Distinguishing Equity From Debt in Related Party Contexts
In his Taxation column, David E. Kahen discusses 'Bell v. Commissioner', writing: Overall, the results reached in 'Bell' are not surprising in light of the case law. This case is a reminder of the courts' willingness to reclassify transactions—including reclassification as stock of obligations intended to be debt for tax purposes—even without express authorization by statute or regulation, and to plan in a manner that avoids or minimizes such risks.
August 16, 2017 at 02:04 PM
10 minute read
By David E. Kahen
Section 385 was added to the Internal Revenue Code more than 40 years ago to provide Treasury with the authority to issue regulations to assist in determining whether an interest in a corporation is to be treated as stock or as debt for tax purposes.
Regulations under §385 that were issued in final form last October (T.D. 9790 (Oct. 21, 2016)) address the classification of related-party debt as debt or equity, and include extensive documentation requirements for certain obligations intended to be treated as debt for tax purposes. Numerous comments were received by the IRS regarding these regulations. A little more than a month ago, these regulations were identified by the IRS, in an interim report, as among eight significant regulation projects that impose undue financial burdens on U.S. taxpayers or add undue complexity (Notice 2017-38, 2017-30 IRB 147). More recently, the effective date of portions of the new §385 regulations that impose documentation requirements was postponed so as to apply only to interests issued or deemed issued on or after Jan. 1, 2019 (Notice 2017-36, 2017-33 IRB __).
Separately, the courts continue to address the distinction between debt and equity by applying factors developed in the many court decisions that have considered this issue in related party and other contexts—which cases, as federal “common law,” will remain relevant even if the regulations issued last year under §385 remain in effect (Reg. §1.385-1(b)). A Tax Court memorandum decision issued in 2015 that addressed these issues in the context of incorporation of a business (Bell v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2015-111), and the recent affirmance of this decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in an unpublished opinion (120 AFTR 2d 2017-5152 (9th Cir.)), are discussed below.
Facts in 'Bell'
During the years at issue (2008 through 2010), Michael Bell was a real estate broker and his spouse Sandra Bell was a real estate appraiser and sales agent. Part of Mr. Bell's real estate business was assisting lenders with the repossession, maintenance and repair, and ultimate sale of properties acquired by lenders through foreclosure (so-called “real estate owned properties” or REO).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTreasury Issues New Regulations on Allocation of Partnership Liabilities
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250