Determining the Amount of Taxes Paid for Purposes of Section 901, 40727-40738 [E8-16329]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
adding, in their place, the words
‘‘Collections Section at (317) 614–
4514’’;
I c. Paragraph (e)(2) is further amended
by removing the words ‘‘Customs Data
Center’’ in the fifth and eighth sentences
and adding, in their place, the words
‘‘CBP Data Center’’;
I d. Paragraph (e)(2) is further amended
by removing the word ‘‘Customs’’ in the
sixth and seventh sentences and adding,
in its place, the term ‘‘CBP’’; and
I e. Paragraph (e)(2) is further amended
by removing the words ‘‘U.S. Customs
Data Center, on (703–644–5200)’’ in the
last sentence and adding, in their place,
the words ‘‘CBP Data Center, on (703–
921–6000)’’.
PART 115—CARGO CONTAINER AND
ROAD VEHICLE CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO INTERNATIONAL
CUSTOMS CONVENTIONS
29. The authority citation for part 115,
CBP regulations, continues to read as
follows:
I
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 19 U.S.C. 66,
1624; E.O. 12445 of October 17, 1983.
§ 115.6
by removing the word ‘‘shall’’ and
adding, in its place, the word ‘‘will’’;
and
I b. The paragraph (b) introductory text
is amended by removing the word
‘‘Customs’’ and adding, in its place, the
term ‘‘CBP’’, by removing the lower case
‘‘a’’ at the beginning of the second
sentence and adding, in its place, the
upper case ‘‘A’’, and by removing the
word ‘‘shall’’ in the second sentence
and adding, in its place, the word
‘‘will’’.
PART 141—ENTRY OF MERCHANDISE
34. The general authority citation for
part 141, CBP regulations, continues to
read as follows:
I
Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1448, 1484, 1624.
*
*
§ 141.102
*
*
*
[Amended]
35. In § 141.102, paragraph (a) is
amended by removing the reference to
‘‘§ 11.2(a)’’ and adding in its place
‘‘§ 11.2a’’.
I
PART 177—ADMINISTRATIVE
RULINGS
[Amended]
26 CFR Part 1
§ 177.21
*
*
*
*
[Amended]
37. Section 177.21 is amended by
removing the words ‘‘Federal
Procurement Regulations (41 CFR part
1–6)’’ and adding, in their place, the
words ‘‘Federal Acquisition Regulations
(48 CFR chapter 1)’’, and by removing
the parenthetical citation ‘‘(32 CFR
section VI)’’ and adding, in its place, the
parenthetical citation ‘‘(48 CFR chapter
2)’’.
I
Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General
Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States) (HTSUS), 1431, 1433, 1436,
1448, 1624, 2071 note.
*
Section 123.2 also issued under 19 U.S.C.
1459.
PART 181—NORTH AMERICAN FREE
TRADE AGREEMENT
*
I
*
*
*
*
38. The general authority citation for
part 181, CBP regulations, continues to
read as follows:
PART 134—COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
MARKING
32. The authority citation for part 134,
CBP regulations, continues to read as
follows:
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
I
Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General
Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States), 1624, 3314;
*
*
*
*
*
39. Section 181.93 is amended by
revising the second and third sentences
of paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202
(General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States), 1304, 1624.
I
§ 134.3
§ 181.93 Submission of advance ruling
requests.
[Amended]
33. In § 134.3:
a. Paragraph (a) is amended by
removing the word ‘‘Customs’’ and
adding in its place the term ‘‘CBP’’, and
I
I
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jul 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
BILLING CODE 9111–14–P
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202
(General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States), 1502, 1624,
1625.
PART 123—CUSTOMS RELATIONS
WITH CANADA AND MEXICO
31. The general authority for part 123,
CBP regulations, continues to read, and
the specific authority for § 123.2 is
revised to read, as follows:
Dated: July 3, 2008.
Jayson P. Ahern,
Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection.
[FR Doc. E8–15622 Filed 7–15–08; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
I
I
request may be directed either to the
Commissioner of Customs and Border
Protection, Attention: Regulations and
Rulings, Office of International Trade,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. (Mint
Annex), Washington, DC 20229, or to
the National Commodity Specialist
Division, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, One Penn Plaza, 10th Floor,
New York, NY 10119. For any subject
matter specified in § 181.92(b)(6)(ii),
(iii), or (iv) of this part, the request must
be directed to the Commissioner of
Customs and Border Protection,
Attention: Regulations and Rulings,
Office of International Trade, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, 1300
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. (Mint
Annex), Washington, DC 20229.
*
*
*
*
*
36. The authority citation for part 177,
CBP regulations, continues to read as
follows:
30. In § 115.6, paragraph (c) is
amended by removing the words ‘‘One
World Trade Center, Suite 2757, New
York, New York 10048’’ and adding, in
their place, the words ‘‘17 Battery Place,
Suite 1232, New York, New York
10004–1110’’.
I
40727
(a) * * * For any subject matter
specified in § 181.92(b)(6)(i), (v), (vi),
(vii), (viii), or (ix) of this part, the
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Internal Revenue Service
[TD 9416]
RIN 1545–BH74
Determining the Amount of Taxes Paid
for Purposes of Section 901
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Final and temporary
regulations.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document contains final
and temporary regulations under section
901 of the Internal Revenue Code
providing guidance relating to the
determination of the amount of taxes
paid for purposes of the foreign tax
credit.
The regulations affect taxpayers that
claim direct and indirect foreign tax
credits. The text of these temporary
regulations also serves as the text of the
proposed regulations (REG–156779–06)
published in the Proposed Rules section
in this issue of the Federal Register .
DATES: Effective Date: These regulations
are effective on July 16, 2008.
Applicability Dates: For dates of
applicability, see § 1.901–1T(j) and
§ 1.901–2T(h)(2).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Gilman, (202) 622–3850 (not a
toll-free number).
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
16JYR1
40728
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 30, 2007, the Federal
Register published proposed
amendments (72 FR 15081) to the
Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part I)
under section 901 of the Internal
Revenue Code (Code) relating to the
amount of taxes paid for purposes of the
foreign tax credit (the ‘‘2007 proposed
regulations’’). The 2007 proposed
regulations would revise § 1.901–2(e)(5)
in two ways. First, for purposes of
§ 1.901–2(e)(5), the 2007 proposed
regulations would treat as a single
taxpayer all foreign entities in which the
same U.S. person has a direct or indirect
interest of 80 percent or more (a ‘‘U.S.owned foreign group’’). Second, the
2007 proposed regulations would treat
amounts paid to a foreign taxing
authority as noncompulsory payments if
those amounts are attributable to certain
structured passive investment
arrangements. The 2007 proposed
regulations provide that the regulations
will be effective for foreign taxes paid or
accrued during taxable years of the
taxpayer ending on or after the date on
which the regulations are finalized.
The IRS and Treasury Department
received written comments on the 2007
proposed regulations, which are
discussed in this preamble. A public
hearing was held on July 30, 2007. In
response to written comments, the IRS
and Treasury Department determined
that the proposed change to § 1.901–
2(e)(5) relating to U.S.-owned foreign
groups may lead to inappropriate results
in certain cases. Accordingly, on
November 19, 2007, the IRS and
Treasury Department issued Notice
2007–95, 2007–49 IRB 1 (see
§ 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b)). Notice 2007–95
provided that the proposed rule for
U.S.-owned foreign groups would be
severed from the portion of the 2007
proposed regulations addressing the
treatment of foreign payments
attributable to certain structured passive
investment arrangements. Notice 2007–
95 further provided that the proposed
rules for U.S.-owned groups would be
effective for taxable years beginning
after final regulations are published in
the Federal Register .
In light of comments, the IRS and the
Treasury Department believe that it is
appropriate to issue new proposed and
temporary regulations addressing the
treatment of foreign payments
attributable to structured passive
investment arrangements. These new
regulations make several changes to the
2007 proposed regulations to take into
account comments received, while
adopting without amendment
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jul 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
substantial portions of the 2007
proposed regulations. The new
temporary and proposed regulations
will permit the IRS to enforce the rules
relating to structured passive
investment arrangements, while also
allowing taxpayers a further opportunity
for comment. The significant comments
and revisions are described in this
preamble.
Explanation of Provisions
The temporary regulations address the
application of § 1.901–2(e)(5) in cases in
which a person claiming foreign tax
credits is a party to a structured passive
investment arrangement. These complex
arrangements are intentionally
structured to create a foreign tax
liability when, removed from the
elaborately engineered structure, the
basic underlying business transaction
generally would result in significantly
less, or even no, foreign taxes. The
parties use these arrangements to
exploit differences between U.S. and
foreign law in order to permit a person
to claim a foreign tax credit for the
purported foreign tax payments while
also allowing the foreign counterparty to
claim a duplicative foreign tax benefit.
The person claiming foreign tax credits
and the foreign counterparty share the
cost of the purported foreign tax
payments through the pricing of the
arrangement.
The temporary regulations treat
foreign payments attributable to such
arrangements as noncompulsory
payments under § 1.901–2(e)(5) and,
thus, disallow foreign tax credits for
such amounts. For periods prior to the
effective date of the temporary
regulations, the IRS will continue to
utilize all available tools under current
law to challenge the U.S. tax results
claimed in connection with these and
other similar abusive arrangements,
including the substance over form
doctrine, the economic substance
doctrine, debt-equity principles, tax
ownership principles, other provisions
of § 1.901–2, section 269, and the
partnership anti-abuse rules of § 1.701–
2.
The temporary regulations retain the
general rule in the existing regulations
that a taxpayer need not alter its form
of doing business or the form of any
transaction in order to reduce its foreign
tax liability. However, § 1.901–
2T(e)(5)(iv)(A) provides that,
notwithstanding the general rule, an
amount paid to a foreign country (a
‘‘foreign payment’’) is not a compulsory
payment, and thus is not an amount of
tax paid, if the foreign payment is
attributable to a structured passive
investment arrangement. For this
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
purpose, § 1.901–2T(e)(5)(iv)(B) defines
a structured passive investment
arrangement as an arrangement that
satisfies six conditions. The six
conditions consist of features that are
common to arrangements that are
intentionally structured to generate the
foreign payment.
A. Section 1.901–2T(e)(5)(iv)(B)(1):
Special Purpose Vehicle
The first condition provided in the
2007 proposed regulations is that the
arrangement utilizes an entity that
meets two requirements (an ‘‘SPV’’).
The first requirement is that
substantially all of the gross income (for
United States tax purposes) of the
entity, if any, is attributable to passive
investment income and substantially all
of the assets of the entity are assets held
to produce such passive investment
income. The second requirement is that
there is a purported foreign tax payment
attributable to income of the entity. The
purported foreign tax may be paid by
the entity itself, by the owner(s) of the
entity (if the entity is treated as a passthrough entity under foreign law) or by
a lower-tier entity (if the lower-tier
entity is treated as a pass-through entity
under U.S. law).
For purposes of the first requirement,
§ 1.901–2(e)(5)(iv)(C)(4) of the 2007
proposed regulations defines passive
investment income as income described
in section 954(c), with two
modifications. The first modification
excludes income of a holding company
attributable to qualifying equity
interests in lower-tier entities that are
predominantly engaged in the active
conduct of a trade or business (or that
are themselves holding companies). The
second modification is that passive
investment income is determined by
disregarding sections 954(c)(3) and
954(c)(6) and by treating income
attributable to transactions with a
counterparty as ineligible for the
exclusions under sections 954(h) and
954(i).
One commentator recommended, in
lieu of the holding company rules in the
2007 proposed regulations, applying
look-through rules to income and assets
of lower-tier entities similar to the rules
of section 1297(c), under which a
foreign corporation, if it owns at least 25
percent of the stock of another
corporation, is treated as owning its
proportionate share of the assets of the
other corporation and receiving its
proportionate share of the income of the
other corporation. Alternatively, the
commentator recommended that the
holding company rules in the 2007
proposed regulations be modified to
eliminate the requirement that
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
16JYR1
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
substantially all of the assets of the
tested entity must consist of qualified
equity interests; to permit income other
than dividends (for example, interest
and royalties) received from a lower-tier
entity that is predominantly engaged in
an active business to qualify as active
income; and to treat a lower-tier entity
as an operating company if more than
50 percent of either its assets or its
income meet the active business test. In
addition, commentators suggested
eliminating the requirement that the
U.S. party and the counterparty must
share the opportunity of gain or loss
with respect to the lower-tier entity, or
replacing it with a rule disqualifying the
equity interest if contractual restrictions
limit the counterparty’s recourse against
the lower-tier entity’s income or assets.
Finally, commentators suggested that
preferred stock should be treated as a
qualifying equity interest.
These comments were not adopted.
The holding company exception is
intended only to clarify that a joint
venture arrangement is not treated as a
structured passive investment
arrangement solely because it is
conducted through a holding company
structure, not to liberalize the definition
of structured passive investment
arrangements. The requirement that the
parties share the opportunity for gain
and risk of loss with respect to the
holding company’s assets is intended to
ensure that the arrangement between the
parties is a bona fide joint venture. In
this regard, a commentator
recommended that the regulations be
clarified to provide that the holding
company exception is not satisfied if
either the U.S. party or the counterparty
is solely a creditor with respect to the
entity because it either owns a hybrid
instrument that is debt for U.S. tax
purposes or purchases stock subject to
an obligation to sell the stock back. This
modification is reflected in § 1.901–
2T(e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)(ii) of the temporary
regulations. In addition, Example 2 of
§ 1.901–2T(e)(5)(iv)(D) is modified to
clarify that the holding company
exception is not met if the
counterparty’s interest is acquired in a
sale-repurchase transaction.
The IRS and Treasury Department
recognize that under the regulations an
entity conducting business through an
active foreign subsidiary may fail to
meet the holding company exception,
even though the entity would not be
treated as an SPV under the
‘‘substantially all’’ test if it operated the
subsidiary’s business directly through a
branch operation. The IRS and Treasury
Department believe this result is
appropriate because the segregation of
active business income and assets in a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jul 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
lower-tier entity may facilitate the use of
an upper-tier entity to conduct a
structured passive investment
arrangement.
The IRS and Treasury Department
remain concerned that taxpayers may
continue to enter into structured passive
investment arrangements designed to
generate foreign tax credits through
entities that meet the technical
requirements of the holding company
exception. The IRS and Treasury
Department intend to monitor the use of
holding companies to facilitate abusive
foreign tax credit arrangements, utilize
all available tools under current law to
challenge the U.S. tax results claimed in
connection with such arrangements
(including the substance over form
doctrine, the economic substance
doctrine, debt-equity principles, tax
ownership principles, other provisions
of § 1.901–2, section 269, and the
partnership anti-abuse rules of § 1.701–
2) in appropriate cases, and to issue
additional regulations modifying or
eliminating the holding company
exception if necessary to prevent abuse.
The second modification in the 2007
proposed regulations is that passive
investment income is determined by
disregarding sections 954(c)(3) and
954(c)(6) and by treating income
attributable to transactions with a
counterparty as ineligible for the
exclusions under sections 954(h) and
954(i). The IRS and Treasury
Department received a number of
comments suggesting that the definition
of passive investment income should be
narrowed by excluding income that
would be treated as non-subpart F
income under section 954(c)(3) or
954(c)(6), excluding income from
unrelated persons other than the
counterparty, or eliminating the
requirement in section 954(h) that the
tested entity’s activity be conducted in
the entity’s ‘‘home country.’’ Other
commentators suggested substituting
other tests for the active financing
exception in section 954(h), such as
exempting financial services income as
defined in section 904(d), with or
without modification. For example,
commentators suggested various
modifications, such as excluding
income derived from unrelated persons
or from direct activities of employees of
the tested entity; exempting any income
derived from or related to transactions
with customers; exempting income that
would be considered attributable to an
active foreign trade or business under
the principles of section 864 and
§ 1.367(a)–2T(b); or exempting income
other than income from ‘‘tainted’’ assets
such as cash or cash equivalents, stock
or notes of persons related to the U.S.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40729
party or counterparty, or assets giving
rise to U.S. source income. One
commentator suggested that payments
described in section 954(c)(3) should
not be treated as passive investment
income to the extent the payment was
deductible under foreign law and the
corresponding income inclusion by the
tested entity did not result in a net
increase in foreign taxes paid. This
commentator suggested that the result in
the U.S. borrower transaction described
in Example 2 of the 2007 proposed
regulations was inappropriate since the
foreign tax paid by the SPV was offset
by a reduction in tax paid by the CFC
borrower.
The IRS and Treasury Department
carefully considered these suggestions
but ultimately determined that none of
the suggested approaches has significant
advantages over relying on section
954(h) to determine whether income
from financing activities is sufficiently
active that it should be excluded from
passive investment income for purposes
of these regulations. Section 954(h)
includes detailed requirements that
ensure that the entity is predominantly
engaged in the active conduct of a
banking, financing or similar business
and conducts substantial activity with
respect to such business. In addition,
the IRS and Treasury Department
continue to believe it is not appropriate
to exclude income described in sections
954(c)(3) and 954(c)(6) from passive
investment income, because financing
arrangements between related parties
that are engaged in the active conduct
of a trade or business are commonly
used in the structured transactions that
are the target of these regulations. The
IRS and Treasury Department also do
not believe that U.S. borrower
transactions should not be considered to
result in a net increase in foreign tax,
since in the absence of the structured
passive investment arrangement the
CFC borrower would still reduce its
foreign tax by reason of the interest
expense deduction but the U.S. party
would not claim foreign tax credits for
foreign payments attributable to income
in the SPV that is in substance the
foreign lender’s interest income.
Accordingly, § 1.901–
2T(e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)(i) generally retains the
definition of passive investment income
in the 2007 proposed regulations.
However, the temporary regulations
include two modifications in response
to comments. First, the IRS and
Treasury Department agree it is
appropriate to require the entity’s
activities to be conducted directly by its
own employees rather than by
employees of affiliates, because the
purpose of the SPV condition is to
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
16JYR1
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
40730
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
distinguish between active entities and
those with largely passive income, and
it is reasonable to require an entity
engaged in an active business to
conduct that business through its own
employees. Accordingly, § 1.901–
2T(e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)(i) provides that section
954(h)(3)(E) shall not apply, and that the
entity must conduct substantial activity
through its own employees.
Second, the IRS and Treasury
Department agree that the requirement
that activities be conducted in the
entity’s ‘‘home country’’ reflects a
subpart F policy that is more restrictive
than necessary for purposes of these
regulations. Accordingly, § 1.901–
2T(e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)(i) provides that for
purposes of these regulations the term
home country means any foreign
country.
Concerning the requirement in
§ 1.901–2(e)(5)(iv)(B)(1)(i) of the 2007
proposed regulations that substantially
all of the gross income of the entity be
passive investment income and
substantially all of the entity’s assets are
assets held to produce such passive
investment income, one commentator
recommended that the regulations
provide examples illustrating situations
in which such requirement is met. The
IRS and Treasury Department did not
adopt this comment because the
‘‘substantially all’’ test requires
evaluation of all the facts and
circumstances and cannot be satisfied
by reference to a specific percentage
benchmark.
Several commentators requested that
the regulations clarify the time at which
the six conditions must be met to result
in a structured passive investment
arrangement. Section 1.901–
2T(e)(5)(iv)(B)(1)(ii) of the temporary
regulations is revised to clarify that the
foreign payment must be made with
respect to a U.S. tax year in which
substantially all of the gross income (for
U.S. tax purposes) of the entity, if any,
is attributable to passive investment
income and substantially all of the
assets of the entity are assets held to
produce such passive investment
income. This clarification is intended to
ensure that foreign tax credits are
disallowed for foreign payments that
relate primarily to passive investment
income, but not for taxes that relate to
active business income earned in an
earlier or later year when the entity is
not treated as an SPV. The regulations
do not, however, require all six
conditions to be met in the same tax
year. For example, the regulations
disallow credits for foreign payments
with respect to income of an SPV even
if the U.S. party acquires its interest, or
a hybrid instrument is issued to the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jul 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
counterparty, after the foreign payments
are made.
Other commentators recommended
that the regulations eliminate the SPV
condition and treat as noncompulsory
payments only those foreign payments
that directly relate to passive investment
income, or with respect to which
duplicative tax benefits are claimed.
The IRS and Treasury Department did
not adopt such an approach in the
temporary regulations because of the
administrative difficulty of tracing
specific foreign payments to specific
income or to the duplicative tax
benefits. Accordingly, the temporary
regulations retain the SPV condition
and the approach of treating all foreign
payments attributable to a structured
passive investment arrangement as
noncompulsory. However, the IRS and
Treasury Department recognize that an
element of the arrangements intended to
be covered by the regulations is that
they are designed to generate
duplicative tax benefits, and that some
connection between the counterparty’s
foreign tax benefit and the U.S. party’s
share of the foreign payments should be
a pre-condition to the finding of a
structured passive investment
arrangement. Accordingly, as described
in section D of this preamble, the
foreign tax benefit condition is revised
to provide that the counterparty’s
foreign tax benefit must correspond to
10 percent or more of the U.S. party’s
share of the foreign payments or the
U.S. party’s share (under U.S. tax
principles) of the foreign tax base used
to compute such payments.
B. Section 1.901–2T(e)(5)(iv)(B)(2): U.S.
Party
Section 1.901–2T(e)(5)(iv)(B)(2) of the
temporary regulations adopts without
change the second overall condition of
the 2007 proposed regulations that a
person (a ‘‘U.S. party’’) would be
eligible to claim a credit under section
901(a) (including a credit for foreign
taxes deemed paid under section 902 or
960) for all or a portion of the foreign
payment if such payment were an
amount of tax paid.
One commentator requested that the
regulations be amended to clarify that
the ‘‘U.S. party’’ condition must be met
at the same time as the other five
conditions. The temporary regulations
do not include this condition because
the IRS and Treasury Department
believe it is inappropriate to exempt
arrangements that are structured so that
the U.S. party claims a credit in a
taxable year or period that is not the
same taxable year or period in which
the counterparty is entitled to a foreign
tax benefit. In addition, the IRS and
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Treasury Department are concerned that
this modification would allow a person
to acquire an interest in an SPV and
claim credits with respect to purported
foreign taxes paid in an earlier period by
the SPV in connection with an
arrangement that met the other five
conditions of the regulations.
C. Section 1.901–2T(e)(5)(iv)(B)(3):
Direct Investment
The third overall condition provided
in the 2007 proposed regulations is that
the foreign payment or payments are (or
are expected to be) substantially greater
than the amount of credits, if any, that
the U.S. party would reasonably expect
to be eligible to claim under section
901(a) if such U.S. party directly owned
its proportionate share of the assets
owned by the SPV, other than through
a branch, a permanent establishment or
any other arrangement (such as an
agency arrangement) that would subject
the income generated by its share of the
assets to a net basis foreign tax.
Commentators recommended several
changes to the direct investment
condition, several of which are adopted
in the temporary regulations. First, in
order to reach appropriate results in
cases where more than one person owns
an equity interest in the SPV for U.S. tax
purposes, the temporary regulations
amend the direct investment test to
compare the U.S. party’s proportionate
share of the foreign payment made by
the SPV to the amount of foreign tax the
U.S. party would be eligible to credit if
the U.S. party directly owned its
proportionate share of the assets.
Second, the temporary regulations
clarify that a dual resident corporation
that is an SPV meets the direct
investment condition since its
ownership of the passive assets is
treated the same as ownership through
a branch operation. Third, a
commentator suggested that the direct
investment test of the 2007 proposed
regulations could be avoided by
entering into a sale-repurchase
transaction using an SPV that acquires
passive assets subject to foreign
withholding tax. This commentator
recommended that the direct investment
condition be revised to reduce the value
of the U.S. party’s interest by any
amount advanced by the foreign
counterparty that is treated as debt for
U.S. tax purposes but as equity for
foreign tax purposes. The IRS and
Treasury Department agree that
situations where the SPV’s income is
subject to gross basis foreign taxes raise
the same foreign tax credit policy
concerns as situations where the SPV’s
income is subject to net basis foreign
taxes. The IRS and Treasury
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
16JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
Department, however, believe the
commentator’s recommended solution
is incomplete, since the other
conditions of the regulations can be met
by structures employing techniques
other than sale-repurchase agreements.
Accordingly, the temporary regulations
provide that the U.S. party’s
proportionate share of the SPV’s assets
does not include any assets that produce
income subject to gross basis
withholding tax.
Several commentators recommended
that the regulations include an
exception for certain transactions in
which the amount of the foreign
payments attributable to income of an
SPV does not substantially exceed the
amount of foreign taxes that would have
been paid by a controlled foreign
corporation that owns the SPV in the
absence of the arrangement. The
commentators suggested that such
foreign payments should not be treated
as noncompulsory payments because
they effectively substitute for taxes that
would have been imposed on the
controlled foreign corporation in the
absence of the arrangement.
These comments raise the
fundamental question as to the
appropriate baseline to which such
transactions should be compared to
determine if there has been a significant
increase in the total amount of foreign
taxes paid. Although the IRS and
Treasury Department carefully
considered an exception from the
definition of structured passive
investment arrangements for such
transactions, the IRS and Treasury
Department have been unable to
develop an exception that can be
administered by the IRS and that does
not exclude abusive cases. Accordingly,
the temporary regulations do not
include this exception.
D. Section 1.901–2T(e)(5)(iv)(B)(4):
Foreign Tax Benefit
The fourth condition provided in the
2007 proposed regulations is that the
arrangement is structured in such a
manner that it results in a foreign tax
benefit (such as a credit, deduction,
loss, exemption or a similar tax benefit)
for a counterparty or for a person that
is related to the counterparty, but not
related to the U.S. party. In response to
comments, to relieve administrative
burdens these regulations clarify that
while the benefit must be reasonably
expected, there is no requirement to
show that the benefit be intended or
actually realized. The temporary
regulations also provide that the ability
to surrender the use of a tax loss to
another person is a foreign tax benefit
because a foreign tax benefit need only
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jul 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
be made available to a counterparty. See
Example 9 of § 1.901–2T(e)(5)(iv)(D).
Several commentators recommended
that the regulations be revised to require
a causal relationship between one or
more of the six conditions. For example,
one commentator recommended adding
a requirement that the foreign tax
benefit either relate to the foreign tax
paid by the SPV or result from the
counterparty being treated for foreign
but not U.S. tax purposes as owning an
equity interest in the SPV or a portion
of the SPV’s assets. Another
commentator suggested requiring that
the inconsistent aspect of the
arrangement be created or used to
achieve the foreign tax benefit. Another
commentator recommended requiring
that the foreign tax benefit would not
have been allowed or allowable ‘‘but
for’’ the existence of one or more of the
other conditions.
In response to the comments, the
temporary regulations revise the
‘‘foreign tax benefit’’ condition to
provide that the credit, deduction, loss,
exemption, exclusion or other tax
benefit must correspond to 10 percent or
more of the U.S. party’s share (for U.S.
tax purposes) of the foreign payment or
10 percent or more of the foreign tax
base with respect to which the U.S.
party’s share of the foreign payment is
imposed. The revisions are intended to
clarify that a joint venture that does not
involve any duplication of tax benefits
is not covered by the temporary
regulations. At the same time, the
temporary regulations provide that the
duplication need not be direct. For
example, while the U.S. party generally
seeks to claim foreign tax credits in the
United States for foreign payments
attributable to income of the SPV, the
counterparty’s foreign tax benefit may
consist of tax-exempt income paid out
of the SPV’s income with respect to
which foreign payments claimed as
credits by the U.S. party were made and
deductions or losses attributable to
payments of corresponding amounts to
the SPV or U.S. party. See Example 3 of
§ 1.901–2T(e)(5)(iv)(D).
E. Section 1.901–2T(e)(5)(iv)(B)(5):
Counterparty
The 2007 proposed regulations define
a counterparty as a person (other than
the SPV) that is unrelated to the U.S.
party and that (i) directly or indirectly
owns 10 percent or more of the equity
of the SPV under the tax laws of a
foreign country in which such person is
subject to tax on the basis of place of
management, place of incorporation or
similar criterion or otherwise subject to
a net basis foreign tax or (ii) acquires 20
percent or more of the assets of the SPV
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40731
under the tax laws of a foreign country
in which such person is subject to tax
on the basis of place of management,
place of incorporation or similar
criterion or otherwise subject to a net
basis foreign tax.
Commentators proposed that the
counterparty factor be amended to
include certain related parties.
Commentators noted that structured
transactions engaged in by related
persons under common foreign
ownership present the same tax policy
concerns as transactions between
unrelated persons. However, these same
commentators noted that structured
transactions engaged in by related
parties that are under common U.S.
ownership do not pose the same tax
policy concerns because the reduction
in foreign tax liability obtained by the
U.S.-controlled foreign counterparty
will result in a corresponding increase
in U.S. taxes when the foreign
counterparty repatriates its earnings to
the United States. The IRS and Treasury
Department agree with these comments.
Consequently, the temporary regulations
amend the definition of a counterparty
to include related persons, but
excluding cases where the U.S. party is
a U.S. corporation or individual that
owns (directly or indirectly) at least 80
percent of the value of the potential
counterparty and cases where at least 80
percent of the value of the U.S. party
and the potential counterparty are
owned (directly or indirectly) by the
same U.S. corporation or individual.
Several commentators also suggested
that the requirement that the
counterparty own at least 10 percent
(directly or indirectly) of the equity of
the SPV or acquire at least 20 percent of
the assets of the SPV should be revised.
Some commentators proposed these
thresholds be increased to 50 percent.
Other commentators proposed that the
ownership of all foreign parties deriving
a foreign tax benefit should be
aggregated to determine whether the
thresholds are met. The IRS and
Treasury Department agree that the
regulatory conditions should be revised
to better reflect that the counterparty is
entitled to more than a nominal foreign
tax benefit. Accordingly, the temporary
regulations eliminate the percentage
ownership thresholds from the
counterparty definition, and modify the
definition of a foreign tax benefit in
§ 1.901–2T(e)(5)(iv)(B)(4), as described
in section D of this preamble.
F. Section 1.901–2T(e)(5)(iv)(B)(6):
Inconsistent Treatment
The sixth condition in the 2007
proposed regulations is that the U.S.
and an applicable foreign country treat
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
16JYR1
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
40732
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
the arrangement differently under their
respective tax systems. For this purpose,
an applicable foreign country is any
foreign country in which either the
counterparty, a person related to the
counterparty or the SPV is subject to net
basis tax. To provide clarity and limit
the scope of this factor, the 2007
proposed regulations provide that the
arrangement must be subject to one of
four specified types of inconsistent
treatment. Specifically, the U.S. and the
foreign country (or countries) must treat
one or more of the following aspects of
the arrangement differently, and the
U.S. treatment of the inconsistent aspect
must materially affect the amount of
foreign tax credits claimed, or the
amount of income recognized, by the
U.S. party to the arrangement: (i) The
classification of an entity as a
corporation or other entity subject to an
entity-level tax, a partnership or other
flow-through entity or an entity that is
disregarded for tax purposes; (ii) the
characterization as debt, equity or an
instrument that is disregarded for tax
purposes of an instrument issued in the
transaction; (iii) the proportion of the
equity of the SPV (or an entity that
directly or indirectly owns the SPV) that
is considered to be owned directly or
indirectly by the U.S. party and the
counterparty; or (iv) the amount of
taxable income of the SPV for one or
more tax years during which the
arrangement is in effect.
Commentators recommended that this
condition be clarified so that the U.S.
treatment of the inconsistent aspect
must materially increase the amount of
the U.S. party’s foreign tax credits or
materially decrease the U.S. party’s
income for U.S. tax purposes. The
temporary regulations reflect this
clarification. In addition, commentators
requested that this factor be limited to
instances when the inconsistent
treatment is reasonably expected to
result in a permanent difference in the
U.S. party’s income or foreign tax
credits. The IRS and Treasury
Department believe that the revisions to
the foreign tax benefit condition
described in Section D of this preamble
are sufficient to establish the
appropriate linkage between the
inconsistent U.S. and foreign law
treatment and the duplicative tax
benefits. Accordingly, the temporary
regulations retain the inconsistent
treatment factor without further
changes.
One commentator also recommended
that the inconsistent treatment
condition be narrowed to instances
where the inconsistent treatment under
U.S. and foreign law related to
definitions of ownership and the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jul 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
amount of the SPV’s taxable income.
The IRS and Treasury Department have
not adopted this recommendation
because it would cause certain types of
abusive arrangements to fall outside the
scope of the regulations and because
differences in entity classification are
features common to structured passive
investment arrangements.
G. Other Comments
Commentators also made suggestions
that did not relate to any single factor.
For example, commentators also
requested clarification that the foreign
payments treated as noncompulsory
amounts under the regulation may be
deductible payments under sections 162
and 212 and reduce a foreign
corporation’s earnings and profits for
purposes of subpart F. The IRS and
Treasury Department believe that
providing guidance regarding sections
162, 212, and 964 is beyond the scope
of this regulation project. The usual
rules for determining the deductibility
of a payment and determining the
earnings and profits of a foreign
corporation for subpart F purposes
apply.
In addition, commentators requested
that foreign payments attributable to a
structured passive investment
arrangement be excluded from the scope
of the regulations if the arrangement has
a valid business purpose. Other
commentators suggested that the
regulations adopt a broad anti-abuse
rule that would deny a foreign tax credit
in any case where allowance of the
credit would be inconsistent with the
purpose of the foreign tax credit regime.
The IRS and Treasury Department are
concerned that these approaches would
create uncertainty for both taxpayers
and the IRS. The IRS and Treasury
Department have concluded that, at this
time, a targeted rule denying foreign tax
credits in arrangements described in the
temporary regulations is more
appropriate.
H. Other Examples
In response to comments, the
temporary regulations include more
examples illustrating additional
variations of the structured passive
investment arrangements that are
covered by the regulations. For example,
new Example 3 illustrates a U.S.
borrower transaction in which a foreign
lender acquires assets instead of an
equity interest in the SPV and new
Example 10 illustrates a joint venture in
which the counterparty’s foreign tax
benefits do not correspond to the U.S.
party’s share of the base with respect to
which the foreign payment is imposed.
Modifications to examples in the 2007
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
proposed regulations were also
necessary to reflect comments received
and other changes to the regulations.
I. Effective/Applicability Dates
The 2007 proposed regulations were
proposed to be effective for foreign taxes
paid or accrued during taxable years of
the taxpayer ending on or after the date
on which the final regulations are
published in the Federal Register . A
commentator observed that the final
regulations would potentially be
retroactively effective because the
regulations would apply, for example, to
calendar year taxpayers as of January 1
of the year in which the final
regulations are published in the Federal
Register and to taxpayers that
participated in structured passive
investment arrangements involving
entities with taxable years that differ
from the U.S. taxpayers’ taxable years.
Commentators also requested
clarification of whether the relevant
taxable year for purposes of the effective
date is the taxable year of the SPV in
which it pays or accrues the purported
foreign taxes, or the taxable year of the
U.S. taxpayer in which it claims a
credit. For example, commentators
observed that if the taxable year of the
U.S. taxpayer in which it claims a credit
is the relevant taxable year, the final
regulations would apply to U.S.
shareholders of controlled foreign
corporations where the shareholder
claims a deemed paid credit under
section 902 with respect to foreign taxes
paid by the foreign corporation in years
prior to the effective date of the
regulations. These commentators
recommended that the regulations
provide that the relevant taxable year is
the SPV’s taxable year. Commentators
also recommended that the final
regulations apply only to foreign taxes
paid or accrued in taxable years
beginning after the date the final
regulations are published, or only to
foreign taxes paid or accrued with
respect to income accrued after the date
the final regulations are published.
The IRS and Treasury Department
have not adopted the recommendation
to delay the effective date of these
regulations to apply only in tax years
beginning after the regulations are
published. The IRS and Treasury
Department generally believe the
regulations should apply to disallow
credits for foreign payments that would
otherwise be eligible to be claimed as
credits in taxable years ending after the
regulations are published. The IRS and
Treasury Department agree, however,
that the regulations should not apply to
foreign taxes paid or accrued by a
foreign corporation in a U.S. taxable
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
16JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
year of the foreign corporation ending
prior to the effective date of the
regulations, provided that such year
ends prior to the first taxable year of the
domestic corporate shareholder for
which these regulations are first
applicable.
Accordingly, the effective date for
these regulations is July 16, 2008. The
regulations generally apply to foreign
payments that, if they were an amount
of tax paid, would be considered paid
or accrued by a U.S. or foreign entity in
taxable years ending on or after July 16,
2008. In the case of foreign payments by
a foreign corporation that has a
domestic corporate shareholder, the
regulations also apply to such payments
that would be considered paid or
accrued in the foreign corporation’s U.S.
taxable years ending with or within
taxable years of its domestic corporate
shareholder ending on or after July 16,
2008. Finally, in the case of foreign
payments by a partnership, trust or
estate for which any partner or
beneficiary would otherwise be eligible
to claim a foreign tax credit, the
regulations also apply to payments that
would be considered paid or accrued in
taxable years ending with or within
taxable years of such partners or
beneficiaries ending on or after July 16,
2008.
No inference is intended regarding the
U.S. tax consequences of structured
passive investment arrangements prior
to the effective date of the regulations.
For periods after the effective date of
the temporary regulations, the IRS and
Treasury Department will continue to
scrutinize other arrangements that are
not covered by the regulations but are
inconsistent with the purpose of the
foreign tax credit. Such arrangements
may include arrangements that are
similar to arrangements described in the
temporary regulations, but that do not
meet all of the conditions included in
the temporary regulations. The IRS will
continue to challenge the claimed U.S.
tax results in appropriate cases. In
addition, the IRS and Treasury
Department may issue additional
regulations in the future in order to
address such other arrangements.
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
J. Miscellaneous Amendments
The temporary regulations also amend
§ 1.901–1(a) and (b) to reflect statutory
changes made by the Foreign Investors
Tax Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–809 (80
Stat. 1539), section 106(b)), the Tax
Reform Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94–455 (90
Stat. 1520), section 1901(a)(114)), and
the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004
(Pub. L. 108–357 (118 Stat. 1418–20),
section 405(b)).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jul 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
Special Analyses
It has been determined that this
Treasury decision is not a significant
regulatory action as defined in
Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a
regulatory assessment is not required.
For applicability of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, please refer to the crossreferenced notice of proposed
rulemaking published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register. Pursuant
to section 7805(f) of the Internal
Revenue Code, this regulation has been
submitted to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for comment on its
impact on small businesses.
Drafting Information
The principal author of these
regulations is Michael I. Gilman, Office
of Associate Chief Counsel
(International). However, other
personnel from the IRS and the Treasury
Department participated in their
development.
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Amendments to the Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is
amended as follows:
I
PART 1—INCOME TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority citation
for part 1 continues to read in part as
follows:
I
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
I Par. 2. Section 1.901–1 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read
as follows:
§ 1.901–1
Allowance of credit for taxes.
(a) and (b). [Reserved]. For further
guidance, see § 1.901–1T(a) and (b).
*
*
*
*
*
I Par. 3. Section 1.901–1T is added to
read as follows:
§ 1.901–1T Allowance of credit for taxes
(temporary).
(a) In general. Citizens of the United
States, domestic corporations, and
certain aliens resident in the United
States or Puerto Rico may choose to
claim a credit, as provided in section
901, against the tax imposed by chapter
1 of the Code for taxes paid or accrued
to foreign countries and possessions of
the United States, subject to the
conditions prescribed in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (a)(3) and paragraph (b) of
this section.
(1) Citizen of the United States. A
citizen of the United States, whether
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40733
resident or nonresident, may claim a
credit for—
(i) The amount of any income, war
profits, and excess profits taxes paid or
accrued during the taxable year to any
foreign country or to any possession of
the United States; and
(ii) His share of any such taxes of a
partnership of which he is a member, or
of an estate or trust of which he is a
beneficiary.
(2) Domestic corporation. A domestic
corporation may claim a credit for—
(i) The amount of any income, war
profits, and excess profits taxes paid or
accrued during the taxable year to any
foreign country or to any possession of
the United States;
(ii) Its share of any such taxes of a
partnership of which it is a member, or
of an estate or trust of which it is a
beneficiary; and
(iii) The taxes deemed to have been
paid under section 902 or 960.
(3) Alien resident of the United States
or Puerto Rico. Except as provided in a
Presidential proclamation described in
section 901(c), an alien resident of the
United States, or an alien individual
who is a bona fide resident of Puerto
Rico during the entire taxable year, may
claim a credit for—
(i) The amount of any income, war
profits, and excess profits taxes paid or
accrued during the taxable year to any
foreign country or to any possession of
the United States; and
(ii) His share of any such taxes of a
partnership of which he is a member, or
of an estate or trust of which he is a
beneficiary.
(b) Limitations. Certain Code sections,
including sections 814, 901(e) through
(l), 906, 907, 908, 911, 999, and 6038,
limit the credit against the tax imposed
by chapter 1 of the Code for certain
foreign taxes.
(c) through (i) [Reserved]. For further
guidance, see § 1.901–1(c) through (i).
(j) Effective/applicability date. This
section applies to taxable years
beginning after July 16, 2008.
(k) Expiration date. The applicability
of this section expires July 15, 2011.
I Par. 4. Section 1.901–2 is amended by
adding paragraphs (e)(5)(iii) and
(e)(5)(iv) and revising paragraph (h) to
read as follows:
§ 1.901–2 Income, war profits, or excess
profits tax paid or accrued.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) and (iv) [Reserved]. For further
guidance, see § 1.901–2T(e)(5)(iii) and
(iv).
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Effective/applicability date—(1) In
general. This section and §§ 1.901–2A
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
16JYR1
40734
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
and 1.903–1 apply to taxable years
beginning after November 14, 1983.
(2) [Reserved]. For further guidance,
see § 1.901–2T(h)(2).
I Par. 5. Section 1.901–2T is added to
read as follows:
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
§ 1.901–2T Income, war profits, or excess
profits tax paid or accrued (temporary).
(a) through (e)(5)(ii) [Reserved]. For
further guidance, see § 1.901–2(a)
through (e)(5)(ii).
(e)(5)(iii) [Reserved].
(iv) Structured passive investment
arrangements—(A) In general.
Notwithstanding § 1.901–2(e)(5)(i), an
amount paid to a foreign country (a
‘‘foreign payment’’) is not a compulsory
payment, and thus is not an amount of
tax paid, if the foreign payment is
attributable (within the meaning of
paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(1)(ii) of this
section) to a structured passive
investment arrangement (as described in
paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B) of this section).
(B) Conditions. An arrangement is a
structured passive investment
arrangement if all of the following
conditions are satisfied:
(1) Special purpose vehicle (SPV). An
entity that is part of the arrangement
meets the following requirements:
(i) Substantially all of the gross
income (for U.S. tax purposes) of the
entity, if any, is passive investment
income, and substantially all of the
assets of the entity are assets held to
produce such passive investment
income. As provided in paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)(ii) of this section, passive
investment income generally does not
include income of a holding company
from qualified equity interests in lowertier entities that are predominantly
engaged in the active conduct of a trade
or business. Thus, except as provided in
paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)(ii) of this
section, qualified equity interests of a
holding company in such lower-tier
entities are not held to produce passive
investment income and the ownership
of such interests will not cause the
holding company to meet the
requirements of this paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(B)(1)(i).
(ii) There is a foreign payment
attributable to income of the entity (as
determined under the laws of the
foreign country to which such foreign
payment is made), including the entity’s
share of income of a lower-tier entity
that is a branch or pass-through entity
under the laws of such foreign country,
that, if the foreign payment were an
amount of tax paid, would be paid or
accrued in a U.S. taxable year in which
the entity meets the requirements of
paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(1)(i) of this
section. A foreign payment attributable
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jul 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
to income of an entity includes a foreign
payment attributable to income that is
required to be taken into account by an
owner of the entity, if the entity is a
branch or pass-through entity under the
laws of such foreign country. A foreign
payment attributable to income of an
entity also includes a foreign payment
attributable to income of a lower-tier
entity that is a branch or pass-through
entity for U.S. tax purposes. A foreign
payment attributable to income of the
entity does not include a withholding
tax (within the meaning of section
901(k)(1)(B)) imposed on a distribution
or payment from the entity to a U.S.
party.
(2) U.S. party. A person would be
eligible to claim a credit under section
901(a) (including a credit for foreign
taxes deemed paid under section 902 or
960) for all or a portion of the foreign
payment described in paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(B)(1)(ii) of this section if the
foreign payment were an amount of tax
paid.
(3) Direct investment. The U.S. party’s
proportionate share of the foreign
payment or payments described in
paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(1)(ii) of this
section is (or is expected to be)
substantially greater than the amount of
credits, if any, that the U.S. party
reasonably would expect to be eligible
to claim under section 901(a) for foreign
taxes attributable to income generated
by the U.S. party’s proportionate share
of the assets owned by the SPV if the
U.S. party directly owned such assets.
For this purpose, direct ownership shall
not include ownership through a
branch, a permanent establishment or
any other arrangement (such as an
agency arrangement or dual resident
status) that would result in the income
generated by the U.S. party’s
proportionate share of the assets being
subject to tax on a net basis in the
foreign country to which the payment is
made. A U.S. party’s proportionate
share of the assets of the SPV shall be
determined by reference to such U.S.
party’s proportionate share of the total
value of all of the outstanding interests
in the SPV that are held by its equity
owners and creditors. A U.S. party’s
proportionate share of the assets of the
SPV, however, shall not include any
assets that produce income subject to
gross basis withholding tax.
(4) Foreign tax benefit. The
arrangement is reasonably expected to
result in a credit, deduction, loss,
exemption, exclusion or other tax
benefit under the laws of a foreign
country that is available to a
counterparty or to a person that is
related to the counterparty (determined
under the principles of paragraph
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(e)(5)(iv)(C)(7) of this section by
applying the tax laws of a foreign
country in which the counterparty is
subject to tax on a net basis). However,
a foreign tax benefit is described in this
paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(4) only if any
such credit corresponds to 10 percent or
more of the U.S. party’s share (for U.S.
tax purposes) of the foreign payment
referred to in paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(B)(1)(ii) of this section or if any
such deduction, loss, exemption,
exclusion or other tax benefit
corresponds to 10 percent or more of the
foreign base with respect to which the
U.S. party’s share (for U.S. tax purposes)
of the foreign payment is imposed.
(5) Counterparty. The arrangement
involves a counterparty. A counterparty
is a person that, under the tax laws of
a foreign country in which the person is
subject to tax on the basis of place of
management, place of incorporation or
similar criterion or otherwise subject to
a net basis tax, directly or indirectly
owns or acquires equity interests in, or
assets of, the SPV. However, a
counterparty does not include the SPV
or a person with respect to which for
U.S. tax purposes the same domestic
corporation, U.S. citizen or resident
alien individual directly or indirectly
owns more than 80 percent of the total
value of the stock (or equity interests) of
each of the U.S. party and such person.
In addition, a counterparty does not
include a person with respect to which
for U.S. tax purposes the U.S. party
directly or indirectly owns more than 80
percent of the total value of the stock (or
equity interests), but only if the U.S.
party is a domestic corporation, a U.S.
citizen or a resident alien individual.
(6) Inconsistent treatment. The United
States and an applicable foreign country
treat one or more of the following
aspects of the arrangement differently
under their respective tax systems, and
for one or more tax years when the
arrangement is in effect either the
amount of income recognized by the
SPV, the U.S. party, and persons related
to the U.S. party for U.S. tax purposes
is materially less than the amount of
income that would be recognized if the
foreign tax treatment controlled for U.S.
tax purposes, or the amount of credits
claimed by the U.S. party (if the foreign
payment described in paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(B)(1)(ii) of this section were an
amount of tax paid) is materially greater
than it would be if the foreign tax
treatment controlled for U.S. tax
purposes:
(i) The classification of the SPV (or an
entity that has a direct or indirect
ownership interest in the SPV) as a
corporation or other entity subject to an
entity-level tax, a partnership or other
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
16JYR1
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
flow-through entity or an entity that is
disregarded for tax purposes.
(ii) The characterization as debt,
equity or an instrument that is
disregarded for tax purposes of an
instrument issued by the SPV (or an
entity that has a direct or indirect
ownership interest in the SPV) to the
U.S. party, the counterparty or a person
related to the U.S. party or the
counterparty.
(iii) The proportion of the equity of
the SPV (or an entity that directly or
indirectly owns the SPV) that is
considered to be owned directly or
indirectly by the U.S. party and the
counterparty.
(iv) The amount of taxable income of
the SPV for one or more tax years during
which the arrangement is in effect.
(C) Definitions. The following
definitions apply for purposes of
paragraph (e)(5)(iv) of this section.
(1) Applicable foreign country. An
applicable foreign country means each
foreign country to which a foreign
payment described in paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(B)(1)(ii) of this section is made
or which confers a foreign tax benefit
described in paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(4) of
this section.
(2) Counterparty. The term
counterparty means a person described
in paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(5) of this
section.
(3) Entity. The term entity includes a
corporation, trust, partnership or
disregarded entity described in
§ 301.7701–2(c)(2)(i) of this chapter.
(4) Indirect ownership. Indirect
ownership of stock or another equity
interest (such as an interest in a
partnership) shall be determined in
accordance with the principles of
section 958(a)(2), regardless of whether
the interest is owned by a U.S. or
foreign entity.
(5) Passive investment income—(i) In
general. For purposes of paragraph
(e)(5)(iv) of this section, the term
passive investment income means
income described in section 954(c), as
modified by this paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)(i) and paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)(ii) of this section. In
determining whether income is
described in section 954(c), paragraphs
(c)(3) and (c)(6) of that section shall be
disregarded, and sections 954(h) and
954(i) shall be taken into account by
applying those provisions at the entity
level as if the entity were a controlled
foreign corporation (as defined in
section 957(a)). For purposes of the
preceding sentence, any income of an
entity attributable to transactions that,
assuming the entity is an SPV, are with
a person that is a counterparty, or with
persons that are related to a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jul 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
counterparty within the meaning of
paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(4) of this section,
shall not be treated as qualified banking
or financing income or as qualified
insurance income, and shall not be
taken into account in applying sections
954(h) and 954(i) for purposes of
determining whether other income of
the entity is excluded from section
954(c)(1) under section 954(h) or 954(i),
but only if any such person (or a person
that is related to such person within the
meaning of paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(4) of
this section) is eligible for a foreign tax
benefit described in paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(B)(4) of this section. In
addition, in applying section 954(h) for
purposes of this paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)(i), section 954(h)(3)(E)
shall not apply, section 954(h)(2)(A)(ii)
shall be satisfied only if the entity
conducts substantial activity with
respect to its business through its own
employees, and the term ‘‘any foreign
country’’ shall be substituted for ‘‘home
country’’ wherever it appears in section
954(h).
(ii) Holding company exception.
Except as provided in this paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)(ii), income of an entity
that is attributable to an equity interest
in a lower-tier entity is passive
investment income. If the entity is a
holding company and directly owns a
qualified equity interest in another
entity (a ‘‘lower-tier entity’’) that is
engaged in the active conduct of a trade
or business and that derives more than
50 percent of its gross income from such
trade or business, then none of the
entity’s income attributable to such
interest is passive investment income,
provided that substantially all of the
entity’s opportunity for gain and risk of
loss with respect to such interest in the
lower-tier entity is shared by the U.S.
party or parties (or persons that are
related to a U.S. party) and, assuming
the entity is an SPV, a counterparty or
counterparties (or persons that are
related to a counterparty). For purposes
of the preceding sentence, an entity is
a holding company, and is considered to
be engaged in the active conduct of a
trade or business and to derive more
than 50 percent of its gross income from
such trade or business, if substantially
all of its assets consist of qualified
equity interests in one or more entities,
each of which is engaged in the active
conduct of a trade or business and
derives more than 50 percent of its gross
income from such trade or business and
with respect to which substantially all
of the entity’s opportunity for gain and
risk of loss with respect to each such
interest in a lower-tier entity is shared
(directly or indirectly) by the U.S. party
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40735
or parties (or persons that are related to
a U.S. party) and, assuming the entity is
an SPV, a counterparty or counterparties
(or persons that are related to a
counterparty). A person is not
considered to share in the entity’s
opportunity for gain and risk of loss if
its equity interest in the entity was
acquired in a sale-repurchase
transaction, if its interest is treated as
debt for U.S. tax purposes, or if
substantially all of the entity’s
opportunity for gain and risk of loss
with respect to its interest in any lowertier entity is borne (directly or
indirectly) by the U.S. party or parties
(or persons that are related to a U.S.
party) or, assuming the entity is an SPV,
a counterparty or counterparties (or
persons that are related to a
counterparty), but not both parties. For
purposes of this paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)(ii), a lower-tier entity that
is engaged in a banking, financing, or
similar business shall not be considered
to be engaged in the active conduct of
a trade or business unless the income
derived by such entity would be
excluded from section 954(c)(1) under
section 954(h) or 954(i), determined by
applying those provisions at the lowertier entity level as if the entity were a
controlled foreign corporation (as
defined in section 957(a)). In addition,
for purposes of the preceding sentence,
any income of an entity attributable to
transactions that, assuming the entity is
an SPV, are with a person that is a
counterparty, or with other persons that
are related to a counterparty within the
meaning of paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(4) of
this section, shall not be treated as
qualified banking or financing income
or as qualified insurance income, and
shall not be taken into account in
applying sections 954(h) and 954(i) for
purposes of determining whether other
income of the entity is excluded from
section 954(c)(1) under section 954(h) or
954(i), but only if any such person (or
a person that is related to such person
within the meaning of paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(B)(4) of this section) is eligible
for a foreign tax benefit described in
paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(4) of this section.
In applying section 954(h) for purposes
of this paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)(ii),
section 954(h)(3)(E) shall not apply,
section 954(h)(2)(A)(ii) shall be satisfied
only if the entity conducts substantial
activity with respect to its business
through its own employees, and the
term ‘‘any foreign country’’ shall be
substituted for ‘‘home country’’
wherever it appears in section 954(h).
(6) Qualified equity interest. With
respect to an interest in a corporation,
the term qualified equity interest means
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
16JYR1
40736
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
stock representing 10 percent or more of
the total combined voting power of all
classes of stock entitled to vote and 10
percent or more of the total value of the
stock of the corporation or disregarded
entity, but does not include any
preferred stock (as defined in section
351(g)(3)). Similar rules shall apply to
determine whether an interest in an
entity other than a corporation is a
qualified equity interest.
(7) Related person. Two persons are
related if—
(i) One person directly or indirectly
owns stock (or an equity interest)
possessing more than 50 percent of the
total value of the other person; or
(ii) The same person directly or
indirectly owns stock (or an equity
interest) possessing more than 50
percent of the total value of both
persons.
(8) Special purpose vehicle (SPV). The
term SPV means the entity described in
paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(1) of this section.
(9) U.S. party. The term U.S. party
means a person described in paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(B)(2) of this section.
(D) Examples. The following
examples illustrate the rules of
paragraph (e)(5)(iv) of this section. No
inference is intended as to whether a
taxpayer would be eligible to claim a
credit under section 901(a) if a foreign
payment were an amount of tax paid.
Example 1. U.S. borrower transaction. (i)
Facts. A domestic corporation (USP) forms a
country M corporation (Newco), contributing
$1.5 billion in exchange for 100 percent of
the stock of Newco. Newco, in turn, loans the
$1.5 billion to a second country M
corporation (FSub) wholly owned by USP.
USP then sells its entire interest in Newco to
a country M corporation (FP) for the original
purchase price of $1.5 billion, subject to an
obligation to repurchase the interest in five
years for $1.5 billion. The sale has the effect
of transferring ownership of the Newco stock
to FP for country M tax purposes. The salerepurchase transaction is structured in a way
that qualifies as a collateralized loan for U.S.
tax purposes. Therefore, USP remains the
owner of the Newco stock for U.S. tax
purposes. In year 1, FSub pays Newco $120
million of interest. Newco pays $36 million
to country M with respect to such interest
income and distributes the remaining $84
million to FP. Under country M law, the $84
million distribution is excluded from FP’s
income. None of FP’s stock is owned, directly
or indirectly, by USP or any shareholders of
USP that are domestic corporations, U.S.
citizens, or resident alien individuals. Under
an income tax treaty between country M and
the United States, country M does not impose
country M tax on interest received by U.S.
residents from sources in country M.
(ii) Result. The $36 million payment by
Newco to country M is not a compulsory
payment, and thus is not an amount of tax
paid because the foreign payment is
attributable to a structured passive
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jul 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
investment arrangement. First, Newco is an
SPV because all of Newco’s income is passive
investment income described in paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(C)(5) of this section; Newco’s only
asset, a note, is held to produce such income;
the payment to country M is attributable to
such income; and if the payment were an
amount of tax paid it would be paid or
accrued in a U.S. taxable year in which
Newco meets the requirements of paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(B)(1)(i) of this section. Second, if
the foreign payment were treated as an
amount of tax paid, USP would be deemed
to pay the foreign payment under section
902(a) and, therefore, would be eligible to
claim a credit for such payment under
section 901(a). Third, USP would not pay any
country M tax if it directly owned Newco’s
loan receivable. Fourth, the distribution from
Newco to FP is exempt from tax under
country M law, and the exempt amount
corresponds to more than 10 percent of the
foreign base with respect to which USP’s
share (which is 100 percent under U.S. tax
law) of the foreign payment was imposed.
Fifth, FP is a counterparty because FP owns
stock of Newco under country M law and
none of FP’s stock is owned by USP or
shareholders of USP that are domestic
corporations, U.S. citizens, or resident alien
individuals. Sixth, FP is the owner of 100
percent of Newco’s stock for country M tax
purposes, while USP is the owner of 100
percent of Newco’s stock for U.S. tax
purposes, and the amount of credits claimed
by USP if the payment to country M were an
amount of tax paid is materially greater than
it would be if, for U.S. tax purposes, FP and
not USP were treated as owning 100 percent
of Newco’s stock. Because the payment to
country M is not an amount of tax paid, USP
is not deemed to pay any country M tax
under section 902(a). USP has dividend
income of $84 million and also has interest
expense of $84 million. FSub’s post-1986
undistributed earnings are reduced by $120
million of interest expense.
Example 2. U.S. borrower transaction. (i)
Facts. The facts are the same as in Example
1, except that FSub is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Newco. In addition, assume
FSub is engaged in the active conduct of
manufacturing and selling widgets and
derives more than 50 percent of its gross
income from such business.
(ii) Result. The results are the same as in
Example 1. Although Newco wholly owns
FSub, which is engaged in the active conduct
of manufacturing and selling widgets and
derives more than 50 percent of its income
from such business, Newco’s income that is
attributable to Newco’s equity interest in
FSub is passive investment income because
the sale-repurchase transaction limits FP’s
interest in Newco and its assets to that of a
creditor, so that substantially all of Newco’s
opportunity for gain and risk of loss with
respect to its stock in FSub is borne by USP.
See paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)(ii) of this
section. Accordingly, Newco’s stock in FSub
is held to produce passive investment
income. Thus, Newco is an SPV because all
of Newco’s income is passive investment
income described in paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)
of this section, Newco’s assets are held to
produce such income, the payment to
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
country M is attributable to such income, and
if the payment were an amount of tax paid
it would be paid or accrued in a U.S. taxable
year in which Newco meets the requirements
of paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(1)(i) of this section.
Example 3. U.S. borrower transaction. (i)
Facts. (A) A domestic corporation (USP)
loans $750 million to its wholly-owned
domestic subsidiary (Sub). USP and Sub form
a country M partnership (Partnership) to
which each contributes $750 million.
Partnership loans all of its $1.5 billion of
capital to Issuer, a wholly-owned country M
affiliate of USP, in exchange for a note and
coupons providing for the payment of
interest at a fixed rate over a five-year term.
Partnership sells all of the coupons to
Coupon Purchaser, a country N partnership
owned by a country M corporation (Foreign
Bank) and a wholly-owned country M
subsidiary of Foreign Bank, for $300 million.
At the time of the coupon sale, the fair
market value of the coupons sold is $290
million and, pursuant to section 1286(b)(3),
Partnership’s basis allocated to the coupons
sold is $290 million. Several months later
and prior to any interest payments on the
note, Foreign Bank and its subsidiary sell all
of their interests in Coupon Purchaser to an
unrelated country O corporation for $280
million. None of Foreign Bank’s stock or its
subsidiary’s stock is owned, directly or
indirectly, by USP or Sub or by any
shareholders of USP or Sub that are domestic
corporations, U.S. citizens, or resident alien
individuals.
(B) Assume that both the United States and
country M respect the sale of the coupons for
tax law purposes. In the year of the coupon
sale, for country M tax purposes USP’s and
Sub’s shares of Partnership’s profits total
$300 million, a payment of $60 million to
country M is made with respect to those
profits, and Foreign Bank and its subsidiary,
as partners of Coupon Purchaser, are entitled
to deduct the $300 million purchase price of
the coupons from their taxable income. For
U.S. tax purposes, USP and Sub recognize
their distributive shares of the $10 million
premium income and claim a direct foreign
tax credit for their distributive shares of the
$60 million payment to country M. Country
M imposes no additional tax when Foreign
Bank and its subsidiary sell their interests in
Coupon Purchaser. Country M also does not
impose country M tax on interest received by
U.S. residents from sources in country M.
(ii) Result. The payment to country M is
not a compulsory payment, and thus is not
an amount of tax paid, because the foreign
payment is attributable to a structured
passive investment arrangement. First,
Partnership is an SPV because all of
Partnership’s income is passive investment
income described in paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)
of this section; Partnership’s only asset,
Issuer’s note, is held to produce such income;
the payment to country M is attributable to
such income; and if the payment were an
amount of tax paid, it would be paid or
accrued in a U.S. taxable year in which
Partnership meets the requirements of
paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(1)(i) of this section.
Second, if the foreign payment were an
amount of tax paid, USP and Sub would be
eligible to claim a credit for such payment
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
16JYR1
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
under section 901(a). Third, USP and Sub
would not pay any country M tax if they
directly owned Issuer’s note. Fourth, for
country M tax purposes, Foreign Bank and its
subsidiary deduct the $300 million purchase
price of the coupons and are exempt from
country M tax on the $280 million received
upon the sale of Coupon Purchaser, and the
deduction and exemption correspond to
more than 10 percent of the $300 million
base with respect to which USP’s and Sub’s
100% share of the foreign payments was
imposed. Fifth, Foreign Bank and its
subsidiary are counterparties because they
indirectly acquired assets of Partnership, the
interest coupons on Issuer’s note, and are not
directly or indirectly owned by USP or Sub
or shareholders of USP or Sub that are
domestic corporations, U.S. citizens, or
resident alien individuals. Sixth, the amount
of taxable income of Partnership for one or
more years is different for U.S. and country
M tax purposes, and the amount of income
recognized by USP and Sub for U.S. tax
purposes is materially less than the amount
of income they would recognize if the
country M tax treatment of the coupon sale
controlled for U.S. tax purposes. Because the
payment to country M is not an amount of
tax paid, USP and Sub are not considered to
pay tax under section 901. USP and Sub have
interest income of $10 million in the year of
the coupon sale.
Example 4. Active business; no SPV. (i)
Facts. A, a domestic corporation, wholly
owns B, a country X corporation engaged in
the manufacture and sale of widgets. On
January 1, year 1, C, also a country X
corporation, loans $400 million to B in
exchange for an instrument that is debt for
U.S. tax purposes and equity in B for country
X tax purposes. As a result, C is considered
to own stock of B for country X tax purposes.
B loans $55 million to D, a country Y
corporation wholly owned by A. In year 1,
B has $166 million of net income attributable
to its sales of widgets and $3.3 million of
interest income attributable to the loan to D.
Country Y does not impose tax on interest
paid to nonresidents. B makes a payment of
$50.8 million to country X with respect to B’s
net income. Country X does not impose tax
on dividend payments between country X
corporations. None of C’s stock is owned,
directly or indirectly, by A or by any
shareholders of A that are domestic
corporations, U.S. citizens, or resident alien
individuals.
(ii) Result. B is not an SPV within the
meaning of paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(1) of this
section because the amount of interest
income received from D does not constitute
substantially all of B’s income and the $55
million note from D does not constitute
substantially all of B’s assets. Accordingly,
the $50.8 million payment to country X is not
attributable to a structured passive
investment arrangement.
Example 5. U.S. lender transaction. (i)
Facts. (A) A country X corporation (Foreign
Bank) contributes $2 billion to a newlyformed country X company (Newco) in
exchange for 100 percent of Newco’s
common stock. A domestic corporation (USP)
contributes $1 billion to Newco in exchange
for securities that are treated as stock of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jul 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
Newco for U.S. tax purposes and debt of
Newco for country X tax purposes. Newco
loans the $3 billion to a wholly-owned,
country X subsidiary of Foreign Bank (FSub)
in return for a $1 billion note paying fixed,
non-contingent interest and a $2 billion
contingent interest zero coupon note, each
note having a term of seven years. FSub is
required to pay non-contingent interest to
Newco annually on the $1 billion note, but
the contingent interest is only payable at
maturity of the $2 billion note (December 31
of year 7). The contingency is effective to
prevent the current accrual of the contingent
interest for U.S. tax purposes. At the end of
year 5, pursuant to a prearranged plan,
Foreign Bank acquires USP’s stock of Newco
for $1 billion. Country X does not impose tax
on dividends received by one country X
corporation from a second country X
corporation. Under an income tax treaty
between country X and the United States,
country X does not impose country X tax on
interest received by U.S. residents from
sources in country X. None of Foreign Bank’s
stock is owned, directly or indirectly, by USP
or any shareholders of USP that are domestic
corporations, U.S. citizens, or resident alien
individuals.
(B) In each of years 1 through 7, FSub pays
Newco $40 million of non-contingent
interest. Even though none of the contingent
interest is currently payable by FSub, for
country X tax purposes Newco accrues an
additional $84 million of interest income
attributable to the contingent note in each
year. Newco distributes $4 million to USP in
each of years 1 through 5 and pays country
X $36 million with respect to $120 million
of taxable income from the two notes in each
year. For U.S. tax purposes, only the $40
million of non-contingent interest is included
in computing Newco’s post-1986
undistributed earnings.
(ii) Result. The $36 million payment to
country X is not a compulsory payment, and
thus is not an amount of tax paid, because
the foreign payment is attributable to a
structured passive investment arrangement.
First, Newco is an SPV because all of
Newco’s income is passive investment
income described in paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)
of this section; Newco’s only assets, two
notes of FSub, are held to produce such
income; the payment to country X is
attributable to such income; and if the
payment were an amount of tax paid it would
be paid or accrued in a U.S. taxable year in
which Newco meets the requirements of
paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(1)(i) of this section.
Second, if the foreign payment were an
amount of tax paid, USP would be deemed
to pay all, or $36 million, of the foreign
payment under section 902(a) in each of
years 1 through 5 and, therefore, would be
eligible to claim a credit under section
901(a). Third, USP would not pay any
country X tax if it directly owned its
proportionate share of Newco’s assets, the
notes of FSub. Fourth, for country X tax
purposes, Foreign Bank is eligible to receive
a tax-free distribution of the $84 million of
contingent interest attributable to each of
years 1 through 5, and that amount
corresponds to more than 10 percent of the
$120 million foreign base with respect to
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40737
which USP’s share of the foreign payment
was imposed. The result would be the same
whether or not the contingency occurs and
whether or not FSub pays the contingent
interest to Newco, because Foreign Bank
would be entitled to receive the amount of
the contingent interest from either FSub or
Newco without including it in income for
country X tax purposes. Fifth, Foreign Bank
is a counterparty because it owns stock of
Newco and none of Foreign Bank’s stock is
owned, directly or indirectly, by USP or
shareholders of USP that are domestic
corporations, U.S. citizens, or resident alien
individuals. Sixth, the United States and
country X treat various aspects of the
arrangement differently, including whether
USP’s interest is debt or equity and the
timing and amount of interest accruals on the
contingent interest note. The amount of
credits claimed by USP if the payment to
country X were an amount of tax paid is
materially greater than it would be if, for U.S.
tax purposes, the securities held by USP were
treated as debt, and the amount of income
recognized by Newco for U.S. tax purposes
is materially less than the amount of income
recognized for country X tax purposes.
Because the payment to country X is not an
amount of tax paid, USP is not deemed to
pay any country X tax under section 902(a).
USP has dividend income of $4 million in
each of years 1 through 5.
Example 6. Holding company; no SPV. (i)
Facts. A, a country X corporation, and B, a
domestic corporation, each contribute $1
billion to a newly-formed country X entity
(C) in exchange for stock of C. C is treated
as a corporation for country X purposes and
a partnership for U.S. tax purposes. C
contributes $1.95 billion to a newly-formed
country X corporation (D) in exchange for
100 percent of D’s stock. C loans its
remaining $50 million to D. Accordingly, C’s
sole assets are stock and debt of D. D uses
the entire $2 billion to engage in the business
of manufacturing and selling widgets. In year
1, D derives $300 million of income from its
widget business and derives $2 million of
interest income. Also in year 1, C has
dividend income of $200 million and interest
income of $3.2 million with respect to its
investment in D. Country X does not impose
tax on dividends received by one country X
corporation from a second country X
corporation. C makes a payment of $960,000
to country X with respect to C’s net income.
(ii) Result. C’s dividend income is not
passive investment income, and C’s stock in
D is not held to produce such income,
because C owns at least 10 percent of D and
D derives more than 50 percent of its income
from the active conduct of its widget
business. See paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)(ii) of
this section. As a result, less than
substantially all of C’s income is passive
investment income and less than
substantially all of C’s assets are held to
produce passive investment income.
Accordingly, C is not an SPV within the
meaning of paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(1) of this
section, and the $960,000 payment to country
X is not attributable to a structured passive
investment arrangement.
Example 7. Holding company; no SPV. (i)
Facts. The facts are the same as in Example
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
16JYR1
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
40738
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
6, except that instead of loaning $50 million
to D, C contributes the $50 million to E in
exchange for 10 percent of the stock of E. E
is a country Y corporation that is not engaged
in the active conduct of a trade or business.
Also in year 1, D pays no dividends to C, E
pays $3.2 million in dividends to C, and C
makes a payment of $960,000 to country X
with respect to C’s net income.
(ii) Result. C’s dividend income
attributable to its stock in E is passive
investment income, and C’s stock in E is held
to produce such income. C’s stock in D is not
held to produce passive investment income
because C owns at least 10 percent of D and
D derives more than 50 percent of its income
from the active conduct of its widget
business. See paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)(ii) of
this section. As a result, less than
substantially all of C’s assets are held to
produce passive investment income.
Accordingly, C is not an SPV because it does
not meet the requirements of paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(B)(1) of this section, and the
$960,000 payment to country X is not
attributable to a structured passive
investment arrangement.
Example 8. Asset holding transaction. (i)
Facts. (A) A domestic corporation (USP)
contributes $6 billion of country Z debt
obligations to a country Z entity (DE) in
exchange for all of the class A and class B
stock of DE. A corporation unrelated to USP
and organized in country Z (FC) contributes
$1.5 billion to DE in exchange for all of the
class C stock of DE. DE uses the $1.5 billion
contributed by FC to redeem USP’s class B
stock. The class C stock is entitled to ‘‘all’’
income from DE. However, FC is obligated
immediately to contribute back to DE all
distributions on the class C stock. USP and
FC enter into—
(1) A contract under which USP agrees to
buy after five years the class C stock for $1.5
billion; and
(2) An agreement under which USP agrees
to pay FC periodic payments on $1.5 billion.
(B) For U.S. tax purposes, these steps
create a loan of $1.5 billion from FC to USP,
and USP is the owner of the class C stock and
the class A stock. DE is a disregarded entity
for U.S. tax purposes and a corporation for
country Z tax purposes. In year 1, DE earns
$400 million of interest income on the
country Z debt obligations. DE makes a
payment to country Z of $100 million with
respect to such income and distributes the
remaining $300 million to FC. FC contributes
the $300 million back to DE. None of FC’s
stock is owned, directly or indirectly, by USP
or shareholders of USP that are domestic
corporations, U.S. citizens, or resident alien
individuals. Country Z does not impose tax
on interest income derived by U.S. residents.
(C) Country Z treats FC as the owner of the
class C stock. Pursuant to country Z tax law,
FC is required to report the $400 million of
income with respect to the $300 million
distribution from DE, but is allowed to claim
credits for DE’s $100 million payment to
country Z. For country Z tax purposes, FC is
entitled to current deductions equal to the
$300 million contributed back to DE.
(ii) Result. The payment to country Z is not
a compulsory payment, and thus is not an
amount of tax paid because the payment is
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jul 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
attributable to a structured passive
investment arrangement. First, DE is an SPV
because all of DE’s income is passive
investment income described in paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(C)(5) of this section; all of DE’s
assets are held to produce such income; the
payment to country Z is attributable to such
income; and if the payment were an amount
of tax paid it would be paid or accrued in
a U.S. taxable year in which DE meets the
requirements of paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(1)(i)
of this section. Second, if the payment were
an amount of tax paid, USP would be eligible
to claim a credit for such amount under
section 901(a). Third, USP would not pay any
country Z tax if it directly owned DE’s assets.
Fourth, FC is entitled to claim a credit under
country Z tax law for the payment and
recognizes a deduction for the $300 million
contributed to DE under country Z law. The
credit claimed by FC corresponds to more
than 10 percent of USP’s share (for U.S. tax
purposes) of the foreign payment and the
deductions claimed by FC correspond to
more than 10 percent of the base with respect
to which USP’s share of the foreign payment
was imposed. Fifth, FC is a counterparty
because FC is considered to own equity of DE
under country Z law and none of FC’s stock
is owned, directly or indirectly, by USP or
shareholders of USP that are domestic
corporations, U.S. citizens, or resident alien
individuals. Sixth, the United States and
country X treat certain aspects of the
transaction differently and the amount of
credits claimed by USP if the country Z
payment were an amount of tax paid is
materially greater than it would be if FC,
rather than USP, owned the class C stock for
U.S. tax purposes. Because the payment to
country Z is not an amount of tax paid, USP
is not considered to pay tax under section
901. USP has $400 million of interest
income.
Example 9. Loss surrender. (i) Facts. The
facts are the same as in Example 8, except
that the deductions attributable to the
arrangement contribute to a loss recognized
by FC for country Z tax purposes, and
pursuant to a group relief regime in country
Z FC elects to surrender the loss to its
country Z subsidiary.
(ii) Result. The results are the same as in
Example 8. The surrender of the loss to a
related party is a foreign tax benefit that
corresponds to the base with respect to
which USP’s share of the foreign payment
was imposed.
Example 10. Joint venture; no foreign tax
benefit. (i) Facts. FC, a country X corporation,
and USC, a domestic corporation, each
contribute $1 billion to a newly-formed
country X entity (C) in exchange for stock of
C. FC and USC are entitled to equal 50%
shares of C’s income, gain, expense and loss.
C is treated as a corporation for country X
purposes and a partnership for U.S. tax
purposes. In year 1, C earns $200 million of
passive investment income, makes a payment
to country X of $60 million with respect to
that income, and distributes $70 million to
each of FC and USC. Country X does not
impose tax on dividends received by one
country X corporation from a second country
X corporation.
(ii) Result. FC’s tax-exempt receipt of $70
million, or its 50% share of C’s profits, is not
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
a foreign tax benefit within the meaning of
paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(4) of this section,
because it does not correspond to any part of
the foreign base with respect to which USC’s
share of the foreign payment was imposed.
Accordingly, the $60 million payment to
country X is not attributable to a structured
passive investment arrangement.
(f) through (h)(1) [Reserved]. For
further guidance, see § 1.901–2(f)
through (h)(1).
(h)(2) This section applies to foreign
payments that, if such payments were
an amount of tax paid, would be
considered paid or accrued under
§ 1.901–2(f) by a U.S. or foreign person
in taxable years ending on or after July
16, 2008. In the case of foreign
payments by a foreign corporation that
has a domestic corporate shareholder,
this section also applies to such
payments that, if such payments were
an amount of tax paid, would be
considered paid or accrued in the
foreign corporation’s U.S. taxable years
ending with or within taxable years of
its domestic corporate shareholder
ending on or after July 16, 2008. In the
case of foreign payments by a
partnership, trust or estate with respect
to which any person would be eligible
to claim a credit under section 901(b) if
the payment were an amount of tax
paid, this section also applies to such
payments that would be considered
paid or accrued in U.S. taxable years of
the partnership, trust or estate ending
with or within taxable years of such
eligible persons ending on or after July
16, 2008.
(3) Expiration date. The applicability
of this section expires on July 15, 2011.
Linda E. Stiff,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
Approved: June 30, 2008.
Eric Solomon,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax
Policy).
[FR Doc. E8–16329 Filed 7–15–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 301
[TD 9409]
RIN 1545–BI01
Amendments to the Section 7216
Regulations—Disclosure or Use of
Information by Preparers of Returns;
Correction
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
16JYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 16, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40727-40738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-16329]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[TD 9416]
RIN 1545-BH74
Determining the Amount of Taxes Paid for Purposes of Section 901
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Final and temporary regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains final and temporary regulations under
section 901 of the Internal Revenue Code providing guidance relating to
the determination of the amount of taxes paid for purposes of the
foreign tax credit.
The regulations affect taxpayers that claim direct and indirect
foreign tax credits. The text of these temporary regulations also
serves as the text of the proposed regulations (REG-156779-06)
published in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the Federal
Register .
DATES: Effective Date: These regulations are effective on July 16,
2008.
Applicability Dates: For dates of applicability, see Sec. 1.901-
1T(j) and Sec. 1.901-2T(h)(2).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Gilman, (202) 622-3850 (not a
toll-free number).
[[Page 40728]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 30, 2007, the Federal Register published proposed
amendments (72 FR 15081) to the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part I)
under section 901 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) relating to the
amount of taxes paid for purposes of the foreign tax credit (the ``2007
proposed regulations''). The 2007 proposed regulations would revise
Sec. 1.901-2(e)(5) in two ways. First, for purposes of Sec. 1.901-
2(e)(5), the 2007 proposed regulations would treat as a single taxpayer
all foreign entities in which the same U.S. person has a direct or
indirect interest of 80 percent or more (a ``U.S.-owned foreign
group''). Second, the 2007 proposed regulations would treat amounts
paid to a foreign taxing authority as noncompulsory payments if those
amounts are attributable to certain structured passive investment
arrangements. The 2007 proposed regulations provide that the
regulations will be effective for foreign taxes paid or accrued during
taxable years of the taxpayer ending on or after the date on which the
regulations are finalized.
The IRS and Treasury Department received written comments on the
2007 proposed regulations, which are discussed in this preamble. A
public hearing was held on July 30, 2007. In response to written
comments, the IRS and Treasury Department determined that the proposed
change to Sec. 1.901-2(e)(5) relating to U.S.-owned foreign groups may
lead to inappropriate results in certain cases. Accordingly, on
November 19, 2007, the IRS and Treasury Department issued Notice 2007-
95, 2007-49 IRB 1 (see Sec. 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b)). Notice 2007-95
provided that the proposed rule for U.S.-owned foreign groups would be
severed from the portion of the 2007 proposed regulations addressing
the treatment of foreign payments attributable to certain structured
passive investment arrangements. Notice 2007-95 further provided that
the proposed rules for U.S.-owned groups would be effective for taxable
years beginning after final regulations are published in the Federal
Register .
In light of comments, the IRS and the Treasury Department believe
that it is appropriate to issue new proposed and temporary regulations
addressing the treatment of foreign payments attributable to structured
passive investment arrangements. These new regulations make several
changes to the 2007 proposed regulations to take into account comments
received, while adopting without amendment substantial portions of the
2007 proposed regulations. The new temporary and proposed regulations
will permit the IRS to enforce the rules relating to structured passive
investment arrangements, while also allowing taxpayers a further
opportunity for comment. The significant comments and revisions are
described in this preamble.
Explanation of Provisions
The temporary regulations address the application of Sec. 1.901-
2(e)(5) in cases in which a person claiming foreign tax credits is a
party to a structured passive investment arrangement. These complex
arrangements are intentionally structured to create a foreign tax
liability when, removed from the elaborately engineered structure, the
basic underlying business transaction generally would result in
significantly less, or even no, foreign taxes. The parties use these
arrangements to exploit differences between U.S. and foreign law in
order to permit a person to claim a foreign tax credit for the
purported foreign tax payments while also allowing the foreign
counterparty to claim a duplicative foreign tax benefit. The person
claiming foreign tax credits and the foreign counterparty share the
cost of the purported foreign tax payments through the pricing of the
arrangement.
The temporary regulations treat foreign payments attributable to
such arrangements as noncompulsory payments under Sec. 1.901-2(e)(5)
and, thus, disallow foreign tax credits for such amounts. For periods
prior to the effective date of the temporary regulations, the IRS will
continue to utilize all available tools under current law to challenge
the U.S. tax results claimed in connection with these and other similar
abusive arrangements, including the substance over form doctrine, the
economic substance doctrine, debt-equity principles, tax ownership
principles, other provisions of Sec. 1.901-2, section 269, and the
partnership anti-abuse rules of Sec. 1.701-2.
The temporary regulations retain the general rule in the existing
regulations that a taxpayer need not alter its form of doing business
or the form of any transaction in order to reduce its foreign tax
liability. However, Sec. 1.901-2T(e)(5)(iv)(A) provides that,
notwithstanding the general rule, an amount paid to a foreign country
(a ``foreign payment'') is not a compulsory payment, and thus is not an
amount of tax paid, if the foreign payment is attributable to a
structured passive investment arrangement. For this purpose, Sec.
1.901-2T(e)(5)(iv)(B) defines a structured passive investment
arrangement as an arrangement that satisfies six conditions. The six
conditions consist of features that are common to arrangements that are
intentionally structured to generate the foreign payment.
A. Section 1.901-2T(e)(5)(iv)(B)(1): Special Purpose Vehicle
The first condition provided in the 2007 proposed regulations is
that the arrangement utilizes an entity that meets two requirements (an
``SPV''). The first requirement is that substantially all of the gross
income (for United States tax purposes) of the entity, if any, is
attributable to passive investment income and substantially all of the
assets of the entity are assets held to produce such passive investment
income. The second requirement is that there is a purported foreign tax
payment attributable to income of the entity. The purported foreign tax
may be paid by the entity itself, by the owner(s) of the entity (if the
entity is treated as a pass-through entity under foreign law) or by a
lower-tier entity (if the lower-tier entity is treated as a pass-
through entity under U.S. law).
For purposes of the first requirement, Sec. 1.901-
2(e)(5)(iv)(C)(4) of the 2007 proposed regulations defines passive
investment income as income described in section 954(c), with two
modifications. The first modification excludes income of a holding
company attributable to qualifying equity interests in lower-tier
entities that are predominantly engaged in the active conduct of a
trade or business (or that are themselves holding companies). The
second modification is that passive investment income is determined by
disregarding sections 954(c)(3) and 954(c)(6) and by treating income
attributable to transactions with a counterparty as ineligible for the
exclusions under sections 954(h) and 954(i).
One commentator recommended, in lieu of the holding company rules
in the 2007 proposed regulations, applying look-through rules to income
and assets of lower-tier entities similar to the rules of section
1297(c), under which a foreign corporation, if it owns at least 25
percent of the stock of another corporation, is treated as owning its
proportionate share of the assets of the other corporation and
receiving its proportionate share of the income of the other
corporation. Alternatively, the commentator recommended that the
holding company rules in the 2007 proposed regulations be modified to
eliminate the requirement that
[[Page 40729]]
substantially all of the assets of the tested entity must consist of
qualified equity interests; to permit income other than dividends (for
example, interest and royalties) received from a lower-tier entity that
is predominantly engaged in an active business to qualify as active
income; and to treat a lower-tier entity as an operating company if
more than 50 percent of either its assets or its income meet the active
business test. In addition, commentators suggested eliminating the
requirement that the U.S. party and the counterparty must share the
opportunity of gain or loss with respect to the lower-tier entity, or
replacing it with a rule disqualifying the equity interest if
contractual restrictions limit the counterparty's recourse against the
lower-tier entity's income or assets. Finally, commentators suggested
that preferred stock should be treated as a qualifying equity interest.
These comments were not adopted. The holding company exception is
intended only to clarify that a joint venture arrangement is not
treated as a structured passive investment arrangement solely because
it is conducted through a holding company structure, not to liberalize
the definition of structured passive investment arrangements. The
requirement that the parties share the opportunity for gain and risk of
loss with respect to the holding company's assets is intended to ensure
that the arrangement between the parties is a bona fide joint venture.
In this regard, a commentator recommended that the regulations be
clarified to provide that the holding company exception is not
satisfied if either the U.S. party or the counterparty is solely a
creditor with respect to the entity because it either owns a hybrid
instrument that is debt for U.S. tax purposes or purchases stock
subject to an obligation to sell the stock back. This modification is
reflected in Sec. 1.901-2T(e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)(ii) of the temporary
regulations. In addition, Example 2 of Sec. 1.901-2T(e)(5)(iv)(D) is
modified to clarify that the holding company exception is not met if
the counterparty's interest is acquired in a sale-repurchase
transaction.
The IRS and Treasury Department recognize that under the
regulations an entity conducting business through an active foreign
subsidiary may fail to meet the holding company exception, even though
the entity would not be treated as an SPV under the ``substantially
all'' test if it operated the subsidiary's business directly through a
branch operation. The IRS and Treasury Department believe this result
is appropriate because the segregation of active business income and
assets in a lower-tier entity may facilitate the use of an upper-tier
entity to conduct a structured passive investment arrangement.
The IRS and Treasury Department remain concerned that taxpayers may
continue to enter into structured passive investment arrangements
designed to generate foreign tax credits through entities that meet the
technical requirements of the holding company exception. The IRS and
Treasury Department intend to monitor the use of holding companies to
facilitate abusive foreign tax credit arrangements, utilize all
available tools under current law to challenge the U.S. tax results
claimed in connection with such arrangements (including the substance
over form doctrine, the economic substance doctrine, debt-equity
principles, tax ownership principles, other provisions of Sec. 1.901-
2, section 269, and the partnership anti-abuse rules of Sec. 1.701-2)
in appropriate cases, and to issue additional regulations modifying or
eliminating the holding company exception if necessary to prevent
abuse.
The second modification in the 2007 proposed regulations is that
passive investment income is determined by disregarding sections
954(c)(3) and 954(c)(6) and by treating income attributable to
transactions with a counterparty as ineligible for the exclusions under
sections 954(h) and 954(i). The IRS and Treasury Department received a
number of comments suggesting that the definition of passive investment
income should be narrowed by excluding income that would be treated as
non-subpart F income under section 954(c)(3) or 954(c)(6), excluding
income from unrelated persons other than the counterparty, or
eliminating the requirement in section 954(h) that the tested entity's
activity be conducted in the entity's ``home country.'' Other
commentators suggested substituting other tests for the active
financing exception in section 954(h), such as exempting financial
services income as defined in section 904(d), with or without
modification. For example, commentators suggested various
modifications, such as excluding income derived from unrelated persons
or from direct activities of employees of the tested entity; exempting
any income derived from or related to transactions with customers;
exempting income that would be considered attributable to an active
foreign trade or business under the principles of section 864 and Sec.
1.367(a)-2T(b); or exempting income other than income from ``tainted''
assets such as cash or cash equivalents, stock or notes of persons
related to the U.S. party or counterparty, or assets giving rise to
U.S. source income. One commentator suggested that payments described
in section 954(c)(3) should not be treated as passive investment income
to the extent the payment was deductible under foreign law and the
corresponding income inclusion by the tested entity did not result in a
net increase in foreign taxes paid. This commentator suggested that the
result in the U.S. borrower transaction described in Example 2 of the
2007 proposed regulations was inappropriate since the foreign tax paid
by the SPV was offset by a reduction in tax paid by the CFC borrower.
The IRS and Treasury Department carefully considered these
suggestions but ultimately determined that none of the suggested
approaches has significant advantages over relying on section 954(h) to
determine whether income from financing activities is sufficiently
active that it should be excluded from passive investment income for
purposes of these regulations. Section 954(h) includes detailed
requirements that ensure that the entity is predominantly engaged in
the active conduct of a banking, financing or similar business and
conducts substantial activity with respect to such business. In
addition, the IRS and Treasury Department continue to believe it is not
appropriate to exclude income described in sections 954(c)(3) and
954(c)(6) from passive investment income, because financing
arrangements between related parties that are engaged in the active
conduct of a trade or business are commonly used in the structured
transactions that are the target of these regulations. The IRS and
Treasury Department also do not believe that U.S. borrower transactions
should not be considered to result in a net increase in foreign tax,
since in the absence of the structured passive investment arrangement
the CFC borrower would still reduce its foreign tax by reason of the
interest expense deduction but the U.S. party would not claim foreign
tax credits for foreign payments attributable to income in the SPV that
is in substance the foreign lender's interest income. Accordingly,
Sec. 1.901-2T(e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)(i) generally retains the definition of
passive investment income in the 2007 proposed regulations.
However, the temporary regulations include two modifications in
response to comments. First, the IRS and Treasury Department agree it
is appropriate to require the entity's activities to be conducted
directly by its own employees rather than by employees of affiliates,
because the purpose of the SPV condition is to
[[Page 40730]]
distinguish between active entities and those with largely passive
income, and it is reasonable to require an entity engaged in an active
business to conduct that business through its own employees.
Accordingly, Sec. 1.901-2T(e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)(i) provides that section
954(h)(3)(E) shall not apply, and that the entity must conduct
substantial activity through its own employees.
Second, the IRS and Treasury Department agree that the requirement
that activities be conducted in the entity's ``home country'' reflects
a subpart F policy that is more restrictive than necessary for purposes
of these regulations. Accordingly, Sec. 1.901-2T(e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)(i)
provides that for purposes of these regulations the term home country
means any foreign country.
Concerning the requirement in Sec. 1.901-2(e)(5)(iv)(B)(1)(i) of
the 2007 proposed regulations that substantially all of the gross
income of the entity be passive investment income and substantially all
of the entity's assets are assets held to produce such passive
investment income, one commentator recommended that the regulations
provide examples illustrating situations in which such requirement is
met. The IRS and Treasury Department did not adopt this comment because
the ``substantially all'' test requires evaluation of all the facts and
circumstances and cannot be satisfied by reference to a specific
percentage benchmark.
Several commentators requested that the regulations clarify the
time at which the six conditions must be met to result in a structured
passive investment arrangement. Section 1.901-2T(e)(5)(iv)(B)(1)(ii) of
the temporary regulations is revised to clarify that the foreign
payment must be made with respect to a U.S. tax year in which
substantially all of the gross income (for U.S. tax purposes) of the
entity, if any, is attributable to passive investment income and
substantially all of the assets of the entity are assets held to
produce such passive investment income. This clarification is intended
to ensure that foreign tax credits are disallowed for foreign payments
that relate primarily to passive investment income, but not for taxes
that relate to active business income earned in an earlier or later
year when the entity is not treated as an SPV. The regulations do not,
however, require all six conditions to be met in the same tax year. For
example, the regulations disallow credits for foreign payments with
respect to income of an SPV even if the U.S. party acquires its
interest, or a hybrid instrument is issued to the counterparty, after
the foreign payments are made.
Other commentators recommended that the regulations eliminate the
SPV condition and treat as noncompulsory payments only those foreign
payments that directly relate to passive investment income, or with
respect to which duplicative tax benefits are claimed. The IRS and
Treasury Department did not adopt such an approach in the temporary
regulations because of the administrative difficulty of tracing
specific foreign payments to specific income or to the duplicative tax
benefits. Accordingly, the temporary regulations retain the SPV
condition and the approach of treating all foreign payments
attributable to a structured passive investment arrangement as
noncompulsory. However, the IRS and Treasury Department recognize that
an element of the arrangements intended to be covered by the
regulations is that they are designed to generate duplicative tax
benefits, and that some connection between the counterparty's foreign
tax benefit and the U.S. party's share of the foreign payments should
be a pre-condition to the finding of a structured passive investment
arrangement. Accordingly, as described in section D of this preamble,
the foreign tax benefit condition is revised to provide that the
counterparty's foreign tax benefit must correspond to 10 percent or
more of the U.S. party's share of the foreign payments or the U.S.
party's share (under U.S. tax principles) of the foreign tax base used
to compute such payments.
B. Section 1.901-2T(e)(5)(iv)(B)(2): U.S. Party
Section 1.901-2T(e)(5)(iv)(B)(2) of the temporary regulations
adopts without change the second overall condition of the 2007 proposed
regulations that a person (a ``U.S. party'') would be eligible to claim
a credit under section 901(a) (including a credit for foreign taxes
deemed paid under section 902 or 960) for all or a portion of the
foreign payment if such payment were an amount of tax paid.
One commentator requested that the regulations be amended to
clarify that the ``U.S. party'' condition must be met at the same time
as the other five conditions. The temporary regulations do not include
this condition because the IRS and Treasury Department believe it is
inappropriate to exempt arrangements that are structured so that the
U.S. party claims a credit in a taxable year or period that is not the
same taxable year or period in which the counterparty is entitled to a
foreign tax benefit. In addition, the IRS and Treasury Department are
concerned that this modification would allow a person to acquire an
interest in an SPV and claim credits with respect to purported foreign
taxes paid in an earlier period by the SPV in connection with an
arrangement that met the other five conditions of the regulations.
C. Section 1.901-2T(e)(5)(iv)(B)(3): Direct Investment
The third overall condition provided in the 2007 proposed
regulations is that the foreign payment or payments are (or are
expected to be) substantially greater than the amount of credits, if
any, that the U.S. party would reasonably expect to be eligible to
claim under section 901(a) if such U.S. party directly owned its
proportionate share of the assets owned by the SPV, other than through
a branch, a permanent establishment or any other arrangement (such as
an agency arrangement) that would subject the income generated by its
share of the assets to a net basis foreign tax. Commentators
recommended several changes to the direct investment condition, several
of which are adopted in the temporary regulations. First, in order to
reach appropriate results in cases where more than one person owns an
equity interest in the SPV for U.S. tax purposes, the temporary
regulations amend the direct investment test to compare the U.S.
party's proportionate share of the foreign payment made by the SPV to
the amount of foreign tax the U.S. party would be eligible to credit if
the U.S. party directly owned its proportionate share of the assets.
Second, the temporary regulations clarify that a dual resident
corporation that is an SPV meets the direct investment condition since
its ownership of the passive assets is treated the same as ownership
through a branch operation. Third, a commentator suggested that the
direct investment test of the 2007 proposed regulations could be
avoided by entering into a sale-repurchase transaction using an SPV
that acquires passive assets subject to foreign withholding tax. This
commentator recommended that the direct investment condition be revised
to reduce the value of the U.S. party's interest by any amount advanced
by the foreign counterparty that is treated as debt for U.S. tax
purposes but as equity for foreign tax purposes. The IRS and Treasury
Department agree that situations where the SPV's income is subject to
gross basis foreign taxes raise the same foreign tax credit policy
concerns as situations where the SPV's income is subject to net basis
foreign taxes. The IRS and Treasury
[[Page 40731]]
Department, however, believe the commentator's recommended solution is
incomplete, since the other conditions of the regulations can be met by
structures employing techniques other than sale-repurchase agreements.
Accordingly, the temporary regulations provide that the U.S. party's
proportionate share of the SPV's assets does not include any assets
that produce income subject to gross basis withholding tax.
Several commentators recommended that the regulations include an
exception for certain transactions in which the amount of the foreign
payments attributable to income of an SPV does not substantially exceed
the amount of foreign taxes that would have been paid by a controlled
foreign corporation that owns the SPV in the absence of the
arrangement. The commentators suggested that such foreign payments
should not be treated as noncompulsory payments because they
effectively substitute for taxes that would have been imposed on the
controlled foreign corporation in the absence of the arrangement.
These comments raise the fundamental question as to the appropriate
baseline to which such transactions should be compared to determine if
there has been a significant increase in the total amount of foreign
taxes paid. Although the IRS and Treasury Department carefully
considered an exception from the definition of structured passive
investment arrangements for such transactions, the IRS and Treasury
Department have been unable to develop an exception that can be
administered by the IRS and that does not exclude abusive cases.
Accordingly, the temporary regulations do not include this exception.
D. Section 1.901-2T(e)(5)(iv)(B)(4): Foreign Tax Benefit
The fourth condition provided in the 2007 proposed regulations is
that the arrangement is structured in such a manner that it results in
a foreign tax benefit (such as a credit, deduction, loss, exemption or
a similar tax benefit) for a counterparty or for a person that is
related to the counterparty, but not related to the U.S. party. In
response to comments, to relieve administrative burdens these
regulations clarify that while the benefit must be reasonably expected,
there is no requirement to show that the benefit be intended or
actually realized. The temporary regulations also provide that the
ability to surrender the use of a tax loss to another person is a
foreign tax benefit because a foreign tax benefit need only be made
available to a counterparty. See Example 9 of Sec. 1.901-
2T(e)(5)(iv)(D).
Several commentators recommended that the regulations be revised to
require a causal relationship between one or more of the six
conditions. For example, one commentator recommended adding a
requirement that the foreign tax benefit either relate to the foreign
tax paid by the SPV or result from the counterparty being treated for
foreign but not U.S. tax purposes as owning an equity interest in the
SPV or a portion of the SPV's assets. Another commentator suggested
requiring that the inconsistent aspect of the arrangement be created or
used to achieve the foreign tax benefit. Another commentator
recommended requiring that the foreign tax benefit would not have been
allowed or allowable ``but for'' the existence of one or more of the
other conditions.
In response to the comments, the temporary regulations revise the
``foreign tax benefit'' condition to provide that the credit,
deduction, loss, exemption, exclusion or other tax benefit must
correspond to 10 percent or more of the U.S. party's share (for U.S.
tax purposes) of the foreign payment or 10 percent or more of the
foreign tax base with respect to which the U.S. party's share of the
foreign payment is imposed. The revisions are intended to clarify that
a joint venture that does not involve any duplication of tax benefits
is not covered by the temporary regulations. At the same time, the
temporary regulations provide that the duplication need not be direct.
For example, while the U.S. party generally seeks to claim foreign tax
credits in the United States for foreign payments attributable to
income of the SPV, the counterparty's foreign tax benefit may consist
of tax-exempt income paid out of the SPV's income with respect to which
foreign payments claimed as credits by the U.S. party were made and
deductions or losses attributable to payments of corresponding amounts
to the SPV or U.S. party. See Example 3 of Sec. 1.901-2T(e)(5)(iv)(D).
E. Section 1.901-2T(e)(5)(iv)(B)(5): Counterparty
The 2007 proposed regulations define a counterparty as a person
(other than the SPV) that is unrelated to the U.S. party and that (i)
directly or indirectly owns 10 percent or more of the equity of the SPV
under the tax laws of a foreign country in which such person is subject
to tax on the basis of place of management, place of incorporation or
similar criterion or otherwise subject to a net basis foreign tax or
(ii) acquires 20 percent or more of the assets of the SPV under the tax
laws of a foreign country in which such person is subject to tax on the
basis of place of management, place of incorporation or similar
criterion or otherwise subject to a net basis foreign tax.
Commentators proposed that the counterparty factor be amended to
include certain related parties. Commentators noted that structured
transactions engaged in by related persons under common foreign
ownership present the same tax policy concerns as transactions between
unrelated persons. However, these same commentators noted that
structured transactions engaged in by related parties that are under
common U.S. ownership do not pose the same tax policy concerns because
the reduction in foreign tax liability obtained by the U.S.-controlled
foreign counterparty will result in a corresponding increase in U.S.
taxes when the foreign counterparty repatriates its earnings to the
United States. The IRS and Treasury Department agree with these
comments. Consequently, the temporary regulations amend the definition
of a counterparty to include related persons, but excluding cases where
the U.S. party is a U.S. corporation or individual that owns (directly
or indirectly) at least 80 percent of the value of the potential
counterparty and cases where at least 80 percent of the value of the
U.S. party and the potential counterparty are owned (directly or
indirectly) by the same U.S. corporation or individual.
Several commentators also suggested that the requirement that the
counterparty own at least 10 percent (directly or indirectly) of the
equity of the SPV or acquire at least 20 percent of the assets of the
SPV should be revised. Some commentators proposed these thresholds be
increased to 50 percent. Other commentators proposed that the ownership
of all foreign parties deriving a foreign tax benefit should be
aggregated to determine whether the thresholds are met. The IRS and
Treasury Department agree that the regulatory conditions should be
revised to better reflect that the counterparty is entitled to more
than a nominal foreign tax benefit. Accordingly, the temporary
regulations eliminate the percentage ownership thresholds from the
counterparty definition, and modify the definition of a foreign tax
benefit in Sec. 1.901-2T(e)(5)(iv)(B)(4), as described in section D of
this preamble.
F. Section 1.901-2T(e)(5)(iv)(B)(6): Inconsistent Treatment
The sixth condition in the 2007 proposed regulations is that the
U.S. and an applicable foreign country treat
[[Page 40732]]
the arrangement differently under their respective tax systems. For
this purpose, an applicable foreign country is any foreign country in
which either the counterparty, a person related to the counterparty or
the SPV is subject to net basis tax. To provide clarity and limit the
scope of this factor, the 2007 proposed regulations provide that the
arrangement must be subject to one of four specified types of
inconsistent treatment. Specifically, the U.S. and the foreign country
(or countries) must treat one or more of the following aspects of the
arrangement differently, and the U.S. treatment of the inconsistent
aspect must materially affect the amount of foreign tax credits
claimed, or the amount of income recognized, by the U.S. party to the
arrangement: (i) The classification of an entity as a corporation or
other entity subject to an entity-level tax, a partnership or other
flow-through entity or an entity that is disregarded for tax purposes;
(ii) the characterization as debt, equity or an instrument that is
disregarded for tax purposes of an instrument issued in the
transaction; (iii) the proportion of the equity of the SPV (or an
entity that directly or indirectly owns the SPV) that is considered to
be owned directly or indirectly by the U.S. party and the counterparty;
or (iv) the amount of taxable income of the SPV for one or more tax
years during which the arrangement is in effect.
Commentators recommended that this condition be clarified so that
the U.S. treatment of the inconsistent aspect must materially increase
the amount of the U.S. party's foreign tax credits or materially
decrease the U.S. party's income for U.S. tax purposes. The temporary
regulations reflect this clarification. In addition, commentators
requested that this factor be limited to instances when the
inconsistent treatment is reasonably expected to result in a permanent
difference in the U.S. party's income or foreign tax credits. The IRS
and Treasury Department believe that the revisions to the foreign tax
benefit condition described in Section D of this preamble are
sufficient to establish the appropriate linkage between the
inconsistent U.S. and foreign law treatment and the duplicative tax
benefits. Accordingly, the temporary regulations retain the
inconsistent treatment factor without further changes.
One commentator also recommended that the inconsistent treatment
condition be narrowed to instances where the inconsistent treatment
under U.S. and foreign law related to definitions of ownership and the
amount of the SPV's taxable income. The IRS and Treasury Department
have not adopted this recommendation because it would cause certain
types of abusive arrangements to fall outside the scope of the
regulations and because differences in entity classification are
features common to structured passive investment arrangements.
G. Other Comments
Commentators also made suggestions that did not relate to any
single factor. For example, commentators also requested clarification
that the foreign payments treated as noncompulsory amounts under the
regulation may be deductible payments under sections 162 and 212 and
reduce a foreign corporation's earnings and profits for purposes of
subpart F. The IRS and Treasury Department believe that providing
guidance regarding sections 162, 212, and 964 is beyond the scope of
this regulation project. The usual rules for determining the
deductibility of a payment and determining the earnings and profits of
a foreign corporation for subpart F purposes apply.
In addition, commentators requested that foreign payments
attributable to a structured passive investment arrangement be excluded
from the scope of the regulations if the arrangement has a valid
business purpose. Other commentators suggested that the regulations
adopt a broad anti-abuse rule that would deny a foreign tax credit in
any case where allowance of the credit would be inconsistent with the
purpose of the foreign tax credit regime. The IRS and Treasury
Department are concerned that these approaches would create uncertainty
for both taxpayers and the IRS. The IRS and Treasury Department have
concluded that, at this time, a targeted rule denying foreign tax
credits in arrangements described in the temporary regulations is more
appropriate.
H. Other Examples
In response to comments, the temporary regulations include more
examples illustrating additional variations of the structured passive
investment arrangements that are covered by the regulations. For
example, new Example 3 illustrates a U.S. borrower transaction in which
a foreign lender acquires assets instead of an equity interest in the
SPV and new Example 10 illustrates a joint venture in which the
counterparty's foreign tax benefits do not correspond to the U.S.
party's share of the base with respect to which the foreign payment is
imposed. Modifications to examples in the 2007 proposed regulations
were also necessary to reflect comments received and other changes to
the regulations.
I. Effective/Applicability Dates
The 2007 proposed regulations were proposed to be effective for
foreign taxes paid or accrued during taxable years of the taxpayer
ending on or after the date on which the final regulations are
published in the Federal Register . A commentator observed that the
final regulations would potentially be retroactively effective because
the regulations would apply, for example, to calendar year taxpayers as
of January 1 of the year in which the final regulations are published
in the Federal Register and to taxpayers that participated in
structured passive investment arrangements involving entities with
taxable years that differ from the U.S. taxpayers' taxable years.
Commentators also requested clarification of whether the relevant
taxable year for purposes of the effective date is the taxable year of
the SPV in which it pays or accrues the purported foreign taxes, or the
taxable year of the U.S. taxpayer in which it claims a credit. For
example, commentators observed that if the taxable year of the U.S.
taxpayer in which it claims a credit is the relevant taxable year, the
final regulations would apply to U.S. shareholders of controlled
foreign corporations where the shareholder claims a deemed paid credit
under section 902 with respect to foreign taxes paid by the foreign
corporation in years prior to the effective date of the regulations.
These commentators recommended that the regulations provide that the
relevant taxable year is the SPV's taxable year. Commentators also
recommended that the final regulations apply only to foreign taxes paid
or accrued in taxable years beginning after the date the final
regulations are published, or only to foreign taxes paid or accrued
with respect to income accrued after the date the final regulations are
published.
The IRS and Treasury Department have not adopted the recommendation
to delay the effective date of these regulations to apply only in tax
years beginning after the regulations are published. The IRS and
Treasury Department generally believe the regulations should apply to
disallow credits for foreign payments that would otherwise be eligible
to be claimed as credits in taxable years ending after the regulations
are published. The IRS and Treasury Department agree, however, that the
regulations should not apply to foreign taxes paid or accrued by a
foreign corporation in a U.S. taxable
[[Page 40733]]
year of the foreign corporation ending prior to the effective date of
the regulations, provided that such year ends prior to the first
taxable year of the domestic corporate shareholder for which these
regulations are first applicable.
Accordingly, the effective date for these regulations is July 16,
2008. The regulations generally apply to foreign payments that, if they
were an amount of tax paid, would be considered paid or accrued by a
U.S. or foreign entity in taxable years ending on or after July 16,
2008. In the case of foreign payments by a foreign corporation that has
a domestic corporate shareholder, the regulations also apply to such
payments that would be considered paid or accrued in the foreign
corporation's U.S. taxable years ending with or within taxable years of
its domestic corporate shareholder ending on or after July 16, 2008.
Finally, in the case of foreign payments by a partnership, trust or
estate for which any partner or beneficiary would otherwise be eligible
to claim a foreign tax credit, the regulations also apply to payments
that would be considered paid or accrued in taxable years ending with
or within taxable years of such partners or beneficiaries ending on or
after July 16, 2008.
No inference is intended regarding the U.S. tax consequences of
structured passive investment arrangements prior to the effective date
of the regulations.
For periods after the effective date of the temporary regulations,
the IRS and Treasury Department will continue to scrutinize other
arrangements that are not covered by the regulations but are
inconsistent with the purpose of the foreign tax credit. Such
arrangements may include arrangements that are similar to arrangements
described in the temporary regulations, but that do not meet all of the
conditions included in the temporary regulations. The IRS will continue
to challenge the claimed U.S. tax results in appropriate cases. In
addition, the IRS and Treasury Department may issue additional
regulations in the future in order to address such other arrangements.
J. Miscellaneous Amendments
The temporary regulations also amend Sec. 1.901-1(a) and (b) to
reflect statutory changes made by the Foreign Investors Tax Act of 1966
(Pub. L. 89-809 (80 Stat. 1539), section 106(b)), the Tax Reform Act of
1976 (Pub. L. 94-455 (90 Stat. 1520), section 1901(a)(114)), and the
American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-357 (118 Stat. 1418-
20), section 405(b)).
Special Analyses
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a
significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866.
Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. For applicability
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, please refer to the cross-referenced
notice of proposed rulemaking published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue
Code, this regulation has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact
on small businesses.
Drafting Information
The principal author of these regulations is Michael I. Gilman,
Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other
personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in
their development.
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Amendments to the Regulations
0
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:
PART 1--INCOME TAXES
0
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in
part as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
0
Par. 2. Section 1.901-1 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)
to read as follows:
Sec. 1.901-1 Allowance of credit for taxes.
(a) and (b). [Reserved]. For further guidance, see Sec. 1.901-
1T(a) and (b).
* * * * *
0
Par. 3. Section 1.901-1T is added to read as follows:
Sec. 1.901-1T Allowance of credit for taxes (temporary).
(a) In general. Citizens of the United States, domestic
corporations, and certain aliens resident in the United States or
Puerto Rico may choose to claim a credit, as provided in section 901,
against the tax imposed by chapter 1 of the Code for taxes paid or
accrued to foreign countries and possessions of the United States,
subject to the conditions prescribed in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(a)(3) and paragraph (b) of this section.
(1) Citizen of the United States. A citizen of the United States,
whether resident or nonresident, may claim a credit for--
(i) The amount of any income, war profits, and excess profits taxes
paid or accrued during the taxable year to any foreign country or to
any possession of the United States; and
(ii) His share of any such taxes of a partnership of which he is a
member, or of an estate or trust of which he is a beneficiary.
(2) Domestic corporation. A domestic corporation may claim a credit
for--
(i) The amount of any income, war profits, and excess profits taxes
paid or accrued during the taxable year to any foreign country or to
any possession of the United States;
(ii) Its share of any such taxes of a partnership of which it is a
member, or of an estate or trust of which it is a beneficiary; and
(iii) The taxes deemed to have been paid under section 902 or 960.
(3) Alien resident of the United States or Puerto Rico. Except as
provided in a Presidential proclamation described in section 901(c), an
alien resident of the United States, or an alien individual who is a
bona fide resident of Puerto Rico during the entire taxable year, may
claim a credit for--
(i) The amount of any income, war profits, and excess profits taxes
paid or accrued during the taxable year to any foreign country or to
any possession of the United States; and
(ii) His share of any such taxes of a partnership of which he is a
member, or of an estate or trust of which he is a beneficiary.
(b) Limitations. Certain Code sections, including sections 814,
901(e) through (l), 906, 907, 908, 911, 999, and 6038, limit the credit
against the tax imposed by chapter 1 of the Code for certain foreign
taxes.
(c) through (i) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see Sec. 1.901-
1(c) through (i).
(j) Effective/applicability date. This section applies to taxable
years beginning after July 16, 2008.
(k) Expiration date. The applicability of this section expires July
15, 2011.
0
Par. 4. Section 1.901-2 is amended by adding paragraphs (e)(5)(iii) and
(e)(5)(iv) and revising paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.901-2 Income, war profits, or excess profits tax paid or
accrued.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) and (iv) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see Sec. 1.901-
2T(e)(5)(iii) and (iv).
* * * * *
(h) Effective/applicability date--(1) In general. This section and
Sec. Sec. 1.901-2A
[[Page 40734]]
and 1.903-1 apply to taxable years beginning after November 14, 1983.
(2) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see Sec. 1.901-2T(h)(2).
0
Par. 5. Section 1.901-2T is added to read as follows:
Sec. 1.901-2T Income, war profits, or excess profits tax paid or
accrued (temporary).
(a) through (e)(5)(ii) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see Sec.
1.901-2(a) through (e)(5)(ii).
(e)(5)(iii) [Reserved].
(iv) Structured passive investment arrangements--(A) In general.
Notwithstanding Sec. 1.901-2(e)(5)(i), an amount paid to a foreign
country (a ``foreign payment'') is not a compulsory payment, and thus
is not an amount of tax paid, if the foreign payment is attributable
(within the meaning of paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(1)(ii) of this section)
to a structured passive investment arrangement (as described in
paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B) of this section).
(B) Conditions. An arrangement is a structured passive investment
arrangement if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) Special purpose vehicle (SPV). An entity that is part of the
arrangement meets the following requirements:
(i) Substantially all of the gross income (for U.S. tax purposes)
of the entity, if any, is passive investment income, and substantially
all of the assets of the entity are assets held to produce such passive
investment income. As provided in paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)(ii) of
this section, passive investment income generally does not include
income of a holding company from qualified equity interests in lower-
tier entities that are predominantly engaged in the active conduct of a
trade or business. Thus, except as provided in paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)(ii) of this section, qualified equity interests of a
holding company in such lower-tier entities are not held to produce
passive investment income and the ownership of such interests will not
cause the holding company to meet the requirements of this paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(B)(1)(i).
(ii) There is a foreign payment attributable to income of the
entity (as determined under the laws of the foreign country to which
such foreign payment is made), including the entity's share of income
of a lower-tier entity that is a branch or pass-through entity under
the laws of such foreign country, that, if the foreign payment were an
amount of tax paid, would be paid or accrued in a U.S. taxable year in
which the entity meets the requirements of paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(B)(1)(i) of this section. A foreign payment attributable to
income of an entity includes a foreign payment attributable to income
that is required to be taken into account by an owner of the entity, if
the entity is a branch or pass-through entity under the laws of such
foreign country. A foreign payment attributable to income of an entity
also includes a foreign payment attributable to income of a lower-tier
entity that is a branch or pass-through entity for U.S. tax purposes. A
foreign payment attributable to income of the entity does not include a
withholding tax (within the meaning of section 901(k)(1)(B)) imposed on
a distribution or payment from the entity to a U.S. party.
(2) U.S. party. A person would be eligible to claim a credit under
section 901(a) (including a credit for foreign taxes deemed paid under
section 902 or 960) for all or a portion of the foreign payment
described in paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(1)(ii) of this section if the
foreign payment were an amount of tax paid.
(3) Direct investment. The U.S. party's proportionate share of the
foreign payment or payments described in paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(1)(ii)
of this section is (or is expected to be) substantially greater than
the amount of credits, if any, that the U.S. party reasonably would
expect to be eligible to claim under section 901(a) for foreign taxes
attributable to income generated by the U.S. party's proportionate
share of the assets owned by the SPV if the U.S. party directly owned
such assets. For this purpose, direct ownership shall not include
ownership through a branch, a permanent establishment or any other
arrangement (such as an agency arrangement or dual resident status)
that would result in the income generated by the U.S. party's
proportionate share of the assets being subject to tax on a net basis
in the foreign country to which the payment is made. A U.S. party's
proportionate share of the assets of the SPV shall be determined by
reference to such U.S. party's proportionate share of the total value
of all of the outstanding interests in the SPV that are held by its
equity owners and creditors. A U.S. party's proportionate share of the
assets of the SPV, however, shall not include any assets that produce
income subject to gross basis withholding tax.
(4) Foreign tax benefit. The arrangement is reasonably expected to
result in a credit, deduction, loss, exemption, exclusion or other tax
benefit under the laws of a foreign country that is available to a
counterparty or to a person that is related to the counterparty
(determined under the principles of paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(C)(7) of this
section by applying the tax laws of a foreign country in which the
counterparty is subject to tax on a net basis). However, a foreign tax
benefit is described in this paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(4) only if any
such credit corresponds to 10 percent or more of the U.S. party's share
(for U.S. tax purposes) of the foreign payment referred to in paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(B)(1)(ii) of this section or if any such deduction, loss,
exemption, exclusion or other tax benefit corresponds to 10 percent or
more of the foreign base with respect to which the U.S. party's share
(for U.S. tax purposes) of the foreign payment is imposed.
(5) Counterparty. The arrangement involves a counterparty. A
counterparty is a person that, under the tax laws of a foreign country
in which the person is subject to tax on the basis of place of
management, place of incorporation or similar criterion or otherwise
subject to a net basis tax, directly or indirectly owns or acquires
equity interests in, or assets of, the SPV. However, a counterparty
does not include the SPV or a person with respect to which for U.S. tax
purposes the same domestic corporation, U.S. citizen or resident alien
individual directly or indirectly owns more than 80 percent of the
total value of the stock (or equity interests) of each of the U.S.
party and such person. In addition, a counterparty does not include a
person with respect to which for U.S. tax purposes the U.S. party
directly or indirectly owns more than 80 percent of the total value of
the stock (or equity interests), but only if the U.S. party is a
domestic corporation, a U.S. citizen or a resident alien individual.
(6) Inconsistent treatment. The United States and an applicable
foreign country treat one or more of the following aspects of the
arrangement differently under their respective tax systems, and for one
or more tax years when the arrangement is in effect either the amount
of income recognized by the SPV, the U.S. party, and persons related to
the U.S. party for U.S. tax purposes is materially less than the amount
of income that would be recognized if the foreign tax treatment
controlled for U.S. tax purposes, or the amount of credits claimed by
the U.S. party (if the foreign payment described in paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(B)(1)(ii) of this section were an amount of tax paid) is
materially greater than it would be if the foreign tax treatment
controlled for U.S. tax purposes:
(i) The classification of the SPV (or an entity that has a direct
or indirect ownership interest in the SPV) as a corporation or other
entity subject to an entity-level tax, a partnership or other
[[Page 40735]]
flow-through entity or an entity that is disregarded for tax purposes.
(ii) The characterization as debt, equity or an instrument that is
disregarded for tax purposes of an instrument issued by the SPV (or an
entity that has a direct or indirect ownership interest in the SPV) to
the U.S. party, the counterparty or a person related to the U.S. party
or the counterparty.
(iii) The proportion of the equity of the SPV (or an entity that
directly or indirectly owns the SPV) that is considered to be owned
directly or indirectly by the U.S. party and the counterparty.
(iv) The amount of taxable income of the SPV for one or more tax
years during which the arrangement is in effect.
(C) Definitions. The following definitions apply for purposes of
paragraph (e)(5)(iv) of this section.
(1) Applicable foreign country. An applicable foreign country means
each foreign country to which a foreign payment described in paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(B)(1)(ii) of this section is made or which confers a foreign
tax benefit described in paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(4) of this section.
(2) Counterparty. The term counterparty means a person described in
paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(5) of this section.
(3) Entity. The term entity includes a corporation, trust,
partnership or disregarded entity described in Sec. 301.7701-
2(c)(2)(i) of this chapter.
(4) Indirect ownership. Indirect ownership of stock or another
equity interest (such as an interest in a partnership) shall be
determined in accordance with the principles of section 958(a)(2),
regardless of whether the interest is owned by a U.S. or foreign
entity.
(5) Passive investment income--(i) In general. For purposes of
paragraph (e)(5)(iv) of this section, the term passive investment
income means income described in section 954(c), as modified by this
paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)(i) and paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)(ii) of
this section. In determining whether income is described in section
954(c), paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(6) of that section shall be
disregarded, and sections 954(h) and 954(i) shall be taken into account
by applying those provisions at the entity level as if the entity were
a controlled foreign corporation (as defined in section 957(a)). For
purposes of the preceding sentence, any income of an entity
attributable to transactions that, assuming the entity is an SPV, are
with a person that is a counterparty, or with persons that are related
to a counterparty within the meaning of paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(4) of
this section, shall not be treated as qualified banking or financing
income or as qualified insurance income, and shall not be taken into
account in applying sections 954(h) and 954(i) for purposes of
determining whether other income of the entity is excluded from section
954(c)(1) under section 954(h) or 954(i), but only if any such person
(or a person that is related to such person within the meaning of
paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(4) of this section) is eligible for a foreign
tax benefit described in paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(4) of this section. In
addition, in applying section 954(h) for purposes of this paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)(i), section 954(h)(3)(E) shall not apply, section
954(h)(2)(A)(ii) shall be satisfied only if the entity conducts
substantial activity with respect to its business through its own
employees, and the term ``any foreign country'' shall be substituted
for ``home country'' wherever it appears in section 954(h).
(ii) Holding company exception. Except as provided in this
paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)(ii), income of an entity that is
attributable to an equity interest in a lower-tier entity is passive
investment income. If the entity is a holding company and directly owns
a qualified equity interest in another entity (a ``lower-tier entity'')
that is engaged in the active conduct of a trade or business and that
derives more than 50 percent of its gross income from such trade or
business, then none of the entity's income attributable to such
interest is passive investment income, provided that substantially all
of the entity's opportunity for gain and risk of loss with respect to
such interest in the lower-tier entity is shared by the U.S. party or
parties (or persons that are related to a U.S. party) and, assuming the
entity is an SPV, a counterparty or counterparties (or persons that are
related to a counterparty). For purposes of the preceding sentence, an
entity is a holding company, and is considered to be engaged in the
active conduct of a trade or business and to derive more than 50
percent of its gross income from such trade or business, if
substantially all of its assets consist of qualified equity interests
in one or more entities, each of which is engaged in the active conduct
of a trade or business and derives more than 50 percent of its gross
income from such trade or business and with respect to which
substantially all of the entity's opportunity for gain and risk of loss
with respect to each such interest in a lower-tier entity is shared
(directly or indirectly) by the U.S. party or parties (or persons that
are related to a U.S. party) and, assuming the entity is an SPV, a
counterparty or counterparties (or persons that are related to a
counterparty). A person is not considered to share in the entity's
opportunity for gain and risk of loss if its equity interest in the
entity was acquired in a sale-repurchase transaction, if its interest
is treated as debt for U.S. tax purposes, or if substantially all of
the entity's opportunity for gain and risk of loss with respect to its
interest in any lower-tier entity is borne (directly or indirectly) by
the U.S. party or parties (or persons that are related to a U.S. party)
or, assuming the entity is an SPV, a counterparty or counterparties (or
persons that are related to a counterparty), but not both parties. For
purposes of this paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)(ii), a lower-tier entity
that is engaged in a banking, financing, or similar business shall not
be considered to be engaged in the active conduct of a trade or
business unless the income derived by such entity would be excluded
from section 954(c)(1) under section 954(h) or 954(i), determined by
applying those provisions at the lower-tier entity level as if the
entity were a controlled foreign corporation (as defined in section
957(a)). In addition, for purposes of the preceding sentence, any
income of an entity attributable to transactions that, assuming the
entity is an SPV, are with a person that is a counterparty, or with
other persons that are related to a counterparty within the meaning of
paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(4) of this section, shall not be treated as
qualified banking or financing income or as qualified insurance income,
and shall not be taken into account in applying sections 954(h) and
954(i) for purposes of determining whether other income of the entity
is excluded from section 954(c)(1) under section 954(h) or 954(i), but
only if any such person (or a person that is related to such person
within the meaning of paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(4) of this section) is
eligible for a foreign tax benefit described in paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(B)(4) of this section. In applying section 954(h) for
purposes of this paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(C)(5)(ii), section 954(h)(3)(E)
shall not apply, section 954(h)(2)(A)(ii) shall be satisfied only if
the entity conducts substantial activity with respect to its business
through its own employees, and the term ``any foreign country'' shall
be substituted for ``home country'' wherever it appears in section
954(h).
(6) Qualified equity interest. With respect to an interest in a
corporation, the term qualified equity interest means
[[Page 40736]]
stock representing 10 percent or more of the total combined voting
power of all classes of stock entitled to vote and 10 percent or more
of the total value of the stock of the corporation or disregarded
entity, but does not include any preferred stock (as defined in section
351(g)(3)). Similar rules shall apply to determine whether an interest
in an entity other than a corporation is a qualified equity interest.
(7) Related person. Two persons are related if--
(i) One person directly or indirectly owns stock (or an equity
interest) possessing more than 50 percent of the total value of the
other person; or
(ii) The same person directly or indirectly owns stock (or an
equity interest) possessing more than 50 percent of the total value of
both persons.
(8) Special purpose vehicle (SPV). The term SPV means the entity
described in paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(1) of this section.
(9) U.S. party. The term U.S. party means a person described in
paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B)(2) of this section.
(D) Examples. The following examples illustrate the rules of
paragraph (e)(5)(iv) of this section. No inference is intended as to
whether a taxpayer would be eligible to claim a credit under section
901(a) if a foreign payment were an amount of tax paid.
Example 1. U.S. borrower transaction. (i) Facts. A domestic
corporation (USP) forms a country M corporation (Newco),
contributing $1.5 billion in exchange for 100 percent of the stock
of Newco. Newco, in turn, loans the $1.5 billion to a second country
M corporation (FSub) wholly owned by USP. USP then sells its entire
interest in Newco to a country M corporation (FP) for the original
purchase price of $1.5 billion, subject to an obligation to
repurchase the interest in five years for $1.5 billion. The sale has
the effect of transferring ownership of the Newco stock to FP for
country M tax purposes. The sale-repurchase transaction is
structured in a way that qualifies as a collateralized loan for U.S.
tax purposes. Therefore, USP remains the owner of the Newco stock
for U.S. tax purposes. In year 1, FSub pays Newco $120 million of
interest. Newco pays $36 million to country M with respect to such
interest income and distributes the remaining $84 million to FP.
Under country M law, the $84 million distribution is excluded from
FP's income. None of FP's stock is owned, directly or indirectly, by
USP or any shareholders of USP that are domestic corporations, U.S.
citizens, or resident alien individuals. Under an income tax treaty
between country M and the United States, country M does not impose
country M tax on interest received by U.S. residents from sources in
country M.
(ii) Result. The $36 million payment by Newco to country M is
not a compulsory payment, and thus is not an amount of tax paid
because the foreign payment is attributable to a structured passive
investment arrangement. First, Newco is an SPV because all of
Newco's income is passive investment income described in paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(C)(5) of this section; Newco's only asset, a note, is
held to produce such income; the payment to country M is