United States: Tax Hot Topics


Webcast: IFRS versus GAAP reporting — implications for multinational corporations

Many multinational corporations are concerned about International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Because requirements differ under local GAAP, IFRS and U.S. GAAP, companies face confusion and challenges in financial reporting.

Please join a webcast on April 30 at 3 p.m. Eastern to learn about the key differences between U.S. GAAP, local GAAP and IFRS and discover how large companies are handling financial statement presentation and reporting based on the requirements of individual countries.

Learning objectives:

Register for the webcast.

* * * * * * * * * *

Webcast: Form W-2 reporting of group health insurance cost

Employers are required to report the cost of group health insurance coverage on Forms W-2 issued to employees each year, starting with the year 2012. This webcast on April 26 at 3 p.m. Eastern will contain valuable information that employers need to know to comply with this new reporting requirement, including the types of coverage to report and the amount to report.

Learning objectives:

Register for the webcast.

* * * * * * * * * *


IRS rules that Section 338 consistency rules do not apply in a part-stock/part-asset sale

The IRS concluded in Private Letter Ruling 201213013 (PLR) that a stock purchase following a related asset purchase did not constitute a "qualified stock purchase" under Section 338(a) (see also PLR 201214012, which involved identical facts). Consequently, the consistency rules of Section 338(e) did not apply to the transaction. This is an important development that represents one of the rare instances in which the IRS ruled on a "bifurcated transaction" and respected a separate asset purchase and stock purchase from a single selling group.

In PLR 201213013, the common parent (the seller parent) of the selling consolidated group (the seller group) desired to sell certain subsidiary stock. The shareholders of the common parent (the buyer parent) of the buying consolidated group (the buyer group) desired to purchase assets. To effect a transaction satisfactory to both sides, certain shareholders of the buyer parent formed a series of entities including two partnerships (the partnership and the buyer partnership), several disregarded entities and a transitory corporation (the merger subsidiary). The shareholders of the buyer parent then transferred the stock in the buyer parent to one of the disregarded entities in the newly formed chain of entities, thereby causing the buyer parent to be below the partnership and the buyer partnership in the ownership chain. Next, certain entities in the seller group, including a fourth tier subsidiary (Seller 2), sold certain assets (the purchased assets) to disregarded entities of the buyer partnership (the asset sale).

The cash proceeds from the various sales, along with certain unwanted assets, were distributed upstream to Seller 2, and then by Seller 2 to a disregarded entity of its immediate parent. Next, the buyer partnership and its disregarded entities acquired 100 percent of the outstanding stock of Seller 2 by causing the merger subsidiary to merge with and into Seller 2 in a reverse cash merger (the stock sale). The buyer partnership then contributed the stock of the buyer parent to Seller 2, making Seller 2 the new common parent of the buyer group. At this point, the historic shareholders of the buyer group owned, through the partnership and the buyer partnership, the buyer group (including Seller 2) and the purchased assets. Importantly, the purchased assets owned through the partnership and the buyer partnership were not owned directly or indirectly by any member of the buyer group.

Section 338(e) provides that a purchasing corporation shall be treated as having made a Section 338 election regarding a target corporation if it acquires assets of the target corporation during a "consistency period" before and after the acquisition of the target corporation. Thus, if Section 338(e) applies, the acquisition of the stock in the target corporation is deemed to be an asset purchase under Section 338(a), even though no actual election was made.

In PLR 201213013, the IRS ruled that the Section 338(e) asset consistency rule did not apply. Thus, the selling group reported gain or loss on the sale of its stock in Seller 2 based on the adjusted tax basis in that stock, as adjusted for the asset sale and related distribution. The consistency rule apparently did not apply, because the stock sale was not a "qualified stock purchase" as required by Section 338. Seller 2 was not acquired by a corporate purchase but instead by a disregarded entity owned by a partnership. In addition, the purchased assets were never acquired by any member of the buyer group and will be continued to be held by the buyer partnership and its disregarded entities outside the buyer group.

* * * * * * * * * *


No increase in marital deduction because of assets included in gross estate under Section 2036

In Estate of Turner v. Commissioner (Turner I), T.C. Memo. 2011-209 (8/30/11), the Tax Court ruled that the assets the decedent transferred to a family limited partnership (FLP) were includible in his estate under Section 2036. On a motion to reconsider, Estate of Turner v. Commissioner (Turner II), 138 T.C. No. 14 (3/29/12), the estate argued that there should be no increase in estate tax, because the estate was entitled to an increased marital deduction based on the formula clause in the decedent's will. The estate argued that the marital bequest formula clause, which required the estate to transfer enough property to the surviving spouse to eliminate estate tax, required an increase in the marital deduction to account for the additional assets that were included in the gross estate.

In Turner I, the decedent and his wife had accumulated a significant amount of wealth, mainly through a family business, but also held a significant amount of stock in a regional bank as well as various other marketable securities and real estate. The couple created an FLP, and over a two-year period before the decedent's death, they gifted limited interests in the FLP to their children and their two grandchildren by their predeceased daughter. The Tax Court in Turner I included one-half of the value of the FLP in the decedent's gross estate under Section 2036.

In Turner II, the Tax Court discussed the problems created for a normal estate plan because of the inclusion in the decedent's gross estate of assets given away during the decedent's lifetime to people other than the decedent's spouse. On the estate tax return, the estate claims a marital deduction for the FLP interest that passes to the surviving spouse, but Section 2036 pulls assets underlying the FLP interest into the gross estate, including assets pertaining to the transferred FLP interest. Although under Section 2036, assets underlying the FLP interests transferred as a gift during the decedent's life are included in the gross estate, neither those assets nor the corresponding FLP interests pass to the surviving spouse.

Because the decedent transferred the underlying assets to the FLP and then transferred the portions of the FLP interest as gifts during his lifetime, the Tax Court concluded that any property interest in either the FLP interest transferred to people other than his spouse or the assets underlying that interest could not and did not pass to his spouse for purposes of Section 2056. Therefore, the estate was not allowed to recalculate the marital deduction to include the transferred FLP interest or the underlying assets.

The Tax Court also took note of the overall structure of the wealth transfer system, namely that property for which a marital deduction is claimed when the first spouse dies will, if not consumed by the surviving spouse during his or her lifetime, be subject to gift tax if given away during life, or estate tax upon the surviving spouse's death. If a marital deduction was allowed for property that was transferred to family members during the decedent's life and never passed to the decedent's surviving spouse, that property would escape the transfer tax system entirely.

* * * * * * * * * *

Income beneficiary of trust liable for gift tax resulting from indirect gift to shareholders

In United States v. MacIntyre, No. 4:10-cv-02812 (S.D. Tex. 3/28/12), the District Court held that for gift tax purposes, the income beneficiary of a grantor retained income trust (GRIT) received a gift when the value of the stock held in the trust was increased by her former husband's sale of the same type of stock at below-market value.

As part of her divorce settlement with her husband, the taxpayer received shares of stock in a corporation. In 1984 the taxpayer transferred the stock to an irrevocable trust, which several years later transferred all the stock to four separate trusts: three charitable remainder annuity trusts (CRATs) and a GRIT. The GRIT was to pay the taxpayer the income for 10 years, at which point the trust would terminate and distribute its assets to its remainder beneficiary. The three CRATs sold their stock back to the corporation in 1989. The GRIT retained the stock, distributed its income to the taxpayer and terminated in 1999. The taxpayer died sometime thereafter.

In 1995 the taxpayer's husband sold some stock back to the corporation for a price less than the fair market value (the sale). When auditing the gift tax returns of the taxpayer's husband after he died, the IRS claimed he had made an indirect gift to the remaining shareholders when he sold the stock to the corporation for less than fair market value. The Tax Court decided that there were deficiencies in the amount of gift taxes paid for 1992 through 1995. The estate of the taxpayer's husband failed or refused to fully pay the gift taxes assessed for those years. The IRS brought suit against the taxpayer's estate and its executor and the trustee of the GRIT to collect the unpaid gift taxes, arguing that by operation of law, unpaid gift taxes may be assessed against the donee.

The taxpayer's estate argued that the taxpayer was not the donee of the gift for gift tax purposes because (1) the remainder beneficiary, not the income beneficiary, owes gift taxes on monies that enlarge the corpus; and (2) the gift to the trust was not part of the income the taxpayer received under Kansas law's definition of income. In general, a gift to a trust is treated as a gift to the beneficiaries. The gift taxes should have been paid from the corpus of the trust at the time it became clear that the taxpayer's husband's estate would not pay them. The trust, however, had been dissolved and the trust assets distributed, so the question remained whether the responsibility for those taxes should lie with the income beneficiary, who benefitted from the increase in income distributed by the trust as a result of the sale, or with the remainder beneficiary, to whom the corpus of the trust passed at the time the trust terminated.

The District Court concluded that the income beneficiary who holds a current interest in and right to enjoyment of the gift is the donee of the gift for purposes of gift tax liability. The court reasoned that the gift tax should be paid from a known current source of money. If something happened to the trust property and the remainder beneficiary received little, the requirement to pay the gift tax would create a hardship on someone who never benefitted from the gift. In addition, regarding the argument concerning the character of the increase under Kansas law, the taxpayer had an absolute right to all income from the GRIT, and an increase in the income-producing part of the corpus equates to an increase in the income.

* * * * * * * * * *

Easements satisfy conservation purpose requirement to obtain a charitable deduction

In Butler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2012-72 (3/19/12), the Tax Court concluded that two deeds executed on hundreds of acres of undeveloped land in Georgia met the requirements of a qualified conservation easement. The Tax Court also determined the value of the contribution, which was less than the amount the donors had claimed.

In general, a taxpayer must contribute his or her entire interest in property to a charitable organization in order to obtain a charitable deduction under Section 170. One exception to this general rule is for a qualified conservation contribution. Under Section 170(h)(1), a qualified conservation contribution is a contribution of a qualified real property interest that is exclusively for conservation purposes. To be considered to have been made exclusively for conservation purposes, a contribution must satisfy the requirements of Section 170(h)(4) and (5). Section 170(h)(4)(A) defines "conservation purpose" as:

  • the preservation of land areas for outdoor recreation by, or the education of, the general public;
  • the protection of a relatively natural habitat of fish, wildlife or plants, or similar ecosystem;
  • the preservation of open space (including farmland and forest land) where such preservation is for the scenic enjoyment of the general public or pursuant to a clearly delineated federal, state or local governmental conservation policy, and will yield a significant public benefit; or
  • the preservation of an historically important land area or a certified historic structure.

Section 170(h)(5) provides that no contribution will be treated as exclusively for a conservation purpose unless that purpose is preserved in perpetuity. Reg. Sec. 1.170A-14(e)(2) disallows any deduction where the conservation easement would preserve one of the conservation purposes "but would permit destruction of other significant conservation interests."

To preserve the land, the taxpayers conveyed conservation easements to a local charity that would enforce the easements. The easements reserved to the taxpayers the right to limited use of the property for timber, agricultural and recreational activities, and the right to develop a specified number of home sites on the property.

The taxpayers argued that their easement satisfied the second or third requirement of Section 170(h)(4)(A), while the IRS contended that the taxpayers retained rights over the property that were inconsistent with the listed conservation purposes. One disagreement centered on whether the conservation deeds restricted the location of the building sites. The taxpayers argued that the conservation deeds incorporated by reference the "baseline documents," which included environmental reports and a map stipulating the placement of the building sites in locations that were consistent with the preservation of the conservation purposes. The IRS argued that the baseline documents could not legally be incorporated by reference and were not effective unless separately recorded. Under Georgia law, reference in the recorded conservation deed to the map showing the location of the lots effectively made that map part of the recorded deed, so the Tax Court agreed with the taxpayers on this issue.

The next question was whether the reserved rights were consistent with the conservation purpose — that is, whether the properties, if developed to the extent permitted by the rights reserved under the conservation deeds, would still serve the conservation purpose. The taxpayers presented evidence of environmental reports from the baseline documents, subsequent supplemental reports and trial testimony, all of which the Tax Court characterized as "sparse." The environmental reports did not address how the conservation value of the properties would be affected by the reserved rights. Nevertheless, the IRS offered no contrary expert witness testimony and pointed to no evidence that would suggest the charitable organization was likely to abandon its right to enforce the conservation deeds. Consequently, the Tax Court concluded that because the IRS failed to establish that the conservation deeds did not protect significant habitat, the conservation deeds served the conservation purpose of protecting a relatively natural habitat in perpetuity and satisfied the requirements of Section 170(h)(4)(A)(ii).

* * * * * * * * * *


Chief counsel provides economic substance doctrine procedures

The IRS Office of Chief Counsel has provided procedures in Chief Counsel Notice 2012-008 regarding counsel's role in any IRS assertion of the economic substance doctrine, either as codified under Section 7701(o) or as a common law doctrine. The notice provides guidance in three key areas.

First, the notice provides coordination procedures upon examination. Counsel is to provide timely assistance on any requests by the IRS during a taxpayer examination. When determining if the assertion of the economic substance doctrine is appropriate, counsel should consider the factors outlined in the IRS Large Business and International Division (LB&I) Directives, even if the examination originates from an operating division of the IRS other than LB&I. Generally, directives of one operating division do not apply to other operating divisions or to chief counsel.

This procedure is important because LB&I Directive 4-0711-15 lists factors that examining agents should consider when determining if the economic substance doctrine should be asserted. The factor analysis in the directive seems to raise a substantial hurdle in applying the economic substance doctrine, so extending the directive's reach to the other operating divisions can be viewed as favorable to taxpayers.

The notice further states that if a transaction is the subject of one or more favorable private letter rulings or determination letters issued to the taxpayer, a request must be made to the Associate Chief Counsel office with jurisdiction over the transaction to review and, if appropriate, revoke the applicable rulings or letters before the economic substance doctrine is asserted upon examination.

Second, the notice provides that IRS attorneys must coordinate with Division Counsel headquarters and the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel as part of the review of proposed statutory notices of deficiency or proposed notices of final partnership administrative adjustments that assert the economic substance doctrine.

Finally, the notice provides that IRS attorneys must coordinate with Division Counsel headquarters and the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration) before they can raise the economic substance doctrine as a new issue in the Tax Court or in a defense or suit letter to the Department of Justice.

* * * * * * * * * *


Indiana creates and expands sales and use tax exemptions for recycling

Indiana has adopted legislation retroactive to the beginning of the year that expands the sales and use (gross retail) tax exemption for property used to comply with environmental quality mandates, and creates a general recycling exemption. Read more in our SALT Alert.

Utah Tax Commission rules Web services are taxable tangible personal property

The Utah Tax Commission has held that a taxpayer's sales of Web-based services to subscribers with Utah addresses were taxable as sales of tangible personal property. In reaching its conclusion, the commission relied on two recent law changes: (i) the sale of prewritten computer software is now taxable regardless of the manner in which it is delivered, and (ii) if a purchaser uses computer software without there being an actual transfer of a copy of that software to the purchaser, the tax now applies to the use, based on the purchaser's address. Read more in our SALT Alert.

Tennessee enacts sales tax collection agreement with Amazon

Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam has signed legislation providing that Amazon will collect sales tax on purchases by Tennessee customers beginning on the earlier of Jan. 1, 2014 or the effective date of federal legislation that authorizes states to require remote vendors to collect sales tax. This legislation codifies an agreement with Amazon that Gov. Haslam announced on Oct. 6, 2011. Read more in our SALT Alert.

Connecticut Supreme Court holds teachers created nexus for book distributor

The Connecticut Supreme Court has held that teachers who voluntarily participated in a book program – taking orders and payment from students for the purchase of books and other products from an out¬-of-¬state retailer – acted as "representatives" of the retailer and created sales and use tax nexus for that retailer. Read more in our SALT Alert.

Utah enacts sales and use tax affiliate nexus provisions

Utah Gov. Gary R. Herbert has signed legislation that expands the definition of a seller required to collect and remit Utah sales and use tax to include certain out-of-state sellers with in-state affiliates beginning July 1, 2012. Read more in our SALT Alert.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
1 Nov 2016, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

When the CEO needs to know the tax impact of selling a subsidiary, will your department be ready? When the private equity owner calls to understand the impact of paying a large distribution, is your response time measured in hours or weeks? Tune into our webcast as we help tax professionals prepare for future transactions and make decisions about what is coming.

10 Nov 2016, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

Join us November 10 for an economic assessment of the election results. Gregory Daco, head of U.S. macroeconomics at Oxford Economics will illustrate the economic and political impact of the new administration based on Oxford Economics’ models and analysis.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.