Practising Law Institute Financial Products and Transactions

24
Practising Law Institute Financial Products and Transactions Viva Hammer KPMG, LLP -- Washington National Tax Edward Kleinbard USC Law School Stephen R. Larson IRS -- Associate Chief Counsel - FIP December 2011 Los Angeles

description

Practising Law Institute Financial Products and Transactions . Viva Hammer KPMG, LLP -- Washington National Tax Edward Kleinbard USC Law School Stephen R. Larson IRS -- Associate Chief Counsel - FIP December 2011 Los Angeles. Overview of proposed 1256/446 regulations. Background - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Practising Law Institute Financial Products and Transactions

Page 1: Practising  Law  Institute Financial Products and Transactions

Practising Law Institute

Financial Products and Transactions

Viva HammerKPMG, LLP -- Washington National Tax

Edward KleinbardUSC Law School

Stephen R. LarsonIRS -- Associate Chief Counsel - FIP

December 2011Los Angeles

Page 2: Practising  Law  Institute Financial Products and Transactions

2

Overview of proposed 1256/446 regulations

Background Enactment of Dodd-Frank Act and amendment to section 1256

Broadening scope of “notional principal contract”, other technical changes Bullet swaps Credit default swaps Exotic swaps (weather swaps, longevity swaps) Portfolio swaps Futures/scope of section 1256

Effective date

Page 3: Practising  Law  Institute Financial Products and Transactions

3

Background

Uncertain application of section 1256 to swaps subject to Dodd-Frank

Section 1256 requires mark-to-market , capital gain/loss for “section 1256 contracts”

Dodd-Frank requires swaps to be cleared through a central counterparty (“clearinghouse”) and traded on regulated exchanges

Last-minute amendment to Dodd-Frank amended section 1256 to clarify that certain swaps and “similar agreements” not included in definition of section 1256 contract

Page 4: Practising  Law  Institute Financial Products and Transactions

4

Notional Principal Contract - definition

New proposed regs provide that Dodd-Frank amendment covers any NPC or option on NPC

Proposed regs expand definition of NPC Taxation of NPCs provided for under prior regs

New proposed regs are proposed to be effective for contracts entered into on or after final regulations are published Public statements by IRS that taxpayers need not adopt rules of

proposed regs before finalized e.g., CDS currently treated by some as options

Page 5: Practising  Law  Institute Financial Products and Transactions

5

Bullet swaps

NPC definition requires at least one party to make more than one payment

“Payment” is defined in proposed regs to include “an amount that is fixed on one date and paid . . . on a later date”

“Bullet swaps” — with a single payment at maturity calculated as accumulation of amounts fixed during its term — treated as an NPC

Forward rate agreement is not a NPC Forward contract on equity with interim accruals of dividend-and

interest-equivalent amounts is an NPC

Page 6: Practising  Law  Institute Financial Products and Transactions

6

Bullet swaps

“Payment” definition is novel - inconsistent with market practice and conventional meaning of term “payment” Potential adverse consequences for individual investors, because of

miscellaneous itemized deduction rules

Potential timing and character consequences for all taxpayers

Possible effects on exchange-traded notes and other structured notes

Possible effects on futures contracts

Page 7: Practising  Law  Institute Financial Products and Transactions

7

Bullet swaps

Preamble: Questions have arisen as to the proper interpretation of the NPC definition requiring “payment of amounts”

Implies that there is uncertainty under current law on NPC definition. Possible “uncertainty” is whether multiple payments by one party are

required. Possible “uncertainty” is as to proper treatment of bullet swaps, source

of uncertainty obscure.Meaning of term “payment” seems very clear; cf the OID regulations2004 proposed regulations contain several definitions consistent with

treating bullet swaps as non-NPCs

Page 8: Practising  Law  Institute Financial Products and Transactions

8

Credit default swaps

Uncertainty whether CDS should be: NPC, option, insurance, guarantee

Proposed regs CDS are NPCs; no definition of “credit default swap” Options: no accrual, capital G/L, NPCs: current accrual, ordinary

Y/Exp Application of NPC timing/character rules to CDS unclear

How to amortize upfront and settlement payments over life of CDS?

Potential recharacterization of payments as interest

Anticipated reproposed 2004 regulations will hopefully address these issues and more generally interaction between 2011 proposed regs and NPC timing rules

Page 9: Practising  Law  Institute Financial Products and Transactions

9

Exotic swaps

Proposed regs expand NPCs to include swaps on objective non-financial indices, if the index is not front- or back-loaded. E.g., weather swaps

Why limit non-financial indices to non-front- or back-loaded indices? OID rules can handle front- and back-loading and NPC rules already do

for caps and floors

Many longevity swaps could be back-loaded

Page 10: Practising  Law  Institute Financial Products and Transactions

10

Effective Date issues

Proposed regs proposed to be effective for contracts entered into on or after final regulations are published

How does Dodd-Frank exemption operate before finalization of proposed regs?

Page 11: Practising  Law  Institute Financial Products and Transactions

11

Open Issues

What is a “payment” for purposes of the proposed regulations?What if the expected payment is zero, is that a fixed payment?For example, a contract that provides for a settlement payment

referenced to the appreciation or depreciation of a specified number of shares of common stock, adjusted for actual dividends paid during the term of the contract, is treated as a contract with more than one payment with respect to that leg of the contract

What if it is a non-dividend paying stock – does it still provide for 2 or more payments?

Does an equity forward that contains an adjustment provision for extraordinary dividends cause the plain vanilla equity contract to be characterized as an NPC?

Page 12: Practising  Law  Institute Financial Products and Transactions

12

Open Issues

If the proposed regulations apply to CDS and bullet swaps, how should the “payments” be treated for tax purposes? applicability of 2004 proposed NPC regulations 4 approaches to accounting for contingent swaps as discussed in

Notice 2001-44

Page 13: Practising  Law  Institute Financial Products and Transactions

13

Open Issues

Clarification as to whether the proposed regulations apply to all CDS or just CDS that are not otherwise classified for tax purposes as options or guarantees

If new proposed regulations apply to bullet swaps or CDS that are not currently treated as NPCs, how does a taxpayer change its method of accounting?

Clarification surrounding definition of “non-financial index” Specifically, when can non-financial indices be reasonably expected

to front-load or back-load payments accruing under the contract?

Page 14: Practising  Law  Institute Financial Products and Transactions

14

Principal(U.S.)

French Banks(Foreign)

CitiBank(U.S.)

$150M $150M

Pritired(U.S.)

$475M in 1% Convertible Notes and $455M in Class A Shares

$9M of Class B shares and

$291 of Perpetual Certificates

FTCs

$300M

SAS (Foreign)

$930M

Pritired 1 LLC v. United States

Page 15: Practising  Law  Institute Financial Products and Transactions

15

Pritired

The Basic Economic Transaction: U.S. partnership enters into co-investment transaction with a tax-indifferent foreign investor. Through the transaction, foreign investor is able to borrow money at below market rates. U.S. investor receives the benefit of claiming FTCs on the foreign taxes paid on entire combined investment pool. 

In essence, the U.S. partnerships gives foreign investor a loan in exchange for a small portion of income and all FTCs.

The Actual Transaction (simplified):1. Taxpayers contributed $300M cash to newly formed Pritired 1 LLC (“Pritired”),

which had elected to be treated as a partnership for Federal income tax purposes

2. French Banks created and funded 2 French entities (“the SAS”) with $930M. In exchange for the $930M, SAS issued $475M in 1% Convertible Notes and $455M in Class A Shares to the French Banks.

3. Pritired transferred the entire $300M to the SAS. In exchange, the SAS issued $9M of Class B shares and $291 of Perpetual Certificates to Pritiered. When added to the $930M from the French Banks, SAS had $1.23B. Thus,

the transaction essentially provided $300M of new funds to the French Banks.

Page 16: Practising  Law  Institute Financial Products and Transactions

16

Pritired

Notice of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment (FPAA)

The IRS alleged the transaction was an abusive arrangement and its FTCs were disallowed for 5 reasons:

1. The B shares and PCs were considered to be debt instruments and not equity

2. The transaction was a loan because Pritiered was not a partner in the SAS

3. Pursuant to the anti-abuse rule in section 1.701-2, the transaction was re-characterized as a loan because the B shares and PCs were debt instruments

4. The special allocation of FTCs to Pritiered lacks economic effect 5. The transaction generating the FTCs lacks economic substance

Page 17: Practising  Law  Institute Financial Products and Transactions

17

Pritired

District Court’s Analysis of the FPAA#1 Whether the transaction should be characterized as a loan

The court found the Class B Shares and PCs had attributes more closely related to debt and that the substance of the transaction was a loan. The court’s debt/equity analysis focused on characterization, market risk,

credit risk, and, voting rights.

#2 Whether the transaction lacks economic substance Applying the 8th Circuit’s conjunctive economic substance test, the

court determined that taxpayer had no realistic opportunity to earn a profit independent of the FTCs, and did not expect to earn a meaningful return without the foreign tax credits.

The court rejected taxpayer’s argument that it should be permitted to rely on examples in Notice 98-5, which considered as a factor in determining whether an arrangement was abusive the expected economic profit from the arrangement when compared to the FTCs generated.

Page 18: Practising  Law  Institute Financial Products and Transactions

18

Pritired

District Court’s Analysis of the FPAA#3 Whether the transaction violates the anti-abuse rule under of section

1.701-2

The court held that the transaction did not have a substantial business purpose because it was "designed to transfer and shift the payment of French taxes to instruments that otherwise have a low and undesirable return." 

#4 Whether the transaction lacks substantial economic effect pursuant to section 1.704-1(b)(2)

The court held that even if the transaction constituted a bona fide partnership, the special allocation of French tax expense and net income lacked substantial economic effect and was not consistent with the partners’ interests in the partnership.

Page 19: Practising  Law  Institute Financial Products and Transactions

19

Samueli v. Commissioner

Background — Black Letter Law Observations: If I own a bond with OID, I accrue interest income. If I lend a security to another party (e.g., for that person to sell in a

“short sale”), I am no longer the tax owner of the security (although I am in the same economic position).

If I lend a security in a transaction that qualifies under section 1058, my original basis in the security will carry over onto the security that is ultimately returned to me. Furthermore, my holding period in the security is not interrupted.

Page 20: Practising  Law  Institute Financial Products and Transactions

20

Samueli

The Basic Economic Transaction:Cash-basis taxpayer (Samueli) buys fixed-yield zero coupon bond, with purchase price principally financed through floating rate debt. This is a bet that short-term rates will go down.

Taxpayer would be required to accrue OID, but gets deductions for interest only when paid.

The Actual Transaction (simplified):1.Taxpayer buys zero coupon bond for $80, financed with LIBOR-rate margin loan.

2. Taxpayer lends bond back to broker, in exchange for cash collateral. Securities loan is unusually long-term (450 days) and is scheduled to terminate shortly before bond matures.

Taxpayer repays the margin loan with the cash (so cash is “circling”).Taxpayer pays LIBOR on the cash collateral (so no change to funding costs).

As an economic matter, the bond will accrete in value over the term of the securities loan. Taxpayer takes position he is not required to accrue OID because he no longer owns the bond.

3. At maturity of stock loan, broker is obligated to return the bond to taxpayer. But instead, broker buys the bond, for $97.

Page 21: Practising  Law  Institute Financial Products and Transactions

21

Samueli — The Opposing PositionsTP position #1:

TP has $17 of LTCG (from the purchase of the bond at $80 and disposition at $97).

Section 1058 operates to ensure taxpayer takes a carryover basis of $80 in bond when it is returned.

Section 1058 also allows TP’s holding period to continue un-interrupted. TP also has $16 of ordinary deduction (from the delayed payment of the fee for

the collateral)IRS Counterargument:

TP purchased bond on day 1 and immediately sold it to the bank on the same day.

In other words, TP did not lend the bond to the bank in a non-recognition transaction governed by section 1058. On day 1, TP has basis of $80, and sold the bond for the bank’s obligation worth $80 — realization and recognition event, but no gain/loss simply as a result of the values.

Instead, TP has entered into forward contract to buy bond at maturity (end of year 1.75). Ultimately, TP buys bond at $96 on that date and sells it for $97 that same day — resulting in $1 of Short-term CG.

TP position #2: Even if the day 1 transaction is not a securities loan, the resulting forward

contract was held for more than a year. It was cash-settled. Therefore, the $1 of profit is Long-term CG.

Page 22: Practising  Law  Institute Financial Products and Transactions

22

Samueli – The Tax Issues #1. Was the day 1 transaction, in fact, a valid securities loan under section 1058?

In order for arrangement to qualify for non-recognition, the transferor must be in the same economic position.

The agreement by which the securities are lent must “not reduce the . . . opportunity for gain of the transferor of the securities in the securities transferred.” Section 1058(b)(3).

TP could not call back the securities for 1.75 years. 9th Circuit Court holds: “During this period, TP could not have taken advantage of a short-lived

spike in the market value of the securities . . . Common sense compels the conclusion that this reduced the opportunity for gain that a normal owner of the securities would have enjoyed.”

“our conclusion that the transaction . . . reduced TP’s opportunity for gain does not necessarily imply a conclusion that a securities loan must be terminable upon demand to satisfy the requirement of section 1058(b)(3).”

What of shorter “term loans” of securities? 180, 90, 60 days? Note: court’s emphasis on purpose of section 1058, and that it is exclusive avenue for non-recognition.

Page 23: Practising  Law  Institute Financial Products and Transactions

23

Samueli – The Tax Issues

#2. Assuming a sale occurs on day 1 (not section 1058 transaction), does the cash settlement of the arrangement generate long term capital gain?

IRS argues that cash-settlement of the contract at maturity does not reflect a cancellation or termination of the contract under section 1234A. Instead, it merely reflects the fulfillment of the contract. If securities had actually been delivered, TP would have been purchased for $96 and sold at $97 (with short-term holding period). It is not appropriate to “mark-to-market” the forward contract (and recognize a $1 LTCG) — rather, the contract must be treated as having been fulfilled/performed.

*9th Circuit Court agrees.

Note: The IRS & court position is directly contrary to analysis in CCA 201104031 (re: closing forward with borrowed shares)

Page 24: Practising  Law  Institute Financial Products and Transactions

24

Contact

Viva HammerKPMG LLP -- Washington National Tax [email protected](202) 412-9798Edward KleinbardUSC Law [email protected] (213) 740-4582Stephen LarsonInternal Revenue Service -- Financial Instruments and [email protected](202) 622-3900