The Hewlett-Packard Debt v. Equity Case – Reply Brief Filed

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION

The focus of a debt-versus-equity inquiry generally narrows to whether there was intent to create a debt with a reasonable expectation of repayment and, if so, whether that intent comports with the economic reality of creating a debtor-creditor relationship. This determination has led various courts of appeals to identify and consider a multi-factor test for resolving such inquires.

In the typical debt-versus-equity case, the I.R.S. will argue for equity characterization whereas the taxpayer will endeavor to secure debt characterization to obtain an interest deduction. In some cases, the roles are reversed, but this does not require that courts apply different legal principles. Some courts consider 10 factors, while others consider as many as 16 factors. No matter how many factors are considered, the multi-factor test is the established, standard analysis used in such disputes.

P.L.R. 201446025 – A Change of I.R.S. Direction?

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION

U.S. charities are required to obtain I.R.S. approval in order to be exempt from federal income tax under §501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”). Under Code §508(a), new organizations must notify the Secretary of the Treasury that they are applying for recognition of Code §501(c)(3) status. In order to establish such exemption, Treasurey Regulation §1.1501(a)-1(a)(2) requires that an organization must file an appropriate application form with the district director for the internal revenue district in which the principal place of business of the organization is located. Furthermore, any rulings or determination letters holding the organization exempt are effective so long as there are no material changes in the organization’s character, purposes, or methods of operation. To be tax-exempt under §501(c)(3), an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual.

This begs the following question: If a charity changes its organizational structure or state of incorporation, will a new application be required?

India’s $6.4 Billion Tax on Foreign Investment

Read Publication

Foreign institutional investors in India have been troubled by the demands from Indian tax officials to pay liabilities owed under the newly enforced minimum alternate tax (“M.A.T.”). India’s Finance Minister, Arun Jaitley, announced that beginning April 1, portfolio investors residing in countries that have tax treaties with India are fully exempt from the tax and will not have to pay the accompanying 20% levy on past capital gains.

The M.A.T. is essentially a minimum corporate tax that creates an overall tax of 20% on capital gains. Previously, foreign investors paid 15% on short term listed equity gains, 5% on bond gains, and nothing on long term gains.

In 2014, India’s Finance Ministry began issuing notices to foreign companies for the payment of the M.A.T. on past capital gains amounting to $6.4 billion, collectively. The Finance Ministry has not enforced the M.A.T. on foreign institutional investors for over 20 years, according to the international fund organization, Investment Company Institute Global. Foreign institutional investors have been contending that the M.A.T. should only apply to Indian companies, not foreign entities.

Corporate Matters: Partnerships

Read Publication

In previous issues, we discussed limited liability companies and the various benefits of using such entities, including pass-through taxation, asset protection, ease of formation and flexibility. There are partnerships that can be used to achieve the same results that may be of particular interest to individuals from jurisdictions where the limited liability company is not recognized to the same extent as it is in the United States. These are “Limited Partnerships,” “Limited Liability Partnerships” and “Limited Liability Limited Partnerships.” We thought it may be helpful to outline the differences between these three types of partnerships. Research should be conducted on a state-by-state basis depending on the jurisdiction one is interested in – the following discussion focusses on Delaware.

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

A Limited Partnership is a partnership where one or more of the owners are general partners and one or more of the owners are limited partners. The general partners have unlimited liability and are liable for all of the partnership’s debts and obligations. The limited partners have limited liability – limited to the amount of capital they have invested in the partnership. General partners control the partnership and are responsible for its operation. Limited partners have no say in the operation of the partnership and are subject to losing liability protection if they are found to be participating in the management of the partnership. The Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act (“DRLPA”) provides that “a limited partner is not liable for the obligations of a limited partnership unless he or she is also a general partner or, in addition to the exercise of the rights and power of a limited partner, he or she participates in the control of the business.”

LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP

A Limited Liability Partnership is a general partnership for which an election has been made to obtain limited liability for all of the general partners. Unlike a Limited Partnership, in a Limited Liability Partnership there are no limited partners and all partners can participate in the management of the partnership. As a general rule, the partners of a Delaware general partnership are liable for all of the obligations of the partnership.

Using a §897(i) Non-Discrimination Election to Avoid F.I.R.P.T.A.

Read Publication

Mistakes happen. Often nonresident alien individuals buy U.S. real property, often personal use property, in their individual names. This can be a costly mistake. With certain exceptions, if such an individual were to die while owning the property, a U.S. estate tax of approximately 40% of the value of the property could be imposed.

There is one method to restructure this investment in the case of a foreign individual, or an entity owned by a foreign individual, if such a person is eligible to claim the benefit of an income tax treaty with the United States and the treaty contains a so-called “Nondiscrimination Clause.” These clauses provide that a resident of a treaty state will not be treated any less favorably than a U.S. resident carrying on the same activities. This article will look at how a Nondiscrimination Clause can be used to avoid onerous F.I.R.P.T.A. provisions when a foreign person invests in U.S. real property.

The technique described in this article essentially permits a nonresident alien individual to transfer U.S. real property on a tax-free basis to a foreign entity, which will be treated as a domestic entity for income tax purposes and as a foreign (non-taxable) entity for U.S. estate tax purposes.

Debt vs. Equity: Comparing HP Appeal Arguments to the PepsiCo Case

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION

Historically, the I.R.S. and taxpayers often disagreed over whether a loan between related entities should be treated as equity rather than true debt. As a result, substantial case law has built up over the years, especially involving closely-held entities. One such case is Mixon, which was discussed in our prior publication from April 2014 as the leading case law providing for the 13 factors to be considered in debt-equity cases. In recent years, the I.R.S. has begun to focus on the debt-equity issue in the cross border arena, and new decisions are being issued. Two 2012 cases, in the United States Tax Court (the “Tax Court” or “Court”), went in different directions. In PepsiCo, the taxpayer prevailed and equity treatment was upheld. In contrast, the I.R.S. prevailed in Hewlett-Packard, where the Tax Court was convinced that the transaction should be categorized as a loan rather than equity. In this case, the court looked beyond the instrument at issue and also examined agreements between the shareholders in the transaction.

Earlier this year, Hewlett-Packard (“HP”) appealed its loss in the Tax Court to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the lower court’s finding – that the investment displayed more “qualitative and quantitative indicia of debt than equity” – was “clearly erroneous.”

HP CASE – FACTS AND TAX COURT DECISION

HP purchased an interest in a Dutch corporation, Foppingadreef (“FOP”), from AIG in 1996. The investment was originally structured by AIG as an equity investment in preferred shares. The other shareholder was a Dutch bank, ABN AMRO (“ABN”). FOP’s Articles of Incorporation provide that it was organized for the purpose of investing its assets in contingent interest notes (“C.I.N.’s”) and other approved debt instruments. FOP invested in C.I.N.’s issued by ABN which provided for interest consisting of a fixed element and a contingent element. The terms of the preferred shares, as structured by AIG, gave HP voting rights and preferred entitlement to dividend distributions. HP’s vote was slightly more than 20%.

Corporate Matters: Limited Liability Company Agreements

Read Publication

In a previous issue, we discussed shareholder agreements and set out items that one should look for in such an agreement. A related topic, but one with subtle differences – particularly on the tax side – concerns the agreements used to govern the management and operation of limited liability companies. In the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act, these agreements are referred to as “limited liability company agreements,” and in the New York Limited Liability Company Law, they are referred to as “operating agreements.” In practice, however, the terms are used interchangeably. For purposes of this article, we will use limited liability company agreement (“L.L.C. Agreement”), as Delaware is the state most frequently used for limited liability company formation.

STATE REQUIREMENTS

Although many states do not require a limited liability company to have an executed L.L.C. Agreement, it is prudent to outline the internal governance procedures of the entity in a legal document. There really is no reason why the members of a limited liability company should not have a functioning governing document. An L.L.C. Agreement does not necessarily have to be a long or complicated document; it will allow you to effectively structure your financial and working relationship with your co-owners in a way that is suited to the type of business you are engaged in. Furthermore, having an agreement will help protect your limited liability status, particularly for single-member limited liability companies, as well as prevent management disagreements and ensure that the business is governed by rules of your making, rather than as stipulated by a particular state statute.

Care should be taken in drafting the agreement, however, as although many statutes provide a lot of discretion for members of a limited liability company to define the terms of their relationship – state statutes contain fundamental governing provisions that members of a limited liability company can contract out of – courts have relied on the plain language contained in the contracts and have resisted creating ambiguities based on extrinsic evidence.

Tax 101: Understanding U.S. Taxation of Foreign Investment in Real Property – Part III

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION

This is the final article in a three-part series that explains U.S. taxation under the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act of 1980 (“F.I.R.P.T.A.”). This article looks at certain planning options available to taxpayers and the tax consequences of each.

These planning structures aim to mitigate taxation by addressing several different taxable areas of the transaction. They work to avoid gift and estate taxes, and double taxation of cross-border events and corporate earnings, while simultaneously striving for preferential treatment (e.g., long-term capital gains treatment), as well as limiting over-withholding, contact with the U.S. tax system, and liability. Often, such structures are helpful in facilitating inter-family transfers and preserving the confidentiality of the persons involved.

PRE-PLANNING

As with everything else, planning can go a long way when it comes to maximizing U.S. real estate investments. Here are a few questions to ask:

Investor Background

1. Where is the investor located?
2. Where is the investment located?
3. What kind of business is the investor engaged in?

2014 Tax Extenders Legislation Finally Approved

Read Publication

SUMMARY

On December 19, President Obama signed into law the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014 (the “Act”). The Act extended more than 50 expired tax-related provisions through the end of 2014, allowing taxpayers to claim a number of tax deductions, credits, and other benefits for the 2014 tax year. Since the Act does not generally cover 2015 and later years, Congress will have to debate the merits of these many expiring provisions all over again in 2015. Taxpayers are once again faced with making decisions based upon the hope that Congress will act to renew the provisions.

Legislative materials indicate that the 2014 expiration date was based upon budgetary and political concerns. The Act is projected to cost U.S. taxpayers $41.6 billion over 10 years, with no new federal revenue to offset the cost. Half of the cost comes from the $7.6 billion credit for business research and development costs, a $6.4 billion tax break for renewable energy production plants, and a $5.1 billion tax exception that allows financial firms and other businesses to defer U.S. taxes on certain foreign profits.

EXTENDED PROVISIONS

The heart of the Act is the extension of many tax deductions and credits that expired on January 1, 2014.

Tax 101: Understanding U.S. Taxation of Foreign Investment in Real Property - Part II

Read Publication

This article examines the U.S. income, gift, and estate tax consequences to a foreign owner upon a sale or other disposition of U.S. real property, including a sale of real estate, sale of stock of a U.S. corporation, or a sale of a mortgage secured by U.S. real property.

In addition to (or sometimes in lieu of) rental income, many foreign investors hope to realize gain upon a disposition of U.S. real property. The Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act of 1980 (“F.I.R.P.T.A.”) dictates how gains are taxed from the disposition of United States Real Property Interests (“U.S.R.P.I.’s”). The law has a fairly extensive definition of U.S. real property for this purpose. Most significantly, the law provides for a withholding mechanism in most cases.

WHAT IS A U.S.R.P.I.?

A U.S.R.P.I. includes the following:

• Land, buildings, and other improvements;
• Growing crops and timber, mines, wells, and other natural deposits (but not severed or extracted products of the land);
• Tangible personal property associated with the use, improvement, and operation of real property such as:
• Mining equipment used to extract deposits from the ground,
• Farm machinery and draft animals on a farm,
• Equipment used in the growing and cutting of timber,
• Equipment used to prepare land and carry out construction, and
• Furniture in lodging facilities and offices.
• Direct or indirect rights to share in appreciation in value, gross or net proceeds, or profits from real property;
• Ownership interests other than an interest solely as a creditor, including:
• Fee ownership;
• Co-ownership;
• Leasehold interest in real property;
• Time-sharing interest;
• Life estate, remainder, or reversionary interest; and
• Options, contracts, or rights of first refusal.

Tax 101: Understanding U.S. Taxation of Foreign Investment in Real Property - Part I

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION

U.S. real estate has been a popular choice for foreign investors, whether the property is held for personal use, rental or sale, or long-term investment. Since the passage of the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act of 1980 (“F.I.R.P.T.A.”), the governing tax rules have developed and evolved, but have not succeeded in discouraging foreign investment. F.I.R.P.T.A. can be a potential minefield for those unfamiliar with U.S. income, estate, and gift taxation – all of which come into play. This article is the first of a series on understanding U.S. taxation of foreign investment in real property.

TAXATION OF A FOREIGN PERSON

“A foreign person is subject to U.S. income tax only on income that is characterized as U.S. source income.”

As simple as the concept sounds, there are applicable nuances, caveats, exemptions, and exceptions. Therefore, several questions must first be answered to determine the U.S. income tax consequences for a foreign person engaged in U.S. economic activities, including ownership of real property:

1. Is the income derived from a U.S. source and therefore potentially taxable?
2. Is the income taxable or exempt from tax?
3. Is the income passive or active, subject to a flat withholding tax on gross income or, alternatively, to graduated rates on net income?
4. Is the income earned by an individual or corporation or other entity, each of which may have different rules and applicable tax rates?

Recapitalization of L.L.C. Interests and Issuance of Profit Interests Held to be Gifts in Estate Freeze

Read Publication

Code §2701 is a provision which renders the transfer of a partnership or membership interest to a family member a gift. The tax typically applies in an “estate freeze” scenario, where one generation attempts to transfer assets which appreciate in value to another generation, thereby removing it from their estate for estate tax purposes. In its latest Chief Counsel Advice (“C.C.A.”), the I.R.S. held that a recapitalization of a limited liability company (“L.L.C.”) triggers a gift under Code §2701 in a case where a mother retained a right of distribution but transferred the gain or loss attributable to the L.L.C.’s assets to her sons. The I.R.S. held that the interest retained by the transferor (a distribution right on the existing capital account balance) was a senior interest, whereas the transferred interest held by the sons (the right to future gain of the L.L.C.’s assets) was found to be a subordinate interest. What is notable and most troubling here is that the interests transferred to the sons are so-called “profits interests,” issued for future services to be rendered to the L.L.C.

IN GENERAL

Code §2701 imposes special gift tax valuation rules when partnership or membership interests are transferred to family members. Family members covered under Code §2701 include the spouse of the transferor, any lineal descendant of the transferor or the transferor's spouse, and the spouse of any such descendant. In general, Code §2701 devalues interests of senior family members in order to increase the value of interests transferred to junior family members. Code §2701 generally applies to situations where the transferor retains a senior interest and transfers a subordinate interest to the transferee – such as when a parent keeps preferred shares and transfers common shares to family members.