• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to secondary sidebar

Alston & Bird Tax Blog

  • Home
  • Services
  • Contacts

Limiting Capitalization

May 13, 2013 By Jasper L. (Jack) Cummings, Jr. and Edward Tanenbaum

LTR 201319009 seems to be an odd ruling, because the taxpayer sought a ruling that it had to capitalize certain costs of an acquisition through use of a double dummy structure. However, the taxpayer actually was limiting its capitalization by obtaining a ruling that a section 351 exchange with boot was a “covered transaction” for purposes of Reg. Section 1.263(a)-5(b).

Facts. Company 1 wanted to acquire Company 2. Company 1 created Parent. Parent created two mergersubs. One mergersub merged into Company 1 for Parent stock. The other mergersub merged into Company 2 for Parent stock and cash. The amount of cash is not stated but we know it had to be more than 20 percent of the consideration because the merger did not qualify under section 368(a)(2)(E).

The merger into Company 1 did qualify under section 368(a)(2)(E). The merger into Company 2 was a section 351 exchange with boot.

Issue. Reg. Section 1.263(a)-5(b) requires capitalization of the costs of acquisitions of property. Parent and Company 1 acquired Company 2. The regulation would apply. However, a subrule within the regulation provides a bright line based on time for when expenses of an acquisition become subject to capitalization. This rule applies to “covered transactions,” which include reorganizations and taxable acquisitions but not section 351 exchanges as such.

Somewhat surprisingly, the ruling held that the Company 2 acquisition was both a taxable acquisition because boot was paid, and a section 351 exchange. As a result its expenses were subject to the bright line test. Only expenses incurred after a letter of intent was signed, or other event occurred, had to be capitalized. Presumably Company 1 and Parent incurred significant expenses prior to that date.

Comment. The ruling is surprising. It states that normally the IRS does not rule on reorganizations under Rev. Proc. 2013-3. However, the no rule stated there relates only to section 368 and related subchapter C provisions, not section 263.

The ruling did not discuss why section 351 exchanges were left out of the covered transaction list. Perhaps the IRS thought that it should not have been left out, since both “real” taxable transactions and reorganizations were covered. However, there does not seem to be a policy reason why a section 351 exchange with 21-percent boot should be a covered transaction and an all stock exchange not.

Of course an all stock exchange would be a reorganization and reorganizations are covered. That reinforces the possibility that the IRS saw the ruling as plugging a hole in the regulation. 

Written by Jack Cummings, Partner, Tax | Alston & Bird LLP

Filed Under: Accounting, Federal - Corporate Tax Planning, Mergers and Acquisitions - Domestic

About Jasper L. (Jack) Cummings, Jr.

Jack Cummings is counsel in the Federal Tax Group of Alston & Bird in Raleigh and Washington, D.C. He served as IRS associate chief counsel (corporate) and chair of the Corporate Tax Committee of the ABA Section of Taxation.

[Read Bio]

About Edward Tanenbaum

Edward Tanenbaum is co-chair of the firm’s Federal & International Tax Group and a member of the firm’s Global Resources & Strategies Committee. Mr. Tanenbaum’s practice consists primarily of planning and structuring tax efficient solutions for cross-border business transactions and investments by foreign multinational corporations and high-net-worth individuals.

[Read Bio]

Primary Sidebar

As a service of Alston & Bird’s Tax groups, this blog focuses on current issues and events in international, federal, state and local tax and wealth planning of interest to business.

Subscribe

Receive email notifications when new posts are added.

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Tags

401(k) ACA Affordable Care Act audit BEAT CARES Act CFC Corporate Tax Planning covid-19 Delaware ERISA Escheat FATCA FDII Gift cards GILTI international tax IRA IRAs IRS Kelmar New York nexus OECD qualified plans Quill RUUPA SCOTUS Section 351 Section 355 Section 367 Section 385 section 482 section 965 State legislation Subpart F Supreme Court Tax Court Tax Cuts and Jobs Act tax reform TCJA Treasury Unclaimed property UP Wayfair

Secondary Sidebar

Categories

Recent Posts

  • Litigate, Legislate and Repeat: The Delaware Escheat Law Spin Cycle
  • Looking Back at Georgia’s 2022 Legislative Session
  • Diving into IRS’s Annual Report on Advance Pricing Agreements: Can APMA Overcome Its Sisyphean Task?
  • California Dreaming of a Voluntary Compliance Program
  • Testing for COVID and Your Kits for Free: Expanded Coverage of OTC COVID-19 Test Kits and Developments in Preventive Care

Archives

Copyright © 2022 · Alston & Bird · All Rights Reserved. Privacy.