credit under Code Section 48 for such renewable energy facilities in a Developer Partnership transaction and/or Master Tenant transaction. The HTC Safe Harbor criteria generally fall into the following categories relevant to the Investor having meaningful upside potential and downside risk: (a) permissible timing of the Investor s investment, as a way of protecting the downside to the Investor, (b) permissible and impermissible guarantees in respect of protecting the downside risks of the Investor s investment, (c) permissible and impermissible mechanics for the Investor to exit its investment that do not limit its downside or upside, and (d) the requisite nature of the interest of the Investor to provide sufficient equity upside to the Investor from its investment Winston & Strawn LLP 2
3 Timing of Investment With respect to the permissible timing of the Investor s investment, 20% of the Investor s total expected contributions to the Developer Partnership or Master Tenant claiming the Historic Credits (the Partnership ) must be contributed by the Investor to the Partnership before the date the relevant improvements are placed in service. Further, 75% of the Investor s total expected contributions to the Partnership must be fixed in amount on the date the relevant improvements are placed in service. Neither the Partnership nor the Principal is permitted to lend the Investor funds, or provide a guarantee on behalf of the Investor, to facilitate the Investor s acquisition of its Interest in the Partnership. These requirements are substantially similar to those found in the Wind Credit Safe Harbor when modified to allow for the timing of the tax credit flowing on the placed in service date. Guarantees and Indemnities The HTC Safe Harbor provides great detail as to the scope and nature of guarantees and indemnities that may be provided to the Investor. Risks that may not be indemnified by a Principal (including parties related to the Principal) consist of the Investor s ability to claim Historic Credits, the repayment of any portion of the Investor s contributions due to an inability to claim the Historic Credits based upon a IRS challenge of any portion of the transactional structure and any distributions, or consideration for its interest in, the Developer Partnership or the Master Tenant (except for the permitted options discussed below). However, even these risks may be covered by guarantees and/or insurance provided by unrelated parties. Risks that may be indemnified by a Principal (including parties related to the Principal) consist of completion guarantees, environmental indemnities, financial covenants, the performance of any act necessary to claim the Historic Credits, and the avoidance of acts or omissions that would cause the Partnership to fail to qualify for, or cause recapture of, the Historic Credits. The Principals may also cover operating deficits, but only up to twelve months of expected operating expenses. However, even a permitted listed guarantee above would become an impermissible guarantee if it is funded in that money or property is set aside to pay the guarantee or if a minimum net worth requirement is provided in connection with the guarantee. The only exception is that reserves sufficient to cover twelve months of the Partnership s operating expenses may be set aside without causing a guarantee to be treated as funded. This limitation on the ability to require security for guarantees of commercial risks presents an uncharacteristic lapse on the part of the IRS in understanding what non-tax risks are ordinarily covered in the course of a typical commercial transaction versus what types of risks are required to be undertaken under the Code to qualify for the relevant tax credit. The focus on these guarantees is not surprising in that the court in Historic Boardwalk examined whether the taxpayer faced any meaningful downside risk of any type in the construction and the operation of the project. In that examination, the court noted that the relevant sponsor/principal provided a construction completion guarantee, environmental indemnity, operating deficit guarantee, tax credit recapture indemnity and tax structure indemnity, and that such sponsor/principal, as a State entity, had sufficient credit to support those guarantees and indemnities. As noted above, the HTC Safe Harbor permits completion guarantees, environmental indemnities, a (limited) operating deficit guarantee and a tax credit recapture indemnity to be provided by the Principals, but not a tax structure indemnity. Under federal income tax law, the Investor should be expected to bear certain risks to be respected as equity. The HTC Safe Harbor concludes that the Investor generally must bear the structural tax risk. It may be argued that the IRS was generous in the scope of protection it allows against tax credit recapture, allowing for a guarantee from the Principals against Historic Credit recapture for any act or omission, whether or not within the control of a Principal, because such recapture events overlap with operational issues and thus allow the Investor to be protected to some extent against the equity risk of operations Winston & Strawn LLP 3
4 However, the HTC Safe Harbor then adds the requirement that any such permitted indemnity or guarantee not be funded, i.e., it may not be secured, including indirectly through a net worth covenant. In Historic Boardwalk, the indemnities and guarantees were in fact unsecured, but the court focused on the relative strength of the guarantee/indemnitor, a subdivision of the State of New Jersey, rather than any presence or absence of security. Moreover, that examination of the relative financial strength of the guarantor/indemnitor should be read in the context the court s search for any possible meaningful risks indicative of being a bona fide partner, and not that some minimum level of credit risk be required under that guaranty/indemnity. The HTC Safe Harbor apparently recognizes this reading of Historic Boardwalk by allowing for standard commercial indemnities that are found in equity investments outside of a tax-based transaction, i.e., the construction completion guarantee, environmental indemnity, and limited operating deficit guarantee, even though such risks are included in the list of potential meaningful risks to the taxpayer. However, whatever benefit is provided in that recognition is generally eliminated by the imposition of that prohibition against security. This prohibition, not required by Historic Boardwalk, dramatically reduces any utility of the HTC Safe Harbor. At least for these more standard commercial risks, to allow for the guarantee or indemnity of that risk, but then require that such guarantee or indemnity be unsecured, makes very little economic or commercial sense. Under this restriction, a guarantee from a Principal with a high credit quality is permitted, but the use by a Principal, with a lower credit quality, of the pledge of its assets to achieve the same level of commercial risk to the Investor, is not permitted. Moreover, even in case of a Principal having very substantial assets and a very high credit rating, an unsecured guarantee by a Principal, with the requirements of standing in line as an unsecured creditor, is generally given little to no value as a commercial matter. Accordingly, the allowance by the HTC Safe Harbor of such a naked guarantee is of limited practical use. In the past the IRS has recognized that these types of business judgments, such as the credit decision to require or not require security for a permitted guarantee, are not relevant to the substance of the transaction for federal income tax purposes. Investor Exits With respect to the mechanics for the Investor to exit its investment, the HTC Safe Harbor does not permit the Principals or the Partnership to have a call option to purchase the Investor s interest in the Partnership (even at then determined fair market value), but does allow the Investor to have a put option to sell its interest in the Partnership at not more than the then determined fair market value. This put option payment may be guaranteed, so long as the guarantee is not funded. Moreover, the Investor is also prohibited from acquiring its interest with an intent to abandon it, and if the interest is abandoned, such intent will be presumed unless the Investor can clearly establish otherwise. In contrast, the Wind Credit Safe Harbor prohibits a put option on the Investor s interest, but permits a call option exercisable five years (or later) after the wind project has been placed in service either at a price not less than then determined fair market value or a fixed price determined at the closing of the transaction that is not less than the expected then determined fair market value. This reversal in the HTC Safe Harbor from what is allowed in the Wind Credit Safe Harbor is puzzling. The IRS has now publicly established that what is permissible in the context of a flip partnership for a wind energy facility eligible for Code Section 45 production tax credits is impermissible for a flip partnership for a partnership eligible for Historic Credits, and vice versa, without providing any rationale for the difference. Under a typical federal income tax analysis, a fixed price put option to a Principal would not be allowed to the Investor on the basis that, under the relevant authorities, the unilateral ability to be repaid its investment from (the Principal s) assets outside those of the partnership made the Investor s investment appear to be too much like debt (by providing too much downside protection). (See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo ) On the other hand, a Principal call option gave the Investor no such downside protection and did not limit the equity upside 2014 Winston & Strawn LLP 4
5 so long as it was exercisable at fair market value (or the expected fair market value). It is the case that recent case law in the context of LILO/SILO lease transactions have focused on whether a lessee call option was too certain to be exercised to respect the lease as a true lease for federal income tax purposes. However, the IRS safe harbor guidelines for lease transactions specifically permit then fair market value lessee call options and prohibit lessee put options of the type permitted under the HTC Safe Harbor (in the same manner as the Wind Credit Safe Harbor). Accordingly, any additional scrutiny applied to permitted call options does not explain the relaxation of scrutiny in the case of already prohibited put options. Perhaps an implied (and optimistic) rationale for this difference is that the HTC Safe Harbor sets a taxpayerfavorable limit beyond that permitted in the Wind Credit Safe Harbor by permitting Investor put options, but only in the context of there also being no Principal call options. Similarly, it appears that in the inverted lease structure, the HTC Safe Harbor generally prohibits the Investor s investment from being truncated in that any sublease of the relevant improvements by the Master Tenant may not have a term that is not shorter than term of the lease to the Master Tenant, and the lease that may be terminated by the Master Tenant while the Investor is still a partner. Nature of Investor s Interest With respect to the requisite nature of the interest of the Investor to provide sufficient equity upside, the HTC Safe Harbor requires that (a) the reasonably expected value of the Investor s interest must be proportionate to the Investor s overall percentage interest in the Partnership, separate from the tax attributes (including the Historic Credits) expected to be allocated to the Investor, (b) the value of the Investor s interest must also vary based on the Partnership s net income, gain, and loss, cannot be substantially fixed in amount, and cannot be substantially protected from losses from the Partnership s items, and (c) the Investor s interest must participate in the profits from the Partnership, and may not be limited solely to a preferred return that is merely a payment for capital. Further, the value of the Investor s interest may not be reduced by disproportionate distributions or by issuances of interests in the Partnership for less than fair market value. Finally, any fees, lease terms, and other arrangements designed to reduce the value of the Investor s interest are not permitted if they are commercially unreasonable, i.e., more than those generally found in real estate projects that do not qualify for Historic Credits. The foregoing restrictions, although critical to complying with the HTC Safe Harbor, have material ambiguities, in particular for guidance that is intended to provide taxpayers a safe harbor. Further, if read literally in some respects, these requirements would represent a substantial change from current market practice, and/or would be directly contrary to what is permitted under the Wind Credit Safe Harbor. Perhaps the most confusing or concerning is the requirement that the reasonably expected value of the Investor s interest be proportionate to the Investor s overall percentage interest in the Developer Partnership, separate from the tax attributes (including the Historic Credits) expected to be allocated to the Investor. In general, an Investor s expected return is substantially based upon tax attributes and, as described in the Wind Credit Safe Harbor, some participation in operating cash flow. Accordingly, if the value of the tax attributes is taken away from that expected return, then the only way for the reasonably expected value of the Investor s interest to be proportionate to the Investor s overall percentage interest in the Developer Partnership is for the overall percentage interest in the Developer Partnership to be determined as that based upon that relatively low share of pre-tax cash flows, rather the very large allocation (e.g., 99%) of taxable loss and taxable income during the pre-flip credit period (or some other measure). With respect to the requirement that the value of the Investor s interest vary based on the Partnership s net income, gain, and loss, cannot be substantially fixed in amount, and may not be limited solely to a preferred return that is merely a payment for capital, it appears that the typical combination of Investor s post-recapture period percentage share of allocated income and loss being not less than 4.95% (similar to the Wind Credit Safe harbor) and the requirement that the relevant 2014 Winston & Strawn LLP 5
6 Developer Partnership or Master Tenant liquidate in accordance with positive capital accounts, suffices for that purpose. However, the use of such a postrecapture period variable allocation of income and loss, along with a fixed cash distribution amount that does not follow that variable share, may violate this provision. In any event, the foregoing language is less than a model of clarity in this respect. The requirement under the HTC Safe Harbor that the Investor cannot be substantially protected from losses from the Partnership s items would appear to be already covered by the requirements noted above regarding guarantees, as well as the requirement that the value of the Investor s interest vary based on the Partnership s net income, gain, and loss, cannot be substantially fixed in amount, and may not be limited solely to a preferred return that is merely a payment for capital. With respect to the requirement that the value of the Investor s interest participate in the profits from the Partnership, the example provided in the HTC Safe Harbor is instructive. In that example, the Investor is allocated 99% of profits and losses, as determined for federal income tax purposes. With respect to distributions, the Investor has a right to receive a pro rata share of all distributions commensurate with the Investor s share of the Partnership s profits. (Emphasis added.) The HTC Safe Harbor notes that the allocation of the Historic Credit (and other similar investment tax credits) is based upon the ratio in which the partners divide the general profits of the partnership, and that such general profits consist of the taxable income of the partnership described in Code Section 702(a)(8) for the year the relevant property is placed in service, regardless of whether the amount under Code Section 702(a)(8) is taxable income or taxable loss during such year. Moreover, to avoid recapture of that allocated credit, the interest of the partner in such Code Section 702(a)(8) income or loss may not be reduced by more than a third during the five-year period beginning with that placed in service date. The example would appear to recognize the distinction between profits as Code Section 702(a)(8) taxable income and losses as Code Section 702(a)(8) taxable losses, and would appear to require only that the Investor be distributed 99% of available cash equal to any allocation of such taxable income, and not for years for which there are such taxable losses. However, again, the foregoing language is less than a model of clarity in this respect. The prohibition within the HTC Safe Harbor against disproportionate distributions in favor of the Principals represents a substantial change from current market practice and is directly contrary to what is permitted under the Wind Credit Safe Harbor (which allows for priority distributions to the sponsor to return it initial capital). It is not clear what the rationale is for this difference. The Code Section 45 tax credit is allocated based upon the allocation of income or loss attributable to sale of electricity for each year that such credits are available. The Historic Credit (and other similar investment tax credits) are allocated based upon the ratio in which the partners divide taxable income or loss under Code Section 702(a)(8) for the year the relevant property is placed in service. The allocation of both such production income or loss and Code Section 702(a)(8) income or loss is generally subject to the rules of Code Section 704(b) in order to be respected. Those rules do not necessarily prohibit disproportionate distributions. For the inverted lease structure, a sublease of the relevant improvements by the Master Tenant to the Developer Partnership or a Principal is prohibited, unless mandated by a third party. Moreover, the HTC Safe Harbor requires that the lease terms (and other fees paid to Principals) be reasonable compared to such terms for a lease of a project that does not qualify for the Historic Credit. Thus, it appears that the HTC Safe Harbor generally requires that the Investor, through the Master Tenant, bear the risk and reward of being an operating lessee for some period of the lease, and does not allow the Investor to avoid such risk by entering into a sublease, unless such sublease is to a third party Winston & Strawn LLP 6
7 If you have any questions regarding any matters discussed in this briefing, please contact any of the Winston & Strawn attorneys listed below or your usual Winston & Strawn contact. John C. Lorentzen (312) Dean M. Burau (312) Andrew W. Ratts (312) Michael G. Robinson (312) These materials have been prepared by Winston & Strawn LLP for informational purposes only. These materials do not constitute legal advice and cannot be relied upon by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code. Receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship. No reproduction or redistribution without written permission of Winston & Strawn LLP Winston & Strawn LLP 7
From the Journal of Taxation and Regulation of Financial Institutions, November/December 2014
From the Journal of Taxation and Regulation of Financial Institutions, November/December 2014 Historic Tax Credits IRS issues safe harbor for tax-credit investors By Peter J. Berrie, Partner, Faegre Baker
More informationRevenue Procedure The Historic Boardwalk Safe Harbor. Brian Americus Gary Hecimovich Deloitte Tax LLP
Revenue Procedure 2014-12 The Historic Boardwalk Safe Harbor Brian Americus Gary Hecimovich Deloitte Tax LLP October 1, 2014 Historic Boardwalk LLC v. Commissioner Summary New Jersey Sports and Exposition
More informationReal Estate advisor. What you need to know about partnership allocations. July August Ask the Advisor
Real Estate advisor July August 2014 Understanding rehabilitation tax credits What you need to know about partnership allocations IRS provides relief for mezzanine financing workouts Take your pick There
More informationtax notes Volume 150, Number 12 March 21, 2016
tax notes Volume 150, Number 12 March 21, 2016 IRS Rules on Late Solar Inverted Lease Elections By David K. Burton Reprinted from Tax Notes, March 21, 2016, p. 1451 (C) Tax Analysts 2015. All rights reserved.
More informationU.S. INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 1031 TAX DEFERRED LIKE KIND EXCHANGES. This outline has been modified to reflect the recent changes in the tax law.
U.S. INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 1031 TAX DEFERRED LIKE KIND EXCHANGES This outline has been modified to reflect the recent changes in the tax law. I. SECTION 1031 LIKE KIND EXCHANGE A. What is a 1031
More informationHistoric Tax Credits: New IRS Safe Harbor Rules After Historic Boardwalk Hall
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Historic Tax Credits: New IRS Safe Harbor Rules After Historic Boardwalk Hall Qualifying, Applying for and Using Tax Credits to Structure Real Estate
More information2018 Deloitte Renewable Energy Seminar Scaling new heights August 15-17, 2018
2018 Deloitte Renewable Energy Seminar Scaling new heights August 15-17, 2018 Partnership flip structures: A technical overview & modeling concepts Michael Kohler, mikohler@deloitte.com, Managing Director,
More informationPartnerships and the Proposed Debt-Equity Regulations
taxnotes Partnerships and the Proposed Debt-Equity Regulations By Charles Kaufman Reprinted from Tax Notes, September 26, 2016, p. 1843 Volume 152, Number 13 September 26, 2016 Partnerships and the Proposed
More informationHTC Underwriting Negotiating Issues
HTC Underwriting Negotiating Issues MODERATOR Matt Meeker Novogradac & Company LLP PANELISTS Bill MacRostie MacRostie Historic Advisors LLC Nathan Ware BakerHostetler Jon Burckin Enhanced Capital Forrest
More informationPartnership Flip Structuring Tax Perspectives. Tom Stevens Bill O Shea Deloitte Tax LLP
Partnership Flip Structuring Tax Perspectives Tom Stevens tstevens@deloitte.com Bill O Shea woshea@deloitte.com Deloitte Tax LLP September 29, 2015 Tax Incentives are Integral to Project Economics What
More informationFinancial Products PLI Chicago Nov 8, 2012
Financial Products PLI Chicago Nov 8, 2012 Viva Hammer - Brandeis University Rebecca Harrigal - Internal Revenue Service William Mc Rae - Cleary Gottlieb Stein & Hamilton LLP Viva Hammer vhammer@brandeis.edu
More information2017 Deloitte Renewable Energy Seminar Innovating for tomorrow November 13-15, 2017
2017 Deloitte Renewable Energy Seminar Innovating for tomorrow November 13-15, 2017 Michael Kohler, Managing Director, Deloitte Tax LLP Tom Stevens, Partner, Deloitte Tax LLP Partnership flip structure:
More informationKPMG report: Analysis and observations of final section 199A regulations
KPMG report: Analysis and observations of final section 199A regulations January 24, 2019 kpmg.com 1 Introduction The U.S. Treasury Department and IRS on January 18, 2019, publicly released a version of
More informationINSIGHT: Aircraft Business Tax Deductions: Top Ten for 2018 and Beyond
Reproduced with permission from Daily Tax Report, 125 DTR 12, 6/28/18. Copyright 2018 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com Business Expenses INSIGHT: Aircraft Business
More informationCurrent issues and transaction structures for tax-free spin-offs
Current issues and transaction structures for tax-free spin-offs David Wheat, dwheat@kpmg.com Steven Qualls, squalls@kpmg.com May 1, 2017 Disclaimer The following information is not intended to be written
More informationSubchapter K Regulations. Sec Partners, not partnership, subject to tax.
Subchapter K Regulations Sec. 1.701-1 Partners, not partnership, subject to tax. Partners are liable for income tax only in their separate capacities. Partnerships as such are not subject to the income
More informationREAL ESTATE ISSUES Published by THE COUNSELORS OF REAL ESTATE Volume 39, Number 1, 2014
A REPRINT FROM REAL ESTATE ISSUES Published by THE COUNSELORS OF REAL ESTATE FEATURES AND PERSPECTIVES The Boom and Bust of the Greek Housing Market Nicholas Chatzitsolis, CRE, FRICS, and Prodromos Vlamis,
More informationManagement of the Corporation - Distribution of Cash, Property, or Stock
College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository William & Mary Annual Tax Conference Conferences, Events, and Lectures 1972 Management of the Corporation - Distribution
More informationABA: Safe Harbor Parking Like-Kind Exchanges
ABA: Safe Harbor Parking Like-Kind Exchanges Robert D. Schachat and Glenn Johnson Ernst & Young LLP January 22, 2011 Disclaimer Ernst & Young refers to the global organization of member firms of Ernst
More informationJuly 30, Ms. Lisa Zarlenga Tax Legislative Counsel Department of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W MT Washington, D.C.
Ms. Lisa Zarlenga Tax Legislative Counsel Department of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 3040 MT Washington, D.C. 20220 RE: Comments on the Definition of Issue under Consideration Certain Foreign
More informationT.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. RAYMOND S. MCGAUGH, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2016-28 UNITED STATES TAX COURT RAYMOND S. MCGAUGH, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 13665-14. Filed February 24, 2016. P had a self-directed IRA of which
More informationWIND PRODUCTION TAX CREDITS
WIND PTC WIND PRODUCTION TAX CREDITS The production tax credit ( PTC ) generally is available to a taxpayer investing in a wind facility when the taxpayer: produces electricity from qualified energy resources
More informationAdvanced Municipal Lease Financing: Equipment Leasing for Research and Development
Advanced Municipal Lease Financing: Equipment Leasing for Research and Development Gregory V. Johnson Patton Boggs LLP 1660 Lincoln Street, Suite 1900 Denver, CO 80264 (303) 894-6187 Two Structures for
More informationTax Alert. Funds Escape Debt-Equity Regulation Net For Now. Introduction. Key Points
Tax Alert October 20, 2016 Key Points The New Regulations do not apply to debt issued by investment partnership funds, including publicly traded partnership funds, or blockers-at least, not now. The New
More informationExplanation of Provisions
Section 72. Annuities; Certain Proceeds of Endowment and Life Insurance Contracts 26 CFR 1.72(p) 1: Loans treated as distributions. T.D. 8894 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR
More information10 - Transfer of Note Receivable to LLC Managed By Debtor Didn't Extinguish Note
10 - Transfer of Note Receivable to LLC Managed By Debtor Didn't Extinguish Note 2590 Associates LLC et al., TC Memo 2019-3 The Tax Court has held that where the principal of an entity that was having
More informationAn Update on Implementation of New Management Contract Safe Harbors for Property Financed with Tax-Exempt Bonds
An Update on Implementation of New Management Contract Safe Harbors for Property Financed with Tax-Exempt Bonds (Rev. Proc. 2017-13) Michael G. Bailey Foley & Lardner LLP An Update on Implementation of
More informationArticle from: Taxing Times. September 2011 Volume 7 Issue 3
Article from: Taxing Times September 2011 Volume 7 Issue 3 T 3 : TAXING TIMES TIDBITS AFTER GOING 0 FOR 6 IN THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT, WILL TAXPAYERS FINALLY GIVE UP THE FIGHT? By Daniel Stringham Consider
More informationIRC Sect. 704(b): Partnership Allocations
IRC Sect. 704(b): Partnership Allocations Navigating Complex Rules to Determine Valid Allocation of Income, Gain, Loss, Deductions or Credits THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2013, 1:00-2:50 pm Eastern IMPORTANT INFORMATION
More informationFeedback for REG ( Transition Tax) as of 10/3/2018 SECTION TITLE ISSUE RECOMMENDATION ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION /QUERIES
Feedback for REG-104226-18 ( 965 1 Transition Tax) as of 10/3/2018 PROPOSED REGS Preamble Pages 63-64 Double counting for November 2017 distributions to the United States from 11/30 year end deferred foreign
More informationDepartment of Labor Releases Final Association Health Plan Rule
Department of Labor Releases Final Association Health Plan Rule SARAH KANTER AUGUST, 2018 On June 21, 2018, the Department of Labor (DOL) published its highly anticipated and controversial final rule (the
More informationPartnership Current Developments
College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository William & Mary Annual Tax Conference Conferences, Events, and Lectures 2013 Partnership Current Developments Robert
More informationTax, M&A, and Private Equity Practices
Tax, M&A, and Private Equity Practices JANUARY 2018 Tax Reform s Impact on Private Equity and M&A Contributors: Andrew Betaque, Rob Heller, Rachel Ingwer, and Lou Weber Introduction On December 22, 2017,
More informationA Look at the Final Section 2053 Regulations
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW A Look at the Final Section 2053 Regulations 2009 by Jonathan G. Blattmachr & Mitchell M. Gans All Rights Reserved. Introduction As a general rule, expenses
More informationThe Investment Lawyer
The Investment Lawyer Covering Legal and Regulatory Issues of Asset Management VOL. 25, NO. 3 MARCH 2018 REGULATORY MONITOR Private Funds Update By Frank Dworak and Adam Tejeda The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
More informationBank Regulatory Practice
Bank Regulatory Practice SEPTEMBER 2016 Does the Federal Reserve Board have Authority to Set Incentive Compensation? Earlier this year, the Agencies 1 published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the Proposed
More informationInsurance-Related Best Practices Guide for Buy-Sell Agreements
Insurance-Related Best Practices Guide for Buy-Sell Agreements The buy-sell agreement review and feedback process at the Principal Financial Group has allowed us to observe many different drafting approaches
More informationUpdate. Amend and Extends Emerge as New Trend in U.S. Loan Markets
Update Amend and Extends Emerge as New Trend in U.S. Loan Markets A current and anticipated future lack of refinancing sources for maturing loans, coupled with the recent surge in secondary loan market
More informationCHAPTER 48. (2) For a taxpayer, except a public utility, that has allocated net income in excess of $1
CHAPTER 48 AN ACT concerning taxation, supplementing P.L.1945, c.162, amending various parts of the statutory law, and repealing section 30 of P.L.2002, c.40 (C.54:10A-18.1) and section 7 of P.L.2002,
More informationTHE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HOLDS THAT THE TAXPAYERS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO NONRECOGNITION TREATMENT PURSUANT TO CODE SECTION 1058
THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HOLDS THAT THE TAXPAYERS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO NONRECOGNITION TREATMENT PURSUANT TO CODE SECTION 1058 Pirrone, Maria St. John s University! ABSTRACT In Samueli v. Commissioner
More informationALI-ABA Course of Study Creative Tax Planning for Real Estate Transactions. October 11-13, 2007 Atlanta, Georgia
101 ALI-ABA Course of Study Creative Tax Planning for Real Estate Transactions October 11-13, 2007 Atlanta, Georgia Sixth Circuit Vacates Controversial Hubert Case Dealing with Partner's At-Risk Amount
More informationDefined Value Clause Updates Hendrix and Petter
Defined Value Clause Updates Hendrix and Petter Steve R. Akers, Bessemer Trust Copyright 2011 by Bessemer Trust Company, N.A. All rights reserved. a. Hendrix v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2011-133 (June
More informationState of the States. Matt Meeker Novogradac & Company LLP. George Barry Foss and Company. Daniel Bergrin global X
State of the MODERATOR PANELISTS States Matt Meeker Novogradac & Company LLP George Barry Foss and Company Daniel Bergrin global X Phill Geheb Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr PC Tom Kasper Kasper Mortgage Capital
More informationNEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION TAX SECTION
Report No. 1336 NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION TAX SECTION REPORT ON NOTICE 2015-54, TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY TO PARTNERSHIPS WITH RELATED FOREIGN PARTNERS AND CONTROLLED TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING PARTNERSHIPS
More informationS Corporation Shareholder Stock Basis & Bona Fide Shareholder Debt
S Corporation Shareholder Stock Basis & Bona Fide Shareholder Debt Shareholder Debt Basis IRC 1366(d)(1)(B) states that losses are allowed up to the amount of the shareholder's adjusted basis of any indebtedness
More informationThursday, April 7, 2016 as of 2:21 PM ET
Thursday, April 7, 2016 as of 2:21 PM ET By Chas Cardall April 7, 2016 Recently released proposed Treasury regulations seek to change the requirements for municipal bond issuers to qualify as issuers of
More informationTax Incentives for Renewable Energy Investments Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ( ARRA )
Tax Incentives for Renewable Energy Investments Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ( ARRA ) March 18, 2009 Copyright 2009 Shearman & Sterling LLP. As used herein Shearman & Sterling
More informationUnited States Tax Alert Transition tax guidance: proposed regulations released
International Tax 10 August 2018 United States Tax Alert Transition tax guidance: proposed regulations released On August 1, 2018, Treasury and the IRS released proposed regulations (the Proposed Regulations
More informationEmployer Considerations When Offering Health Coverage under the SCA or DBA
Employer Considerations When Offering Health Coverage under the SCA or DBA Employers that are subject to the McNamara-O Hara Service Contract Act (SCA), Davis-Bacon Act (DBA), and Davis-Bacon Related Acts
More informationHousing Partnership Agreements
Housing Partnership Agreements By Mary Jo Salins and Robert Fontenrose Housing Partnership Agreements By Mary Jo Salins and Robert Fontenrose Overview Purpose This article updates the discussion on housing
More informationMcGladrey files comments on new 3.8 percent investment income tax
McGladrey files comments on new 3.8 percent investment income tax Prepared by: Don Susswein, principal, Washington National Tax Moshe Metzger, partner, New York, N.Y. Rich Nichols, partner, New York, N.Y.
More informationValuation Discounts After the Proposed Code 2704 Regulations
Valuation Discounts After the Proposed Code 2704 Regulations Jeramie J. Fortenberry, J.D., LL.M. Executive Editor, WealthCounsel LLC January 16, 2017 On August 4, 2016, the Treasury Department issued long-awaited
More informationDecember 26, Carol Weiser Acting Benefits Tax Counsel U.S. Department of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20220
December 26, 2018 Carol Weiser Acting Benefits Tax Counsel U.S. Department of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20220 David Horton Acting Commissioner Tax Exempt and Government Entities
More informationTHE BURGESS/BATTLESTEIN SCENARIO: A PAYMENT VERSUS A PROMISE TO PAY
THE BURGESS/BATTLESTEIN SCENARIO: A PAYMENT VERSUS A PROMISE TO PAY A taxpayer may not pay an amount with funds borrowed from the creditor immediately prior to the attempted payment. 1 A taxpayer, however,
More informationArticle from: Reinsurance News. March 2014 Issue 78
Article from: Reinsurance News March 2014 Issue 78 Determining Premiums Paid For Purposes Of Applying The Premium Excise Tax To Funds Withheld Reinsurance Brion D. Graber This article first appeared in
More informationIntermediate Sanctions (IRC 4958) Update. By Lawrence M. Brauer and Leonard J. Henzke
Intermediate Sanctions (IRC 4958) Update By Lawrence M. Brauer and Leonard J. Henzke Intermediate Sanctions (IRC 4958) Update By Lawrence M. Brauer and Leonard J. Henzke Overview Purpose This article
More informationPurpose of article. Mississippi Statutes. Title 75. REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE AND INVESTMENTS. Chapter 67. LOANS
75-67-101. Purpose of article. 75-67-101. Purpose of article This article is hereby declared to be a public necessity and is remedial in purpose and the same shall be liberally construed to effectuate
More informationAlternative business entities: liability and insurance issues
Alternative business entities: liability and insurance issues TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PARTNERSHIPS...2 II. LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES...9 III. COVERAGE FOR AFFILIATES...12 i For liability, tax and operating
More informationA Detailed Analysis of 280F Depreciation Recapture for Business Aircraft
DEDICATED TO HELPING BUSINESS ACHIEVE ITS HIGHEST GOALS. A Detailed Analysis of 280F Depreciation Recapture for Business Aircraft By John B. Hoover 1 Disclaimer: This article was not prepared by or under
More informationLaurence Wagman. concentrated on those executives
Structuring Change in Control Arrangements Within the Current Executive Compensation Environment Laurence Wagman Part I: The Essentials of the Golden Parachute Excise Tax Debate The failure of many highly
More informationEXPAT TAX HANDBOOK. Tax Considerations For Remote Workers Living Abroad
EXPAT TAX HANDBOOK Tax Considerations For Remote Workers Living Abroad Tax Year 2017 Expat Tax Handbook Tax Considerations for Remote Workers Living Abroad Table of Contents: Introduction / 3 U.S. Federal
More informationRecent Developments in Tax Accounting. Dwight Mersereau
Recent Developments in Tax Accounting Dwight Mersereau Agenda Revised Accounting Method Change Procedures Expense Recognition Fines & Penalties Section 199 Update on Tangible Property Regulations 1 Revised
More informationNondiscrimination Rules for Cafeteria Plans
Nondiscrimination Rules for Cafeteria Plans A cafeteria plan is an employer-provided written plan that offers employees the opportunity to choose between at least one permitted taxable benefit and at least
More information21st Annual Health Sciences Tax Conference
21st Annual Health Sciences Tax Conference Something old, something new(ish) partnerships and REITs 5 December 2011 Disclaimer Any US tax advice contained herein was not intended or written to be used,
More informationAMERICAN JOBS CREATION ACT OF 2004
AMERICAN JOBS CREATION ACT OF 2004 OCTOBER 26, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page REPEAL OF EXCLUSION FOR EXTRATERRITORIAL INCOME AND DEDUCTIONS FOR DOMESTIC PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES... 1 TAX SHELTERS... 2 Information
More informationALI-ABA Course of Study Sophisticated Estate Planning Techniques
397 ALI-ABA Course of Study Sophisticated Estate Planning Techniques Cosponsored by Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, Inc. September 4-5, 2008 Boston, Massachusetts Planning for Private Equity
More informationEmployment Taxes and Worker Classification
Employment Taxes and Worker Classification Chapter 10 I-9 Compliance Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification Not an IRS form; handled by Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the Department of Homeland
More informationFinancial transactions
Financial transactions Recent developments and issues 14 May 2013 Disclaimer Ernst & Young refers to the global organization of member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate
More informationFORMATION OF A SINGLE-ASSET ENTITY COMBINED WITH AN IRC SEC EXCHANGE
FORMATION OF A SINGLE-ASSET ENTITY COMBINED WITH AN IRC SEC. 1031 EXCHANGE A. Illustrating the Issues 1. SINGLE ASSET ENTITY I. INTRODUCTION a. Acquiring corporation ( A Corp. ) proposes to exchange its
More informationFebruary 15, Ms. Susan M. Cosper Technical Director Financial Accounting Standards Board 401 Merritt 7 P.O. Box 5116 Norwalk, CT
2011-200 Deloitte & Touche LLP 10 Westport Road P.O. Box 820 Wilton, CT 06897-0820 USA Tel: +1 203 761 3000 Fax: +1 203 834 2200 www.deloitte.com Ms. Susan M. Cosper Technical Director Financial Accounting
More informationPart I. Rulings and Decisions Under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
This document is referenced in an endnote at the Bradford Tax Institute. CLICK HERE to go to the home page. Part I. Rulings and Decisions Under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 Section 42. Low-Income
More informationU.S. Solar Structures: Cash Equity Considerations
U.S. Solar Structures: Cash Equity Considerations The solar financing market is maturing. You can tell because new money is crowding into the market, and the capital stacks are getting more complicated.
More informationANALYSIS: Analysis of the New Proposed Regulations Under Code 2704
ANALYSIS: Analysis of the New Proposed Regulations Under Code 2704 Analysis of the New Proposed Regulations Under Code 2704 by Jeramie J. Fortenberry, JD, LLM Executive Editor, WealthCounsel LLC On August
More informationPartnership Like-Kind Exchanges
Partnership Like-Kind Exchanges By Norman Lencz, Esq. Venable, LLP Christopher Davidson, Esq. Venable, LLP 225 226 PARTNERSHIP LIKE-KIND EXCHANGES Maryland Advanced Tax Institute Norman Lencz Chris Davidson
More informationTHE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF TRUST AND ESTATE COUNSEL (ACTEC) COMMENTS ON PROPOSED REGULATIONS UNDER SECTION 2704 [REG ] SUMMARY
THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF TRUST AND ESTATE COUNSEL (ACTEC) COMMENTS ON PROPOSED REGULATIONS UNDER SECTION 2704 [REG-163113-02] SUMMARY These comments of The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel (ACTEC)
More informationTax Credits after Historic Boardwalk Hall Qualifying, Applying for and Using Historic and Other Tax Credits to Structure Real Estate Projects
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Tax Credits after Historic Boardwalk Hall Qualifying, Applying for and Using Historic and Other Tax Credits to Structure Real Estate Projects TUESDAY,
More informationIn October 2004, the American Jobs Creation Act
Long-Awaited Final Regulations Under Code Sec. 409A Are Issued As Transition Relief Nears an End * By David G. Johnson and Elizabeth Buchbinder ** Dave Johnson and Elizabeth Buchbinder discuss the new
More information1031 DROP AND SWAP: BREAKING UP IS HARD TO DO. By: Gary Kravitz, Esq. and Kevin Henry, Esq.
1031 DROP AND SWAP: BREAKING UP IS HARD TO DO By: Gary Kravitz, Esq. and Kevin Henry, Esq. I. THE BASICS OF 1031 EXCHANGES AND THE USE OF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES IN REAL ESTATE ACQUISITIONS A. What
More informationSupplemental Terms for Using Margin in Your IRA to Execute Options Spreads
Supplemental Terms for Using Margin in Your IRA to Execute Options Spreads You hereby acknowledge and agree that the following terms, conditions and disclosures relate to your account and are part of the
More informationPartnership Workouts Hot Topics Addendum
Partnership Workouts Hot Topics Addendum A. Section 108(e)(8) Application to Partnerships 1. In General. Code Section 108(e)(8) was expanded in 2004 to include discharges of partnership indebtedness. [Prior
More informationLending to Single Investor Funds: Issues in Connection with Subscription Credit Facilities
Article Lending to Single Investor Funds: Issues in Connection with Subscription Credit Facilities By Mark Dempsey, Claire Ragen and Zachary Barnett 1 Fund As the subscription credit facility market continues
More informationDISREGARDED ENTITIES AND PARTNERSHIP LIABILITY ALLOCATIONS: PROPOSED REGS CRITIQUED
DISREGARDED ENTITIES AND PARTNERSHIP LIABILITY ALLOCATIONS: PROPOSED REGS CRITIQUED By Blake D. Rubin and Andrea Macintosh Whiteway Blake D. Rubin and Andrea Macintosh Whiteway are partners with Arnold
More informationOpportunity Zone Funds Offer New Tax Incentive for Long-Term Investment in Low-Income Communities
08 / 01 / 18 If you have any questions regarding the matters discussed in this memorandum, please contact the attorneys listed on the last page or call your regular Skadden contact. The Tax Cuts and Jobs
More informationSECTION 403(B) PLANS: WHAT NONPROFIT SPONSORS OF EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLANS NEED TO KNOW
SECTION 403(B) PLANS: WHAT NONPROFIT SPONSORS OF EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLANS NEED TO KNOW ROHIT A. NAFDAY, ESQ. AND JONATHAN F. LEWIS, ESQ. June 2011 This publication is available at online at www.probonopartnership.org/pages/publications/all-publicationsfaqs-x
More informationTAX MEMORANDUM. CPAs, Clients & Associates. David L. Silverman, Esq. Shirlee Aminoff, Esq. DATE: April 2, Attorney-Client Privilege
LAW OFFICES DAVID L. SILVERMAN, J.D., LL.M. 2001 MARCUS AVENUE LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK 11042 (516) 466-5900 SILVERMAN, DAVID L. TELECOPIER (516) 437-7292 NYTAXATTY@AOL.COM AMINOFF, SHIRLEE AMINOFFS@GMAIL.COM
More informationDeferred Compensation
Deferred Compensation Concept A non-qualified deferred compensation plan is an agreement between an employer and an executive to defer the payment and receipt of compensation to the future for services
More informationNew York State Bar Association Tax Section
Report No. 1350 New York State Bar Association Tax Section Report on Proposed and Temporary Regulations on United States Property Held by Controlled Foreign Corporations in Transactions Involving Partnerships
More informationInternal Revenue Service
Internal Revenue Service Number: 200329021 Release Date: 7/18/2003 Index: 1031.00-00 Department of the Treasury P.O. Box 7604 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Person to Contact: Telephone Number:
More informationFinancing in Ukraine. Key issues. Regulatory requirements. NBU registration. 1 Financing in Ukraine. Briefing note September 2016.
1 Financing in Ukraine Briefing note September 2016 Financing in Ukraine July 2015 Whether lending directly to a Ukrainian borrower, or relying on guarantees or security from a Ukrainian obligor, there
More informationTAX-EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS: EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE AND LEGAL COMPLIANCE VICTOR J. FERGUSON SUZANNE R. GALYARDT VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
TAX-EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS: EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE AND LEGAL COMPLIANCE VICTOR J. FERGUSON SUZANNE R. GALYARDT VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP OVERVIEW 1. Organizational Test 2. Operational Test 3. Private
More information680 REALTY PARTNERS AND CRC REALTY CAPITAL CORP. - DECISION - 04/26/96
680 REALTY PARTNERS AND CRC REALTY CAPITAL CORP. - DECISION - 04/26/96 In the Matter of 680 REALTY PARTNERS AND CRC REALTY CAPITAL CORP. TAT (E) 93-256 (UB) - DECISION TAT (E) 95-33 (UB) NEW YORK CITY
More informationOctober 31, Summary of Opportunity Zone Proposed Regulations. Table of Contents
Schuyler M. Moore D: 310.201.7559 F: 310.201.4444 SMoore@ggfirm.com October 31, 2018 To Colleagues, Friends, and Clients: Re: Summary of Opportunity Zone Proposed Regulations This letter provides a summary
More informationCAPTIVE INSURANCE: Primer and Federal Tax Overview. November 2009
CAPTIVE INSURANCE: Primer and Federal Tax Overview November 2009 Overview 1. Types of Captives 2. Captive Insurance Domiciles: Foreign versus Domestic Jurisdiction Considerations 3. Professionals Required
More informationNew IRS Revenue Rulings: Amount and Character of Income on Life Insurance Contracts
New IRS Revenue Rulings: Amount and Character of Income on Life Insurance Contracts May 11, 2009 On May 1, 2009, the IRS issued a pair of Revenue Rulings that significantly clarify the state of U.S. federal
More informationPierre v. Commissioner, 133 T.C. No. 2 (August 24, 2009)
Pierre v. Commissioner, 133 T.C. No. 2 (August 24, 2009) Transfers of Interests in Single-Member LLC Treated as Transfers of Interests in the Entity Rather Than as Transfers of Proportionate Shares of
More informationReal Estate INSIGHT: The Taxation of Commercial Real Estate Collateralized Loan Obligations
Daily Tax Report July 23, 2018 Real Estate INSIGHT: The Taxation of Commercial Real Estate Collateralized Loan Obligations BNA Snapshot Jason Schwartz, Gary Silverstein, and Daniel Ng of Cadwalader, Wickersham
More informationTax Considerations of Transfers to and Distributions from the C or S Corporation
College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository William & Mary Annual Tax Conference Conferences, Events, and Lectures 2006 Tax Considerations of Transfers to and
More informationThe trusted source of actionable technical and marketplace knowledge for life insurance professionals.
The trusted source of actionable technical and marketplace knowledge for life insurance professionals. TOPIC: Tax Court Denies Deductions for Contributions to Life Insurance-Funded 419 Plan but Rejects
More informationSCHEDULE A. The Company is Investing in the Portfolio Company and does not have Diversified Investments.
SCHEDULE A Risk Factors We Have Limited Assets and Operating History. The Company was formed to invest in the Portfolio Company. The Company currently has no assets, and as of the completion of the offering,
More informationImportant Developments in the Federal Income Taxation of S Corporations
American Bar Association Section of Taxation S Corporation Committee Important Developments in the Federal Income Taxation of S Corporations Boca Raton, Florida January 21, 2011 Dana Lasley Tax Director
More information