Carrying over E&P from one entity to another and administrative burdens can lead to headaches down the road.
The tension between the two principles of the new regulations can cause taxpayers uncertainty.
The application of the business purpose and device rules often involves both legal and factual questions.
A taxpayer that treats a split-off transaction as a tax-free D reorganization must be able to prove to the IRS that the transaction meets all requirements.
A Sec. 338 election can provide benefits to buyer and seller, but the transaction must be structured so that it satisfies the conditions to be a qualified stock purchase.
An S corporation was not eligible to elect the safe harbor since it was the target of the acquisition, and it must capitalize the success-based fees that it claimed as an expense.
The IRS issued guidance that provides safe harbors for corporations, under which the IRS will not assert that a distributing corporation lacks control of another corporation within the meaning of Sec. 355(a)(1)(A).
This item discusses these rulings along with the technical aspects surrounding their issuance and addresses whether the IRS reached the right results.
The IRS issued regulations restricting the ability of C corporations to use this method.
The Tax Court discussed the application of the “boot” rules under Sec. 356 in a tax-free reorganization.
The legislation curbs a popular tax planning strategy by severely restricting the application of tax-free spinoff treatment.
The IRS issued regulations that eliminate an exception to the coordination rule between asset transfers and indirect stock transfers for certain outbound asset reorganizations and modify an exception to the coordination rule.
A company that uses a reverse merger to go public generally would like to structure the merger as a tax-free reorganization.
Corporations that meet six requirements will be able to effectuate F reorganizations tax-free in some cases.
The IRS ruled that a distributing corporation’s acquisition of an interest in a partnership was not an acquisition of a new or different business.
IRS Expands Range of D Reorganizations, Highlights Importance of the Form of a Taxpayer’s Transaction
IRS rules expand the range of transactions that qualify as type D acquisitive asset reorganizations and signaled a greater willingness to accept a taxpayer’s chosen form of reorganization transaction.
The final rules apply a concept called a potential F reorganization, allowing the many steps of a corporate reorganization to be examined together to see if the transaction qualifies to be an F reorganization.
A recent Chief Counsel advice provides guidance on disqualifying dispositions of incentive stock options in reorganizations.
The IRS issued two corporate reorganization rulings, one of which involved a domestic corporation and a number of foreign subsidiaries while the second involved a reorganization of domestic entities with a limited liability company that elected to be a disregarded entity after the reorganization.
The IRS issued two rulings on transactions that qualify as D reorganizations and revoked Rev. Rul. 78-130.