Introduction
On December 2, 2024, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) and the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) published final regulations (the “Final Regulations”) on section 752[1] regarding the allocation of partnership recourse liabilities in situations in which multiple partners and related parties bear part or all of
On January 20, 2025, the White House issued a memorandum (the “Memorandum”)[1], announcing that the “Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Global Tax Deal” (the “Global Tax Deal”) has “no force or effect in the United States” and disavowing “any commitments” previously made by the United States
Introduction
Section 1402(a)(13) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that the distributive share of “limited partners, as such” from a partnership is not subject to self-employment tax.[1] Managers of private equity and hedge funds are routinely structured as limited partnerships to exclude management and incentive fees from self-employment
Last week, in McKelvey v. Commissioner¸[1] the U.S. Tax Court held that the extension of a typical variable prepaid forward contract (“VPFC”) did not give rise to a taxable exchange to the obligor because a VPFC is solely an obligation, and not property, within the meaning of section 1001 of the Internal Revenue Code. The Tax Court also noted this result is consistent with the usual treatment of a VPFC as an “open transaction”. This decision is very good news for an obligor under a VPFC (that is, the party required under the contract to deliver cash or stock at the end of the term of the VPFC), that wishes to extend a VPFC without tax consequences. If the decision is upheld on appeal under the Tax Court’s reasoning, the case would seem to apply equally an obligor that extends a conventional option, and could even provide a basis for debtors to argue that a modification of their debt does not give rise to an exchange (and thus, does not give rise to cancellation of indebtedness income) notwithstanding Treasury regulations section 1.1001-3. However, the Tax Court’s reasoning in McKelvey is in some tension with other authorities and, if taken at face value, could create opportunities for significant tax deferral on a wide variety of financial products.
On October 13, 2016, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service issued final and temporary regulations under section 385 of the Internal Revenue Code. The final and temporary regulations recharacterize certain debt instruments as equity for all federal income tax purposes.
The final and temporary regulations narrow considerably the
The U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) have published proposed regulations that would modify the device and active trade or business requirements for tax-free spin-offs under section 355 of the Code in three important respects.
First, the proposed regulations clarify the “device” test and