2 August 2017 Global Tax Alert US Tax Court holds US parent s CFCs held US Property under Section 956 as result of intercompany transactions EY Global Tax Alert Library Access both online and pdf versions of all EY Global Tax Alerts. Copy into your web browser: www.ey.com/taxalerts Executive summary In Crestek, Inc. v. Commissioner, 149 T.C. No. 5 (2017), the United States (US) Tax Court has granted, in part, the Government s motion for partial summary judgment that intercompany transactions between a US parent company s controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) and its domestic subsidiaries (consisting of a loan from the CFCs, a guaranty of a loan by a CFC, and trade receivables owed to the CFCs) resulted in the CFCs holding US Property under Internal Revenue Code 1 Section 956 that is includible in the parent company s gross income under Section 951. Detailed discussion Facts Crestek is the parent of a group of companies that includes, at issue here, five CFCs (referred to as CFCs 1 through 5), as well as a domestic subsidiary (S1) that owns another domestic subsidiary (S2). Three sets of transactions between the CFCs and domestic subsidiaries are at issue: intercompany loans, a guarantee, and trade receivables. The tax years in question were 2008 and 2009. The facts relating to these transactions have been simplified for purposes of this Alert.
2 Global Tax Alert Intercompany loans. At various times before 2008, CFCs 1 through 3 made loans to S1. The balances of these loans, of approximately US$ 2 11 million, $4 million, and $3 million at the end of the first quarter of 2008, remained constant throughout 2008 and 2009. CFC4 also made an intercompany loan of less than $1 million mid-way through 2008 that increased slightly in 2009. Guaranty. In 2001, S1 borrowed $11 million from a Malaysian bank. CFC1, a Malaysian entity, guaranteed this loan. At the end of the first quarter of 2008, $10.7 million remained outstanding on this loan; this amount remained constant throughout the rest of 2008 and 2009. Trade receivables. Before 2005, CFC1, a manufacturer, sold products to S2. CFC1 ceased manufacturing activities in 2005. At the end of the first quarter of 2008, S2 owed CFC1 $8 million in trade receivables; that amount remained constant throughout 2008 and 2009. After CFC1 ceased manufacturing, CFC5 took over production and continued to sell to S2. The net trade receivables account owed by S2 to CFC5 was $9 million in June 2007 and grew to $18 million in June 2009. On its 2008 and 2009 tax returns, Crestek did not report any income as a result of these transactions except for $2 million on the trade receivable held by CFC5. On examination of the returns, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) determined that the transactions resulted in Crestek s CFCs having substantial investments in US Property under Section 956(c)(1)(C). Accordingly, the IRS stated that Crestek was required to include amounts in gross income under Section 951(a)(1)(B). The IRS asserted deficiencies and accuracy-related penalties. Crestek timely petitioned the Tax Court. Law Section 951(a)(1)(B) subjects a US shareholder of a CFC to tax on its pro-rata share of the CFC s earnings that are invested in US Property under Section 956. Section 956(c)(1)(C) defines US Property as including an obligation of a [US] person. Therefore, a loan or receivable held by a CFC and owed by a US shareholder or related US person generally constitutes an investment in US Property, unless an exception applies, and, as such, is potentially subject to inclusion in a US shareholder s income under Section 951 (a Section 956 inclusion). One exception, under Section 956(c)(2)(C) and Treas. Reg. Section 1.956-2(b)(1)(v), applies to trade receivables from the sale or processing of property to the extent those trade receivables are ordinary and necessary to carrying on the parties trade or business had the sale been made between unrelated parties. In addition, under the Section 956(d) and Treas. Reg. Section 1.956-2(c), an obligation of a US person for which a CFC serves as a pledgor or guarantor is similarly considered US Property held by the CFC. Opinion The IRS filed a motion for partial summary judgment arguing that, as a matter of law, the CFCs at issue held investments in US Property under Section 956(c)(1)(C) as a result of the transactions. The Tax Court agreed with respect to the loan and the guaranty, and, in part, with respect to the trade receivables. Threshold arguments Before each obligation was analyzed, the Court dismissed three threshold arguments made by Crestek. First, Crestek argued that the statute of limitations had passed for the assessments, but the Court found that Crestek was subject to the longer six-year statute of limitation under Section 6501(e) on the omitted Section 956 inclusions. The Court also dismissed Crestek s argument that almost all of the IRS s adjustment must be made in prior tax years during which the obligations and guaranty arose. The Court held that Section 956: does not require that the inclusion be made for the first year in which the CFC acquires its investment [in US Property] or that the inclusion be made for any particular year. To the contrary: The statute defines the inclusion for any particular year by reference to the amounts of United States property held (directly or indirectly) by the controlled foreign corporation during that year. Thus, [when] a CFC holds an item of United States property for multiple years, [S]ection 956(a) permits an inclusion in income for any one of those years. (emphasis added by Tax Court) The Court also noted that the only relevant limitation is that a Section 956 inclusion cannot be made more than once under Section 959(a)(2) that is, an investment in US Property by a CFC can be shielded from a Section 956 inclusion to the extent of previously taxed earnings. Lastly, Crestek argued that Section 6214 requires the Court to redetermine Crestek s income in previous years to correctly account for Crestek s earnings and profits in the years under examination. The Court dismissed the argument, noting that only the tax attributes of the CFCs were relevant to determine whether an adjustment was required.
Global Tax Alert 3 Intercompany loans Regarding the intercompany loans, Crestek acknowledged that the amounts were outstanding and did not fit an exception to US Property under Section 956, but argued: (1) that the amounts might have been discharged, or, alternatively (2) that any Section 956 inclusion should have been made before the 2008 year at issue. The Court rejected both arguments. The loans, it stated, were outstanding, and therefore not discharged, and Crestek offered no evidence to the contrary. As noted, the Court also dismissed the argument that the IRS was required to assert the Section 956 inclusion in an earlier year. Accordingly, the loans were US Property under Section 956, includible in income under Section 951. Guaranty Crestek argued that CFC1 s guaranty of the loans from the Malaysian bank to S1 should not be considered US Property, because the guaranty, according to Crestek, was essentially worthless. Crestek asserted that S1 had pledged sufficient collateral to the Malaysian bank without CFC1 s guaranty, and thus, the guaranty was a meaningless gesture. Moreover, CFC1 was purportedly insolvent, though Crestek provided no evidence to support this fact outside of testimony of a corporate officer. The Court dismissed both arguments. The Court regarded both arguments as principally irrelevant due to the mechanical nature of Section 956 and its regulations. The Court also noted that it is reasonable to assume the Malaysian bank has adequate reasons to demand the guaranty from CFC1, so it is inappropriate of Crestek to argue otherwise absent supportive evidence. Further, the Court dismissed the notion that CFC1 was insolvent, due to lack of evidence, and also noted that, even if CFC1 were insolvent, the guaranty would still result in a Section 956 inclusion because the law does not require solvency or test the worthiness of the guarantor. Trade receivables Crestek argued that the trade receivables owed by S2 to CFC1 and CFC5 fit the ordinary and necessary exception under Section 956(c)(2). The Court disagreed with respect to the trade receivables owed by S2 to CFC1. Because CFC1 had ceased manufacturing in 2005, and, accordingly, CFC1 and S2 had not been engaged in trade for several years, there was nothing ordinary and necessary about the outstanding trade receivables. Nonetheless, regarding the receivable owed by S2 to CFC5, with which S2 was actively engaged in trade, the Court stated that while the amount outstanding seemed excessive what amount was ordinary and necessary was a question of fact. Accordingly, it granted the IRS s motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the amounts owed to CFC1 but not the amounts owed to CFC5. Implications The Crestek case is a reminder that taxpayers should be diligent in monitoring all of their intercompany transactions with their CFCs. The rules under Section 956 can be a trap for the unwary and can lead to inadvertently triggering a Section 956 inclusion. Intercompany loans, guaranties from CFCs or pledges of a CFC s assets or stock, and intercompany trade balances are common offenders and should be monitored with diligence. In addition, this case warns that, when a CFC holds an item of US property for multiple years, Section 956 permits an inclusion in any of those years and not just in the year in which the investment in US Property first arose. Endnotes 1. All Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. 2. Currency references in this Alert are to US$.
4 Global Tax Alert For additional information with respect to this Alert, please contact the following: Ernst & Young LLP, International Tax Services, Washington, DC Sean Hailey +1 202 327 7470 sean.hailey@ey.com Trey Whitten +1 202 327 7419 trey.whitten1@ey.com International Tax Services Global ITS, Alex Postma, Tokyo ITS Director, Americas, Jeffrey Michalak, Detroit ITS Markets Leader, Americas, Stephen O Neil, New York Ernst & Young LLP, National Director of ITS Technical Services, Jose Murillo, Washington ITS Regional Contacts, Ernst & Young LLP (US) Northeast Johnny Lindroos, McLean, VA Financial Services Chris J Housman, New York Central Mark Mukhtar, Detroit Southeast Scott Shell, Charlotte, NC Southwest Amy Ritchie, Houston West Beth Carr, San Jose, CA Canada Ernst & Young LLP (Canada) Albert Anelli, Montreal
EY Assurance Tax Transactions Advisory About EY EY is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. The insights and quality services we deliver help build trust and confidence in the capital markets and in economies the world over. We develop outstanding leaders who team to deliver on our promises to all of our stakeholders. In so doing, we play a critical role in building a better working world for our people, for our clients and for our communities. EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organization, please visit ey.com. 2017 EYGM Limited. All Rights Reserved. EYG no. 04214-171Gbl 1508-1600216 NY ED None This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as accounting, tax, or other professional advice. Please refer to your advisors for specific advice. ey.com