May 27, 2021

Clarity on Recharacterization of Carried Interests

May 27, 2021/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

· Earlier this year, the I.R.S. issued final regulations providing guidance on Code §1061, which recharacterizes certain long-term capital gains as short-term gains for holders of partnership interests entitled to carried interests. The provision impacts fund managers of alternative investments, such as private equity and hedge funds, who receive carried interests. When gains are derived through a carried interest, they are treated as long-term capital gains only when the carried interest is held for 36 months and one day, significantly longer than the 12 months and one day ordinarily required. In her article written while an extern at Ruchelman P.L.L.C., Susan F. Robinson explains how the final regulations address two workarounds that were widely proposed to circumvent the lengthened holding period and cautions that the policy debate on carried interests may not be over.

February 21, 2017

Debt v. Equity: Judicial Factors Still Applicable Post-§385 Regulations

February 21, 2017/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

The last quarter of 2016 saw the introduction of final regulations establishing benchmarks for treating a debt instrument as true debt for U.S. income tax purposes. These regulations apply to companies over a certain size issuing debt instruments exceeding $50 million. Debt issued by owner-managed companies are not covered by the regulations and, as a result, tests established by case law will continue to apply. Galia Antebi and Kenneth Lobo look at a relatively recent case, Sensenig v. Commr., in which the standard tests were applied – the equivalent of comfort food for tax lawyers.

January 15, 2015

B.E.P.S. Actions 8, 9 & 10: Assuring that Transfer Pricing Outcomes are in Line with Value Creation

January 15, 2015/ Web Developer

Read Publication

On December 19, 2014, the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (“O.E.C.D.”) released a discussion draft on Actions 8, 9, and 10 of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“B.E.P.S.”) Action Plan (“Discussion Draft” or “Draft”). Actions 8, 9, and 10 reinforce the goal of assuring that transfer pricing outcomes are in line with value creation.

In July 2013, the O.E.C.D. published the B.E.P.S. Action Plan for the purpose of establishing a comprehensive agenda to resolve B.E.P.S. issues. The B.E.P.S. Action Plan identifies 15 actions to combat B.E.P.S. and establishes deadlines for application of each action.

The Discussion Draft introduces revisions to Chapter I of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines and addresses the related topics in Actions 8, 9, and 10. Specifically, the Discussion Draft focuses on the development of the following:

(i) rules to prevent B.E.P.S. by transferring risks among, or allocating excessive capital to, group members. This will involve adopting transfer pricing rules or special measures to ensure that inappropriate returns will not accrue to an entity solely because it has contractually assumed risks or has provided capital. The rules to be developed will also require alignment of returns with value creation.

(ii) rules to prevent B.E.P.S. by engaging in transactions which would not, or would only very rarely, occur between third parties. This will involve adopting transfer pricing rules or special measures to: (i) clarify the circumstances in which transactions can be recharacterized.

(iii) transfer pricing rules or special measures for transfers of hard-to-value intangibles.

January 15, 2015

B.E.P.S. Action 4: Limit Base Erosion Via Interest Payments and Other Financial Payments

January 15, 2015/ Web Developer

Read Publication

Action 4 of the B.E.P.S. Action Plan focuses on best practices in the design of rules to prevent base erosion and profit shifting using interest and other financial payments economically equivalent to interest. Its stated goal is described in the following Action:

Develop recommendations regarding best practices in the design of rules to prevent base erosion through the use of interest expense, for example through the use of related-party and third-party debt to achieve excessive interest deductions or to finance the production of exempt or deferred income, and other financial payments that are economically equivalent to interest payments. The work will evaluate the effectiveness of different types of limitations. In connection with and in support of the foregoing work, transfer pricing guidance will also be developed regarding the pricing of related party financial transactions, including financial and performance guarantees, derivatives (including internal derivatives used in intra-bank dealings), and captive and other insurance arrangements. The work will be coordinated with the work on hybrids and CFC rules.

On December 18, 2014, the O.E.C.D. issued a discussion draft regarding Action 4 (the “Discussion Draft”). The Discussion Draft stresses the need to address base erosion and profit shifting using deductible payments such as interest that can give rise to double non-taxation in both inbound and outbound investment scenarios. It examines existing approaches to tackling these issues and sets out different options for approaches that may be included in a best practice recommendation. The identified options do not represent the consensus view of the Committee on Fiscal Affairs, but are intended to provide stakeholders with substantive options for analysis and comment. This article discusses the Discussion Draft for Action 4 of the B.E.P.S. Action Plan.