ECI
Subscribe to ECI's Posts

Weekly IRS Roundup November 9 – November 13, 2020

Presented below is our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for the week of November 9, 2020 – November 13, 2020. Additionally, for continuing updates on the tax impact of COVID-19, please visit our resource page here.

November 9, 2020: The IRS released Notice 2020-75 announcing the IRS’ intention to issue proposed regulations permitting partnerships and S corporations to deduct certain state and local income taxes in computing non-separately stated taxable income.

November 12, 2020: The IRS released draft instructions for Form 1120-F Schedule H related to deductions allocated to effectively connected income (ECI) under Treas. Reg. § 1.861-8. Additionally, the IRS released draft instructions for Form 1120-F Schedule I related to interest expense allocation under Treas. Reg. § 1.882-5.

November 13, 2020: The IRS published corrections to TD 9909 related to the limitation on deduction for dividends received from certain foreign corporations.

November 13, 2020: The IRS posted a News Release announcing that to protect business taxpayers from identity theft, the IRS would mask sensitive data on business tax transcripts.

November 13, 2020: The IRS released Internal Revenue Bulletin 2020-47, dated November 16, 2020, containing the following highlights: Announcement 2020-19 (Administrative); Notice 2020-76 (Administrative); Notice 2020-80 (Employee Plans); Rev. Rul. 2020-23 (Employee Plans); REG-119890-18 (Income Tax); and TD 9927 (Income Tax).

November 13, 2020: The IRS released its weekly list of written determinations (e.g., Private Letter Rulings, Technical Advice Memorandums and Chief Counsel Advice).

Special thanks to Brian Moore in our Washington, DC, office for this week’s roundup.




read more

Tax Reform Insights: IRS Proposes Section 163(j) Regulations – New Business Interest Expenses Deduction Limit

On November 26, 2018, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued proposed regulations (Proposed Regulations) pursuant to section 163(j). Public Law 115-97, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), amended Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 163 by modifying paragraph (j) to limit the amount of business interest a taxpayer may deduct for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017. The amendment generally limits the deduction for business interest to the sum of a taxpayer’s business interest income and thirty percent of a taxpayer’s adjusted taxable income (ATI) for the taxable year.

The Code Section 163(j) limit is also increased by a taxpayer’s “floor plan financing interest,” which is certain interest used to finance the acquisition of motor vehicles held for sale or lease. Code Section 163(j)(8) defines ATI as a taxpayer’s taxable income computed without regard to: any item of income, gain, deduction, or loss which is not properly allocable to a trade or business; any business interest or business interest income; any net operating loss deduction under Code Section 172; the amount of any deduction for qualified business income under Code Section 199A; and in the case of taxable years beginning before January 1, 2022, any deduction allowable for depreciation, amortization, or depletion.

The Proposed Regulations address a variety of issues, including the following:

  • Trade or Business. New Code Section 163(j) defines business interest income and expense as amounts that are “properly allocable to a trade or business,” but it does not define trade or business.” The Proposed Regulations define a “trade or business” by reference to Code Section 162 because Code Section 162(a) provides the “most established and developed definition of trade or business.”
  • Interest. The Proposed Regulations define “interest” broadly to include other ordinary income items similar to interest, such as substitute interest payments in securities lending transactions, loan commitment fees, debt issuance costs, Code Section 707(c) guaranteed payments for the use of capital, and factoring income. Proposed Regulation § 1.163(j)-3 introduces rules, including ordering rules, for the relationship between Code Section 163(j) and other provisions affecting interest.
  • S Corporations. Proposed Regulation § 1.163(j)-6 provides guidance regarding the application of the Code Section 163(j) deduction to partnerships and S corporations.
  • CFCs. The Proposed Regulations provide that Code Section 163(j) may apply to limit the deductibility of a controlled foreign corporation’s (CFC’s) business interest expense, thereby potentially limiting a CFC’s deduction of business interest for purposes of computing subpart F income and tested income under Code Section 951A(c)(2)(A).
  • ECI. The Proposed Regulations also provide that Code Section 163(j) applies to foreign corporations and other foreign persons for purposes of computing income effectively connected with a US trade or business.

The Proposed Regulations provide a variety of other rules. Some of the notable provisions include rules applicable to REITs, RICs, tax-exempt entities and consolidated group members. They also provide rules regarding the disallowed business interest expense carryforwards of C corporations and rules regarding elections for excepted trades or businesses and rules for allocating expenses and [...]

Continue Reading




read more

Grecian Magnesite Mining v. Commissioner: Foreign Investor Not Subject to US Tax on Sale of Partnership Interest

In a long-awaited decision, the US Tax Court recently held that gain realized by a foreign taxpayer on the sale of a partnership engaged in a US trade or business was a sale of a capital asset not subject to US tax, declining to follow Revenue Ruling 91-32. The government has yet to comment regarding its intentions to appeal.

Continue Reading




read more

A 360-Degree View: July and August 2017

Wrapping up July—and Looking Forward to August

Tax Controversy Activities in August:

August 7, 2017: Elizabeth Erickson and Kristen Hazel will be representing McDermott Will & Emery at the 2017 US Captive Awards in Burlington, Vermont. McDermott has been shortlisted in the Law Firm category.

August 8, 2017: Tom Jones is presenting an update on Captive Insurance Tax in Burlington, Vermont, at the Vermont Captive Insurance Association Annual Conference “Mission: Possible”— the largest captive insurance conference in the US by number of paid attendees.

August 18, 2017: Todd Welty is speaking at the Texas Society of Certified Public Accountants Advanced Estate Planning Conference about:

  • Current developments in federal transfer taxes
  • Current state of federal tax reform
  • Proposed changes to state death tax laws and the impact of those changes on estate
  • Gift and trust planning
  • Consistent basis regulations
  • The state of valuation discounts
  • Recent rulings on defined value clauses and charitable gifts

August 23, 2017: Tom Jones is presenting an update on Annual Federal & State Tax at the North Carolina Captive Insurance Association Annual Conference in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Wrapping up July:

Our July 2017 blog posts are available on taxcontroversy360.com, or read each article by clicking on the titles below. To receive the latest on state and local tax news and commentary directly in your inbox as they are posted, click here to subscribe to our email list.

July 14, 2017: Tracking Tax Guidance and Court Cases

July 17, 2017: New IRS CbC Resource

July 18, 2017: Courts Rejects Challenge to OVDP Transition Rules

July 19, 2017: Tax Court Rejects IRS Reliance on “Cursory” Analysis in Revenue Ruling

July 21, 2017: John Doe Intervenes in Virtual Currency Summons Enforcement Case

July 24, 2017: BEWARE: Whistleblowers Can “Out” You to the IRS!

July 26, 2017: Virtual IRS Appeals – A New Frontier?

July 27, 2017: IRS Rules (Again) That Taxpayers Are Not Entitled to Claimed Refined Coal Credits

July 28, 2017: Tax Court Hands Eaton a Complete Victory on the Cancellation of its Advance Pricing Agreements

July 31, 2017: Senate Attempts to Repeal Chevron Deference




read more

Tax Court Rejects IRS Reliance on “Cursory” Analysis in Revenue Ruling

We have previously discussed, in March and October of 2016, the various levels of deference given to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance, whether it is in published or private form. For revenue rulings, courts traditionally apply Skidmore deference, which essentially looks at the persuasiveness of the ruling. Under this standard, and the IRS’s position in its procedural regulations, if a ruling contains the same material facts and its analysis is persuasive, courts will generally defer to it.

The Tax Court’s recent opinion in Grecian Magnesite Mining, Industrial & Shipping Co., SA, v. Commissioner, 149 TC No. 3 (July 13, 2017), is a friendly reminder that just because a revenue ruling addresses the same material facts present in a taxpayer’s case does not automatically mean that courts will side with the IRS. In Grecian, a revenue ruling contained three fact patterns which were essentially the same as the taxpayer’s facts. The ruling held that gain realized by a foreign partner upon disposing of its interest in a United States partnership should be analyzed on an asset-by-asset basis, and that to the extent the partnership’s assets would give rise to effectively connected income (ECI) if sold by the partnership, the departing partner’s pro rata share of such gain should be treated as ECI. Despite this conclusion, the Tax Court rejected the IRS’s argument that the ruling was entitled to deference and required upholding the IRS’s deficiency determination. Rather, the court noted that the ruling’s discussions of the relevant partnership provisions was “cursory in the extreme” and it criticized the ruling’s treatment of the United States taxation of international transactions. As a result, the court declined to accord any deference to the ruling and ultimately found that the taxpayer’s position was correct as to the issue addressed in the ruling.

Practice Point: Although many revenue rulings contained detailed discussions and analysis of the tax laws, some are based on blanket statements of law that are not supported by relevant authorities. In these situations, taxpayers and their advisors should carefully consider whether a court would afford any deference to such a blanket statement.




read more

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

jd supra readers choice top firm 2023 badge