James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, 65112 [2011-27121]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
65112
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 203 / Thursday, October 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
any C stock prior to year 6, D purchased 20
percent of the C stock in year 6, and then
acquired all of the remaining C stock in year
7, the C stock purchased in year 6 and the
C stock acquired in year 7 (even if purchased)
would not be treated as ‘‘other property’’
because C becomes a DSAG member. See
paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section.
Example 3. Intra-SAG transaction. For
more than five years, D has owned all of the
stock of S. D and S, in the aggregate, have
owned section 368(c) stock but not section
1504(a)(2) stock of C. Therefore, D and S are
DSAG members, but C is not. In year 6, D
purchases S’s C stock. If D distributes all of
its C stock within five years after the year 6
purchase, the distribution of the C stock
purchased in year 6 would not be treated as
‘‘other property.’’ D’s purchase of the C stock
from S is disregarded for purposes of
paragraph (g)(1) of this section because that
C stock was owned by the DSAG
immediately before and immediately after the
purchase. See paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
Example 4. Affiliate exception. For more
than five years, P has owned 90 percent of
the sole outstanding class of the stock of D
and a portion of the stock of C, and X has
owned the remaining 10 percent of the D
stock. Throughout this period, D has owned
section 368(c) stock but not section
1504(a)(2) stock of C. In year 6, D purchases
P’s C stock. However, D does not own section
1504(a)(2) stock of C after the year 6
purchase. If D distributes all of its C stock to
X in exchange for X’s D stock within five
years after the year 6 purchase, the
distribution of the C stock purchased in year
6 would not be treated as ‘‘other property’’
because the C stock was purchased from a
member (P) of the affiliated group (as defined
in § 1.355–3(b)(4)(iv)) of which D is a
member, and P did not purchase that C stock
within the pre-distribution period. See
paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) Effective/applicability date.
Paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this
section apply to distributions occurring
after October 20, 2011. For rules
regarding distributions occurring on or
before October 20, 2011, see § 1.355–
2T(i), as contained in 26 CFR part 1,
revised as of April 1, 2011.
§ 1.355–0T
■
Par. 5. Section 1.355–0T is removed.
§ 1.355–2T
pmangrum on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
■
[Removed]
[Removed]
Par. 6. Section 1.355–2T is removed.
Steven T. Miller,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
Approved: October 14, 2011.
Emily S. McMahon,
Acting Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
(Tax Policy).
[FR Doc. 2011–27240 Filed 10–19–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:45 Oct 19, 2011
Jkt 226001
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
28 CFR Part 104
[Docket No. CIV 151]
RIN 1105–AB39
James Zadroga 9/11 Health and
Compensation Act of 2010
Department of Justice.
Final rule; correction.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department of Justice is
correcting a final rule that appeared in
the Federal Register of August 31, 2011
(76 FR 54112). That document issued
regulations implementing the
amendments made by the James
Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation
Act of 2010 (Zadroga Act) with respect
to the September 11th Victim
Compensation Fund of 2001.
DATES: Effective October 3, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kenneth L. Zwick, Director, Office of
Management Programs, Civil Division,
U.S. Department of Justice, Main
Building, Room 3140, 950 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530,
telephone 855–885–1555 (TTY 855–
885–1558).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc.
2011–22160 appearing on page 54112 in
the Federal Register on Wednesday,
August 31, 2011, the following
correction is made:
1. On page 54119, in the third
column, the paragraph following the
heading ‘‘Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996’’ is
revised to read as follows:
‘‘The Office of Management and
Budget has determined that this rule is
a major rule as defined by section 251
of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(Congressional Review Act), 5 U.S.C.
804. This rule will not result in a major
increase in costs or prices, or significant
adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or on the ability of United
States-based companies to compete with
foreign-based companies in domestic
and export markets. However, the
compensation benefits awarded to
eligible claimants will have an annual
beneficial impact on the economy of
$100,000,000 or more in certain years
until the amounts authorized and
appropriated for the Victims
Compensation Fund are fully
distributed.
‘‘Title II of the Zadroga Act reactivates
the September 11th Victim
Compensation Fund of 2001 and
requires a Special Master, appointed by
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the Attorney General, to provide
compensation to any individual (or a
personal representative of a deceased
individual) who suffered physical harm
or was killed as a result of the terroristrelated aircraft crashes of September 11,
2001, or the debris removal efforts that
took place in the immediate aftermath of
those crashes. In view of the need to
begin processing compensation claims
as soon as possible, it is impracticable
for the Department to comply with the
requirements of section 801 of the
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801,
pertaining to delayed effective dates of
major rules without unduly delaying the
processing of claims. Section 808(2) of
the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C.
808(2), provides: ‘‘Notwithstanding
section 801—* * * (2) any rule which
an agency for good cause finds (and
incorporates the finding and a brief
statement of reasons therefor in the rule
issued) that notice and public procedure
thereon are impracticable, unnecessary,
or contrary to the public interest, shall
take effect at such time as the Federal
agency promulgating the rule
determines.’’ Were the Department not
to invoke the exception provided in
section 808(2) of the Congressional
Review Act, eligible claimants would
have to wait substantially longer to
begin filing their claims, thereby
impairing Congress’s goal of providing
compensation in as expeditious a
manner as possible (as evidenced by the
short statutory deadline for
implementation). Such a delay in
implementing the compensation process
would be clearly contrary to the public
interest. For the foregoing reasons, the
Special Master finds pursuant to section
808(2) of the Congressional Review Act,
5 U.S.C. 808, that good cause exists to
make this final rule effective October 3,
2011.’’
Dated: October 12, 2011.
Sheila L. Birnbaum,
Special Master.
[FR Doc. 2011–27121 Filed 10–19–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–12–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 211
[Docket ID: DOD–2011–OS–0054; RIN 0790–
AI69]
Mission Compatibility Evaluation
Process
Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics, DoD.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\20OCR1.SGM
20OCR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 203 (Thursday, October 20, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65112]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27121]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
28 CFR Part 104
[Docket No. CIV 151]
RIN 1105-AB39
James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010
AGENCY: Department of Justice.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is correcting a final rule that
appeared in the Federal Register of August 31, 2011 (76 FR 54112). That
document issued regulations implementing the amendments made by the
James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 (Zadroga Act)
with respect to the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001.
DATES: Effective October 3, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth L. Zwick, Director, Office of
Management Programs, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Main
Building, Room 3140, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20530, telephone 855-885-1555 (TTY 855-885-1558).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2011-22160 appearing on page
54112 in the Federal Register on Wednesday, August 31, 2011, the
following correction is made:
1. On page 54119, in the third column, the paragraph following the
heading ``Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996''
is revised to read as follows:
``The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule
is a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional Review Act),
5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in a major increase in costs or
prices, or significant adverse effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United
States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in
domestic and export markets. However, the compensation benefits awarded
to eligible claimants will have an annual beneficial impact on the
economy of $100,000,000 or more in certain years until the amounts
authorized and appropriated for the Victims Compensation Fund are fully
distributed.
``Title II of the Zadroga Act reactivates the September 11th Victim
Compensation Fund of 2001 and requires a Special Master, appointed by
the Attorney General, to provide compensation to any individual (or a
personal representative of a deceased individual) who suffered physical
harm or was killed as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft
crashes of September 11, 2001, or the debris removal efforts that took
place in the immediate aftermath of those crashes. In view of the need
to begin processing compensation claims as soon as possible, it is
impracticable for the Department to comply with the requirements of
section 801 of the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, pertaining
to delayed effective dates of major rules without unduly delaying the
processing of claims. Section 808(2) of the Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 808(2), provides: ``Notwithstanding section 801--* * * (2) any
rule which an agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding
and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rule issued) that
notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest, shall take effect at such time as the
Federal agency promulgating the rule determines.'' Were the Department
not to invoke the exception provided in section 808(2) of the
Congressional Review Act, eligible claimants would have to wait
substantially longer to begin filing their claims, thereby impairing
Congress's goal of providing compensation in as expeditious a manner as
possible (as evidenced by the short statutory deadline for
implementation). Such a delay in implementing the compensation process
would be clearly contrary to the public interest. For the foregoing
reasons, the Special Master finds pursuant to section 808(2) of the
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 808, that good cause exists to make
this final rule effective October 3, 2011.''
Dated: October 12, 2011.
Sheila L. Birnbaum,
Special Master.
[FR Doc. 2011-27121 Filed 10-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-12-P
