On June 21, 2019, the United States Supreme Court decided North Carolina Dept. of Revenue v. Kimberly Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust (hereinafter, “Kaestner”).[1] In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Sotomayor, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause,[2] a state may

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.

The IRS adopted final regulations that no longer require taxpayers who have made Internal Revenue Code §83(b) elections to attach a copy of the election to their annual federal income tax return.

Under §83, restricted stock granted in connection with the performance of services generally becomes taxable as ordinary income

In a decision that could have far-reaching implications for private investment funds, a District Court held that co-investing funds were part of a portfolio company’s controlled group and that the funds were thus liable for that portfolio company’s multiemployer plan withdrawal liability.

  • The District Court essentially substituted the statutory 80%

Recently, in Wright v. Commissioner, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has reopened the question of the application of Section 1256[1] to foreign currency options (and also, possibly, to foreign currency swaps or other, similar foreign currency derivatives). Section 1256 requires a taxpayer