Dividend Equivalents From Sources Within the United States, 56865-56891 [2015-21759]

Agencies

• Internal Revenue Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 181 (Friday, September 18, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56865-56891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21759]



[[Page 56865]]

Vol. 80

Friday,

No. 181

September 18, 2015

Part VI





Department of the Treasury





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Internal Revenue Service





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





26 CFR Part 1





Dividend Equivalents From Sources Within the United States; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 56866]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[TD 9734]
RIN 1545-BJ56


Dividend Equivalents From Sources Within the United States

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Final regulations and temporary regulations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document provides guidance to nonresident alien 
individuals and foreign corporations that hold certain financial 
products providing for payments that are contingent upon or determined 
by reference to U.S. source dividend payments. This document also 
provides guidance to withholding agents that are responsible for 
withholding U.S. tax with respect to a dividend equivalent.

DATES: Effective Date: These regulations are effective on September 18, 
2015.
    Applicability Dates: For dates of applicability, see Sec. Sec.  
1.871-14(j)(3), 1.871-15(r), 1.871-15T(r)(4), 1.1441-1(f)(4), 1.1441-
1T(f)(3), 1.1441-2(f), 1.1441-3(h)(3), 1.1441-7(a)(4), and 1.1473-1(f).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. Peter Merkel or Karen Walny at 
(202) 317-6938 (not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The collection of information contained in these final regulations 
has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget 
in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)) under control numbers 1545-0096 and 1545-1597. The collections 
of information in this final regulation are in Sec.  1.871-15(p), and 
are an increase in the total annual burden in the current regulations 
under Sec. Sec.  1.1441-1 through 1.1441-9, 1.1461-1, and 1.1474-1. 
This information is required to establish whether a payment is treated 
as a U.S. source dividend for purposes of section 871(m). This 
information will be used for audit and examination purposes. The IRS 
intends that these information collection requirements will be 
satisfied by persons complying with revised chapter 3 reporting 
requirements and the requirements of the applicable QI revenue 
procedure to be revised by the IRS, or alternative certification and 
documentation requirements set out in these regulations. An agency may 
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.
    Books or records relating to a collection of information must be 
retained as long as their contents may become material in the 
administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and 
return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Background

    On January 23, 2012, the Federal Register published temporary 
regulations (TD 9572) at 77 FR 3108 (2012 temporary regulations), and a 
notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to the temporary 
regulations and notice of public hearing at 77 FR 3202 (2012 proposed 
regulations, and together with the 2012 temporary regulations, 2012 
section 871(m) regulations) under section 871(m) of the Internal 
Revenue Code (Code). The 2012 section 871(m) regulations relate to 
dividend equivalents from sources within the United States paid to 
nonresident alien individuals and foreign corporations. Corrections to 
the 2012 temporary regulations were published on February 6, 2012, and 
March 8, 2012, in the Federal Register at 77 FR 5700 and 77 FR 13969, 
respectively. A correcting amendment to the 2012 temporary regulations 
was also published on August 31, 2012, in the Federal Register at 77 FR 
53141. The Treasury Department and the IRS received written comments on 
the 2012 proposed regulations, and a public hearing was held on April 
27, 2012.
    On December 5, 2013, the Federal Register published final 
regulations and removal of temporary regulations (TD 9648) at 78 FR 
73079 (2013 final regulations), which finalized a portion of the 2012 
section 871(m) regulations. Also on December 5, 2013, the Federal 
Register published a withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking, a 
notice of proposed rulemaking, and a notice of public hearing at 78 FR 
73128 (2013 proposed regulations). In light of comments on the 2012 
proposed regulations, the 2013 proposed regulations described a new 
approach for determining whether a payment made pursuant to a notional 
principal contract (NPC) or an equity-linked instrument (ELI) is a 
dividend equivalent based on the delta of the contract. In response to 
written comments on the 2013 proposed regulations, the Treasury 
Department and the IRS released Notice 2014-14, 2014-13 IRB 881, on 
March 24, 2014 (see Sec.  601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b)), stating that the 
Treasury Department and the IRS anticipated limiting the application of 
the rules with respect to specified ELIs described in the 2013 proposed 
regulations to ELIs issued on or after 90 days after the date of 
publication of final regulations.
    The Treasury Department and the IRS received written comments on 
the 2013 proposed regulations, which are available at 
www.regulations.gov. The public hearing scheduled for April 11, 2013, 
was cancelled because no request to speak was received. This Treasury 
decision generally adopts the 2013 proposed regulations with the 
changes discussed in this preamble. This Treasury decision also 
includes temporary regulations, which provide new rules for determining 
whether certain complex derivatives are subject to section 871(m) and 
for payments to certain dealers in response to comments on the 2013 
proposed regulations.

Summary of Comments and Explanation of Provisions

I. In General

    The Treasury Department and the IRS received numerous comments 
regarding the 2013 proposed regulations. Most comments agreed that the 
approach taken in the 2013 proposed regulations, in particular the use 
of a test based on delta, was a fair and practical way to apply section 
871(m) to financial instruments linked to one or more U.S. equity 
securities. Commenters, however, identified a number of issues with the 
2013 proposed regulations. Many of the comments suggested modifications 
and clarifications to the 2013 proposed regulations before they are 
issued as final regulations. Those comments are summarized in Part II 
of this preamble. Part II also explains the changes made to the final 
regulations in response to those comments.
    Several of the issues identified by commenters required more 
significant changes or additions to the 2013 proposed regulations. To 
allow taxpayers adequate opportunity to consider and comment on these 
changes, the Treasury Department and the IRS are issuing portions of 
the regulations as temporary and proposed regulations. Those 
provisions, and the relevant comments, are summarized in Part III of 
this preamble.

II. Final Regulations

A. Source of a Dividend Equivalent

    The 2013 proposed regulations provide that a dividend equivalent is 
treated as a dividend from sources within the United States for 
purposes of sections 871(a), 881, 892, 894, and

[[Page 56867]]

4948(a), and chapters 3 and 4 of subtitle A of the Code. This rule 
follows section 871(m)(1) but adds the reference to section 894 to 
clarify (as provided in Sec.  1.894-1(c)(2)) that a dividend equivalent 
is treated as a dividend for purposes of any provision regarding 
dividends in an income tax treaty. The final regulations retain the 
general sourcing provision. See Sec.  1.871-15(b).

B. Definition of a Dividend Equivalent

    The 2013 proposed regulations define a dividend equivalent as (1) 
any substitute dividend that references a U.S. source dividend made 
pursuant to a securities lending or sale-repurchase transaction, (2) 
any payment that references a U.S. source dividend made pursuant to a 
specified NPC, (3) any payment that references a U.S. source dividend 
made pursuant to a specified ELI, or (4) any other substantially 
similar payment. A payment references a U.S. source dividend if the 
payment is directly or indirectly contingent upon a U.S. source 
dividend or determined by reference to such a dividend. While the 
transactions described in (1) and (2) are transactions described in 
sections 871(m)(2)(A) and (B), respectively, the 2013 proposed 
regulations extend section 871(m) to the transactions described in (3) 
and (4) under the regulatory authority granted in section 871(m)(2)(C), 
which includes as a dividend equivalent ``any other payment determined 
by the Secretary to be substantially similar to a payment described in 
subparagraph (A) or (B)'' of section 871(m)(2). The final regulations 
retain this four-part definition of a dividend equivalent. See Sec.  
1.871-15(c)(1). The final regulations also provide certain exceptions 
to the term ``dividend equivalent,'' which are described in section 
II.D of this preamble.
    Section 871(m)(3)(A) provides a temporary definition of the term 
``specified notional principal contract.'' This definition is effective 
for payments made on or after September 14, 2010, and on or before 
March 18, 2012. Section 871(m)(3)(B) provides that, for payments made 
after March 18, 2012, a specified NPC includes ``any notional principal 
contract unless the Secretary determines that such contract is of a 
type which does not have the potential for tax avoidance.'' The 2013 
final regulations extend the applicability of the temporary statutory 
definition in section 871(m)(3)(A) (the four-part definition provided 
in paragraphs (3)(A)(i) through (iv)) to payments made before January 
1, 2016. These final regulations amend the 2013 final regulations to 
extend the application of the temporary statutory definition adopted in 
the 2013 final regulations to payments made before January 1, 2017.
    Pursuant to the grant of authority in section 871(m)(2)(C), the 
2013 proposed regulations provide that certain payments made pursuant 
to a specified ELI are substantially similar to a dividend equivalent 
payment. Section 1.871-15(c)(1)(iii) of the 2013 proposed regulations 
defines a dividend equivalent to include any payment that references 
the payment of a dividend from an underlying security on a specified 
ELI. Section 1.871-15(a)(3) of the 2013 proposed regulations defines an 
ELI (whether or not specified) as any financial transaction (other than 
a securities lending or sale-repurchase transaction or an NPC) that 
references the value of one or more underlying securities. Forward 
contracts, futures contracts, options, debt instruments convertible 
into underlying securities, and debt instruments that have payments 
linked to underlying securities are common examples of an ELI.

C. The Delta Test

    The 2012 proposed regulations used a multi-factor test to determine 
whether an NPC or ELI is a specified contract subject to withholding 
under section 871(m). The 2013 proposed regulations replace the multi-
factor test with a single-factor test that employs a ``delta'' 
threshold to determine whether a transaction is a section 871(m) 
transaction. Delta refers to the ratio of a change in the fair market 
value of a contract to a small change in the fair market value of the 
property referenced by the contract. Delta is widely used by 
participants in the derivatives markets to measure and manage risk. 
Under the test in the 2013 proposed regulations, any NPC or ELI that 
had a delta of 0.70 or greater when the long party acquired the 
transaction would be a section 871(m) transaction subject to 
withholding.
    The Treasury Department and the IRS proposed a delta-based standard 
after concluding that it would provide a comparatively simple, 
administrable, and objective framework that would also minimize 
potential avoidance of U.S. withholding tax. A financial instrument 
that provides an economic return that is substantially similar to the 
return on the underlying stock should be taxed in the same manner as 
the underlying stock for the purpose of section 871(m). The Treasury 
Department and the IRS concluded that the delta test was the best way 
to identify these instruments.
    The Treasury Department and the IRS received many comments 
regarding the delta test. Commenters generally agreed that the delta 
test was both a fair and comprehensive way to implement section 871(m), 
but provided comments on several aspects of the test. The major 
concerns noted in the comments relate to: (1) The use of 0.70 as the 
delta threshold; (2) the time for testing delta; (3) the ability of 
parties to the transaction to obtain and track the necessary delta 
information; and (4) the difficulty of determining an initial delta 
with respect to certain complex equity derivatives (in contrast with 
simple contracts, as defined in Part II.C.4 of this preamble).
1. Delta Threshold
    Comments on the 2013 proposed regulations recommended raising the 
delta threshold, with suggestions ranging from a delta of 0.80 to 0.95. 
The majority of comments preferred a delta threshold of 0.90 or 
greater. Comments maintained that a higher delta would more accurately 
capture transactions that are economically equivalent to stock 
ownership and likely to be used for tax-avoidance. One comment noted 
that a 0.80 delta standard, although not prescribed in regulatory 
guidance, is used by some practitioners as a yardstick to judge 
economic equivalence in other tax contexts.
    The Treasury Department and the IRS agree that the 0.70 delta in 
the 2013 proposed regulations could apply to contracts with economic 
characteristics that do not sufficiently resemble the underlying 
security to be within the scope of section 871(m). On the other hand, a 
delta threshold that is 0.90 (or higher) would exclude many instruments 
that are surrogates for the underlying security, such as deep-in-the-
money options. The final regulations adopt a delta threshold of 0.80, 
which strikes a balance between the potential over-inclusiveness of the 
0.70 delta threshold and the likelihood that a 0.90 (or higher) 
threshold would exclude transactions with economic returns that closely 
resemble an underlying security.
    Several comments noted that a delta ratio is intended to measure 
the sensitivity of the value of a contract to comparatively small 
changes in the market value of the referenced property and suggested 
that the regulations incorporate this qualification in the definition 
of delta. The final regulations accept this suggestion and clarify the 
definition of delta by specifying that delta is calculated with respect 
to a small change in the fair market value of the property referenced 
by the contract.

[[Page 56868]]

Typically, a small change is a change of less than 1 percent.
2. Time for Testing Delta
    Many comments stated that the requirement to test delta each time a 
contract is acquired would be extremely difficult to administer, 
especially for ELIs that trade frequently. Multiple testing events 
create the possibility that identical instruments acquired at different 
times would have different tax characteristics, which withholding 
systems are generally not designed to handle. To ease compliance, 
comments suggested that delta be tested only when a contract is issued. 
For derivatives that are listed and cleared through central 
clearinghouses, another comment suggested that the delta test would be 
more administrable if taxpayers were permitted to simplify their 
calculations. For example, delta could be calculated using the fair 
market value of an ELI determined as of the market close on the trading 
day prior to the date the ELI is acquired, even though this approach 
would result in a less accurate calculation. Other comments suggested 
that, in determining the delta of an option, only the stock price at 
the time the option is entered into should be considered.
    The Treasury Department and the IRS are persuaded that the 
difficulties of testing delta each time an NPC or ELI is acquired 
outweigh the benefit of the increased accuracy of that approach. 
Accordingly, the final regulations provide that the delta of an ELI or 
NPC is determined only when the instrument is issued; it is not re-
tested when the instrument is purchased or otherwise acquired in the 
secondary market. Consequently, only an NPC or ELI that has a delta of 
0.80 or greater at the time it is issued is a specified NPC or 
specified ELI.
    For purposes of Sec.  1.871-15, an instrument is treated as 
``issued'' when it is entered into, purchased, or otherwise acquired at 
its inception or original issuance, which includes an issuance that 
results from a deemed exchange pursuant to section 1001. The 
requirement to test delta only at the time an instrument is issued also 
extends to the rules for determining the amount of each dividend 
equivalent (as discussed in section E.1 of this preamble).
3. Access to Delta Information
    Comments noted practical issues with obtaining delta information, 
particularly for exchange-traded positions where the dealer is not 
involved in determining pricing and the short party may not have the 
expertise to calculate delta. Comments suggested adopting an 
alternative test for identifying high-delta options based on their 
relative intrinsic value (amount by which the option is in-the-money) 
and relative extrinsic value (time value). This test would require the 
simpler calculation of determining the applicable strike price as a 
percentage of the current fair market value of the ELI and deeming ELIs 
at a certain percentage as passing or failing the delta threshold. 
Alternatively, comments suggested permitting the long party to rely on 
commonly available online tools to calculate delta for exchange-traded 
ELIs, provided that the taxpayer uses inputs that are within the range 
of commercially acceptable variation, uses a consistent methodology, 
and records its calculations contemporaneously. Comments also 
recommended relying on an anti-abuse rule for particularly complex 
derivatives for which delta information would be unavailable to any 
party other than the issuer, speculating that the increased cost and 
risk of complex transactions generally would outweigh any tax savings.
    The Treasury Department and the IRS are concerned that these 
alternative tests or shorthand methods for determining delta may result 
in uncertainty for withholding agents and the IRS that could make it 
difficult to determine the status of potential section 871(m) 
transactions. Moreover, the changes to the final regulations to require 
that delta be tested only when a contract is first issued, accompanied 
by enhanced reporting rules (described in more detail later in this 
preamble), make these alternative tests unnecessary. Accordingly, the 
final regulations do not adopt these recommendations.
    However, in order to simplify the delta calculation for contracts 
that reference multiple underlying securities, the final regulations 
provide that a short party may calculate delta using a single exchange-
traded security in certain circumstances. More specifically, if a short 
party issues a contract that references a basket of 10 or more 
underlying securities and uses an exchange-traded security, such as an 
exchange-traded fund, that references substantially the same underlying 
securities to hedge the contract at the time it is issued, the short 
party may use the hedge security to determine the delta of the security 
it is issuing rather than determining the delta of each security 
referenced in the basket.
4. Contracts With Indeterminate Deltas
    Although commenters generally agreed that the delta test was fair 
and practical for the majority of equity-linked derivatives, numerous 
comments explained that the delta test would be difficult or impossible 
to apply to certain more exotic equity derivatives. For example, 
contracts that have asymmetrical or binary payouts may reference a 
different number of shares of an underlying security at different 
payout points. Similarly, contracts that have path-dependent payouts 
may reference multiple underlying securities, with payouts that are 
interdependent on the performance of each underlying security. In each 
of these cases, comments noted that the delta is indeterminate because 
the number of shares of the underlying security that determine the 
payout of the derivative cannot be known at the time the contract is 
entered into.
    The Treasury Department and the IRS agree that an alternative to 
the delta test is needed for contracts with indeterminate deltas. To 
address these contracts, the final regulations distinguish between 
simple contracts and complex contracts.
    Generally, a simple contract is a contract that references a 
single, fixed number of shares of one or more issuers to determine the 
payout. The number of shares must be known when the contract is issued. 
In addition, the contract must have a single maturity or exercise date 
on which all amounts (other than any upfront payment or any periodic 
payments) are required to be calculated with respect to the underlying 
security. The fact that a contract has more than one expiry, or a 
continuous expiry, does not preclude the contract from being a simple 
contract. Thus, an American-style option is a simple contract even 
though the option may be exercised by the holder at any time on or 
before the expiration of the option if amounts due under the contract 
are determined by reference to a single, fixed number of shares on the 
exercise date. Most NPCs and ELIs are expected to be simple contracts 
and remain subject to the delta test described above.
    A complex contract is any contract that is not a simple contract. 
Contracts with indeterminate deltas are classified as complex 
contracts, which are subject to a new substantial equivalence test. 
That test is included in the temporary regulations, described in more 
detail in Part III of this preamble. The delta test in the final 
regulations therefore applies only to simple contracts.

D. Exceptions for Certain Payments and Transactions

    Several comments requested that the final regulations exclude 
certain payments from the definition of

[[Page 56869]]

``dividend equivalent'' or exclude certain transactions from the 
definition of ``section 871(m) transaction.'' These comments generally 
noted that the payment or transaction at issue either is already taxed 
under another provision of the Code or does not provide the long party 
with an opportunity to avoid gross basis taxation on U.S. source 
dividends.
1. Payment Referencing Distributions That Are Not Dividends
    The 2013 proposed regulations provide that a payment referencing a 
distribution on an underlying security is not a dividend equivalent to 
the extent that the distribution would not be subject to tax pursuant 
to section 871 or section 881 if the long party owned the underlying 
security directly. The final regulations retain this provision. See 
Sec.  1.871-15(c)(2)(i).
2. Section 305 Coordination
    Under sections 305(b) and (c) and regulations authorized by section 
305(c), a change to the conversion ratio or conversion price of a 
convertible debt instrument that is a convertible security for purposes 
of section 305 (a convertible security) may be treated as a 
distribution of property to which section 301 applies made to the 
holder of the convertible security. See Sec.  1.305-7. To the extent 
such a distribution is treated under section 301(c)(1) as a dividend as 
defined in section 316 (a section 305 dividend), Sec.  1.1441-2(d)(1) 
would require withholding on the section 305 dividend without regard to 
the fact that there is no payment at that time. Absent special rules, a 
section 305 dividend resulting from a change in conversion ratio or 
price of a convertible security that is a section 871(m) transaction 
could also be subject to withholding as a dividend equivalent.
    The 2013 proposed regulations provide that a payment pursuant to a 
section 871(m) transaction is not a dividend equivalent to the extent 
that it is treated as a distribution taxable as a dividend pursuant to 
section 305. Comments noted that section 305 dividends and dividend 
equivalents under section 871(m) arise in different contexts and are 
determined differently. Moreover, section 305 dividends will reduce 
earnings and profits pursuant to section 312. Comments suggested that 
the regulations provide more detail to coordinate these two provisions, 
including guidance on how to reconcile withholding on the delta-based 
dividend equivalent in these regulations with withholding otherwise 
required on section 305 dividends.
    After consideration of the comments, these final regulations 
clarify that a dividend equivalent with respect to a section 871(m) 
transaction is reduced by any amount treated in accordance with section 
305(b) and (c) as a dividend with respect to the underlying security 
referenced by the section 871(m) transaction. For example, if a change 
in the conversion ratio of a convertible security that is a section 
871(m) transaction is treated as a section 305 dividend made to the 
holder of the convertible security, a dividend equivalent is reduced by 
the amount of the section 305 dividend arising from such change.
    Although a transaction (for example, a change in conversion ratio 
of a convertible security) may give rise to both a dividend equivalent 
and a section 305 dividend, dividend equivalents and section 305 
dividends have different characteristics. These final regulations do 
not alter any of the rules applicable to section 305 dividends. As 
noted in Part II.L. of this preamble, however, the changes made 
elsewhere in these final regulations should make section 871(m) 
inapplicable to most convertible debt instruments, including those that 
are convertible securities subject to section 305(c).
3. Due Bills
    The 2013 proposed regulations reserve on the question of whether a 
due bill gives rise to a dividend equivalent and request comments 
regarding whether a payment made by a seller of stock to the purchaser 
pursuant to an agreement to deliver a pending U.S. source dividend 
after the record date (for example, a due bill) should be treated as a 
substantially similar payment.
    One comment noted that a due bill may give rise to payments that 
appear to satisfy the criteria for a dividend equivalent. That comment 
expressed concern regarding the impact this treatment might have on the 
capital markets because of the relative frequency of due bills, as well 
as the administrative complexity of treating these payments as dividend 
equivalents. Another comment asserted that a due bill is not the 
economic equivalent of a dividend. Both comments requested that the 
regulations either address due bills under the anti-abuse rule or 
exclude them from the term dividend equivalent.
    The final regulations provide that a dividend equivalent does not 
include a payment made pursuant to a due bill that arises from the 
actions of a securities exchange that apply to all transactions in the 
stock and when the relevant exchange has set an ex-dividend date that 
occurs after the record date. This rule is expected to apply in 
situations in which a securities exchange sets an ex-dividend date 
after the record date to accommodate a special dividend.
4. Employee Compensation
    The 2013 proposed regulations do not specifically exclude payments 
of compensation for personal services of a nonresident alien individual 
from being treated as a dividend equivalent. Comments suggested that 
compensation arrangements should be excluded from dividend equivalent 
treatment because compensation is already subject to an existing tax 
withholding framework, compensatory transactions arise in a different 
context from other derivatives and do not have the potential to avoid 
U.S. withholding tax, and compensation should be subject to tax where 
the services are performed.
    The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that section 
871(m) should not apply to compensation that is generally subject to 
withholding or has a specific exception therefrom. Accordingly, the 
final regulations provide that a dividend equivalent does not include 
the portion of equity-based compensation for personal services of a 
nonresident alien individual that is wages subject to withholding under 
section 3402, excluded from the definition of wages under Sec.  
31.3401(a)(6)-1, or exempt from withholding under Sec.  1.1441-4(b). 
For example, when a restricted stock unit is paid as compensation and 
tax is collected by the employer at the time of payment through 
withholding, the payment will not also be a dividend equivalent subject 
to withholding. If the restricted stock unit results in the receipt of 
stock, however, dividends subsequently paid on that stock would be 
subject to withholding under section 871.
5. Certain Corporate Acquisitions
    In response to comments, Sec.  1.871-15(j) of the 2013 proposed 
regulations provides an exception to the definition of a section 871(m) 
transaction when a taxpayer enters into a transaction as part of a plan 
pursuant to which one or more persons (including the taxpayer) are 
obligated to acquire more than 50 percent of the entity issuing the 
underlying securities.
    Comments requested that the acquisition threshold in this exception 
be lowered from 50 percent to 10 or 20 percent. Comments noted that 
corporate acquisitions generally would not provide an opportunity for 
avoiding dividend withholding. Further,

[[Page 56870]]

comments noted that the anti-abuse rule should be sufficient to address 
any abuse that could occur through such transactions. Comments 
acknowledged that when a target company pays a pre-closing dividend and 
the purchase price is reduced for the dividend, this may allow the 
purchaser to avoid a subsequent dividend. However, comments observed 
that this event should be viewed as a purchase price adjustment rather 
than a dividend equivalent.
    The final regulations do not change the 50 percent threshold. 
Requiring that an acquisition (as part of a plan by one or more person) 
total more than 50 percent of a corporation is appropriate because it 
indicates that the primary intent of the acquirer is to obtain a 
controlling interest rather than just a substantial investment in the 
target company. In circumstances where a taxpayer enters into a 
transaction pursuant to which the taxpayer is obligated to acquire 50 
percent or less of the entity issuing the underlying securities, and 
the transaction is a section 871(m) transaction, any party to the 
transaction that is a broker, dealer, or intermediary, a short party, 
or a withholding agent, must comply with any requirements in the final 
regulation to make appropriate determinations, and satisfy reporting 
and withholding obligations, as applicable.

D. Payment of a Dividend Equivalent

    Section 871(m)(5) provides that a ``payment'' includes any gross 
amount that references a U.S. source dividend and that is used to 
compute any net amount transferred to or from the taxpayer. The 2013 
proposed regulations provide that a dividend equivalent includes any 
amount that references an actual or estimated payment of a U.S. source 
dividend, whether the reference is explicit or implicit. Thus, in 
addition to amounts equal to actual payments of dividends and estimated 
dividends, a dividend equivalent includes any other contractual term of 
a section 871(m) transaction that is calculated based on an actual or 
estimated dividend. For example, when a long party enters into an NPC 
that provides for payments based on the appreciation in the value of an 
underlying security but that does not explicitly entitle the long party 
to receive payments based on regular dividends (a price return swap), 
the 2013 proposed regulations treat the price return swap as a 
transaction that provides for the payment of a dividend equivalent 
because the anticipated dividend payments are presumed to be taken into 
account in determining other terms of the NPC, such as in the payments 
that the long party is required to make to the short party or in 
setting the price of the underlying securities referenced in the price 
return swap.
    Comments objected to the provisions in the 2013 proposed 
regulations that include estimated and implicit dividends in the 
definition of a dividend equivalent. These comments noted that an 
estimated dividend is reflected as a price reduction or as an amount 
that the foreign investor does not have to pay rather than an amount 
the foreign investor affirmatively receives for holding the derivative, 
which suggests that there is no ``payment'' of a dividend equivalent to 
the foreign investor. Comments also noted that, while estimated 
dividends may be implicitly incorporated into the pricing of a 
derivative, the price is ultimately determined by supply and demand in 
the market and the expected dividend is not always explicitly used in 
computing the amount paid.
    The Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that the 
economic benefit of a dividend is present in transactions that 
implicitly incorporate estimated dividends to virtually the same extent 
as transactions that pay or adjust for actual dividends. Thus, the 
final regulations retain the rules in the 2013 proposed regulations 
that include estimated and implicit dividends as dividend equivalents. 
See Sec.  1.871-15(i)(2). More specifically, the final regulations 
provide that any gross amount that references the payment of a 
dividend, whether actual or estimated, explicit or implicit, is treated 
as a dividend equivalent to the extent of the amount determined under 
the regulations. The final regulations change the time that withholding 
is required on a payment of a dividend equivalent, as discussed in Part 
II.M of this preamble.

E. Amount of a Dividend Equivalent

1. Calculation of Dividend Equivalent Amount
    Under the 2013 proposed regulations, the amount of a dividend 
equivalent for a specified NPC or specified ELI equals the per-share 
dividend amount with respect to the underlying security multiplied by 
the number of shares of the underlying security referenced in the 
contract (subject to adjustment), multiplied by the delta of the 
transaction with respect to the underlying security at the time when 
the amount of the dividend equivalent is determined. If a transaction 
provides for a payment based on an estimated or implicit estimated 
dividend, the actual dividend is used to calculate the amount of the 
dividend equivalent unless the short party identifies a reasonable 
estimated dividend amount in writing at the inception of the 
transaction. When a payment based on estimated dividends is supported 
by the required documentation, the per-share dividend amount used to 
compute the amount of a dividend equivalent is the lesser of the 
estimated dividend and the actual dividend.
    Comments on the 2013 proposed regulations noted that recalculating 
the delta of a section 871(m) transaction each time the amount of a 
dividend equivalent is determined would add administrative complexity 
without necessarily improving accuracy. In the interest of simplicity, 
several comments recommended using the actual dividend amount rather 
than an amount adjusted for delta as the dividend equivalent amount. 
Other comments suggested using the delta at the time the transaction is 
issued or entered into for determining the dividend equivalent amount. 
For complex transactions for which the delta is indeterminate, comments 
suggested that withholding be based on the number of shares required by 
the short party to the transaction to hedge its initial position in the 
transaction.
    The final regulations simplify the rules for determining the amount 
of a dividend equivalent in response to these comments. For a simple 
contract, the final regulations provide that the amount of the dividend 
equivalent for each underlying security equals the amount of the per-
share dividend, multiplied by the number of shares referenced in the 
contract, multiplied by the applicable delta. In a change from the 2013 
proposed regulations, the final regulations provide that this formula 
references the delta of the transaction at the time the simple contract 
is issued, rather than when the dividend is paid. For a complex 
contract, the amount of the dividend equivalent equals the amount of 
the per-share dividend multiplied by the number of shares that 
constitute the initial hedge of the complex contract (as that term is 
defined in Sec.  1.871-15(a)(14)(ii) and discussed in Part III.A of 
this preamble).
    Another simplifying rule applies to dividend equivalents paid with 
respect to baskets of more than 25 securities. If a section 871(m) 
transaction references a basket of more than 25 underlying securities, 
the short party is allowed to treat all of the dividends on the basket 
as paid on the last day of the calendar quarter.

[[Page 56871]]

2. Specified NPCs and Specified ELIs With a Term of One Year or Less
    For a specified NPC or specified ELI with a term of one year or 
less when acquired, the 2013 proposed regulations provide that the 
amount of a dividend equivalent is determined when the long party 
disposes of the section 871(m) transaction. Therefore, a long party 
that acquires an option with a term of one year or less that is a 
specified ELI would not incur a withholding tax if the option lapses.
    One comment noted that the rule providing that there is no dividend 
equivalent for options that have a term of one year or less and lapse 
unexercised is inappropriate in the case of written put options because 
put writers realize their maximum profit when puts lapse. Comments 
further noted that the one-year rule could have uneconomic consequences 
for options close to expiration and for options that are slightly in-
the-money or slightly out-of-the-money because the delta could 
fluctuate materially in response to small changes in the price of the 
underlying stock.
    Based on the comments received, the final regulations eliminate the 
special rule for contracts with terms of one year or less. Any benefit 
from the rule is outweighed by the complexity of creating systems to 
track contracts that differ only in term. Eliminating the special rule 
for contracts of one year or less means that a dividend equivalent 
amount must be determined for any option, including a short-term 
option, that is a specified ELI.

F. Qualified Indices

    The 2013 proposed regulations revise rules provided in the 2012 
proposed regulations pertaining to an exception for transactions that 
reference certain equity indices. Under the 2013 proposed regulations, 
a qualified index is any index that (1) references 25 or more 
underlying securities, (2) references only long positions in underlying 
securities, (3) contains no underlying security that represents more 
than 10 percent of the index's weighting, (4) rebalances based on 
objective rules at set intervals, (5) does not provide a dividend yield 
that is greater than 1.5 times the dividend yield of the S&P 500 Index, 
and (6) is referenced by futures or option contracts that trade on a 
national securities exchange or a domestic board of trade. In addition, 
the 2013 proposed regulations provide that a qualified index would 
become disqualified if a transaction references a qualified index and 
also references a short position in any component underlying security 
of the qualified index other than a short position with respect to the 
entire qualified index (such as a cap or a floor).
    One comment recommended eliminating the exception for a qualified 
index. This comment noted that when a long party holds a total return 
swap referencing a basket of underlying securities, that swap is 
economically equivalent to multiple total return swaps that each 
reference a single underlying security. Similarly, when a long party 
holds a delta-one derivative that references an index, that derivative 
is economically equivalent to multiple delta-one derivatives each 
referencing a single component of the index; therefore, that long party 
is receiving the economic equivalent of all dividends paid with respect 
to each stock in the index. Thus, transactions that reference U.S. 
stock indices have no less potential for avoidance of gross basis 
withholding tax on dividends than transactions that reference single 
equities or that reference customized baskets of equities.
    Another comment noted that the criteria in the 2013 proposed 
regulations provide a reasonable method for identifying legitimate 
indices that have not been designed to avoid withholding taxes. That 
comment noted that the rules would exclude most securities that are 
linked to an index and traded on U.S. stock exchanges from dividend 
taxation, while preventing customized indices from becoming a vehicle 
designed to evade U.S. dividend taxes.
    The majority of comments, however, recommended that the scope of 
the index exception be expanded to include most of the indices that are 
represented by exchange traded funds. Several comments requested that 
the definition allow an index with fewer than 25 stocks to be a 
qualified index, noting that many sector indices have fewer than 25 
names. Another comment suggested providing an exception to the 
requirement that an index be referenced by exchange-traded futures or 
options that would apply to indices that are sufficiently broad-based 
(for example, indices containing one hundred or more component 
securities). Comments also suggested eliminating the requirement that 
the stock of a single company cannot represent more than 10 percent of 
the index's weighting because some indices include component securities 
that grow rapidly. Several comments also noted that many indices would 
fail to satisfy the requirement that a qualified index rebalance based 
on objective rules at set intervals because many popular indices, 
including the S&P 500 Index, rebalance using a combination of objective 
and subjective factors.
    Comments further requested that the permitted dividend yield be 
increased to 2.5 times the current dividend yield of the S&P 500 Index. 
The comments noted that an index may not satisfy the requirement based 
on 1.5 times the current dividend yield of the S&P 500 Index if the 
stocks in the index depreciated significantly relative to the general 
U.S. stock market. In addition, other indices would not qualify because 
some market sectors routinely pay dividends at a rate that is more than 
1.5 times the average rate in the U.S. market.
    Other comments suggested additional categories of indices that 
should be treated as qualified indices. Specifically, one comment 
recommended that any index that was published by a recognized 
independent index publisher should be a qualified index if the index is 
offered for license to third parties on similar terms and multiple 
third party industry participants actually license the index. The 
comments proposed defining a recognized independent index publisher as 
an organization that publishes indices that are created, calculated, 
and compiled by a group of employees that have no duties other than 
those related to the publication of the indices.
    The rule in the 2013 proposed regulations that prevents taxpayers 
from using short positions to decrease their long position with respect 
to one or more components of an index was also noted by comments as too 
restrictive. Comments suggested permitting taxpayers to decrease risk 
with respect to a small percentage of the value of the stocks in the 
index without disqualifying the index. One comment suggested that an 
index should remain a qualified index unless the short position is used 
to establish a net long position in a narrow set of underlying 
securities for purposes of evading withholding.
    The 2013 proposed regulations also included a safe harbor for 
global indices with 10 percent or less U.S. stocks. Comments 
recommended expanding this safe harbor because U.S. equities in a 
global index can comprise more than half of the index's weighting. The 
comments proposed increasing the threshold to allow U.S. stocks to 
represent 50 percent or more of the index. These comments also noted 
that global indices do not typically trade on U.S. securities or 
commodities exchanges and will not be qualified indices under the 
current provisions. Other comments suggested that the

[[Page 56872]]

regulations except from withholding all global indices that are not 
created to avoid withholding tax, with a presumption that widely-used 
benchmark indices are not designed to avoid tax.
    The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that the approach taken 
in the 2013 proposed regulations for identifying qualified indices 
appropriately balances the competing concerns. Accordingly, the final 
regulations generally retain the criteria of the 2013 proposed 
regulations with modifications to clarify the intent and improve the 
functionality of the qualified index rule. See Sec.  1.871-15(l)
    The final regulations add a paragraph stating that the purpose of 
the qualified index rule is to provide a safe harbor for transactions 
on passive indices that reference a diverse basket of securities and 
that are widely used by numerous market participants. The index 
exception is not intended to apply to any index that is customized or 
reflects a trading strategy, is unavailable to other investors, or 
targets special dividends. The final regulations further provide that 
an index will not be treated as a qualified index if treating the index 
as a qualified index would be contrary to this purpose.
    To make the rules easier to administer, the final regulations 
modify the time for determining whether an index satisfies the 
qualified index criteria. Specifically, the final regulations provide 
that the determination of whether an index is a qualified index is made 
on the first business day of each calendar year, and that determination 
applies for all potential section 871(m) transactions issued during 
that calendar year.
    In response to comments, a number of changes also were made to 
specific aspects of the qualified index definition. First, the final 
regulations delete the modifier ``underlying'' with respect to 
``securities,'' thereby allowing an index to qualify with fewer than 25 
component underlying securities provided that the index contains a 
total of at least 25 component securities (in other words, a component 
security may include a security that does not give rise to U.S. source 
dividends). The index, however, will not qualify if it references five 
or fewer component underlying securities that together represent more 
than 40 percent of the weighting of the component securities in the 
index. Second, the final regulations increase the 10 percent limit for 
the maximum weighting of a single underlying security to 15 percent. 
Third, in response to concerns regarding the requirement that a 
qualified index rebalance based on objective rules, the final 
regulations do not require that an index be modified or rebalanced at 
set dates or intervals, and provide flexibility for how the rules 
governing the constitution of an index are applied. Instead, under the 
final regulations, an index that is periodically rebalanced by a board 
or committee that is allowed to exercise judgment in interpreting the 
rules governing the composition of the index will not be disqualified 
if the index is otherwise a qualified index.
    The final regulations continue to require that an index be 
referenced by futures or options listed on a national securities 
exchange or board of trade to be a qualified index, which is consistent 
with the intent to provide a safe harbor only for non-customized and 
widely-available indices. The final regulations do, however, permit an 
index that trades on certain foreign exchanges to be a qualified index, 
provided that the referenced component underlying securities, in 
aggregate, comprise less than 50 percent of the weighting of the 
component securities in the index and the index otherwise meets the 
definition of a qualified index.
    Similarly, the Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that 
the proposed rule permitting no more than 1.5 times the current 
dividend yield of the S&P 500 Index is appropriate and have retained it 
in the final regulations. To reduce the number of required 
calculations, however, the final regulations provide that the annual 
yields of the tested index and of the S&P 500 Index are determined 
based on their annual yields for the immediately preceding calendar 
year, rather than requiring comparison of the annual yields for the 
month immediately preceding the date that the potential section 871(m) 
transaction is issued.
    The Treasury Department and the IRS agree that de minimis short 
positions, whether as part of the index or entered into separately, 
should not disqualify an index. Accordingly, the final regulations 
permit a qualified index to reference one or more short positions (in 
addition to any short positions with respect to the entire qualified 
index, such as caps or floors, which were already permitted by the 2013 
proposed regulations) that represent five percent or less, in the 
aggregate, of the value of the long positions in underlying securities 
in the qualified index.

G. Combined Transactions

    The 2013 proposed regulations treat multiple transactions as a 
single transaction for purposes of determining if the transactions are 
a section 871(m) transaction when a long party (or a related person) 
enters into two or more transactions that reference the same underlying 
security and the transactions were entered into in connection with each 
other. The 2013 proposed regulations apply only to combine transactions 
in which the taxpayer is the long party, and typically would not 
combine transactions when a taxpayer is the long party with respect to 
an underlying security in one transaction and the short party with 
respect to the same underlying security in another transaction. The 
2013 proposed regulations provide that a broker-dealer must use 
``reasonable diligence'' to determine whether a transaction is a 
section 871(m) transaction. Under the 2013 proposed regulations, a 
withholding agent was not required to withhold on a dividend equivalent 
paid pursuant to a transaction that is combined with one or more other 
transactions unless the withholding agent knew that the long party (or 
a related person) entered into the potential section 871(m) 
transactions in connection with each other.
    The Treasury Department and the IRS requested comments regarding 
whether and how the rules for combining separate transactions should 
apply in other situations, such as when a taxpayer holds both long and 
short positions with respect to the same underlying security (for 
example, a call spread). Comments also were requested regarding whether 
and how the remaining transaction (or transactions) should be retested 
when a long party terminates one or more, but not all, of the 
transactions that make up a combined position.
    Several comments recommended that the regulations not provide a 
specific combination rule and instead rely on an anti-abuse rule. One 
comment endorsed the proposed regulations as they applied to 
combinations of long calls and written puts (two options that can be 
used to closely approximate the economics of stock ownership) but 
recommended that transactions not be combined if the transactions 
replicate the same or similar risks with respect to additional shares 
(for example, two purchased calls on the same underlying securities).
    Many comments observed that determining whether transactions were 
entered into ``in connection with'' each other would be difficult for a 
withholding agent and that the regulations should adopt a different 
standard or clarify the meaning of the phrase. Comments asked that the 
final regulations conform the standard for combined transactions to the 
narrower withholding standard that requires

[[Page 56873]]

``actual knowledge.'' Comments noted that the requirement in the 2013 
proposed regulations for broker-dealers to use ``reasonable diligence'' 
to determine whether a transaction is a section 871(m) transaction 
could be interpreted to require broker-dealers to inquire whether 
transactions are entered into in connection with each other in order to 
determine whether they must be combined. These comments observed that 
this standard for combined transactions is impractical because broker-
dealers are generally not in a position to discern the intent of their 
counterparties, even using ``reasonable diligence.''
    Several comments recommended that a combination rule permit netting 
of long and short positions. Commenters observed that many standard 
option strategies involve multiple options positions, often combining 
positive and negative delta options. As a result, an approach that does 
not combine these positions would fail to reflect the economics of the 
transactions. Commenters suggested that when a taxpayer modifies an 
existing combined position that includes both long and short positions, 
the combined position should continue to be tested based on the net 
deltas of the component positions rather than test the delta for each 
position separately. None of the comments, however, proposed an 
administrable test that could be used to reliably combine long and 
short positions and net the resulting deltas.
    The final regulations retain the general rules from the 2013 
proposed regulations that define when transactions are combined. In 
response to questions about whether the rules were intended to combine 
transactions that had similar economic exposure, the final regulations 
add a requirement that the potential section 871(m) transactions, when 
combined, replicate the economics of a transaction that would be a 
section 871(m) transaction if the transactions had been entered into as 
a single transaction. Thus, the purchase of two out-of-the-money call 
options would typically not be combined because each call option 
provides the taxpayer with exposure to appreciation, but not 
depreciation, on the referenced stock.
    The Treasury Department and the IRS recognize the challenges that 
short parties could face in identifying transactions to be combined. 
The final regulations therefore provide brokers acting as short parties 
with two presumptions they can apply to determine their liability to 
withhold. First, a broker may presume that transactions are not entered 
into in connection with each other if the long party holds the 
transactions in separate accounts. Second, a broker may presume that 
transactions entered into two or more business days apart are not 
entered into in connection with each other. These presumptions are 
independent of each other. Thus, a broker acting as a short party is 
relieved of the obligation to withhold if either of the two 
presumptions is met. A broker cannot rely on the first presumption if 
it has actual knowledge that the long party created or used separate 
accounts to avoid section 871(m), however, and neither presumption 
applies if the broker has actual knowledge that transactions were 
entered into in connection with each other.
    In addition, the final regulations provide that the Commissioner 
will presume that transactions that are properly reflected on separate 
trading books of the taxpayer are not entered into in connection with 
each other. The Commissioner will also presume that a long party did 
not enter into two or more transactions in connection with each other 
if the long party entered into the transactions two or more business 
days apart. These presumptions are rebuttable. The Commissioner may 
rebut the first presumption with facts and circumstances showing that 
separate trading books were created or used to avoid section 871(m), 
and may rebut either presumption with facts and circumstances showing 
that the transactions in question were entered into in connection with 
each other.
    The Commissioner will also apply an affirmative presumption. The 
Commissioner will presume that transactions that are entered into fewer 
than two business days apart and reflected on the same trading book are 
entered into in connection with each other. In this case, the long 
party can rebut the presumption by presenting facts and circumstances 
showing that the transactions were not entered into in connection with 
each other. In applying the presumptions that are based on trades being 
separated by at least two business days, the regulations include a rule 
of convenience that generally allows parties to treat all of their 
transactions as entered into at 4:00 p.m.
    The presumptions are not available to the long party. A long party 
therefore must treat two or more transactions as combined transactions 
if the transactions satisfy the requirements to be a combined 
transaction. The long parties affected by this rule consist primarily 
of securities traders, who are in a position to know their securities 
positions and trading strategies and to monitor their compliance with 
section 871(m).
    The Treasury Department and the IRS will continue to evaluate the 
possibility of expanding the combination rules to accommodate netting 
of long and short positions in light of future developments in 
transactional reporting and recordkeeping. Additional comments 
regarding combined transactions are welcome.

H. Derivatives Referenced to Partnership Interests

    The 2013 proposed regulations treat a transaction that references 
an interest in an entity that is not a C corporation for Federal tax 
purposes as referencing the allocable portion of any underlying 
securities and potential section 871(m) contracts held directly or 
indirectly by that entity. The 2013 proposed regulations provide an 
exception for a transaction that references an interest in an entity 
that is not a C corporation if the underlying securities and potential 
section 871(m) transactions allocable to that interest represent, in 
the aggregate, 10 percent or less of the value of the interest in the 
referenced entity at the time the transaction is entered into. Comments 
recommended changing the threshold for applying the look-through rule 
from 10 percent to 50 percent unless the taxpayer controls the entity. 
Comments also noted that taxpayers would have difficulty determining 
the assets owned by referenced entities.
    The final regulations revise the rules to provide that section 
871(m) applies to derivatives that reference a partnership interest 
only when the partnership is either a dealer or trader in securities, 
has significant investments in securities, or holds an interest in a 
lower-tier partnership that engages in those activities. The final 
regulations define a security by cross-reference to section 475(c). 
When the rule in the final regulations applies, a potential section 
871(m) transaction that references a partnership interest is treated as 
referencing the allocable share of underlying securities and the 
potential section 871(m) transactions in the partnership directly or 
indirectly allocable to that partnership interest. Even when a 
partnership is not covered by this rule, the anti-abuse rule in Sec.  
1.871-15(o) may still apply, or the transaction may be recharacterized 
under the substance-over-form doctrine or other common law doctrine.

I. Anti-Abuse Rule

    The 2013 proposed regulations provide that the Commissioner may 
treat any payment made with respect to a transaction as a dividend 
equivalent if

[[Page 56874]]

the taxpayer acquires the transaction with a principal purpose of 
avoiding the application of section 871(m). Comments generally agreed 
with the need for such a rule, and the final regulations retain this 
provision. See Sec.  1.871-15(o).
    In addition, the IRS may challenge the U.S. tax results claimed in 
connection with transactions that are designed to avoid the application 
of section 871(m) using all available statutory provisions and judicial 
doctrines (including the substance-over-form doctrine, the economic 
substance doctrine under section 7701(o), the step transaction 
doctrine, and tax ownership principles) as appropriate. For example, 
nothing in section 871(m) precludes the IRS from asserting that a 
contract labeled as an NPC or other equity derivative is in fact an 
ownership interest in an underlying security referenced in the 
contract.

J. Reporting Obligations

    The 2013 proposed regulations provide rules for reporting and 
withholding. The preamble to the 2013 proposed regulations explains 
that most equity-linked transactions involve a financial institution 
acting as a broker, dealer, or intermediary and that the financial 
institution would be in the best position to report the tax 
consequences of a potential section 871(m) transaction. Accordingly, 
Sec.  1.871-15(o) of the 2013 proposed regulations provides that when a 
broker or dealer is a party to a potential section 871(m) transaction 
the broker or dealer is required to determine whether the transaction 
is a section 871(m) transaction, and if so, the amounts of the dividend 
equivalents. If no broker or dealer is a party to a transaction or both 
parties are brokers or dealers, the short party is required to 
determine whether the transaction is a section 871(m) transaction and 
the amounts of the dividend equivalents. Determinations made by the 
broker, dealer, or short party are binding on the parties to the 
section 871(m) transaction unless a party to the transaction knows or 
has reason to know that the information is incorrect. Those 
determinations, however, are not binding on the IRS.
    Comments expressed concern that the delta information necessary for 
an investor to determine whether a transaction is subject to section 
871(m) may not be available on a timely basis, and requested that the 
regulations expand the categories of persons permitted to request 
information about the status and calculations associated with potential 
section 871(m) transactions. Comments recommended requiring the 
information to be provided on an issuer's Web site at or prior to the 
time that the transaction is issued and updated regularly. Investors 
could then rely on such information between update intervals.
    In response to these comments, the final regulations make several 
changes to the reporting obligations in the 2013 proposed regulations. 
The final regulations revise the period for providing requested 
information from 14 calendar days to 10 business days from the date of 
the request. In addition, the final regulations replace the list of 
persons entitled to request information in the 2013 proposed 
regulations with a simpler provision that entitles ``any party to the 
transaction'' to request information. The final regulations define ``a 
party to the transaction'' to include any agent acting on behalf of a 
long party or short party to a potential section 871(m) transaction, or 
any person acting as an intermediary with respect to a potential 
section 871(m) transaction. This simplification responds to the 
requests to expand the scope of persons entitled to request 
information. Several other changes that were requested, however, such 
as posting information electronically, were already permitted by the 
2013 proposed regulations. Like the 2013 proposed regulations, the 
final regulations permit parties to a transaction to obtain information 
on potential section 871(m) transactions in a variety of ways, 
including through electronic publication (such as a Web site).
    Comments also noted that a short party to a listed option will not 
be able to provide the long party with a written estimate of dividends 
at inception because the short party does not have a contractual 
relationship with the long party. These comments requested that the 
broker be required to provide the written estimates. As in the 2013 
proposed regulations, the final regulations do not require any party to 
a transaction to provide written estimates of dividends. The final 
regulations have taken these comments into account, however, by 
increasing a taxpayer's ability to obtain information from other 
parties to the transaction. The final regulations accomplish this by 
expanding the definition of a ``party to the transaction'' to include a 
broker and by clarifying that either a dealer or a middleman is a 
``broker.'' Therefore, if written estimates of dividends are prepared 
when a transaction is issued, the long party should be able to obtain 
the information from another party to the transaction, whether the 
short party or a broker.

K. Recordkeeping Rules

    The 2013 proposed regulations generally cross-reference the 
recordkeeping rules in Sec.  1.6001-1 for how a taxpayer establishes 
whether a transaction is a section 871(m) transaction and whether a 
payment is a dividend equivalent. For clarity and to ensure that the 
IRS will have access to sufficient information to audit taxpayers and 
withholding agents that are parties to section 871(m) transactions, the 
final regulations provide more detailed recordkeeping rules. The final 
regulations provide that any person required to retain records must 
keep sufficient information to establish whether a transaction is a 
section 871(m) transaction and the amount of a dividend equivalent. To 
satisfy this requirement, a taxpayer must retain documentation and work 
papers supporting a delta calculation or substantial equivalence 
calculation (including the number of shares of the initial hedge) and 
written estimated dividends (if any). The records and documentation 
must be created substantially contemporaneously with the time the 
potential section 871(m) transaction is issued.

L. Contingent and Convertible Debt Instruments

1. Contingent Debt Instruments
    Section 871(h)(1) generally provides that U.S. source portfolio 
interest received by a nonresident alien individual is not subject to 
the 30-percent U.S. tax imposed under section 871(a)(1). Section 
871(h)(4)(A)(i), however, excludes certain contingent interest payments 
from the definition of portfolio interest. Section 871(h)(4)(A)(ii) 
grants the Secretary authority to impose tax on contingent interest 
other than the payments described in section 871(h)(4)(A)(i) when 
necessary or appropriate to prevent the avoidance of federal income 
tax.
    Comments on the 2012 proposed regulations recommended narrowing the 
definition of a specified notional principal contract to clarify that 
the term does not include contingent or convertible debt. These 
comments suggested that section 871(m) should not override the 
portfolio interest exception. Section 871(h)(4)(A)(ii) expressly 
provides authority to the Secretary to treat interest as contingent 
interest if necessary or appropriate to prevent the avoidance of 
federal income tax. Consistent with this grant of authority, the 2013 
proposed regulations provide that contingent interest will not qualify 
for the portfolio interest

[[Page 56875]]

exemption to the extent that the contingent interest payment is a 
dividend equivalent. The final regulations retain this exception to the 
portfolio interest exemption. There is no reason that an equity 
derivative that otherwise would be a specified NPC or a specified ELI 
should receive different treatment because it is embedded in a debt 
instrument. A debt instrument that provides for a contingent interest 
payment determined by reference to a U.S. source dividend payment that 
would otherwise be a section 871(m) transaction is a transaction that 
has the potential for tax avoidance, and it is appropriate for section 
871(m) to apply. The effect of this rule, however, is expected to be 
minimal because the delta of the embedded derivative in a contingent 
debt or convertible debt instrument is tested only at the time it is 
issued.
2. Convertible Debt Instruments
    Numerous comments requested that convertible debt instruments be 
excluded from the definition of an ELI. Comments suggested that certain 
characteristics typical of convertible debt would discourage foreign 
investors from using these instruments to avoid U.S. withholding tax. 
Comments pointed, for example, to high transaction costs and certain 
discontinuities between the economic performance of the convertible 
debt and that of the underlying stock, such as the downside protection 
and creditors' rights afforded by convertible debt. Comments noted that 
convertible bonds are important capital markets instruments used by 
U.S. corporations to raise capital at lower rates. Comments also 
speculated that treating such bonds as specified ELIs could adversely 
impact capital markets by decreasing demand, reducing liquidity, and 
increasing costs.
    The final regulations do not provide an exception from section 
871(m) for convertible debt. When the stock price significantly exceeds 
the conversion price, convertible debt becomes a surrogate for the 
stock into which the debt can be converted. Accordingly, a convertible 
debt obligation is a specified ELI if the delta of the embedded option 
at the time the convertible debt is originally issued is 0.80 or 
higher. Moreover, the fact that convertible debt ordinarily has been 
issued with a delta on the embedded option of less than 0.80 is 
expected to significantly reduce the effect of these regulations on the 
convertible debt market. In response to uncertainty expressed by some 
market participants, the final regulations clarify that the delta of 
the convertible feature is tested separately from the delta of the debt 
instrument in making section 871(m) calculations.

M. Amounts Subject to Withholding

    Section 1.1441-2(d)(5) of the 2013 proposed regulations provides 
that a withholding agent is not obligated to withhold on a dividend 
equivalent until the later of: (1) When the amount of the dividend 
equivalent is determined and (2) when any of the following occurs: (a) 
Money or other property is paid pursuant to a section 871(m) 
transaction, (b) the withholding agent has custody or control of money 
or other property, or (c) there is an upfront payment or a prepayment 
of the purchase price.
    Comments emphasized the burden of withholding on dividend 
equivalents absent actual payments, and noted that, in the absence of 
actual payment, continuous monitoring and withholding on each specified 
ELI over time is impractical. Certain comments suggested that a foreign 
broker only be required to withhold on dividend equivalents from ELIs 
when there is a final payment or a sale.
    Comments also maintained that upfront payments should not be viewed 
as payments subject to withholding because such proceeds are received 
in exchange for issuing the instrument, are used by the issuer to 
purchase related hedging positions, and are not intended to be reserves 
for satisfying tax owed by the counterparty.
    Some comments expressed concern regarding the practical 
difficulties in withholding from funds that the broker-dealer holds as 
collateral. Comments noted that the broker-dealer may not be legally 
entitled to use cash or property in one account to satisfy a 
withholding obligation in another account. In addition, foreign 
counterparties may hold different accounts through different affiliates 
of a broker-dealer. Comments indicated that it would be impractical to 
determine the existence of affiliate accounts and apply set-off rules 
on that basis.
    After consideration of these comments, the Treasury Department and 
the IRS have concluded that the withholding agent's obligations should 
not arise until an actual payment is made or there is a final 
settlement of a transaction. Accordingly, the final regulations provide 
that a withholding agent is not obligated to withhold on a dividend 
equivalent until the later of when a payment is made with respect to a 
section 871(m) transaction or when the amount of a dividend equivalent 
is determined. A payment with respect to a section 871(m) transaction 
will generally occur when the long party receives or makes a payment, 
when there is a final settlement of the section 871(m) transaction, or 
when the long party sells or otherwise disposes of the section 871(m) 
transaction. For options and other contracts that typically require an 
upfront payment, the final regulations do not treat the premium or 
other upfront payment as a payment for withholding purposes. Thus, 
withholding on these section 871(m) transactions is not required until 
there is a final settlement (including, in the case of an option, a 
lapse) or the long party sells or otherwise disposes of the 
transaction. Consequently, if an option that is a section 871(m) 
transaction lapses, the short party is nonetheless required to withhold 
on any dividend equivalent associated with the option. Parties may need 
to modify contractual arrangements to ensure that there are sufficient 
funds available to satisfy withholding obligations.

III. Temporary and Proposed Regulations

A. Test for Contracts With Indeterminate Deltas

    As noted in Part II of this preamble, many commenters stated that 
the delta test was workable for most equity derivatives but would be 
difficult or impossible to apply to more exotic equity derivatives. In 
particular, a contract that provides for payments based on a number of 
shares of stock that varies at different points, or that provides for a 
payment that does not vary with the price of the shares (often called 
``digital'' options), have an indeterminate delta because the number of 
shares of the underlying security that determine the payout of the 
derivative cannot be known at the time the contract is entered into. 
Path-dependent contracts were also mentioned as problematic for the 
delta computation.
    Indeterminate delta may, for example, occur in contracts commonly 
known as structured notes. Structured notes are financial instruments 
that combine aspects of debt with aspects of derivatives, such as 
equity options. As an example, in return for an upfront payment of a 
set amount, a structured note might provide the long party with 
leveraged upside return, meaning that the long party is entitled to 
receive a fixed percentage (for example, 200 percent) of any 
appreciation in the value of a referenced stock up to a capped amount 
(for example, 125 percent of the issue price) in addition to return of 
the upfront payment, while being exposed to 100 percent of any 
depreciation in the value of the referenced stock, with any such 
depreciation reducing the amount

[[Page 56876]]

of the upfront payment that is returned to the long party. In such a 
structured note, the holder would have two times the ``upside'' up to 
the cap but only one times exposure to the ``downside.'' The issuer of 
this kind of structured note cannot readily determine a delta for the 
note because it references a different number of shares at different 
payoff amounts. In other words, because delta is the ratio of the 
change in the fair market value of a contract to a small change in the 
fair market value of the property referenced by the contract, the value 
of the referenced property must be known to calculate delta. In the 
case of the structured note described in this paragraph, the number of 
shares of stock (and hence the value of the property) referenced by the 
contract will be different depending on whether the stock appreciates, 
and in such case whether the cap is reached, or whether the stock 
depreciates.
    As explained in Part II.C.4 of this preamble, a contract with an 
indeterminate delta is not a simple contract, and therefore falls into 
the residual category as a complex contract. Because the delta test 
cannot accurately be applied to a complex contract, commenters had 
various suggestions for how to determine whether such a contract should 
be a section 871(m) transaction. One comment suggested that the delta 
should be calculated using the highest possible number of shares that 
could be referenced by the derivative at maturity. This comment further 
suggested that the regulations include a delta-specific anti-abuse rule 
to prevent issuers from manipulating the number of referenced shares to 
artificially reduce delta. Other comments suggested that the 
regulations should disaggregate a transaction into a series of 
components and then separately apply the delta test to each component. 
When multiple derivatives are embedded in a single instrument, a 
comment recommended that multiple pieces be aggregated into separate 
components (for example, aggregating all embedded calls and separately 
aggregating all embedded puts) using an ordering rule that would 
maximize the likelihood that the delta threshold would be met.
    A majority of comments requested that some version of a 
``proportionality'' test be applied to complex contracts or to 
contracts where the basic delta test is susceptible of manipulation. A 
proportionality test measures the likelihood that a contract's 
performance will track the performance of the referenced equity. That 
is, a proportionality test measures the same variability or economic 
equivalence that the delta test seeks to measure without needing to 
know the number of shares that the contract references at the outset. 
Like the delta test, a proportionality test is based on the principle 
that when the value of an NPC or ELI closely tracks the value of an 
underlying security, it is appropriate to treat the NPC or ELI as a 
surrogate for the underlying security.
    To test whether a complex contract is a section 871(m) transaction, 
the temporary regulations adopt the ``substantial equivalence'' test. 
The substantial equivalence test is a version of a proportionality test 
that was advocated by many commenters, and it uses information easily 
accessible to most issuers of complex contracts. Generally, the 
substantial equivalence test measures the change in value of a complex 
contract when the price of the underlying security referenced by that 
contract is hypothetically increased by one standard deviation or 
decreased by one standard deviation (each, a ``testing price'') and 
compares that change to the change in value of the shares of the 
underlying security that would be held to hedge the complex contract at 
the time the contract is issued (the ``initial hedge'') at each testing 
price. The smaller the proportionate difference between the change in 
value of the complex contract and the change in value of its initial 
hedge at multiple testing prices, the more equivalence there is between 
the contract and the referenced underlying security. When this 
difference is equal to or less than the difference for a simple 
contract benchmark with a delta of 0.80 and its initial hedge, the 
complex contract is treated as substantially equivalent to the 
underlying security.
    The Treasury Department and the IRS are aware that there may be 
NPCs or ELIs that even the substantial equivalence test may not 
adequately address. The temporary regulations provide that when the 
steps of the substantial equivalence test cannot be applied to a 
particular complex contract, a taxpayer must use the principles of the 
substantial equivalence test to reasonably determine whether the 
complex contract is a section 871(m) transaction with respect to each 
underlying security.
    The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments regarding the 
substantial equivalence test described in the temporary regulations. In 
particular, comments are requested on whether the two testing points 
required for most transactions in the temporary regulations are 
adequate to ensure that the substantial equivalence test captures the 
appropriate types of transactions, and the administrability of the test 
and its application to complex contracts that reference multiple 
securities, including path-dependent instruments.

B. Withholding Requirements and QDDs

1. Background
    Section 871(m)(1) generally treats a dividend equivalent as a 
dividend from sources within the United States without regard to the 
residence of the person paying the dividend equivalent. As a result, 
section 871(m) may apply to payments made by a foreign payor to a 
foreign payee. See Staff of J. Comm. on Taxation, Technical Explanation 
of the Revenue Provisions Contained in Senate Amendment 3310, the 
``Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act,'' JCX-4-10, at 79 (Feb. 
23, 2010) (explaining that section 871(m) may apply to a chain of 
dividend equivalents, including payments made by a foreign person 
pursuant to transactions described in Notice 97-66); see also Notice 
97-66, 1997-2 C.B. 328, at Sec.  5, Examples 3 and 4 (illustrating that 
a foreign person making a substitute dividend payment to another 
foreign person must withhold U.S. tax). Because Congress was concerned 
that this rule may result in over-withholding in some instances, 
Congress granted the Secretary authority in section 871(m)(6) to reduce 
tax on a chain of dividend equivalents, but only to the extent that the 
taxpayer can establish that tax has been paid with respect to another 
dividend equivalent in the chain, or is not otherwise due, or as the 
Secretary determines is appropriate to address the role of financial 
intermediaries in such chain. For purposes of section 871(m)(6), a 
dividend is treated as a dividend equivalent.
2. Comments on the 2013 Proposed Regulations
    The 2013 proposed regulations address the role of financial 
intermediaries in a chain of dividend equivalents with a rule that 
provides that payments made to a ``qualified dealer'' are not treated 
as dividend equivalents if made pursuant to a transaction that is 
entered into by the qualified dealer in its capacity as a dealer in 
securities and the dealer is the long party. For purposes of this rule, 
a qualified dealer is any dealer that is subject to regulatory 
supervision by a governmental authority in the jurisdiction in which it 
was created or organized and that certifies to the short party that it 
is receiving the payment in its capacity as a dealer. The 2013 proposed 
regulations require the qualified dealer to certify as to its dealer 
status to a short party on a transaction-

[[Page 56877]]

by-transaction basis, and do not apply to dividends paid to a qualified 
dealer.
    Comments requested that the qualified dealer exception in the 2013 
proposed regulations be expanded, noting that it would be impractical 
for dealers to certify that each transaction was entered into in a 
dealer capacity (and not as a proprietary trade) and that the rule did 
not accommodate transactions entered into as a hedge of another 
transaction. Some comments suggested that the regulations exclude 
transactions entered into in the ordinary course of the dealer's 
business for hedging purposes. Other comments recommended expanding the 
exception to include affiliates of qualified dealers that issue certain 
potential section 871(m) transactions. Comments further recommended 
that an affiliate in these circumstances should not be required to 
certify that it is acting in its capacity as a dealer. Several comments 
requested that, in addition to expanding the definition of qualified 
dealer, the final regulations provide rules similar to the proposed 
regulatory framework described in Notice 2010-46 (discussed in more 
detail in section III.B.4 of this preamble).
3. Qualified Intermediaries Acting as Qualified Derivatives Dealers
    The comments received on both the 2012 proposed regulations and the 
2013 proposed regulations consistently expressed the desire for a 
comprehensive withholding and documentation regime tailored to 
derivatives dealers. Rather than create a new regime for section 871(m) 
transactions, the Treasury Department and the IRS determined that the 
most comprehensive and efficient way to respond to the requests in the 
comments is to expand the existing qualified intermediary (QI) regime 
to accommodate taxpayers acting as financial intermediaries on section 
871(m) transactions. Generally, a QI is an eligible person that enters 
into a QI agreement with the IRS and that acts as a QI under such 
agreement. See Rev. Proc. 2014-39, 2014-29 I.R.B. 150. A QI agreement 
typically requires the QI to assume certain documentation and 
withholding responsibilities in exchange for simplified information 
reporting for its foreign account holders and the ability to not 
disclose proprietary account holder information to a withholding agent 
that may be a competitor. A QI may either assume primary withholding 
responsibilities or may provide withholding information to a 
withholding agent from which it receives a payment.
    QIs that hold stocks and bonds for customers often receive payments 
subject to withholding on behalf of their foreign account holders as 
custodians rather than as beneficial owners. In contrast, a broker that 
enters into derivative contracts as a principal typically receives 
dividends and dividend equivalents as part of a chain of transactions 
in which the broker is a counterparty to both long and short positions.
    The Treasury Department and the IRS intend to implement the 
particular requirements of withholding and reporting on dividend 
equivalents received and paid by brokers by amending the QI agreement 
to include new provisions that will permit an eligible QI to act as a 
qualified derivatives dealer (QDD). A QI that acts as a QDD will not be 
subject to withholding on dividends or payments that may be dividend 
equivalents made with respect to potential section 871(m) transactions 
that the QDD receives while acting in its capacity as a dealer.
    In order to act as a QDD, a QI must meet four requirements. First, 
the QDD must furnish to withholding agents a QI withholding certificate 
affirming that the recipient is acting as a QDD for dividends and 
dividend equivalent payments associated with the withholding 
certificate. Second, the QDD must agree to assume primary withholding 
and reporting responsibilities on all payments associated with the 
withholding certificate that the QDD receives and makes as a dealer, 
and to determine whether payments it makes are dividend equivalents. 
Third, a QDD must agree to remain liable for tax on any dividends and 
dividend equivalents it receives unless the QDD is obligated to make an 
offsetting dividend equivalent payment as the short party on the same 
underlying securities. Finally, a QDD must comply with any compliance 
review procedures that are applicable to a QI acting as a QDD, as 
specified in the QI agreement.
    The class of persons eligible to act as a QDD is narrower than the 
class of persons that are eligible to enter into a QI agreement. A QI 
will be allowed to act as a QDD if it is either (1) a securities dealer 
that is regulated as a dealer in the jurisdiction in which it was 
organized or operates, or (2) a bank that is regulated as a bank in the 
jurisdiction in which it was organized or operates (or a wholly-owned 
foreign affiliate of such a bank). To act as a QDD, a QI that is not a 
securities dealer also must issue potential section 871(m) transactions 
to customers and receive dividends or dividend equivalent payments 
incident to hedges of potential section 871(m) transactions that it 
issues. The latter category of QDDs is intended to allow banks and bank 
affiliates that issue equity-linked instruments on an occasional basis 
to still act as QDDs.
4. Notice 2010-46
    Shortly after section 871(m) was enacted, the Treasury Department 
and the IRS published Notice 2010-46, 2010-24 I.R.B. 757. Notice 2010-
46 addresses potential overwithholding in the context of securities 
lending and sale repurchase agreements. Notice 2010-46 provides a two-
part solution to the problem of overwithholding on a chain of dividends 
and dividend equivalents. First, it provides an exception from 
withholding for payments to a qualified securities lender (QSL). 
Second, it provides a proposed framework to credit forward prior 
withholding on a chain of substitute dividends paid pursuant to a chain 
of securities loans or stock repurchase agreements. The QSL regime 
requires a person that agrees to act as a QSL to comply with certain 
withholding and documentation requirements. Notice 2010-46 and any QI 
agreement imposing QSL requirements will remain effective until final 
regulations implementing the QDD rules are published.
    As stated above, Notice 2010-46 provided a proposed framework to 
credit forward prior withholding on a chain of substitute dividends 
paid pursuant to a chain of securities loans or stock repurchase 
agreements. The Treasury Department and the IRS will continue to 
consider whether a credit forward system for prior withholding would be 
appropriate in the context of a chain of dividend equivalents on NPCs 
or ELIs. While administrating the credit forward system described in 
Notice 2010-46, however, the IRS has had difficulty verifying that 
prior withholding in a chain of securities loans had in fact occurred 
in order to justify the crediting of prior withholding to a subsequent 
payment. The temporary regulations, therefore, reserve on the issue of 
a general credit forward system, and the Treasury Department and the 
IRS request comments on the need for such a system and how it could be 
implemented.
5. Implementation of the QDD Regime and Phase-out of the QSL Regime
    All existing QI agreements expire on December 31, 2016. Prior to 
January 1, 2017, the Treasury Department and the IRS intend to publish 
an updated QI agreement and rules addressing the requirements for QDD 
status.

[[Page 56878]]

Procedures for entering into a QI agreement that permits a QI to act as 
a QDD are expected to be set out in this agreement. QDD status will be 
effective no sooner than January 1, 2017. Until these temporary 
regulations are finalized and appropriate provisions are incorporated 
into a new QI agreement, the provisions for QSLs and the credit-forward 
rules under Notice 2010-46 will continue to apply for dividend 
equivalents that are substitute dividend payments made pursuant to a 
securities lending or a sale-repurchase transaction.
    Once fully implemented, the new QDD status under the QI regime will 
replace and expand the QSL regime described in Notice 2010-46. To 
continue to be eligible for the exception from withholding, entities 
that have been treated as QSLs will be required to enter into a QI 
agreement to satisfy and comply with the requirements for QDD treatment 
provided in the temporary regulations and in the updated QI Agreement. 
When these temporary regulations are finalized, the Treasury Department 
and the IRS expect the final regulations to supplant the proposed 
regulatory framework described in Notice 2010-46.

 C. Certain Insurance Contracts

    The 2013 proposed regulations do not specifically address whether 
payments made on life insurance or annuity contracts are dividend 
equivalents when the payments are directly or indirectly contingent 
upon or determined by reference to the payment of a dividend from 
sources within the United States. Comments noted that treating annuity 
contract payments as dividend equivalents could conflict with section 
72, which provides that the holder of an annuity contract is taxed only 
when an amount is received from the annuity. Comments further noted 
that when a foreign person receives payments or withdrawals from an 
annuity contract issued by a domestic insurance company, the payment is 
FDAP subject to 30% withholding to the extent such payment or 
withdrawal constitutes gross income as determined in accordance with 
section 72. Similarly, withdrawals of income from a life insurance 
contract issued by a domestic insurance company are generally U.S. 
source FDAP subject to withholding. Commenters argued that the existing 
rules that apply to life insurance and annuity contracts obviate the 
need for withholding under section 871(m).
    The Treasury Department and the IRS agree that the taxation of life 
insurance and annuity contracts issued by domestic insurance companies 
is adequately addressed under current law. Therefore, the temporary 
regulations provide that there is no dividend equivalent associated 
with a payment that a foreign person receives pursuant to the terms of 
an annuity, endowment, or life insurance contract issued by a domestic 
insurance company (including the foreign or U.S. possession branch of 
the domestic insurance company).
    The Treasury Department and the IRS are considering how section 
871(m) should apply to annuity, endowment, and life insurance contracts 
that reference U.S. equities and that are issued by foreign life 
insurance companies. Until further guidance is issued, the temporary 
regulations provide that these contracts do not include a dividend 
equivalent when issued by a foreign corporation that is predominately 
engaged in an insurance business and that would be subject to tax under 
subchapter L if it were a domestic corporation. Similarly, the 
temporary regulations do not treat any portion of a payment received by 
a foreign life insurance company as a dividend equivalent when the 
payment is made according to the terms of an insurance contract, such 
as reinsurance, by a foreign corporation meeting the same requirements. 
The Treasury Department and the IRS are also evaluating how section 
871(m) should apply to reinsurance contracts. Taxpayers are encouraged 
to send comments on how section 871(m) should apply to foreign life 
insurance companies and the contracts they issue.

IV. Effective/Applicability Date

    The final and temporary regulations are generally effective on 
September 18, 2015. To ensure that brokers have adequate time to 
develop the systems needed to implement the regulations, however, the 
final and temporary regulations generally apply to transactions issued 
on or after January 1, 2017. In addition, with respect to transactions 
issued on or after January 1, 2016, and before January 1, 2017, that 
are section 871(m) transactions, the regulations also apply to any 
payment of a dividend equivalent made on or after January 1, 2018. The 
regulations do not change the applicability date of Sec.  1.871-
15(d)(1)(i) for specified NPCs described in that section.
    The chapter 4 regulations provide a coordinating effective date for 
the treatment of dividend equivalents as withholdable payments for 
purposes of chapter 4 withholding. Section 1.1471-2(b)(2)(i)(A)(2) 
provides that grandfathered obligations under chapter 4 include any 
obligation that gives rise to a withholdable payment solely because the 
obligation gives rise to a dividend equivalent pursuant to section 
871(m) and the regulations thereunder. This grandfather rule applies 
only to obligations that are executed on or before the date that is six 
months after the date on which obligations of its type are first 
treated as giving rise to dividend equivalents.

Special Analyses

    Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the 
requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed 
by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is 
not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the 
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to 
these regulations. It is hereby certified that these regulations will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. This certification is based on the fact that few, if any, 
small entities will be affected by these regulations. The regulations 
will primarily affect multinational financial institutions, which tend 
to be larger businesses, and foreign entities. Therefore, a Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of 
the Code, these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its 
impact on small business.

Drafting Information

    The principal authors of these regulations are D. Peter Merkel and 
Karen Walny of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). 
Other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS also 
participated in the development of these regulations.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Adoption of 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 * * *

    Sec.  1.871-14(h) also issued under 26 U.S.C. 871(h) and 871(m). 
* * *
    Sec. Sec.  1.871-15 and 1.871-15T also issued under 26 U.S.C. 
871(m). * * *

[[Page 56879]]

    Par. 2. Section 1.871-14 is amended by:

0
1. Redesignating paragraphs (h) and (i) as paragraphs (i) and (j), 
respectively.
0
2. Adding new paragraphs (h) and (j)(3).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  1.871-14  Rules relating to repeal of tax on interest of 
nonresident alien individuals and foreign corporations received from 
certain portfolio debt investments.

* * * * *
    (h) Portfolio interest not to include certain contingent interest--
(1) Dividend equivalents. Contingent interest does not qualify as 
portfolio interest to the extent that the interest is a dividend 
equivalent within the meaning of section 871(m).
    (2) Amount of dividend equivalent that is not portfolio interest. 
The amount that does not qualify as portfolio interest because it is a 
dividend equivalent equals the amount of the dividend equivalent 
determined pursuant to Sec.  1.871-15(j). Unless otherwise excluded 
pursuant to section 871(h), any other interest paid on an obligation 
that is not a dividend equivalent may qualify as portfolio interest.
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (3) Effective/applicability date. The rules of paragraph (h) of 
this section apply beginning September 18, 2015.

0
Par. 3. Section 1.871-15 is amended by:
0
1. Redesignating paragraphs (d)(1)(i) as (d)(1)(i)(A), (d)(1) 
introductory text as (d)(1)(i), (d)(1)(ii) as (d)(1)(i)(B), (d)(1)(iii) 
as (d)(1)(i)(C), and (d)(1)(iv) as (d)(1)(i)(D).
0
2. Removing ``2016'' from newly redesignated paragraph (d)(1)(i) and 
adding ``2017'' in its place.
0
3. Removing ``Specified NPCs before January 1, 2016'' from newly 
redesignated paragraph (d)(1)(i) and adding ``In general'' in its 
place.
0
4. Adding new paragraphs (d)(1) introductory text, (d)(1)(ii) and 
(d)(2).
0
5. Redesignating paragraph (o) as paragraph (r)(2) and:
0
a. Revising the heading for newly redesignated paragraph (r)(2),
0
b. Removing the language ``This'' in paragraph (r)(2) and adding 
``Paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this'' in its place, and
0
c. Adding new paragraphs (r)(1), (r)(3) and (q).
0
7. Adding new paragraphs (a) through (c), and (e) through (p).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  1.871-15  Treatment of dividend equivalents.

    (a) Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following terms 
have the meanings described in this paragraph (a).
    (1) Broker. A broker is a broker within the meaning provided in 
section 6045(c).
    (2) Dealer. A dealer is a dealer in securities within the meaning 
of section 475(c)(1).
    (3) Dividend. A dividend is a dividend as described in section 316.
    (4) Equity-linked instrument. An equity-linked instrument (ELI) is 
a financial transaction, other than a securities lending or sale-
repurchase transaction or an NPC, that references the value of one or 
more underlying securities. For example, a futures contract, forward 
contract, option, debt instrument, or other contractual arrangement 
that references the value of one or more underlying securities is an 
ELI.
    (5) Initial hedge. An initial hedge is the number of underlying 
security shares that a short party would need to fully hedge an NPC or 
ELI (whether the NPC or ELI is a complex contract or a simple contract 
benchmark (within the meaning of paragraph (h)(2) of this section), as 
appropriate) with respect to an underlying security at the time the NPC 
or ELI is issued, even if the short party does not in fact fully hedge 
the NPC or ELI.
    (6) Issue. An NPC or ELI is treated as issued at inception, 
original issuance, or at the time of an issuance as a result of a 
deemed exchange pursuant to section 1001.
    (7) Notional principal contract. A notional principal contract 
(NPC) is a notional principal contract as defined in Sec.  1.446-3(c).
    (8) Option. An option includes an option embedded in any debt 
instrument, forward contract, NPC, or other potential section 871(m) 
transaction.
    (9) Parties to the transaction--(i) Long party. A long party is the 
party to a potential section 871(m) transaction with respect to an 
underlying security that would be entitled to receive a payment of a 
dividend equivalent (within the meaning of paragraph (i) of this 
section) described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (ii) Short party. A short party is the party to a potential section 
871(m) transaction with respect to an underlying security that would be 
obligated to make a payment of a dividend equivalent (within the 
meaning of paragraph (i) of this section) described in paragraph (c) of 
this section.
    (iii) Party to the transaction. A party to the transaction is any 
person that is a long party or a short party to a potential section 
871(m) transaction, any agent acting on behalf of the long party or 
short party, or any person acting as an intermediary with respect to 
the potential section 871(m) transaction.
    (iv) Party to the transaction that is both a long party and a short 
party--(A) In general. If a potential section 871(m) transaction 
references more than one underlying security, the long party and short 
party are determined separately with respect to each underlying 
security. A party to a potential section 871(m) transaction is both a 
long party and a short party when the party is entitled to a payment 
that references a dividend payment on an underlying security and the 
same party is obligated to make a payment that references a dividend 
payment on another underlying security pursuant to the potential 
section 871(m) transaction.
    (B) Example. The following example illustrates the definitions in 
paragraph (a)(9) of this section:

    Example.  (i) Stock X and Stock Y are underlying securities. A 
and B enter into an NPC that entitles A to receive payments from B 
based on any appreciation in the value of Stock X and dividends paid 
on Stock X during the term of the contract and obligates A to make 
payments to B based on any depreciation in the value of Stock X 
during the term of the contract. In return, the NPC entitles B to 
receive payments from A based on any appreciation in the value of 
Stock Y and dividends paid on Stock Y during the term of the 
contract and obligates B to make payments to A based on any 
depreciation in the value of Stock Y during the term of the 
contract.
    (ii) A is the long party with respect to Stock X, and the short 
party with respect to Stock Y. B is the long party with respect to 
Stock Y, and the short party with respect to Stock X.

    (10) Payment. A payment has the meaning provided in paragraph (i) 
of this section.
    (11) Reference. To reference means to be contingent upon or 
determined by reference to, directly or indirectly, whether in whole or 
in part.
    (12) Section 871(m) transaction and potential section 871(m) 
transaction. A section 871(m) transaction is any securities lending or 
sale-repurchase transaction, specified NPC, or specified ELI. A 
potential section 871(m) transaction is any securities lending or sale-
repurchase transaction, NPC, or ELI that references one or more 
underlying securities.

[[Page 56880]]

    (13) Securities lending or sale-repurchase transaction. A 
securities lending or sale-repurchase transaction is any securities 
lending transaction, sale-repurchase transaction, or substantially 
similar transaction that references an underlying security. Securities 
lending transaction and sale-repurchase transaction have the same 
meaning as provided in Sec.  1.861-3(a)(6).
    (14) Simple contracts and complex contracts--(i) Simple contract. A 
simple contract is an NPC or ELI for which, with respect to each 
underlying security,
    (A) All amounts to be paid or received on maturity, exercise, or 
any other payment determination date are calculated by reference to a 
single, fixed number of shares (as determined in paragraph (j)(3) of 
this section) of the underlying security, provided that the number of 
shares can be ascertained when the contract is issued, and (B) The 
contract has a single maturity or exercise date with respect to which 
all amounts (other than any upfront payment or any periodic payments) 
are required to be calculated with respect to the underlying security. 
A contract has a single exercise date even though it may be exercised 
by the holder at any time on or before the stated expiration of the 
contract. An NPC or ELI that includes a term that discontinuously 
increases or decreases the amount paid or received (such as a digital 
option), or that accelerates or extends the maturity is not a simple 
contract. A simple contract that is an NPC is a simple NPC. A simple 
contract that is an ELI is a simple ELI.
    (ii) Complex contract--(A) In general. A complex contract is any 
NPC or ELI that is not a simple contract. A complex contract that is an 
NPC is a complex NPC. A complex contract that is an ELI is a complex 
ELI.

    (B) Example.  An ELI entitles the long party to a return equal 
to 200 percent of the appreciation on 100 shares of Stock X, and 
obligates the long party to pay an amount equal to the actual 
depreciation on 100 shares of Stock X. Because the ELI does not 
provide the long party with an amount that is calculated by 
reference to a single, fixed number of shares of Stock X on the 
maturity date that can be ascertained at issuance, it is not a 
simple ELI. More specifically, upon maturity the ELI will either 
entitle the long party to receive a payment that is, in substance, 
measured by reference to 200 shares of stock or obligate the long 
party to make a payment measured by reference to 100 shares of 
stock. The ELI is a complex ELI because it is not a simple ELI.

    (15) Underlying security. An underlying security is any interest in 
an entity if a payment with respect to that interest could give rise to 
a U.S. source dividend pursuant to Sec.  1.861-3, where applicable 
taking into account paragraph (m) of this section. Except as provided 
in paragraph (l) of this section, if a potential section 871(m) 
transaction references an interest in more than one entity described in 
the preceding sentence or different interests in the same entity, each 
referenced interest is a separate underlying security for purposes of 
applying the rules of this section.
    (b) Source of a dividend equivalent. A dividend equivalent is 
treated as a dividend from sources within the United States for 
purposes of sections 871(a), 881, 892, 894, and 4948(a), and chapters 3 
and 4 of subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code.
    (c) Dividend equivalent--(1) In general. Except as provided in 
paragraph (2), dividend equivalent means--
    (i) Any payment that references the payment of a dividend from an 
underlying security pursuant to a securities lending or sale-repurchase 
transaction;
    (ii) Any payment that references the payment of a dividend from an 
underlying security pursuant to a specified NPC described in paragraph 
(d) of this section;
    (iii) Any payment that references the payment of a dividend from an 
underlying security pursuant to a specified ELI described in paragraph 
(e) of this section; and
    (iv) Any other substantially similar payment as described in 
paragraph (f) of this section.
    (2) Exceptions--(i) Not a dividend. A payment that references a 
distribution with respect to an underlying security is not a dividend 
equivalent to the extent that the distribution would not be subject to 
tax pursuant to section 871 or section 881 if the long party owned the 
underlying security. For example, if an NPC references stock in a 
regulated investment company that pays a dividend that includes a 
capital gains dividend described in section 852(b)(3)(C) that would not 
be subject to tax under section 871 or section 881 if paid directly to 
the long party, then an NPC payment is not a dividend equivalent to the 
extent that it is determined by reference to the capital gains 
dividend.
    (ii) Section 305 coordination. A dividend equivalent with respect 
to a section 871(m) transaction is reduced by any amount treated in 
accordance with section 305(b) and (c) as a dividend with respect to 
the underlying security referenced by the section 871(m) transaction.
    (iii) Due bills. A dividend equivalent does not include a payment 
made pursuant to a due bill arising from the actions of a securities 
exchange that apply to all transactions in the stock with respect to 
the dividend. For purposes of this section, a stock will be considered 
to trade with a due bill only when the relevant securities exchange has 
set an ex-dividend date with respect to a dividend that occurs after 
the record date.
    (iv) Certain payments pursuant to annuity, endowment, and life 
insurance contracts. [Reserved]. For further guidance, see Sec.  1.871-
15T(c)(2)(iv).
    (v) Certain payments pursuant to employee compensation 
arrangements. A dividend equivalent does not include the portion of 
equity-based compensation for personal services of a nonresident alien 
individual that is--
    (A) Wages subject to withholding under section 3402 and the 
regulations under that section;
    (B) Excluded from the definition of wages under Sec.  
31.3401(a)(6)-1; or
    (C) Exempt from withholding under Sec.  1.1441-4(b).
    (d) Specified NPCs--(1) Specified NPCs entered into before January 
1, 2017--(i) * * *.
    (ii) Specified NPC status as of January 1, 2017. An NPC that is 
treated as a specified NPC pursuant to paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this 
section will remain a specified NPC on or after January 1, 2017.
    (2) Specified NPCs on or after January 1, 2017--(i) Simple NPCs. A 
simple NPC that has a delta of 0.8 or greater with respect to an 
underlying security when the NPC is issued is a specified NPC.
    (ii) Complex NPCs. A complex NPC that meets the substantial 
equivalence test described in paragraph (h) of this section with 
respect to an underlying security when the NPC is issued is a specified 
NPC.
    (e) Specified ELIs--(1) Simple ELIs. A simple ELI that has a delta 
of 0.8 or greater with respect to an underlying security when the ELI 
is issued is a specified ELI.
    (2) Complex ELIs. A complex ELI that meets the substantial 
equivalence test described in paragraph (h) of this section with 
respect to an underlying security when the ELI is issued is a specified 
ELI.
    (f) Other substantially similar payments. For purposes of this 
section, any payment made in satisfaction of a tax liability of the 
long party with respect to a dividend equivalent by a withholding agent 
is a dividend equivalent received by the long party. The amount of that 
dividend equivalent constitutes additional income to the

[[Page 56881]]

payee to the extent provided in Sec.  1.1441-3(f)(1).
    (g) Delta--(1) In general. Delta is the ratio of the change in the 
fair market value of an NPC or ELI to a small change in the fair market 
value of the number of shares of the underlying security (as determined 
under paragraph (j)(3) of this section) referenced by the NPC or ELI. 
If an NPC or ELI contains more than one reference to a single 
underlying security, all references to that underlying security are 
taken into account in determining the delta with respect to that 
underlying security. If an NPC or ELI references more than one 
underlying security or other property, the delta with respect to each 
underlying security must be determined without taking into account any 
other underlying security or property. The delta of an equity 
derivative that is embedded in a debt instrument or other derivative is 
determined without taking into account changes in the market value of 
the debt instrument or other derivative that are not directly related 
to the equity element of the instrument. Thus, for example, the delta 
of an option embedded in a convertible note is determined without 
regard to the debt component of the convertible note. For purposes of 
this section, delta must be determined in a commercially reasonable 
manner. If a taxpayer calculates delta for non-tax business purposes, 
that delta ordinarily is the delta used for purposes of this section.
    (2) Time for determining delta. For purposes of applying the rules 
of this section, the delta of a potential section 871(m) transaction is 
determined only when the potential section 871(m) transaction is issued 
(as defined in paragraph (a)(6) of this section).
    (3) Simplified delta calculation for certain simple contracts that 
reference multiple underlying securities. If an NPC or ELI references 
10 or more underlying securities and the short party uses an exchange-
traded security (for example, an exchange-traded fund) that references 
substantially all of the underlying securities (the hedge security) to 
hedge the NPC or ELI at the time it is issued, the delta of the NPC or 
ELI may be calculated by determining the ratio of the change in the 
fair market value of the simple contract to a small change in the fair 
market value of the hedge security. A delta determined under this 
paragraph (g)(3) must be used as the delta for each underlying security 
for purposes of calculating the amount of a dividend equivalent as 
provided in paragraph (j)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (4) Examples. The following examples illustrate the rules of this 
paragraph (g). For purposes of these examples, Stock X and Stock Y are 
common stock of domestic corporations X and Y. LP is the long party to 
the transaction.

    Example 1. Delta calculation for an NPC. The terms of an NPC 
require LP to pay the short party an amount equal to all of the 
depreciation in the value of 100 shares of Stock X and an interest-
rate based return. In return, the NPC requires the short party to 
pay LP an amount equal to all of the appreciation in the value of 
100 shares of Stock X and any dividends paid by X on those shares. 
The value of the NPC will change by $1 for each $0.01 change in the 
price of a share of Stock X. When LP entered into the NPC, Stock X 
had a fair market value of $50 per share. The NPC therefore has a 
delta of 1.0 ($1.00/($0.01 x 100)).

    Example 2. Delta calculation for an option. LP purchases a call 
option that references 100 shares of Stock Y. At the time LP 
purchases the call option, the value of the option is expected to 
change by $0.30 for a $0.01 change in the price of a share of Stock 
Y. When LP purchases the option, Stock Y has a fair market value of 
$100 per share. The call option has a delta of 0.3 ($0.30/($0.01 x 
100)).

    (h) Substantial Equivalence. [Reserved]. For further guidance, see 
Sec.  1.871-15T(h).
    (i) Payment of a dividend equivalent--(1) Payments determined on 
gross basis. For purposes of this section, a payment includes any gross 
amount that references the payment of a dividend and that is used in 
computing any net amount transferred to or from the long party even if 
the long party makes a net payment to the short party or no amount is 
paid because the net amount is zero.
    (2) Actual and estimated dividends--(i) In general. A payment 
includes any amount that references an actual or estimated payment of 
dividends, whether the reference is explicit or implicit. If a 
potential section 871(m) transaction provides for a payment based on an 
estimated dividend that adjusts to account for the amount of an actual 
dividend paid, the payment is treated as referencing the actual 
dividend amount and not an estimated dividend amount.
    (ii) Implicit dividends. A payment includes an actual or estimated 
dividend payment that is implicitly taken into account in computing one 
or more of the terms of a potential section 871(m) transaction, 
including interest rate, notional amount, purchase price, premium, 
upfront payment, strike price, or any other amount paid or received 
pursuant to the potential section 871(m) transaction.
    (iii) Actual dividend presumption. A short party to a section 
871(m) transaction is treated as paying a per-share dividend amount 
equal to the actual dividend amount unless the short party to the 
section 871(m) transaction identifies a reasonable estimated dividend 
amount in writing at the time the transaction is issued. For this 
purpose, a reasonable estimated dividend amount stated in an offering 
document or the documents governing the terms at the time the 
transaction is issued will establish the estimated dividend amount. To 
qualify as an estimated dividend amount, the written estimated dividend 
amount must separately state the amount estimated for each anticipated 
dividend or state a formula that allows each dividend to be determined. 
If an underlying security is not expected to pay a dividend, a 
reasonable estimate of the dividend amount may be zero.
    (iv) Additions to estimated payments. If a section 871(m) 
transaction provides for any payment in addition to an estimated 
dividend and that additional payment is determined by reference to a 
dividend (for example, a special dividend), both the estimated dividend 
and the additional payment are used to determine the per-share dividend 
amount.
    (3) Dividends for certain baskets--(i) In general. If a section 
871(m) transaction references long positions in more than 25 underlying 
securities, the short party may treat the dividends with respect to the 
referenced underlying securities as paid at the end of the applicable 
calendar quarter to compute the per-share dividend amount.
    (ii) Publicly available dividend yield. For purposes of paragraph 
(i)(3)(i) of this section, if a section 871(m) transaction references 
the same underlying securities as a security (for example, stock in an 
exchange-traded fund) or index for which there is a publicly available 
quarterly dividend yield, the publicly available dividend yield may be 
used to determine the per-share dividend amount for the section 871(m) 
transaction with any adjustment for special dividends.
    (iii) Dividend yield for a section 871(m) transaction using the 
simplified delta calculation. When the delta of a section 871(m) 
transaction is determined under paragraph (g)(3) of this section, the 
per-share dividend amount for that section 871(m) transaction must be 
determined using the dividend yield for the exchange-traded security 
that fully hedges the section 871(m) transaction.
    (4) Examples. The following examples illustrate the rules of this 
paragraph (i). For purposes of these examples, Stock X is common stock 
of Corporation X, a domestic corporation, that historically pays 
quarterly dividends on Stock X.

[[Page 56882]]

The parties anticipate that Corporation X will continue to pay 
quarterly dividends.

    Example 1. Forward contract to purchase domestic stock. (i) When 
Stock X is trading at $50 per share, Foreign Investor enters into a 
forward contract to purchase 100 shares of Stock X in one year. 
Reasonable estimates of the quarterly dividend are specified in the 
transaction documents. The price in the forward contract is 
determined by multiplying the number of shares referenced in the 
contract by the current price of the shares and an interest rate, 
and subtracting the value of any dividends expected to be paid 
during the term of the contract. Assuming that the forward contract 
is priced using an interest rate of 4 percent and total estimated 
dividends with a future value of $1 per share during the term of the 
forward contract, the purchase price set in the forward contract is 
$5,100 (100 shares x $50 per share x 1.04 - ($1 x 100)).
    (ii) Subject to paragraph (i)(2)(iv) of this section, the 
estimated dividend amount is the per-share dividend amount because 
the estimate is reasonable and specified in accordance with 
paragraph (i)(2)(iii) of this section. The estimated per-share 
dividend amount is a dividend equivalent for purposes of this 
section.

    Example 2. Price return only swap contract. (i) Foreign Investor 
enters into a price return swap contract that entitles Foreign 
Investor to receive payments based on the appreciation in the value 
of 100 shares of Stock X and requires Foreign Investor to pay an 
amount based on LIBOR plus any depreciation in the value of Stock X. 
The swap contract neither explicitly entitles Foreign Investor to 
payments based on dividends paid on Stock X during the term of the 
contract nor references an estimated dividend amount. The LIBOR rate 
in the swap contract, however, is reduced to reflect expected annual 
dividends on Stock X.
    (ii) Because the LIBOR leg of the swap contract is reduced to 
reflect estimated dividends and the estimated dividend amount is not 
specified, Foreign Investor is treated as receiving the actual 
dividend amount in accordance with paragraph (i)(2) of this section. 
The actual per-share dividend amounts are dividend equivalents for 
purposes of this section.

    (j) Amount of dividend equivalent--(1) Calculation of the amount of 
a dividend equivalent--(i) Securities lending or sale-repurchase 
transactions. For a securities lending or sale-repurchase transaction, 
the amount of the dividend equivalent for each underlying security 
equals the amount of the actual per-share dividend paid on the 
underlying security multiplied by the number of shares of the 
underlying security.
    (ii) Simple contracts. For a simple contract that is a section 
871(m) transaction, the amount of the dividend equivalent for each 
underlying security equals:
    (A) The per-share dividend amount (as determined under either 
paragraph (i)(2) or (i)(3) of this section) with respect to the 
underlying security multiplied by;
    (B) The number of shares of the underlying security multiplied by;
    (C) The delta of the section 871(m) transaction with respect to the 
underlying security.
    (iii) Complex contracts. For a complex contract that is a section 
871(m) transaction, the amount of the dividend equivalent for each 
underlying security equals:
    (A) The per-share dividend amount (as determined under paragraph 
(i)(2) or (i)(3) of this section) with respect to the underlying 
security multiplied by;
    (B) The initial hedge for the underlying security.
    (iv) Other substantially similar payments. In addition to any 
amount determined pursuant to paragraph (j)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii), the 
amount of a dividend equivalent includes the amount of any payment 
described in paragraph (f) of this section.
    (2) Time for determining the amount of a dividend equivalent. The 
amount of a dividend equivalent is determined on the earlier of the 
date that is the record date of the dividend and the day prior to the 
ex-dividend date with respect to the dividend. For example, if a 
specified NPC provides for a payment at settlement that takes into 
account an earlier dividend payment, the amount of the dividend 
equivalent is determined on the earlier of the record date or the day 
prior to the ex-dividend date for that dividend.
    (3) Number of shares. The number of shares of an underlying 
security generally is the number of shares of the underlying security 
stated in the contract. If the transaction modifies that number by a 
factor or fraction or otherwise alters the amount of any payment, the 
number of shares is adjusted to take into account the factor, fraction, 
or other modification. For example, in a transaction in which the long 
party receives or makes payments based on 200 percent of the 
appreciation or depreciation (as applicable) of 100 shares of stock, 
the number of shares of the underlying security is 200 shares of the 
stock.
    (k) Limitation on the treatment of certain corporate acquisitions 
as section 871(m) transactions. A potential section 871(m) transaction 
is not a section 871(m) transaction with respect to an underlying 
security if the transaction obligates the long party to acquire 
ownership of the underlying security as part of a plan pursuant to 
which one or more persons (including the long party) are obligated to 
acquire underlying securities representing more than 50 percent of the 
value of the entity issuing the underlying securities.
    (l) Rules relating to indices--(1) Purpose. The purpose of this 
section is to provide a safe harbor for potential section 871(m) 
transactions that reference certain passive indices that are based on a 
diverse basket of publicly-traded securities and that are widely used 
by numerous market participants. Notwithstanding any other provision in 
this paragraph (l), an index is not a qualified index if treating the 
index as a qualified index would be contrary to the purpose described 
in this paragraph.
    (2) Qualified index not treated as an underlying security. For 
purposes of this section, a qualified index is treated as a single 
security that is not an underlying security. The determination of 
whether an index referenced in a potential section 871(m) transaction 
is a qualified index is made at the time the transaction is issued 
based on whether the index is a qualified index on the first business 
day of the calendar year in which the transaction is issued.
    (3) Qualified index. A qualified index means an index that--
    (i) References 25 or more component securities (whether or not the 
security is an underlying security);
    (ii) Except as provided in paragraph (l)(6)(ii) of this section, 
references only long positions in component securities;
    (iii) References no component underlying security that represents 
more than 15 percent of the weighting of the component securities in 
the index;
    (iv) References no five or fewer component underlying securities 
that together represent more than 40 percent of the weighting of the 
component securities in the index;
    (v) Is modified or rebalanced only according to publicly stated, 
predefined criteria, which may require interpretation by the index 
provider or a board or committee responsible for maintaining the index;
    (vi) Did not provide an annual dividend yield in the immediately 
preceding calendar year from component underlying securities that is 
greater than 1.5 times the annual dividend yield of the S&P 500 Index 
as reported for the immediately preceding calendar year; and
    (vii) Is traded through futures contracts or option contracts 
(regardless of whether the contracts provide price only or total return 
exposure to the index or provide for dividend reinvestment in the 
index) on--
    (A) A national securities exchange that is registered with the 
Securities and Exchange Commission or a domestic

[[Page 56883]]

board of trade designated as a contract market by the Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission; or
    (B) A foreign exchange or board of trade that is a qualified board 
or exchange as determined by the Secretary pursuant to section 
1256(g)(7)(C) or that has a staff no action letter from the CFTC 
permitting direct access from the United States that is effective on 
the applicable testing date, provided that the referenced component 
underlying securities, in the aggregate, comprise less than 50 percent 
of the weighting of the component securities in the index.
    (4) Safe harbor for certain indices that reference assets other 
than underlying securities. Notwithstanding paragraph (l)(3) of this 
section, an index is a qualified index if the referenced component 
underlying securities in the aggregate comprise 10 percent or less of 
the weighting of the component securities in the index.
    (5) Weighting of component securities. For purposes of this 
paragraph (l), the weighting of a component security of an index is the 
percentage of the index's value represented, or accounted for, by the 
component security.
    (6) Transactions that reference a qualified index and one or more 
component securities or indices--(i) In general. When a potential 
section 871(m) transaction references a qualified index and one or more 
component securities or other indices, the qualified index remains a 
qualified index only if the potential section 871(m) transaction does 
not reference a short position in any referenced component security of 
the qualified index, other than a short position with respect to the 
entire qualified index (for example, a cap or floor) or a de minimis 
short position described in paragraph (l)(6)(ii) of this section. If, 
in connection with a potential section 871(m) transaction that 
references a qualified index, a taxpayer (or a related person within 
the meaning of section 267(b) or section 707(b)) enters into one or 
more transactions that reduce exposure to any referenced component 
security of the index, other than transactions that reduce exposure to 
the entire index, then the potential section 871(m) transaction is not 
treated as referencing a qualified index.
    (ii) Safe harbor for de minimis short positions. Notwithstanding 
paragraphs (l)(3)(ii) and (l)(6)(i) of this section, an index may be a 
qualified index if the short position (whether part of the index or 
entered into separately by the taxpayer or related person within the 
meaning of section 267(b) or section 707(b)) reduces exposure to 
referenced component securities of a qualified index (excluding any 
short positions with respect to the entire qualified index) by five 
percent or less of the value of the long positions in component 
securities in the qualified index.
    (7) Transactions that indirectly reference a qualified index. If a 
potential section 871(m) transaction references a security (for 
example, stock in an exchange-traded fund) that tracks a qualified 
index, the potential section 871(m) transaction will be treated as 
referencing a qualified index.
    (m) Rules relating to derivatives that reference partnerships--(1) 
In general. When a potential section 871(m) transaction references a 
partnership interest, the assets of the partnership will be treated as 
referenced by the potential section 871(m) transaction only if the 
partnership carries on a trade or business of dealing or trading in 
securities, holds significant investments in securities (either of 
which is a covered partnership), or directly or indirectly holds an 
interest in a lower-tier partnership that is a covered partnership. For 
purposes of this section, if a covered partnership directly or 
indirectly holds assets that are underlying securities or potential 
section 871(m) transactions, any potential section 871(m) transaction 
that references an interest in the covered partnership is treated as 
referencing the shares of the underlying securities, including 
underlying securities of potential section 871(m) transactions, 
directly or indirectly allocable to that partnership interest. For 
purposes of this paragraph (m), a security is defined in section 
475(c).
    (2) Significant investments in securities--(i) In general. For 
purposes of this paragraph (m), a partnership holds significant 
investments in securities if either--
    (A) 25 percent or more of the value of the partnership's assets 
consist of underlying securities or potential section 871(m) 
transactions; or
    (B) The value of the underlying securities or potential section 
871(m) transactions equals or exceeds $25 million.
    (ii) Determining the value of the partnership's assets. For 
purposes of this paragraph (m)(2), the value of a partnership's assets 
is determined at the time the potential 871(m) transaction referencing 
that partnership interest is issued based on the value of the assets 
held by the partnership on the last day of the partnership's prior 
taxable year unless the long party or the short party has actual 
knowledge that a subsequent transaction has caused the partnership to 
cross either of the thresholds described in paragraph (m)(2)(i). The 
value of a partnership's assets is equal to their fair market value, 
except that the value of any NPC, futures contract, forward contract, 
option, and any similar financial instrument held by the partnership is 
deemed to be the value of the notional securities referenced by the 
transaction.
    (n) Combined transactions--(1) In general. For purposes of 
determining whether a potential section 871(m) transaction is a section 
871(m) transaction, two or more potential section 871(m) transactions 
are treated as a single transaction with respect to an underlying 
security when--
    (i) A person (or a related person within the meaning of section 
267(b) or section 707(b)) is the long party with respect to the 
underlying security for each potential section 871(m) transaction;
    (ii) The potential section 871(m) transactions reference the same 
underlying security;
    (iii) The potential section 871(m) transactions, when combined, 
replicate the economics of a transaction that would be a section 871(m) 
transaction if the transactions had been entered into as a single 
transaction; and
    (iv) The potential section 871(m) transactions are entered into in 
connection with each other (regardless of whether the transactions are 
entered into simultaneously or with the same counterparty).
    (2) Section 871(m) transactions. If a potential section 871(m) 
transaction is a section 871(m) transaction, either by itself or as a 
result of a combination with one or more other potential section 871(m) 
transactions, it does not cease to be a section 871(m) transaction as a 
result of applying paragraph (n) of this section or disposing of one or 
more of the potential section 871(m) transaction with which it is 
combined.
    (3) Short party presumptions regarding combined transactions--(i) 
Transactions in separate accounts. A short party that is a broker may 
presume that transactions are not entered into in connection with each 
other for purposes of paragraph (n)(1) of this section if a long party 
holds or reflects the transactions in separate accounts maintained by 
the short party, unless the short party has actual knowledge that the 
transactions held or reflected in separate accounts by the long party 
were entered into in connection with each other or that separate 
accounts were created or used to avoid section 871(m).
    (ii) Transactions separated by at least two business days. A short 
party that is a broker may presume that transactions

[[Page 56884]]

entered into two or more business days apart are not entered into in 
connection with each other for purposes of paragraph (n)(1) of this 
section unless the short party has actual knowledge that the 
transactions were entered into in connection with each other.
    (4) Presumptions Commissioner will apply to long party--(i) 
Transactions in separate trading books. The Commissioner will presume 
that a long party did not enter into two or more transactions in 
connection with each other for purposes of paragraph (n)(1) of this 
section if the long party properly reflected those transactions on 
separate trading books. The Commissioner may rebut this presumption 
with facts and circumstances showing that transactions reflected on 
separate trading books were entered into in connection with each other 
or that separate trading books were created or used to avoid section 
871(m).
    (ii) Transactions separated by at least two days. The Commissioner 
will presume that a long party did not enter into two or more 
transactions in connection with each other for purposes of paragraph 
(n)(1) of this section if the long party entered into the transactions 
two or more business days apart. The Commissioner may rebut this 
presumption with facts and circumstances showing that the transactions 
entered into two or more business days apart were entered into in 
connection with each other.
    (iii) Transactions separated by less than two days and reflected in 
the same trading book. The Commissioner will presume that transactions 
that are entered into less than two business days apart and reflected 
on the same trading book are entered into in connection with each 
other. A long party can rebut this presumption with facts and 
circumstances showing that the transactions were not entered into in 
connection with each other.
    (5) Rules of application--(i) Two business days rule. For the 
purpose of determining the number of business days between 
transactions, the short party may, and the Commissioner will, assume 
that all transactions are entered into at 4:00 p.m. on the date the 
transaction becomes effective in the jurisdiction of the long party.
    (ii) No long party presumptions. Notwithstanding the presumptions 
described in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this section, the long 
party must treat two or more transactions as combined transactions if 
the transactions are described in paragraph (n)(1) of section.
    (6) Ordering rule for transactions entered into in connection with 
each other. If a long party enters into more than two potential section 
871(m) transactions that could be combined under this paragraph (n), a 
short party is required to apply paragraph (n)(1) of this section by 
combining transactions in a manner that results in the most 
transactions with a delta of 0.8 or higher with respect to the 
referenced underlying security. Thus, for example, if a taxpayer has 
sold one at-the-money put and purchased two at-the-money calls, each 
with respect to 100 shares of the same underlying security, the put and 
one call are combined. Similarly, a purchased call on 100 shares and a 
sold put on 200 shares of the same underlying security can be combined 
for 100 shares with 100 shares of the put remaining separate. The two 
calls are not combined because they do not provide the long party with 
economic exposure to depreciation in the underlying security. 
Similarly, if a long party enters into more than two potential section 
871(m) transactions that could be combined under this paragraph (n), 
but have not been combined by a short party, the long party is required 
to apply paragraph (n)(1) of this section by combining transactions in 
a manner that results in the most transactions with a delta of 0.8 or 
higher with respect to the referenced underlying security.
    (7) More than one underlying security referenced. If potential 
section 871(m) transactions reference more than one underlying 
security, paragraph (n)(1) of this section applies separately with 
respect to each underlying security.
    (o) Anti-abuse rule. If a taxpayer (directly or through the use of 
a related person within the meaning of section 267(b) or section 
707(b)) acquires (whether by entering into, purchasing, accepting by 
transfer, by exchange, or by conversion, or otherwise acquiring) or 
disposes of (whether by sale, offset, exercise, termination, 
expiration, maturity, or other means) a transaction or transactions 
with a principal purpose of avoiding the application of this section, 
the Commissioner may treat any payment (as described in paragraph (i) 
of this section) made with respect to that transaction or transactions 
as a dividend equivalent to the extent necessary to prevent the 
avoidance of this section. Therefore, notwithstanding any other 
provision of this section, the Commissioner may, for example, adjust 
the delta of a transaction, change the number of shares, adjust an 
estimated dividend amount, change the maturity, adjust the timing of 
payments, treat a transaction that references a partnership interest as 
referencing the assets of the partnership, combine, separate, or 
disregard transactions, indices, or components of indices to reflect 
the substance of the transaction or transactions, or otherwise depart 
from the rules of this section as necessary to determine whether the 
transaction includes a dividend equivalent or the amount or timing of a 
dividend equivalent. A purpose may be a principal purpose even though 
it is outweighed by other purposes (taken together or separately). When 
a withholding agent knows that the taxpayer acquired or disposed of a 
transaction or transactions with a principal purpose of avoiding the 
application of this section and the Commissioner treats a payment made 
with respect to any transaction as a dividend equivalent, the 
withholding agent may be liable for any tax pursuant to section 1461.
    (p) Information required to be reported regarding a potential 
section 871(m) transaction--(1) In general. If a broker or dealer is a 
party to a potential section 871(m) transaction with a counterparty or 
customer that is not a broker or dealer, the broker or dealer is 
required to determine whether the potential section 871(m) transaction 
is a section 871(m) transaction. If both parties to a potential section 
871(m) transaction are brokers or dealers, or neither party to a 
potential section 871(m) transaction is a broker or dealer, the short 
party must determine whether the potential section 871(m) transaction 
is a section 871(m) transaction. The party to the transaction that is 
required to determine whether a transaction is a section 871(m) 
transaction must also determine and report to the counterparty or 
customer the timing and amount of any dividend equivalent (as described 
in paragraphs (i) and (j) of this section). Except as otherwise 
provided in paragraph (n)(3) of this section, the party required to 
make the determinations described in this paragraph is required to 
exercise reasonable diligence to determine whether a transaction is a 
section 871(m) transaction, the amount of any dividend equivalents, and 
any other information necessary to apply the rules of this section. The 
information must be provided in the manner prescribed in paragraphs 
(p)(2) and (p)(3) of this section. The determinations required by 
paragraph (p) of this section are binding on the parties to the 
potential section 871(m) transaction and on any person who is a 
withholding agent with respect to the potential section 871(m) 
transaction unless the person knows or has reason to know that the 
information received is incorrect. The

[[Page 56885]]

determinations are not binding on the Commissioner.
    (2) Reporting requirements. For rules regarding the reporting 
requirements of withholding agents with respect to dividend equivalents 
described in this section, see Sec. Sec.  1.1461-1(b) and (c) and 
1.1474-1(c) and (d).
    (3) Additional information available to a party to a potential 
section 871(m) transaction--(i) In general. Upon request by any person 
described in paragraph (p)(3)(ii) of this section, the party required 
to report information pursuant to paragraph (p)(1) of this section must 
provide the requester with information regarding the amount of each 
dividend equivalent, the delta of the potential section 871(m) 
transaction, the amount of any tax withheld and deposited, the 
estimated dividend amount if specified in accordance with paragraph 
(i)(2)(iii) of this section, the identity of any transactions combined 
pursuant to paragraph (n) of this section, and any other information 
necessary to apply the rules of this section. The information requested 
must be provided within a reasonable time, not to exceed 10 business 
days, and communicated in one or more of the following ways:
    (A) By telephone, and confirmed in writing;
    (B) By written statement sent by first class mail to the address 
provided by the requesting party;
    (C) By electronic publication available to all persons entitled to 
request information; or
    (D) By any other method agreed to by the parties, and confirmed in 
writing.
    (ii) Persons entitled to request information. Any party to the 
transaction described in paragraph (a)(9) of this section may request 
the information specified in paragraph (p) of this section with respect 
to a potential section 871(m) transaction from the party required by 
paragraph (p)(3)(i) of this section to provide the information.
    (iii) Reliance on information received. A person described in 
paragraph (p)(1) or (p)(3)(ii) of this section that receives 
information described in paragraph (p)(1) or (p)(3)(i) of this section 
may rely on that information to provide information to any other person 
unless the recipient knows or has reason to know that the information 
received is incorrect. When the recipient knows or has reason to know 
that the information received is incorrect, the recipient must make a 
reasonable effort to determine and provide the information described in 
paragraph (p)(1) or (p)(3)(i) of this section to any person described 
in paragraph (p)(1) or (p)(3)(ii) of this section that requests 
information from the recipient.
    (4) Recordkeeping rules--(i) In general. For rules regarding 
recordkeeping requirements sufficient to establish whether a 
transaction is a section 871(m) transaction and whether a payment is a 
dividend equivalent and the amount of gross income treated as a 
dividend equivalent, see Sec.  1.6001-1.
    (ii) Records sufficient to establish whether a transaction is a 
section 871(m) transaction and any dividend equivalent amount. Any 
person required to retain records must keep sufficient information to 
establish whether a transaction is a section 871(m) transaction and the 
amount of a dividend equivalent (if any), including documentation and 
work papers supporting the delta calculation or the substantial 
equivalence test (including the number of shares of the initial hedge), 
as applicable, and written estimated dividends (if any). The records 
and documentation must be created substantially contemporaneously. A 
record will be considered to have been created substantially 
contemporaneously if it was created within 10 business days of the date 
the potential section 871(m) transaction is issued.
    (q) Dividend and dividend equivalent payments to a qualified 
derivatives dealer. [Reserved]. For further guidance, see Sec.  1.871-
15T(q).
    (r) Effective/applicability date--(1) In general. This section 
applies to payments made on or after September 18, 2015 except as 
provided in paragraphs (r)(2) and (3) of this section.
    (2) Effective/applicability date for paragraph (d)(1)(i). * * *
    (3) Effective/applicability date for paragraphs (d)(2) and (e). 
Paragraphs (d)(2) and (e) apply to any payment made on or after January 
1, 2017, with respect to any transaction issued on or after January 1, 
2017, and to any payment made on or after January 1, 2018, with respect 
to any transaction issued on or after January 1, 2016, and before 
January 1, 2017.

0
Par. 4. Section 1.871-15T is added to read as follows:


Sec.  1.871-15T  Treatment of dividend equivalents (temporary).

    (a) through (b) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see Sec.  1.871-
15(a) through (b).
    (c) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see Sec.  1.871-15(c)(1) 
through (c)(2)(iii).
    (iv) Payments made pursuant to annuity, endowment, and life 
insurance contracts--(A) Insurance contracts issued by domestic 
insurance companies. A payment made pursuant to a contract that is an 
annuity, endowment, or life insurance contract issued by a domestic 
corporation (including its foreign or U.S. possession branch) that is a 
life insurance company described in section 816(a) does not include a 
dividend equivalent if the payment is subject to tax under section 
871(a) or section 881.
    (B) Insurance contracts issued by foreign insurance companies. A 
payment does not include a dividend equivalent if it is made pursuant 
to a contract that is an annuity, endowment, or life insurance contract 
issued by a foreign corporation that is predominantly engaged in an 
insurance business and that would be subject to tax under subchapter L 
if it were a domestic corporation.
    (C) Insurance contracts held by foreign insurance companies. A 
payment made pursuant to a policy of insurance (including a policy of 
reinsurance) does not include a dividend equivalent if it is made to a 
foreign corporation that is predominantly engaged in an insurance 
business and that would be subject to tax under subchapter L if it were 
a domestic corporation.
    (v) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see Sec.  1.871-15(c)(2)(v).
    (d) through (g) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see Sec.  1.871-
15(d) through (g).
    (h) Substantial equivalence test--(1) In general. The substantial 
equivalence test described in this paragraph (h) applies to determine 
whether a complex contract is a section 871(m) transaction. The 
substantial equivalence test assesses whether a complex contract 
substantially replicates the economic performance of the underlying 
security by comparing, at various testing prices for the underlying 
security, the differences between the expected changes in value of that 
complex contract and its initial hedge with the differences between the 
expected changes in value of a simple contract benchmark (as described 
in paragraph (h)(2) of this section) and its initial hedge. If the 
complex contract contains more than one reference to a single 
underlying security, all references to that underlying security are 
taken into account for purposes of applying the substantial equivalence 
test with respect to that underlying security. With respect to an 
equity derivative that is embedded in a debt instrument or other 
derivative, the substantial equivalence test is applied to the complex 
contract without taking into account changes in the market value of the 
debt instrument or other derivative that are not directly related to 
the equity element of the instrument. The complex contract is a section 
871(m) transaction with respect

[[Page 56886]]

to an underlying security if, for that underlying security, the 
expected change in value of the complex contract and its initial hedge 
is equal to or less than the expected change in value of the simple 
contract benchmark and its initial hedge when the substantial 
equivalence test described in this paragraph (h) is calculated at the 
time the complex contract is issued. To the extent that the steps of 
the substantial equivalence test set out in this paragraph (h) cannot 
be applied to a particular complex contract, a taxpayer must use the 
principles of the substantial equivalence test to reasonably determine 
whether the complex contract is a section 871(m) transaction with 
respect to each underlying security. For purposes of this section, the 
test must be applied and the inputs must be determined in a 
commercially reasonable manner. If a taxpayer calculates any relevant 
input for non-tax business purposes, that input ordinarily is the input 
used for purposes of this section.
    (2) Simple contract benchmark. The simple contract benchmark is a 
closely comparable simple contract that, at the time the complex 
contract is issued, has a delta of 0.8, references the applicable 
underlying security referenced by the complex contract, and has the 
same maturity as the complex contract with respect to the applicable 
underlying security. Depending on the complex contract, the simple 
contract benchmark might be, for example, a call option, a put option, 
or a collar.
    (3) Substantial equivalence. A complex contract is a section 871(m) 
transaction with respect to an underlying security if the complex 
contract calculation described in paragraph (h)(4) of this section 
results in an amount that is equal to or less than the amount of the 
benchmark calculation described in paragraph (h)(5) of this section.
    (4) Complex contract calculation--(i) In general. The complex 
contract calculation for each underlying security referenced by a 
potential section 871(m) transaction that is a complex contract is 
computed by:
    (A) Determining the change in value (as described in paragraph 
(h)(4)(ii) of this section) of the complex contract with respect to the 
underlying security at each testing price (as described in paragraph 
(h)(4)(iii) of this section);
    (B) Determining the change in value of the initial hedge for the 
complex contract at each testing price;
    (C) Determining the absolute value of the difference between the 
change in value of the complex contract determined in paragraph 
(h)(4)(i)(A) of this section and the change in value of the initial 
hedge determined in paragraph (h)(4)(i)(B) of this section at each 
testing price;
    (D) Determining the probability (as described in paragraph 
(h)(4)(iv) of this section) associated with each testing price;
    (E) Multiplying the absolute value for each testing price 
determined in paragraph (h)(4)(i)(C) of this section by the 
corresponding probability for that testing price determined in 
paragraph (h)(4)(i)(D) of this section;
    (F) Adding the product of each calculation determined in paragraph 
(h)(4)(i)(E) of this section; and
    (G) Dividing the sum determined in paragraph (h)(4)(i)(F) of this 
section by the initial hedge for the complex contract.
    (ii) Determining the change in value. The change in value of a 
complex contract is the difference between the value of the complex 
contract with respect to the underlying security at the time the 
complex contract is issued and the value of the complex contract with 
respect to the underlying security if the price of the underlying 
security were equal to the testing price at the time the complex 
contract is issued. The change in value of the initial hedge of a 
complex contract with respect to the underlying security is the 
difference between the value of the initial hedge at the time the 
complex contract is issued and the value of the initial hedge if the 
price of the underlying security were equal to the testing price at the 
time the complex contract is issued.
    (iii) Testing price. The testing prices must include the prices of 
the underlying security if the price of the underlying security at the 
time the complex contract is issued were alternatively increased by one 
standard deviation and decreased by one standard deviation, each of 
which is a separate testing price. In circumstances where using only 
two testing prices is reasonably likely to provide an inaccurate 
measure of substantial equivalence, a taxpayer must use additional 
testing prices as necessary to determine whether a complex contract 
satisfies the substantial equivalence test. If additional testing 
prices are used for the substantial equivalence test, the probabilities 
as described in paragraph (h)(4)(iv) of this section must be adjusted 
accordingly.
    (iv) Probability. For purposes of paragraphs (h)(4)(i)(D) and (E) 
of this section, the probability of an increase by one standard 
deviation is the measure of the likelihood that the price of the 
underlying security will increase by any amount from its price at the 
time the complex contract is issued. For purposes of paragraphs 
(h)(4)(i)(D) and (E) of this section, the probability of a decrease by 
one standard deviation is the measure of the likelihood that the price 
of the underlying security will decrease by any amount from its price 
at the time the complex contract is issued.
    (5) Benchmark calculation. The benchmark calculation with respect 
to each underlying security referenced by the potential section 871(m) 
transaction is determined by using the computation methodology 
described in paragraph (h)(4) of this section with respect to a simple 
contract benchmark for the underlying security.
    (6) Substantial equivalence calculation for certain complex 
contracts that reference multiple underlying securities. If a complex 
contract references 10 or more underlying securities and the short 
party uses an exchange-traded security (for example, an exchange-traded 
fund) that references substantially all of the underlying securities 
(the hedge security) to hedge the complex contract at the time it is 
issued, the substantial equivalence calculations for the complex 
contract may be calculated by treating the hedge security as the 
underlying security. When the hedge security is used for the 
substantial equivalence calculation pursuant to this paragraph (h)(6), 
the initial hedge is the number of shares of the hedge security for 
purposes of calculating the amount of a dividend equivalent as provided 
in paragraph (j)(1)(iii) of this section.
    (7) Example. The following example illustrates the rules of 
paragraph (h) of this section. For purposes of this example, Stock X is 
common stock of domestic corporation X. FI is the financial institution 
that structures the transaction described in the example, and is the 
short party to the transaction. Investor is a nonresident alien 
individual.

    Example. Complex contract that is not substantially equivalent. 
(i) FI issues an investment contract (the Contract) that has a 
stated maturity of one year, and Investor purchases the Contract 
from FI at issuance for $10,000. At maturity, the Contract entitles 
Investor to a return of $10,000 (i) plus 200 percent of any 
appreciation in Stock X above $100 per share, capped at $110, on 100 
shares or (ii) minus 100 percent of any depreciation in Stock X 
below $90 on 100 shares. At the time FI issues the Contract, the 
price of Stock X is $100 per share. Thus, for example, Investor will 
receive $11,000 if the price of Stock X is $105 per share at 
maturity of the Contract, but Investor will receive $9,000 if the 
price of Stock X is $80 per share when the Contract matures. At 
issuance, FI

[[Page 56887]]

acquires 64 shares of Stock X to fully hedge the Contract issued to 
Investor.
    (ii) The Contract references an underlying security and is not 
an NPC, so it is classified as an ELI under paragraph (a)(4) of this 
section. At issuance, the Contract does not provide for an amount 
paid at maturity that is calculated by reference to a single, fixed 
number of shares of Stock X. When the Contract matures, the amount 
paid is effectively calculated based on either 200 shares of Stock X 
(if the price of Stock X has appreciated up to $110) or 100 shares 
of Stock X (if the price of Stock X has declined below $90). 
Consequently, the Contract is a complex contract described in 
paragraph (a)(14) of this section.
    (iii) Because it is a complex ELI, FI applies the substantial 
equivalence test described in paragraph (h) of this section to 
determine whether the Contract is a specified ELI. FI determines 
that the price of Stock X would be $120 if the price of Stock X were 
increased by one standard deviation, and $79 if the price of Stock X 
were decreased by one standard deviation. Based on these results, FI 
next determines the change in value of the Contract to be $2,000 at 
the testing price that represents an increase by one standard 
deviation ($12,000 testing price minus $10,000 issue price) and a 
negative $1,100 at the testing price that represents a decrease by 
one standard deviation ($10,000 issue price minus $8,900 testing 
price). FI performs the same calculations for the 64 shares of Stock 
X that constitute the initial hedge, determining that the change in 
value of the initial hedge is $1,280 at the testing price that 
represents an increase by one standard deviation ($6,400 at issuance 
compared to $7,680 at the testing price) and negative $1,344 at the 
testing price that represents a decrease by one standard deviation 
($6,400 at issuance compared to $5,056 at the testing price).
    (iv) FI then determines the absolute value of the difference 
between the change in value of the initial hedge and the Contract at 
the testing price that represents an increase by one standard 
deviation and a decrease by one standard deviation. Increased by one 
standard deviation, the absolute value of the difference is $720 
($2,000 - $1,280); decreased by one standard deviation, the absolute 
value of the difference is $244 (negative $1,100 minus negative 
$1,344). FI determines that there is a 52% chance that the price of 
Stock X will have increased in value when the Contract matures and a 
48% chance that the price of Stock X will have decreased in value at 
that time. FI multiplies the absolute value of the difference 
between the change in value of the initial hedge and the Contract at 
the testing price that represents an increase by one standard 
deviation by 52%, which equals $374.40. FI multiplies the absolute 
value of the difference between the change in value of the initial 
hedge and the Contract at the testing price that represents a 
decrease by one standard deviation by 48%, which equals $117.12. FI 
adds these two numbers and divides by the number of shares that 
constitute the initial hedge to determine that the transaction 
calculation is 7.68 ((374.40 plus 117.12) divided by 64).
    (v) FI then performs the same calculation with respect to the 
simple contract benchmark, which is a one-year call option that 
references one share of Stock X, settles on the same date as the 
Contract, and has a delta of 0.8. The one-year call option has a 
strike price of $79 and has a cost (the purchase premium) of $22. 
The initial hedge for the one-year call option is 0.8 shares of 
Stock X.
    (vi) FI first determines that the change in value of the simple 
contract benchmark is $19.05 if the testing price is increased by 
one standard deviation ($22.00 at issuance to $41.05 at the testing 
price) and negative $20.95 if the testing price is decreased by one 
standard deviation ($22.00 at issuance to $1.05 at the testing 
price). Second, FI determines that the change in value of the 
initial hedge is $16.00 at the testing price that represents an 
increase by one standard deviation ($80 at issuance to $96 at the 
testing price) and negative $16.80 at the testing price that 
represents a decrease by one standard deviation ($80.00 at issuance 
to $63.20 at the testing price).
    (vii) FI determines the absolute value of the difference between 
the change in value of the initial hedge and the one-year call 
option at the testing price that represents an increase by one 
standard deviation is $3.05 ($16.00 minus $19.05). FI next 
determines the absolute value of the difference between the change 
in value of the initial hedge and the option at the testing price 
that represents a decrease by one standard deviation is $4.15 
(negative $16.80 minus negative $20.95). FI multiplies the absolute 
value of the difference between the change in value of the initial 
hedge and the option at the testing price that represents an 
increase by one standard deviation by 52%, which equals $1.586. FI 
multiplies the absolute value of the difference between the change 
in value of the initial hedge and the option at the testing price 
that represents a decrease by one standard deviation by 48%, which 
equals $1.992. FI adds these two numbers and divides by the number 
of shares that constitute the initial hedge to determine that the 
benchmark calculation is 4.473 ((1.586 plus 1.992) divided by .8).
    (viii) FI concludes that the Contract is not a section 871(m) 
transaction because the transaction calculation of 7.68 exceeds the 
benchmark calculation of 4.473.

    (i) through (p) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see Sec.  1.871-
15(i) through (p).
    (q) Dividend and dividend equivalent payments to a qualified 
derivatives dealer--(1) In general. Except as otherwise provided in 
this paragraph (q), a qualified derivatives dealer described in Sec.  
1.1441-1(e)(6) that receives a dividend or the payment of a dividend 
equivalent (within the meaning of paragraph (i) of this section) in its 
dealer capacity will not be liable for tax under section 871 or section 
881 provided that the qualified derivatives dealer complies with its 
obligations under the qualified intermediary agreement described in 
Sec. Sec.  1.1441-1(e)(5) and 1.1441-1(e)(6). If a qualified 
derivatives dealer receives a dividend or dividend equivalent payment 
on or determined by reference to an underlying security and the 
offsetting dividend equivalent payment the qualified derivatives dealer 
is contractually obligated to make on the same underlying security is 
less than the dividend and dividend equivalent amount received 
(including when the qualified derivatives dealer is not contractually 
obligated to make an offsetting dividend equivalent payment), the 
qualified derivatives dealer is liable for tax under section 871 or 
section 881 for the difference. For purposes of this paragraph (q), a 
dividend or dividend equivalent is not treated as received by a 
qualified derivatives dealer acting in its dealer capacity if the 
dividend or dividend equivalent is received by the qualified 
derivatives dealer acting as a proprietary trader. Transactions 
properly reflected in a qualified derivatives dealer's dealer book are 
presumed to be held by a dealer in its dealer capacity for purposes of 
this paragraph (q).
    (2) Examples. The following examples illustrate the rules of this 
paragraph (q):

    Example 1. Forward contract entered into by a foreign dealer. 
(i) Facts. FB is a foreign bank that is a qualified intermediary 
that acts as a qualified derivatives dealer. On April 1, Year 1, FB 
enters into a cash settled forward contract initiated by a foreign 
customer (Customer) that entitles Customer to receive from FB all of 
the appreciation and dividends on 100 shares of Stock X, and 
obligates Customer to pay FB any depreciation on 100 shares of Stock 
X, at the end of three years. FB hedges the forward contract by 
entering into a total return swap contract with a domestic broker 
(U.S. Broker) and maintains the swap contract as a hedge for the 
duration of the forward contract. The swap contract entitles FB to 
receive an amount equal to all of the dividends on 100 shares of 
Stock X and obligates FB to pay an amount referenced to a floating 
interest rate each quarter, and also entitles FB to receive from or 
pay to U.S. Broker, as the case may be, the difference between the 
value of 100 shares of Stock X at the inception of the swap and the 
value of 100 shares of Stock X at the end of 3 years. FB provides 
valid documentation to U.S. Broker that FB will receive payments 
under the swap contract in its capacity as a qualified derivatives 
dealer, and FB contemporaneously enters both the swap contract with 
U.S. Broker and the forward contract with Customer on its dealer 
books. Stock X pays a quarterly dividend of $0.25 per share.
    (ii) Application of rules. FB is a long party on a delta one 
contract (the total return swap) and a short party on a delta one 
contract (the forward contract with Customer). U.S. Broker is not 
obligated to withhold on the dividend equivalent payments to FB on 
the swap contract that are referenced to Stock X dividends, however, 
because U.S. Broker has

[[Page 56888]]

received valid documentation that it may rely upon to treat the 
payment as made to FB acting as a qualified derivatives dealer. 
Similarly, FB is not obligated to pay tax on the payments it 
receives from U.S. Broker referenced to Stock X dividends because at 
the time it received the payments FB was contractually obligated to 
make fully offsetting dividend equivalent payments as the short 
party with respect to 100 shares of Stock X to Customer. FB is 
required to withhold on dividend equivalent payments to Customer on 
the forward contract in accordance with Sec.  1.1441-2(e)(8).

    Example 2. At-the-money option contract entered into by a 
foreign dealer. (i) Facts. The facts are the same as Example 1, but 
customer purchases from FB an at-the-money call option on 100 shares 
of Stock X with a term of one year. The call option has a delta of 
0.5 and FB hedges the call option by purchasing 50 shares of Stock 
X, which are held in an account with U.S. Broker, who also acts as 
paying agent.
    (ii) Application of rules. FB is a long party on 50 shares of 
Stock X and a short party on an option. Because the option has a 
delta of less than 0.8 on the date it was issued, it is not a 
section 871(m) transaction. U.S. Broker is not obligated to withhold 
on the Stock X dividends paid to FB because U.S. Broker has received 
valid documentation that it may rely upon to treat the dividends as 
paid to FB acting as a qualified derivatives dealer. FB is liable 
for tax under section 871 or section 881 on the Stock X dividends it 
receives from U.S. Broker, however, because at the time it received 
the dividends FB was not contractually obligated to make an 
offsetting dividend equivalent payment to Customer. FB is not 
required to make an offsetting dividend equivalent payment to 
Customer because the option has a delta of 0.5; therefore, it is not 
a section 871(m) transaction.

    Example 3. In-the-money option contract entered into by a 
foreign dealer. (i) Facts. The facts are the same as Example 2, but 
Customer purchases from FB an in-the-money call option on 100 shares 
of Stock X with a term of one year. The call option has a delta of 
0.8 and FB hedges the call option by purchasing 80 shares of Stock 
X, which are held in an account with U.S. Broker, who also acts as 
paying agent. The price of Stock X declines substantially and the 
option lapses unexercised.
    (ii) Application of rules. FB is a long party on 80 shares of 
Stock X and a short party on an option. Because the option has a 
delta of 0.8 on the date it was issued, it is a section 871(m) 
transaction. U.S. Broker is not obligated to withhold on the Stock X 
dividends paid to FB because U.S. Broker has received valid 
documentation that it may rely upon to treat the dividends as paid 
to FB acting as a qualified derivatives dealer. Similarly, FB is not 
obligated to pay tax on the Stock X dividends it receives from U.S. 
Broker to the extent that FB is contractually obligated to make 
offsetting dividend equivalent payments as the short party to 
Customer. FB is required to withhold on dividend equivalent payments 
to Customer on the option contract in accordance with Sec.  1.1441-
2(e)(8). FB is also liable for tax under section 871 or section 881 
on Stock X dividends, if any, that exceed the dividend equivalent 
payment to Customer.

    (r)(1) through (3) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see Sec.  
1.871-15(r)(1) through (3).
    (4) Effective/applicability date. This section applies to payments 
made on or after January 1, 2017.
    (s) Expiration date. This section expires September 17, 2018.

0
Par. 5. Section 1.1441-1 is amended by:
0
1. Redesignating paragraph (b)(4)(xxi) as (b)(4)(xxiv).
0
2. Adding paragraphs (b)(4)(xxi) through (xxiii).
0
3. Adding new paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(E) and (6).
0
4. Adding new paragraph (f)(4).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  1.1441-1  Requirement for the deduction and withholding of tax on 
payments to foreign persons.

    (b) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (xxi) Amounts paid with respect to a notional principal contract 
described in Sec.  1.871-15(a)(7), an equity-linked instrument 
described in Sec.  1.871-15(a)(4), or a securities lending or sale-
repurchase transaction described in Sec.  1.871-15(a)(13) are exempt 
from withholding under section 1441(a) as dividend equivalents under 
section 871(m) if the transaction is not a section 871(m) transaction 
within the meaning of Sec.  1.871-15(a)(12), if the transaction is 
subject to the exception described in Sec.  1.871-15(k), or if the 
payment is not a dividend equivalent pursuant to Sec.  1.871-15(c)(2). 
However, the amounts may be subject to withholding under section 
1441(a) if they are subject to tax under any section other than section 
871(m). For purposes of this withholding exemption, it is not necessary 
for the payee to provide documentation establishing that a notional 
principal contract or equity-linked instrument has a delta (as 
described in Sec.  1.871-15(g)) that is less than 0.80 or does not have 
substantial equivalence (as defined in Sec.  1.871-15(h)) with the 
underlying security. For purposes of the withholding exemption 
regarding corporate acquisitions described in Sec.  1.871-15(k), the 
exemption only applies if the long party furnishes, under penalties of 
perjury, a written statement to the withholding agent certifying that 
it satisfies the requirements of Sec.  1.871-15(k).
    (xxii) Certain payments to qualified derivatives dealers (as 
described in paragraph (e)(6) of this section). For purposes of this 
withholding exemption, the qualified derivatives dealer must furnish to 
the withholding agent the documentation described in paragraph 
(e)(3)(ii) of this section. A withholding agent that makes a payment of 
a dividend or a divided equivalent to a qualified intermediary that is 
acting as a qualified derivatives dealer is not required to withhold on 
the payment if the withholding agent can reliably associate the payment 
with a valid qualified intermediary withholding certificate as 
described in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section, including the 
certification described in paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(E).
    (xxiii) Amounts paid with respect to a potential section 871(m) 
transaction that is only a section 871(m) transaction as a result of 
applying Sec.  1.871-15(n) to treat certain transactions as combined 
transactions, if the withholding agent is able to rely on one or more 
of the presumptions provided in Sec.  1.871-15(n)(3)(i) or (ii) 
(applying those paragraphs whether or not the withholding agent is a 
short party by substituting ``withholding agent'' for ``short party''), 
and the withholding agent does not otherwise have actual knowledge that 
the long party (or a related person within the meaning of section 
267(b) or section 707(b)) entered into the potential section 871(m) 
transaction in connection with any other potential section 871(m) 
transactions. The ability of one or more withholding agents to rely on 
the presumptions provided in section 1.871-15(n)(3) does not affect the 
withholding tax obligations or liability of any party to the 
transaction that cannot rely on the presumptions. Notwithstanding the 
withholding exemption provided to the withholding agent in this 
paragraph (b)(4)(xxii), the long party may still be liable for tax on 
dividend equivalent amounts with respect to such combined transactions 
under section 871(m).
    (e)(3)(ii)(E) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see Sec.  1.1441-
1T(e)(3)(ii)(E).
    (6) Qualified derivatives dealers. [Reserved]. For further 
guidance, see Sec.  1.1441-1T(e)(6).
    (f) * * *
    (4) Effective/applicability date. Paragraphs (b)(4)(xxi) through 
(b)(4)(xxiii) of this section, and paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(E) and (e)(6) 
of this section apply to payments made on or after September 18, 2015.

0
Par. 6. Section 1.1441-1T is amended by:
0
1. Redesignating paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(E) as paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(F).
0
2. Adding new paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(E) and (e)(6).
0
3. Revising paragraph (e)(5)(i).

[[Page 56889]]

0
4. Amending paragraph (f)(3) by removing ``This section'' and adding in 
its place ``Except for paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(E) and (e)(6), this 
section'' and adding a third sentence.
0
5. Amending paragraph (g) by removing ``The applicability'' and adding 
in its place ``Except for paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(E) and (e)(6), the 
applicability'' and adding a third sentence.


Sec.  1.1441-1T  Requirement for the deduction and withholding of tax 
on payments to foreign persons (temporary).

    (e) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (E) In the case of dividends or dividend equivalents received by a 
qualified intermediary acting as a qualified derivatives dealer, a 
certification that the qualified intermediary meets the requirements to 
act as a qualified derivatives dealer as further described in paragraph 
(e)(6) of this section and that the qualified derivatives dealer 
assumes primary withholding and reporting responsibilities under 
chapters 3, 4, and 61, and section 3406 with respect to any dividend 
equivalent payments;
    (5) Qualified intermediaries--(i) In general. A qualified 
intermediary, as defined in paragraph (e)(5)(ii) of this section, may 
furnish a qualified intermediary withholding certificate to a 
withholding agent. The withholding certificate provides certifications 
on behalf of other persons for the purpose of claiming and verifying 
reduced rates of withholding under section 1441 or 1442 and for the 
purpose of reporting and withholding under other provisions of the 
Internal Revenue Code, such as the provisions under chapter 61 and 
section 3406 (and the regulations under those provisions). Furnishing 
such a certificate is in lieu of transmitting to a withholding agent 
withholding certificates or other appropriate documentation for the 
persons for whom the qualified intermediary receives the payment, 
including interest holders in a qualified intermediary that is fiscally 
transparent under the regulations under section 894. Although the 
qualified intermediary is required to obtain withholding certificates 
or other appropriate documentation from beneficial owners, payees, or 
interest holders pursuant to its agreement with the IRS, it is 
generally not required to attach such documentation to the intermediary 
withholding certificate. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a 
qualified intermediary must provide a withholding agent with the Forms 
W-9, or disclose the names, addresses, and taxpayer identifying 
numbers, if known, of those U.S. non-exempt recipients for whom the 
qualified intermediary receives reportable amounts (within the meaning 
of paragraph (e)(3)(vi) of this section) to the extent required in the 
qualified intermediary's agreement with the IRS. When a qualified 
intermediary is acting as a qualified derivatives dealer, the 
withholding certificate entitles a withholding agent to make payments 
of dividend equivalents and dividends to the qualified derivatives 
dealer free of withholding. Paragraph (e)(6) of this section contains 
detailed rules prescribing the circumstances in which a qualified 
intermediary can act as a qualified derivatives dealer. A person may 
claim qualified intermediary status before an agreement is executed 
with the IRS if it has applied for such status and the IRS authorizes 
such status on an interim basis under such procedures as the IRS may 
prescribe.
    (6) Qualified derivatives dealers--(i) In general. To act as a 
qualified derivatives dealer under a qualified intermediary agreement, 
a qualified intermediary must be an eligible entity as described in 
paragraph (e)(6)(ii) of this section and, in accordance with the 
qualified intermediary agreement, must--
    (A) Furnish to a withholding agent a qualified intermediary 
withholding certificate (described in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this 
section) that indicates that the qualified intermediary is a qualified 
derivatives dealer with respect to the applicable dividends and 
dividend equivalent payments;
    (B) Agree to assume the primary withholding and reporting 
responsibilities, including the documentation provisions under chapters 
3, 4, and 61, and section 3406, the regulations under those provisions, 
and other withholding provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, on all 
dividends and dividend equivalents that it receives and makes in its 
dealer capacity. For this purpose, a qualified derivatives dealer is 
required to obtain a withholding certificate or other appropriate 
documentation from each counterparty to whom the qualified derivatives 
dealer pays a dividend equivalent. The qualified derivatives dealer is 
also required to determine whether a payment it makes to a counterparty 
is, in whole or in part, a dividend equivalent;
    (C) Agree to remain liable for tax under section 871 and section 
881 on any dividend or payment of a dividend equivalent (within the 
meaning of Sec.  1.871-15(i)) it receives in its dealer capacity to the 
extent that the offsetting dividend equivalent payment on an underlying 
security the qualified derivatives dealer is contractually obligated to 
make is less than the dividend and dividend equivalent amount the 
qualified derivatives dealers received on or with respect to the same 
underlying security (including when the qualified derivatives dealer is 
not contractually obligated to make an offsetting dividend equivalent 
payment); and
    (D) Comply with the compliance review procedures applicable to a 
qualified intermediary that acts as a qualified derivatives dealer 
under a qualified intermediary agreement, which will specify the time 
and manner in which a qualified derivatives dealer must:
    (1) Certify to the IRS that it has complied with the obligations to 
act as a qualified derivatives dealer (including its performance of a 
periodic review applicable to a qualified derivatives dealer);
    (2) Report to the IRS the dividend equivalent payments that it made 
and the dividends and dividend equivalent amounts received in 
determining offsetting payments (as described in Sec.  1.871-15(q)(1)); 
and
    (3) Respond to inquiries from the IRS about obligations it has 
assumed as a qualified derivatives dealer in a timely manner.
    (ii) Definition of eligible entity. An eligible entity is a 
qualified intermediary that is--
    (A) A dealer in securities subject to regulatory supervision as a 
dealer by a governmental authority in the jurisdiction in which it was 
organized or operates; or
    (B) A bank subject to regulatory supervision as a bank by a 
governmental authority in the jurisdiction in which it was organized or 
operates or an entity that is wholly-owned by a bank subject to 
regulatory supervision as a bank by a governmental authority in the 
jurisdiction in which it was organized or operates and that--
    (1) Issues potential section 871(m) transactions to customers; and
    (2) Receives dividends with respect to stock or dividend equivalent 
payments pursuant to potential section 871(m) transactions that hedge 
potential section 871(m) transactions that it issued.
    (iii) Crediting prior withholding to a subsequent dividend 
equivalent payment. [Reserved].
    (f)(3) * * * Paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(E) and (e)(6) apply beginning 
September 18, 2015.
    (g) * * * Paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(E) and (e)(6) of this section 
expire September 17, 2018.

[[Page 56890]]

0
Par. 7. Section 1.1441-2 is amended by adding paragraph (e)(8) and 
adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  1.1441-2  Amounts subject to withholding.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (8) Payments of dividend equivalents--(i) In general. A payment of 
a dividend equivalent is not considered to be made until the later of 
when--
    (A) The amount of a dividend equivalent is determined as provided 
in Sec.  1.871-15(j)(2), and
    (B) A payment occurs with respect to the section 871(m) 
transaction.
    (ii) Payment. For purposes of paragraph (e)(8) of this section, a 
payment occurs with respect to a section 871(m) transaction when--
    (A) Money or other property is paid to or by the long party;
    (B) In the case of a section 871(m) transaction described in Sec.  
1.871-15(i)(3), a payment is treated as being made at the end of the 
applicable calendar quarter; or
    (C) The long party sells, exchanges, transfers, or otherwise 
disposes of the section 871(m) transaction (including by settlement, 
offset, termination, expiration, lapse, or maturity).
    (iii) Premiums and other upfront payments. When a long party pays a 
premium or other upfront payment to the short party at the time a 
section 871(m) transaction is issued, the premium or other upfront 
payment is not treated as a payment for purposes of paragraph 
(e)(8)(ii)(A) of this section.
* * * * *
    (f) * * * Paragraph (e)(8) of this section applies to payments made 
on or after September 18, 2015.

0
Par. 8. Section 1.1441-3 is amended by:
0
1. Adding a second sentence to paragraph (h)(1).
0
2. Redesignating paragraph (h)(2) as (h)(3) and revising newly 
redesignated paragraph (h)(3).
0
3. Adding new paragraph (h)(2).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  1.1441-3  Determination of amounts to be withheld.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) * * * Withholding is required on the amount of the dividend 
equivalent calculated under Sec.  1.871-15(j).
    (2) Reliance by withholding agent on reasonable determinations. For 
purposes of determining whether a payment is a dividend equivalent and 
the timing and amount of a dividend equivalent under section 871(m), a 
withholding agent may rely on the information received from the party 
to the transaction that is required (as provided in Sec.  1.871-15(p)) 
to make those determinations, unless the withholding agent knows or has 
reason to know that the information is incorrect. When a withholding 
agent fails to withhold the required amount because the party described 
in Sec.  1.871-15(p) fails to reasonably determine or timely provide 
information regarding whether a transaction is a section 871(m) 
transaction, the timing and amount of any dividend equivalent, or any 
other information required to be provided pursuant to Sec.  1.871-
15(p), and the withholding agent relied, absent actual knowledge to the 
contrary, on that party's determination or did not timely receive 
required information, then the failure to withhold is imputed to the 
party required to make the determinations described in Sec.  1.871-
15(p). In that case, the IRS may collect any underwithheld amount from 
the party to the transaction that was required to make the 
determinations described in Sec.  1.871-15(p) or timely provide the 
information and subject that party to applicable interest and penalties 
as if the party were a withholding agent with respect to the payment of 
the dividend equivalent made pursuant to the section 871(m) 
transaction.
    (3) Effective/applicability date. Except for the first sentence of 
paragraph (h)(1), this paragraph (h) applies to payments made on or 
after September 18, 2015. The first sentence of paragraph (h)(1) of 
this section, applies to payments made on or after January 23, 2012.
* * * * *

0
Par. 9. Section 1.1441-7 is amended by:
0
1. Adding Example 7 to paragraph (a)(3).
0
2. Adding a second sentence to paragraph (a)(4).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  1.1441-7  General provisions relating to withholding agents.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *

    Example 7.  CO is a domestic clearing organization. CO serves as 
a central counterparty clearing and settlement service provider for 
derivatives exchanges in the United States. CB is a broker organized 
in Country X, a foreign country, and a clearing member of CO. CB is 
a nonqualified intermediary, as defined in Sec.  1.1441-1(c)(14). FC 
is a foreign corporation that has an investment account with CB. FC 
instructs CB to purchase a call option that is a specified ELI (as 
described in Sec.  1.871-15(e)). CB effects the trade for FC on the 
exchange. The exchange matches FC's order with an order for a 
written call option with the same terms. The exchange then sends the 
matched trade to CO, which clears the trade. CB and the clearing 
member representing the call option seller settle the trade with CO. 
Upon receiving the matched trade, the option contracts are novated 
and CO becomes the counterparty to CB and the counterparty to the 
clearing member representing the call option seller. To the extent 
that there is a dividend equivalent with respect to the call option, 
both CO and CB are withholding agents as described in paragraph 
(a)(1) of this section.

    (4) * * * Example 7 of paragraph (a)(3) of this section applies to 
payments made on or after September 18, 2015.
* * * * *

0
Par. 10. Section 1.1461-1 is amended by:
0
1. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(N) as (c)(2)(i)(O) and 
(c)(2)(i)(M) as (c)(2)(i)(N).
0
2. Adding paragraph (c)(2)(i)(M).
0
3. Redesignating paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(K) as (c)(2)(ii)(L) and 
redesignating paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(J) as (c)(2)(ii)(K)
0
4. Adding paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(J).


Sec.  1.1461-1  Payments and returns of tax withheld.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (M) Any dividend or any payment that references the payment of a 
dividend from an underlying security pursuant to a securities lending 
or sale-repurchase transaction paid to a qualified derivatives dealer 
even when the withholding agent is not required to withhold on the 
payment pursuant to Sec.  1.1441-1(b)(4)(xxi), (xxii), or (xxiii);
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (J) Except as provided in Sec.  1.1461-1(c)(2)(i)(M), any payment 
to a qualified derivatives dealer when the withholding agent is not 
required to withhold on the payment pursuant to Sec.  1.1441-
1(b)(4)(xxi), (xxii), or (xxiii);
* * * * *

0
Par. 11. Section 1.1473-1 is amended by:
0
1. Adding new paragraph (a)(4)(viii).
0
2. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (f).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  1.1473-1  Section 1473 definitions.

    (a) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (viii) Certain dividend equivalents. Amounts paid with respect to a 
notional principal contract described in Sec.  1.871-

[[Page 56891]]

15(a)(7), an equity-linked instrument described in Sec.  1.871-
15(a)(4), or a securities lending or sale-repurchase transaction 
described in Sec.  1.871-15(a)(13) that are exempt from withholding 
under section 1441(a) as dividend equivalents under section 871(m) if 
the transaction is not a section 871(m) transaction within the meaning 
of Sec.  1.871-15(a)(12), if the transaction is subject to the 
exception described in Sec.  1.871-15(k), or to the extent the payment 
is not a dividend equivalent pursuant to Sec.  1.871-15(c)(2).
* * * * *
    (f) * * * Paragraph (a)(4)(viii) of this section applies to 
payments made on or after September 18, 2015.

John Dalrymple,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
    Approved: July 20, 2015.
Mark J. Mazur,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy).
[FR Doc. 2015-21759 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P