Definition of Political Subdivision, 8870-8874 [2016-03790]
Download as PDF
8870
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules
a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–
129067–15), Courier’s Desk, Internal
Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or sent
electronically via the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov (REG–129067–15).
The public hearing will be held at the
Internal Revenue Building, 1111
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Concerning the proposed regulations,
Spence Hanemann at (202) 317–6980;
concerning submissions of comments
and the hearing, Oluwafunmilayo
(Funmi) Taylor at (202) 317–6901 (not
toll-free numbers).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Treasury Department and IRS
recognize the need to clarify the
definition of political subdivision to
provide greater certainty to prospective
issuers and to promote greater
consistency in how the definition is
applied across a wide range of factual
situations. These proposed regulations
(the Proposed Regulations) would
provide a new definition of political
subdivision for purposes of tax-exempt
bonds and would update and streamline
other portions of the Existing
Regulations. The definition of political
subdivision in the Proposed Regulations
does not apply in determining whether
an entity is treated as a political
subdivision of a State for purposes of
section 414(d) of the Code.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Background
Explanation of Provisions
Internal Revenue Service
This document contains proposed
amendments to 26 CFR part 1 under
section 103 of the Internal Revenue
Code (Code). Section 103 generally
provides that, with certain exceptions,
gross income does not include interest
on any obligation of a State or political
subdivision thereof. Section 1.103–1 of
the Income Tax Regulations (the
Existing Regulations) defines political
subdivision as ‘‘any division of any
State or local governmental unit which
is a municipal corporation or which has
been delegated the right to exercise part
of the sovereign power of the unit.’’
On a few occasions, Federal courts
have ruled on whether an entity
qualifies as a political subdivision. E.g.,
Philadelphia Nat’l Bank v. United
States, 666 F.2d 834 (3d Cir. 1981);
Comm’r of Internal Revenue v. White’s
Estate, 144 F.2d 1019 (2d Cir. 1944).
The IRS has also addressed this issue in
revenue rulings, most recently in 1983.
E.g., Rev. Rul. 83–131 (1983–2 CB 184);
Rev. Rul. 78–138 (1978–1 CB 314).
Because the results in these revenue
rulings generally turn on the unique
facts and circumstances of the
individual cases, numerous entities
have sought and received letter rulings
on whether they are political
subdivisions. Letter rulings, however,
are limited to their particular facts, may
not be relied upon by taxpayers other
than the taxpayer that received the
ruling, and are not a substitute for
published guidance. See 26 U.S.C.
6110(k)(3) (2015) (providing generally
that a ruling, determination letter, or
technical advice memorandum may not
be used or cited as precedent).
Commenters have requested
additional published guidance, to be
applied prospectively, on which facts
and circumstances are germane to an
entity’s status as a political subdivision.
1. Definition of Political Subdivision
proposed rule until April 25, 2016. We
believe that an additional 60-day period
allows adequate time for interested
persons to submit comments without
significantly delaying rulemaking on
these important issues. The period for
comments regarding information
collection issues under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 remains
unchanged, where comments were to be
submitted until February 22, 2016 (see
81 FR 3751, January 22, 2016).
Dated: February 18, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016–03716 Filed 2–22–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
26 CFR Part 1
[REG–129067–15]
RIN 1545–BM99
Definition of Political Subdivision
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
and notice of public hearing.
AGENCY:
This document contains
proposed regulations that provide
guidance regarding the definition of
political subdivision for purposes of taxexempt bonds. The proposed
regulations are necessary to specify the
elements of a political subdivision. The
proposed regulations will affect State
and local governments that issue taxexempt bonds and users of property
financed with tax-exempt bonds. Under
certain transition rules, however, the
proposed definition of political
subdivision will not apply for
determining whether outstanding bonds
are obligations of a political subdivision
and will not apply to existing entities
for a transition period. This document
also provides a notice of a public
hearing for these proposed regulations.
DATES: Written or electronic comments
must be received by May 23, 2016.
Request to speak and outlines of topics
to be discussed at the public hearing
scheduled for June 6, 2016, at 10:00
a.m., must be received by May 23, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Send submissions to:
CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–129067–15),
Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box
7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington,
DC 20044. Submissions may be hand
delivered to: CC:PA:LPD:PR Monday
through Friday between the hours of 8
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Feb 22, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The Proposed Regulations clarify and
further develop the eligibility
requirements for a political subdivision.
To qualify as a political subdivision
under the Proposed Regulations, an
entity must meet three requirements,
taking into account all of the facts and
circumstances: sovereign powers,
governmental purpose, and
governmental control. The Proposed
Regulations also authorize the
Commissioner to set forth in future
guidance to be published in the Internal
Revenue Bulletin additional
circumstances in which an entity
qualifies as a political subdivision.
A. Sovereign Powers
The Proposed Regulations continue,
without substantive change, the
longstanding requirement that a
political subdivision be empowered to
exercise at least one of the generally
recognized sovereign powers. The three
sovereign powers recognized for this
purpose are eminent domain, police
power, and taxing power. See Comm’r
of Internal Revenue v. Shamberg’s
Estate, 144 F.2d 998 (2d Cir. 1944). The
entity must be able to exercise a
substantial amount of at least one of
these powers. See, e.g., Rev. Rul. 77–164
(1977–1 CB 20); Rev. Rul. 77–165
(1977–1 CB 21).
B. Governmental Purpose
In determining whether an entity is a
political subdivision, the case law and
administrative guidance interpreting the
definition of political subdivision in the
Existing Regulations commonly
consider whether the entity serves a
public purpose. Historically, the
determination of whether an entity
serves a public purpose has focused on
the purpose for which the entity was
E:\FR\FM\23FEP1.SGM
23FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules
created, usually as set forth in the
legislation authorizing creation of the
entity, rather than on the entity’s
conduct after its creation. See, e.g.,
Shamberg’s Estate, 144 F.2d at 1004.
The Proposed Regulations require that a
political subdivision serve a
governmental purpose. A governmental
purpose requires, among other things,
that the purpose for which the entity
was created, as set out in its enabling
legislation, be a public purpose and that
the entity actually serve that purpose. It
also requires that the entity operate in
a manner that provides a significant
public benefit with no more than
incidental benefit to private persons.
Cf., Rev. Rul. 90–74 (1990–2 CB 34)
(applying an ‘‘incidental private
benefit’’ standard for purposes of
determining whether income is
included in gross income under section
115(1)).
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Governmental Control
The Proposed Regulations provide
that a political subdivision must be
governmentally controlled. The
Proposed Regulations provide rules for
determining both what constitutes
control and which parties must possess
that control.
i. Definition of Control
The Proposed Regulations define
control to mean ongoing rights or
powers to direct significant actions of
the entity. Rights or powers to direct the
entity’s actions only at a particular point
in time are not ongoing and, therefore,
do not constitute control. For example,
the right to approve an entity’s plan of
operation as a condition of the entity’s
formation is not an ongoing right. To
constitute control, a collection of rights
and powers must enable its holder to
direct the significant actions of the
entity.
The Proposed Regulations provide
three non-exclusive benchmarks of
rights or powers that constitute control:
(1) The right or power both to approve
and to remove a majority of an entity’s
governing body; (2) the right or power
to elect a majority of the governing body
of the entity in periodic elections of
reasonable frequency; or (3) the right or
power to approve or direct the
significant uses of funds or assets of the
entity in advance of that use. Aside from
these three arrangements, the
determination of whether a collection of
rights and powers constitutes control
will depend on the facts and
circumstances. Neither the right to
dissolve an entity nor procedures
designed to ensure the integrity of the
entity but not to direct significant
actions of the entity are control. Cf.,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Feb 22, 2016
Jkt 238001
Rev. Rul. 69–453 (1969–2 CB 182)
(addressing procedures that do not
constitute control in the context of
instrumentalities).
ii. Control Vested in a State or Local
Governmental Unit or an Electorate
Control by a small faction of private
individuals, business corporations,
trusts, partnerships, or other persons is
fundamentally not governmental
control. Therefore, the Proposed
Regulations generally require that
control be vested in either a general
purpose State or local governmental
unit or in an electorate established
under an applicable State or local law
of general application. If, however, a
small faction of private persons controls
an electorate, that electorate’s control of
the entity does not constitute
governmental control of the entity.
Accordingly, the Proposed Regulations
provide that an entity controlled by an
electorate is not governmentally
controlled when the outcome of the
exercise of control is determined solely
by the votes of an unreasonably small
number of private persons.
The determination of whether the
number of private persons controlling
an electorate is unreasonably small
generally depends on all of the facts and
circumstances. To provide certainty, the
Proposed Regulations limit application
of this facts and circumstances test to
situations that fall between two
quantitative measures of concentration
in voting power. The number of private
persons controlling an electorate is
always unreasonably small if the
combined votes of the three voters with
the largest shares of votes in the
electorate will determine the outcome of
the relevant election, regardless of how
the other voters vote. The number of
private persons controlling an electorate
is never unreasonably small if
determining the outcome of the relevant
election requires the combined votes of
more voters than the 10 voters with the
largest shares of votes in the electorate.
For example, control can always be
vested in any electorate comprised of 20
or more voters that each have the right
to cast one vote in the relevant election
without giving rise to a private faction.
For purposes of applying these
measures of concentration in voting
power, related parties are treated as a
single voter and the votes of the related
parties are aggregated.
iii. Possible Relief for Development
Districts
Some observers have suggested that,
despite private control, development
districts should be political
subdivisions during an initial
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8871
development period in which one or
two private developers elect the
district’s governing body and no other
governmental control exists. The
Treasury Department and IRS recognize
that the governmental control
requirement may present challenges for
such development districts. In these
circumstances, the Treasury Department
and IRS are concerned about the
potential for excessive private control
by individual developers, the attendant
impact of excessive issuance of taxexempt bonds, and inappropriate
private benefits from this Federal
subsidy. The Treasury Department and
IRS seek public comment on whether it
is necessary or appropriate to permit
such districts to be political
subdivisions during an initial
development period; how such relief
might be structured; what specific
safeguards might be included in the
recommended relief to protect against
potential abuse; and whether the
proposed prospective effective dates
and transition periods in § 1.103–1(d) of
the Proposed Regulations provide
sufficient relief.
2. Streamlining Amendments
In addition to amending the definition
of political subdivision, paragraphs (a)
and (b) of the Proposed Regulations
update the references in the general
provisions of the Existing Regulations to
reflect changes to the Code made in the
Tax Reform Act of 1986, Public Law 99–
514, 100 Stat. 2085, and other laws and
regulations since the promulgation of
the longstanding Existing Regulations.
The Proposed Regulations also
streamline these provisions. In general,
the Treasury Department and the IRS
intend that these proposed amendments
not change the meaning of the Existing
Regulations. The last sentence of
§ 1.103–1(a) of the Proposed
Regulations, however, clarifies that the
continued tax-exemption of an issue of
bonds depends on its issuer’s continued
status as a qualifying issuer of taxexempt bonds. The Treasury
Department and IRS seek comments on
the need for remedial action provisions
in the event the entity ceases to qualify
as a political subdivision and on the
substance of any such provisions.
3. Applicability Dates and Reliance on
Proposed Regulations
Subject to certain transition rules, the
Proposed Regulations generally would
apply to all entities for all purposes of
the tax-exempt bond provisions of
sections 103 and 141 to 150 beginning
90 days after the Proposed Regulations
are finalized. In order to ease hardship
that may arise from the new definition
E:\FR\FM\23FEP1.SGM
23FEP1
8872
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
of political subdivision, under proposed
transition rules, that definition would
not apply for purposes of determining
whether outstanding bonds and
refunding bonds in which the weighted
average maturity is not extended
continue to be obligations of a political
subdivision. While these transition rules
for outstanding bonds and refunding
bonds would apply for the purpose of
determining whether these bonds
continue to be obligations of a political
subdivision, the new proposed
definition of political subdivision
would apply for other purposes under
sections 103 and 141 to 150, such as
whether a new entity that subsequently
became a user of a project financed with
such bonds qualified as a State or local
governmental unit for purposes of
section 141. Furthermore, under another
proposed transition rule that would
apply to entities in existence prior to 30
days after the Proposed Regulations are
published, the proposed definition of
political subdivision would not apply
for any purpose until three years and
ninety days after the Proposed
Regulations are finalized. This threeyear transition period provides existing
entities an opportunity to restructure as
necessary to satisfy the new definition
of political subdivision and allows
existing entities to continue to issue
new bonds during the transition period.
To enhance certainty, an issuer also may
choose to apply the definition of
political subdivision in § 1.103–1(c) in
the final regulations in circumstances in
which that definition otherwise would
not apply under the transition rules.
In addition, prior to the applicability
date of the final regulations, issuers may
elect to apply the definition of political
subdivision in § 1.103–1(c) of the
Proposed Regulations in whole, but not
in part, for any purpose of sections 103
and 141 through 150, provided such use
is applied consistently for all purposes
of sections 103 and 141 through 150 to
any given entity.
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, and
because these regulations do not impose
a collection of information on small
entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply.
Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code,
this notice of proposed rulemaking has
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Feb 22, 2016
Jkt 238001
been submitted to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for comment on its
impact on small entities.
Comments and Public Hearing
Before these Proposed Regulations are
adopted as final regulations,
consideration will be given to any
comments that are submitted timely to
the IRS as prescribed in this preamble
under the ‘‘Addresses’’ heading. The
Treasury Department and the IRS
request comments on all aspects of the
proposed rules. All comments will be
available at www.regulations.gov or
upon request.
A public hearing has been scheduled
for June 6, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., in the
Auditorium of the Internal Revenue
Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC. Due to building
security procedures, visitors must enter
at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In
addition, all visitors must present photo
identification to enter the building.
Because of access restrictions, visitors
will not be admitted beyond the
immediate entrance area more than 30
minutes before the hearing starts. For
more information about having your
name placed on the building access list
to attend the hearing, see the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble.
The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3)
apply to the hearing. Persons who wish
to present oral comments at the hearing
must submit an outline of the topics to
be discussed and the time to be devoted
to each topic by May 23, 2016. Submit
a signed paper or electronic copy of the
outline as prescribed in this preamble
under the ‘‘Addresses’’ heading. A
period of 10 minutes will be allotted to
each person for making comments. An
agenda showing the scheduling of the
speakers will be prepared after the
deadline for receiving outlines has
passed. Copies of the agenda will be
available free of charge at the hearing.
Drafting Information
The principal authors of these
regulations are Spence Hanemann and
Timothy Jones, Office of Associate Chief
Counsel (Financial Institutions and
Products), IRS. However, other
personnel from the IRS and the Treasury
Department participated in their
development.
Availability of IRS Documents
IRS revenue rulings cited in this
notice of proposed rulemaking are made
available by the Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC 20402.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Proposed Amendments to the
Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 1—INCOME TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority citation
for part 1 continues to read in part as
follows:
■
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Par. 2. Section 1.103–1 is revised to
read as follows:
■
§ 1.103–1
Interest on State or local bonds.
(a) Interest on State or local bonds.
Under section 103(a), except as
otherwise provided in section 103(b),
gross income does not include interest
on any State or local bond. Under
section 103(c), the term State or local
bond means any obligation (as defined
in § 1.150–1(b)) of a State (including for
this purpose the District of Columbia or
any possession of the United States) or
a political subdivision thereof (a State or
local governmental unit). Obligations
issued by or on behalf of any State or
local governmental unit by a constituted
authority empowered to issue such
obligations are the obligations of such a
unit. An obligation qualifies as a State
or local bond so long as the issuer of
that obligation remains a State or local
governmental unit or a constituted
authority.
(b) Certain limitations on interest
exclusion. Under section 103(b), the
interest exclusion in section 103(a) is
inapplicable to a private activity bond
under section 141(a) (unless the bond is
a qualified bond under section 141(e)),
an arbitrage bond under section 148, or
a bond which does not meet the
applicable requirements of section 149.
(c) Definition of political
subdivision—(1) In general. The term
political subdivision means an entity
that meets each of the requirements of
paragraphs (c)(2) (sovereign powers),
(c)(3) (governmental purpose), and (c)(4)
(governmental control) of this section,
taking into account all of the facts and
circumstances, or that is described in
published guidance issued pursuant to
paragraph (c)(5) of this section. Entities
that may qualify as political
subdivisions include, among others,
general purpose governmental entities,
such as cities and counties (whether or
not incorporated as municipal
corporations), and special purpose
governmental entities, such as special
assessment districts that provide for
E:\FR\FM\23FEP1.SGM
23FEP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules
roads, water, sewer, gas, light,
reclamation, drainage, irrigation, levee,
school, harbor, port improvements, and
other governmental purposes for a State
or local governmental unit.
(2) Sovereign powers. Pursuant to a
State or local law of general application,
the entity has a delegated right to
exercise a substantial amount of at least
one of the following recognized
sovereign powers of a State or local
governmental unit: The power of
taxation, the power of eminent domain,
and police power.
(3) Governmental purpose. The entity
serves a governmental purpose. The
determination of whether an entity
serves a governmental purpose is based
on, among other things, whether the
entity carries out the public purposes
that are set forth in the entity’s enabling
legislation and whether the entity
operates in a manner that provides a
significant public benefit with no more
than incidental private benefit.
(4) Governmental control. A State or
local governmental unit exercises
control over the entity. For this purpose,
control is defined in paragraph (c)(4)(i)
of this section and a State or local
governmental unit exercises such
control only if the control is vested in
persons described in paragraph (c)(4)(ii)
of this section.
(i) Definition of control. Control
means an ongoing right or power to
direct significant actions of the entity.
Rights or powers may establish control
either individually or in the aggregate.
Among rights or powers that may
establish control, an ongoing ability to
exercise one or more of the following
significant rights or powers, on a
discretionary and non-ministerial basis,
constitutes control: the right or power
both to approve and to remove a
majority of the governing body of the
entity; the right or power to elect a
majority of the governing body of the
entity in periodic elections of
reasonable frequency; or the right or
power to approve or direct the
significant uses of funds or assets of the
entity in advance of that use. Procedures
designed to ensure the integrity of the
entity but not to direct significant
actions of the entity are insufficient to
constitute control of an entity. Examples
of such procedures include
requirements for submission of audited
financial statements of the entity to a
higher level State or local governmental
unit, open meeting requirements, and
conflicts of interest limitations.
(ii) Control vested in a State or local
governmental unit or an electorate.
Control is vested in persons described
in paragraphs (c)(4)(ii)(A) or (c)(4)(ii)(B)
of this section or a combination thereof:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Feb 22, 2016
Jkt 238001
(A) A State or local governmental unit
possessing a substantial amount of each
of the sovereign powers and acting
through its governing body or through
its duly authorized elected or appointed
officials in their official capacities; or
(B) An electorate established under
applicable State or local law of general
application, provided the electorate is
not a private faction (as defined in
paragraph (c)(4)(iii) of this section).
(iii) Definition of private faction—(A)
In general. A private faction is any
electorate if the outcome of the exercise
of control described in paragraph
(c)(4)(i) of this section is determined
solely by the votes of an unreasonably
small number of private persons. The
determination of whether a number of
such private persons is unreasonably
small depends on all of the facts and
circumstances, including, without
limitation, the entity’s governmental
purpose, the number of members in the
electorate, the relationships of the
members of the electorate to one
another, the manner of apportionment
of votes within the electorate, and the
extent to which the members of the
electorate adequately represent the
interests of persons reasonably affected
by the entity’s actions. For purposes of
this definition, the special rules in
paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(B) through (D) of
this section apply.
(B) Treatment of certain limited
electorates as private factions. An
electorate is a private faction if any
three private persons that are members
of the electorate possess, in the
aggregate, a majority of the votes
necessary to determine the outcome of
the relevant exercise of control.
(C) Safe harbor—voting power
dispersed among more than 10 persons.
An electorate is not a private faction if
the smallest number of private persons
who can combine votes to establish a
majority of the votes necessary to
determine the outcome of the relevant
exercise of control is greater than 10
persons. For example, if an electorate
consists of 20 private persons with
equal, five-percent shares of the total
votes, that electorate is not a private
faction because a minimum of 11
members of that electorate is necessary
to have a majority of the votes. By
contrast, for example, if an electorate
consists of 20 private persons with
unequal voting shares in which some
combination of 10 or fewer members has
a majority of the votes, then that
electorate does not qualify for the safe
harbor from treatment as a private
faction under this paragraph
(c)(4)(iii)(C).
(D) Operating rules. The following
rules apply for purposes of determining
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8873
numbers of voters and voting control in
paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(B) and (C) of this
section:
(1) Related parties (as defined in
§ 1.150–1(b)) are treated as a single
person; and
(2) In computing the number of votes
necessary to determine the outcome of
the relevant exercise of control, all
voters entitled to vote in an election are
assumed to cast all votes to which they
are entitled.
(5) Authority of the Commissioner. In
guidance published in the Internal
Revenue Bulletin, the Commissioner
may set forth additional circumstances
in which an entity qualifies as a
political subdivision of a State or local
governmental unit. See
§ 601.601(d)(2)(ii) of this chapter.
(d) Applicability dates—(1) In general.
Except as otherwise provided in
paragraphs (d)(2) through (4) of this
section, this section applies to all
entities for all purposes of sections 103
and 141 through 150 beginning on the
date 90 days after the publication of the
Treasury decision adopting these rules
as final regulations in the Federal
Register.
(2) Applicability date of the definition
of political subdivision for outstanding
bonds. For purposes of determining
whether outstanding bonds of an entity
are obligations of a political subdivision
under section 103, the definition of
political subdivision in paragraph (c) of
this section does not apply to that entity
with respect to its outstanding bonds
that are issued before the general
applicability date under paragraph
(d)(1) of this section.
(3) Applicability date of the definition
of political subdivision for refunding
bonds. For purposes of determining
whether refunding bonds of an entity
are obligations of a political subdivision
under section 103, the definition of
political subdivision in paragraph (c) of
this section does not apply to that entity
with respect to its refunding bonds that
are issued on or after the general
applicability date under paragraph
(d)(1) of this section to refund bonds
with respect to which paragraph (c) of
this section otherwise does not apply,
provided that the weighted average
maturity of the refunding bonds is no
longer than the remaining weighted
average maturity of the refunded bonds.
(4) Applicability date of the definition
of political subdivision for existing
entities. For existing entities that are
created or organized before March 24,
2016, the definition of political
subdivision in paragraph (c) of this
section does not apply for any purpose
of sections 103 and 141 to 150 during
the three-year period beginning on the
E:\FR\FM\23FEP1.SGM
23FEP1
8874
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules
general applicability date under
paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(5) Elective application of definition
of political subdivision. An issuer may
choose to apply the definition of
political subdivision in paragraph (c) of
this section to an issue of bonds in
circumstances in which that section
otherwise would not apply to that issue
under paragraph (d)(2) or (3) of this
section, provided that choice is applied
consistently to the issue. An entity may
choose to apply the definition of
political subdivision in paragraph (c) of
this section to an entity in
circumstances in which that section
otherwise would not apply to that entity
under paragraph (d)(4) of this section,
provided that choice is applied
consistently to the entity.
John Dalrymple,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2016–03790 Filed 2–22–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 160105011–6011–01]
RIN 0648–XE390
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife;
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List
Three Manta Rays as Threatened or
Endangered Under the Endangered
Species Act
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: 90-day petition finding; request
for information.
AGENCY:
We, NMFS, announce a 90day finding on a petition to list three
manta rays, identified as the giant manta
ray (Manta birostris), reef manta ray (M.
alfredi), and Caribbean manta ray (M.
c.f. birostris), range-wide or, in the
alternative, any identified distinct
population segments (DPSs), as
threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), and to
designate critical habitat concurrently
with the listing. We find that the
petition and information in our files
present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted
for the giant manta ray and the reef
manta ray. We will conduct a status
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Feb 22, 2016
Jkt 238001
review of these species to determine if
the petitioned action is warranted. To
ensure that the status review is
comprehensive, we are soliciting
scientific and commercial information
pertaining to these two species from any
interested party. We also find that the
petition and information in our files
does not present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the Caribbean manta ray is a
taxonomically valid species or
subspecies for listing, and, therefore, it
does not warrant listing at this time.
DATES: Information and comments on
the subject action must be received by
April 25, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
information, or data on this document,
identified by the code NOAA–NMFS–
2016–0014, by either any of the
following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20160014. Click the ‘‘Comment Now’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Maggie Miller, NMFS Office of
Protected Resources (F/PR3), 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910, USA.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/
A’’ in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous).
Copies of the petition and related
materials are available on our Web site
at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/
species/fish/manta-ray.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maggie Miller, Office of Protected
Resources, 301–427–8403.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 10, 2015, we received
a petition from Defenders of Wildlife to
list the giant manta ray (M. birostris),
reef manta ray (M. alfredi) and
Caribbean manta ray (M. c.f. birostris) as
threatened or endangered under the
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ESA throughout their respective ranges,
or, as an alternative, to list any
identified DPSs as threatened or
endangered. The petition also states that
if the Caribbean manta ray is
determined to be a subspecies of the
giant manta ray and not a distinct
species, then we should consider listing
the subspecies under the ESA. However,
if we determine that the Caribbean
manta ray is neither a species nor a
subspecies, then the petition requests
that we list the giant manta ray,
including all specimens in the
Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico and
southeastern United States, under the
ESA. The petition requests that critical
habitat be designated concurrently with
listing under the ESA. Copies of the
petition are available upon request (see
ADDRESSES).
ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy
Provisions and Evaluation Framework
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
requires, to the maximum extent
practicable, that within 90 days of
receipt of a petition to list a species as
threatened or endangered, the Secretary
of Commerce make a finding on whether
that petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action
may be warranted, and to promptly
publish such finding in the Federal
Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When
it is found that substantial scientific or
commercial information in a petition
indicates the petitioned action may be
warranted (a ‘‘positive 90-day finding’’),
we are required to promptly commence
a review of the status of the species
concerned during which we will
conduct a comprehensive review of the
best available scientific and commercial
information. In such cases, we conclude
the review with a finding as to whether,
in fact, the petitioned action is
warranted within 12 months of receipt
of the petition. Because the finding at
the 12-month stage is based on a more
thorough review of the available
information, as compared to the narrow
scope of review at the 90-day stage, a
‘‘may be warranted’’ finding does not
prejudge the outcome of the status
review.
Under the ESA, a listing
determination may address a species,
which is defined to also include
subspecies and, for any vertebrate
species, any DPS that interbreeds when
mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint
NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) (jointly, ‘‘the Services’’) policy
clarifies the agencies’ interpretation of
the phrase ‘‘distinct population
segment’’ for the purposes of listing,
E:\FR\FM\23FEP1.SGM
23FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8870-8874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03790]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[REG-129067-15]
RIN 1545-BM99
Definition of Political Subdivision
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains proposed regulations that provide
guidance regarding the definition of political subdivision for purposes
of tax-exempt bonds. The proposed regulations are necessary to specify
the elements of a political subdivision. The proposed regulations will
affect State and local governments that issue tax-exempt bonds and
users of property financed with tax-exempt bonds. Under certain
transition rules, however, the proposed definition of political
subdivision will not apply for determining whether outstanding bonds
are obligations of a political subdivision and will not apply to
existing entities for a transition period. This document also provides
a notice of a public hearing for these proposed regulations.
DATES: Written or electronic comments must be received by May 23, 2016.
Request to speak and outlines of topics to be discussed at the public
hearing scheduled for June 6, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., must be received by
May 23, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-129067-15), Internal
Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC
20044. Submissions may be hand delivered to: CC:PA:LPD:PR Monday
through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR
(REG-129067-15), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (REG-129067-15). The
public hearing will be held at the Internal Revenue Building, 1111
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the proposed regulations,
Spence Hanemann at (202) 317-6980; concerning submissions of comments
and the hearing, Oluwafunmilayo (Funmi) Taylor at (202) 317-6901 (not
toll-free numbers).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This document contains proposed amendments to 26 CFR part 1 under
section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Section 103 generally
provides that, with certain exceptions, gross income does not include
interest on any obligation of a State or political subdivision thereof.
Section 1.103-1 of the Income Tax Regulations (the Existing
Regulations) defines political subdivision as ``any division of any
State or local governmental unit which is a municipal corporation or
which has been delegated the right to exercise part of the sovereign
power of the unit.''
On a few occasions, Federal courts have ruled on whether an entity
qualifies as a political subdivision. E.g., Philadelphia Nat'l Bank v.
United States, 666 F.2d 834 (3d Cir. 1981); Comm'r of Internal Revenue
v. White's Estate, 144 F.2d 1019 (2d Cir. 1944). The IRS has also
addressed this issue in revenue rulings, most recently in 1983. E.g.,
Rev. Rul. 83-131 (1983-2 CB 184); Rev. Rul. 78-138 (1978-1 CB 314).
Because the results in these revenue rulings generally turn on the
unique facts and circumstances of the individual cases, numerous
entities have sought and received letter rulings on whether they are
political subdivisions. Letter rulings, however, are limited to their
particular facts, may not be relied upon by taxpayers other than the
taxpayer that received the ruling, and are not a substitute for
published guidance. See 26 U.S.C. 6110(k)(3) (2015) (providing
generally that a ruling, determination letter, or technical advice
memorandum may not be used or cited as precedent).
Commenters have requested additional published guidance, to be
applied prospectively, on which facts and circumstances are germane to
an entity's status as a political subdivision. The Treasury Department
and IRS recognize the need to clarify the definition of political
subdivision to provide greater certainty to prospective issuers and to
promote greater consistency in how the definition is applied across a
wide range of factual situations. These proposed regulations (the
Proposed Regulations) would provide a new definition of political
subdivision for purposes of tax-exempt bonds and would update and
streamline other portions of the Existing Regulations. The definition
of political subdivision in the Proposed Regulations does not apply in
determining whether an entity is treated as a political subdivision of
a State for purposes of section 414(d) of the Code.
Explanation of Provisions
1. Definition of Political Subdivision
The Proposed Regulations clarify and further develop the
eligibility requirements for a political subdivision. To qualify as a
political subdivision under the Proposed Regulations, an entity must
meet three requirements, taking into account all of the facts and
circumstances: sovereign powers, governmental purpose, and governmental
control. The Proposed Regulations also authorize the Commissioner to
set forth in future guidance to be published in the Internal Revenue
Bulletin additional circumstances in which an entity qualifies as a
political subdivision.
A. Sovereign Powers
The Proposed Regulations continue, without substantive change, the
longstanding requirement that a political subdivision be empowered to
exercise at least one of the generally recognized sovereign powers. The
three sovereign powers recognized for this purpose are eminent domain,
police power, and taxing power. See Comm'r of Internal Revenue v.
Shamberg's Estate, 144 F.2d 998 (2d Cir. 1944). The entity must be able
to exercise a substantial amount of at least one of these powers. See,
e.g., Rev. Rul. 77-164 (1977-1 CB 20); Rev. Rul. 77-165 (1977-1 CB 21).
B. Governmental Purpose
In determining whether an entity is a political subdivision, the
case law and administrative guidance interpreting the definition of
political subdivision in the Existing Regulations commonly consider
whether the entity serves a public purpose. Historically, the
determination of whether an entity serves a public purpose has focused
on the purpose for which the entity was
[[Page 8871]]
created, usually as set forth in the legislation authorizing creation
of the entity, rather than on the entity's conduct after its creation.
See, e.g., Shamberg's Estate, 144 F.2d at 1004. The Proposed
Regulations require that a political subdivision serve a governmental
purpose. A governmental purpose requires, among other things, that the
purpose for which the entity was created, as set out in its enabling
legislation, be a public purpose and that the entity actually serve
that purpose. It also requires that the entity operate in a manner that
provides a significant public benefit with no more than incidental
benefit to private persons. Cf., Rev. Rul. 90-74 (1990-2 CB 34)
(applying an ``incidental private benefit'' standard for purposes of
determining whether income is included in gross income under section
115(1)).
C. Governmental Control
The Proposed Regulations provide that a political subdivision must
be governmentally controlled. The Proposed Regulations provide rules
for determining both what constitutes control and which parties must
possess that control.
i. Definition of Control
The Proposed Regulations define control to mean ongoing rights or
powers to direct significant actions of the entity. Rights or powers to
direct the entity's actions only at a particular point in time are not
ongoing and, therefore, do not constitute control. For example, the
right to approve an entity's plan of operation as a condition of the
entity's formation is not an ongoing right. To constitute control, a
collection of rights and powers must enable its holder to direct the
significant actions of the entity.
The Proposed Regulations provide three non-exclusive benchmarks of
rights or powers that constitute control: (1) The right or power both
to approve and to remove a majority of an entity's governing body; (2)
the right or power to elect a majority of the governing body of the
entity in periodic elections of reasonable frequency; or (3) the right
or power to approve or direct the significant uses of funds or assets
of the entity in advance of that use. Aside from these three
arrangements, the determination of whether a collection of rights and
powers constitutes control will depend on the facts and circumstances.
Neither the right to dissolve an entity nor procedures designed to
ensure the integrity of the entity but not to direct significant
actions of the entity are control. Cf., Rev. Rul. 69-453 (1969-2 CB
182) (addressing procedures that do not constitute control in the
context of instrumentalities).
ii. Control Vested in a State or Local Governmental Unit or an
Electorate
Control by a small faction of private individuals, business
corporations, trusts, partnerships, or other persons is fundamentally
not governmental control. Therefore, the Proposed Regulations generally
require that control be vested in either a general purpose State or
local governmental unit or in an electorate established under an
applicable State or local law of general application. If, however, a
small faction of private persons controls an electorate, that
electorate's control of the entity does not constitute governmental
control of the entity. Accordingly, the Proposed Regulations provide
that an entity controlled by an electorate is not governmentally
controlled when the outcome of the exercise of control is determined
solely by the votes of an unreasonably small number of private persons.
The determination of whether the number of private persons
controlling an electorate is unreasonably small generally depends on
all of the facts and circumstances. To provide certainty, the Proposed
Regulations limit application of this facts and circumstances test to
situations that fall between two quantitative measures of concentration
in voting power. The number of private persons controlling an
electorate is always unreasonably small if the combined votes of the
three voters with the largest shares of votes in the electorate will
determine the outcome of the relevant election, regardless of how the
other voters vote. The number of private persons controlling an
electorate is never unreasonably small if determining the outcome of
the relevant election requires the combined votes of more voters than
the 10 voters with the largest shares of votes in the electorate. For
example, control can always be vested in any electorate comprised of 20
or more voters that each have the right to cast one vote in the
relevant election without giving rise to a private faction. For
purposes of applying these measures of concentration in voting power,
related parties are treated as a single voter and the votes of the
related parties are aggregated.
iii. Possible Relief for Development Districts
Some observers have suggested that, despite private control,
development districts should be political subdivisions during an
initial development period in which one or two private developers elect
the district's governing body and no other governmental control exists.
The Treasury Department and IRS recognize that the governmental control
requirement may present challenges for such development districts. In
these circumstances, the Treasury Department and IRS are concerned
about the potential for excessive private control by individual
developers, the attendant impact of excessive issuance of tax-exempt
bonds, and inappropriate private benefits from this Federal subsidy.
The Treasury Department and IRS seek public comment on whether it is
necessary or appropriate to permit such districts to be political
subdivisions during an initial development period; how such relief
might be structured; what specific safeguards might be included in the
recommended relief to protect against potential abuse; and whether the
proposed prospective effective dates and transition periods in Sec.
1.103-1(d) of the Proposed Regulations provide sufficient relief.
2. Streamlining Amendments
In addition to amending the definition of political subdivision,
paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Proposed Regulations update the
references in the general provisions of the Existing Regulations to
reflect changes to the Code made in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Public
Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085, and other laws and regulations since the
promulgation of the longstanding Existing Regulations. The Proposed
Regulations also streamline these provisions. In general, the Treasury
Department and the IRS intend that these proposed amendments not change
the meaning of the Existing Regulations. The last sentence of Sec.
1.103-1(a) of the Proposed Regulations, however, clarifies that the
continued tax-exemption of an issue of bonds depends on its issuer's
continued status as a qualifying issuer of tax-exempt bonds. The
Treasury Department and IRS seek comments on the need for remedial
action provisions in the event the entity ceases to qualify as a
political subdivision and on the substance of any such provisions.
3. Applicability Dates and Reliance on Proposed Regulations
Subject to certain transition rules, the Proposed Regulations
generally would apply to all entities for all purposes of the tax-
exempt bond provisions of sections 103 and 141 to 150 beginning 90 days
after the Proposed Regulations are finalized. In order to ease hardship
that may arise from the new definition
[[Page 8872]]
of political subdivision, under proposed transition rules, that
definition would not apply for purposes of determining whether
outstanding bonds and refunding bonds in which the weighted average
maturity is not extended continue to be obligations of a political
subdivision. While these transition rules for outstanding bonds and
refunding bonds would apply for the purpose of determining whether
these bonds continue to be obligations of a political subdivision, the
new proposed definition of political subdivision would apply for other
purposes under sections 103 and 141 to 150, such as whether a new
entity that subsequently became a user of a project financed with such
bonds qualified as a State or local governmental unit for purposes of
section 141. Furthermore, under another proposed transition rule that
would apply to entities in existence prior to 30 days after the
Proposed Regulations are published, the proposed definition of
political subdivision would not apply for any purpose until three years
and ninety days after the Proposed Regulations are finalized. This
three-year transition period provides existing entities an opportunity
to restructure as necessary to satisfy the new definition of political
subdivision and allows existing entities to continue to issue new bonds
during the transition period. To enhance certainty, an issuer also may
choose to apply the definition of political subdivision in Sec. 1.103-
1(c) in the final regulations in circumstances in which that definition
otherwise would not apply under the transition rules.
In addition, prior to the applicability date of the final
regulations, issuers may elect to apply the definition of political
subdivision in Sec. 1.103-1(c) of the Proposed Regulations in whole,
but not in part, for any purpose of sections 103 and 141 through 150,
provided such use is applied consistently for all purposes of sections
103 and 141 through 150 to any given entity.
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, and because these regulations do not impose a
collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of
the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for
comment on its impact on small entities.
Comments and Public Hearing
Before these Proposed Regulations are adopted as final regulations,
consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely
to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the ``Addresses''
heading. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on all
aspects of the proposed rules. All comments will be available at
www.regulations.gov or upon request.
A public hearing has been scheduled for June 6, 2016, at 10:00
a.m., in the Auditorium of the Internal Revenue Building, 1111
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Due to building security
procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In
addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the
building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted
beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the
hearing starts. For more information about having your name placed on
the building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who
wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit an outline of
the topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic by
May 23, 2016. Submit a signed paper or electronic copy of the outline
as prescribed in this preamble under the ``Addresses'' heading. A
period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each person for making
comments. An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be
prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies
of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing.
Drafting Information
The principal authors of these regulations are Spence Hanemann and
Timothy Jones, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial
Institutions and Products), IRS. However, other personnel from the IRS
and the Treasury Department participated in their development.
Availability of IRS Documents
IRS revenue rulings cited in this notice of proposed rulemaking are
made available by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Proposed Amendments to the Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 1--INCOME TAXES
0
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in
part as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
0
Par. 2. Section 1.103-1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1.103-1 Interest on State or local bonds.
(a) Interest on State or local bonds. Under section 103(a), except
as otherwise provided in section 103(b), gross income does not include
interest on any State or local bond. Under section 103(c), the term
State or local bond means any obligation (as defined in Sec. 1.150-
1(b)) of a State (including for this purpose the District of Columbia
or any possession of the United States) or a political subdivision
thereof (a State or local governmental unit). Obligations issued by or
on behalf of any State or local governmental unit by a constituted
authority empowered to issue such obligations are the obligations of
such a unit. An obligation qualifies as a State or local bond so long
as the issuer of that obligation remains a State or local governmental
unit or a constituted authority.
(b) Certain limitations on interest exclusion. Under section
103(b), the interest exclusion in section 103(a) is inapplicable to a
private activity bond under section 141(a) (unless the bond is a
qualified bond under section 141(e)), an arbitrage bond under section
148, or a bond which does not meet the applicable requirements of
section 149.
(c) Definition of political subdivision--(1) In general. The term
political subdivision means an entity that meets each of the
requirements of paragraphs (c)(2) (sovereign powers), (c)(3)
(governmental purpose), and (c)(4) (governmental control) of this
section, taking into account all of the facts and circumstances, or
that is described in published guidance issued pursuant to paragraph
(c)(5) of this section. Entities that may qualify as political
subdivisions include, among others, general purpose governmental
entities, such as cities and counties (whether or not incorporated as
municipal corporations), and special purpose governmental entities,
such as special assessment districts that provide for
[[Page 8873]]
roads, water, sewer, gas, light, reclamation, drainage, irrigation,
levee, school, harbor, port improvements, and other governmental
purposes for a State or local governmental unit.
(2) Sovereign powers. Pursuant to a State or local law of general
application, the entity has a delegated right to exercise a substantial
amount of at least one of the following recognized sovereign powers of
a State or local governmental unit: The power of taxation, the power of
eminent domain, and police power.
(3) Governmental purpose. The entity serves a governmental purpose.
The determination of whether an entity serves a governmental purpose is
based on, among other things, whether the entity carries out the public
purposes that are set forth in the entity's enabling legislation and
whether the entity operates in a manner that provides a significant
public benefit with no more than incidental private benefit.
(4) Governmental control. A State or local governmental unit
exercises control over the entity. For this purpose, control is defined
in paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section and a State or local
governmental unit exercises such control only if the control is vested
in persons described in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this section.
(i) Definition of control. Control means an ongoing right or power
to direct significant actions of the entity. Rights or powers may
establish control either individually or in the aggregate. Among rights
or powers that may establish control, an ongoing ability to exercise
one or more of the following significant rights or powers, on a
discretionary and non-ministerial basis, constitutes control: the right
or power both to approve and to remove a majority of the governing body
of the entity; the right or power to elect a majority of the governing
body of the entity in periodic elections of reasonable frequency; or
the right or power to approve or direct the significant uses of funds
or assets of the entity in advance of that use. Procedures designed to
ensure the integrity of the entity but not to direct significant
actions of the entity are insufficient to constitute control of an
entity. Examples of such procedures include requirements for submission
of audited financial statements of the entity to a higher level State
or local governmental unit, open meeting requirements, and conflicts of
interest limitations.
(ii) Control vested in a State or local governmental unit or an
electorate. Control is vested in persons described in paragraphs
(c)(4)(ii)(A) or (c)(4)(ii)(B) of this section or a combination
thereof:
(A) A State or local governmental unit possessing a substantial
amount of each of the sovereign powers and acting through its governing
body or through its duly authorized elected or appointed officials in
their official capacities; or
(B) An electorate established under applicable State or local law
of general application, provided the electorate is not a private
faction (as defined in paragraph (c)(4)(iii) of this section).
(iii) Definition of private faction--(A) In general. A private
faction is any electorate if the outcome of the exercise of control
described in paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section is determined solely
by the votes of an unreasonably small number of private persons. The
determination of whether a number of such private persons is
unreasonably small depends on all of the facts and circumstances,
including, without limitation, the entity's governmental purpose, the
number of members in the electorate, the relationships of the members
of the electorate to one another, the manner of apportionment of votes
within the electorate, and the extent to which the members of the
electorate adequately represent the interests of persons reasonably
affected by the entity's actions. For purposes of this definition, the
special rules in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(B) through (D) of this section
apply.
(B) Treatment of certain limited electorates as private factions.
An electorate is a private faction if any three private persons that
are members of the electorate possess, in the aggregate, a majority of
the votes necessary to determine the outcome of the relevant exercise
of control.
(C) Safe harbor--voting power dispersed among more than 10 persons.
An electorate is not a private faction if the smallest number of
private persons who can combine votes to establish a majority of the
votes necessary to determine the outcome of the relevant exercise of
control is greater than 10 persons. For example, if an electorate
consists of 20 private persons with equal, five-percent shares of the
total votes, that electorate is not a private faction because a minimum
of 11 members of that electorate is necessary to have a majority of the
votes. By contrast, for example, if an electorate consists of 20
private persons with unequal voting shares in which some combination of
10 or fewer members has a majority of the votes, then that electorate
does not qualify for the safe harbor from treatment as a private
faction under this paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(C).
(D) Operating rules. The following rules apply for purposes of
determining numbers of voters and voting control in paragraphs
(c)(4)(iii)(B) and (C) of this section:
(1) Related parties (as defined in Sec. 1.150-1(b)) are treated as
a single person; and
(2) In computing the number of votes necessary to determine the
outcome of the relevant exercise of control, all voters entitled to
vote in an election are assumed to cast all votes to which they are
entitled.
(5) Authority of the Commissioner. In guidance published in the
Internal Revenue Bulletin, the Commissioner may set forth additional
circumstances in which an entity qualifies as a political subdivision
of a State or local governmental unit. See Sec. 601.601(d)(2)(ii) of
this chapter.
(d) Applicability dates--(1) In general. Except as otherwise
provided in paragraphs (d)(2) through (4) of this section, this section
applies to all entities for all purposes of sections 103 and 141
through 150 beginning on the date 90 days after the publication of the
Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations in the
Federal Register.
(2) Applicability date of the definition of political subdivision
for outstanding bonds. For purposes of determining whether outstanding
bonds of an entity are obligations of a political subdivision under
section 103, the definition of political subdivision in paragraph (c)
of this section does not apply to that entity with respect to its
outstanding bonds that are issued before the general applicability date
under paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(3) Applicability date of the definition of political subdivision
for refunding bonds. For purposes of determining whether refunding
bonds of an entity are obligations of a political subdivision under
section 103, the definition of political subdivision in paragraph (c)
of this section does not apply to that entity with respect to its
refunding bonds that are issued on or after the general applicability
date under paragraph (d)(1) of this section to refund bonds with
respect to which paragraph (c) of this section otherwise does not
apply, provided that the weighted average maturity of the refunding
bonds is no longer than the remaining weighted average maturity of the
refunded bonds.
(4) Applicability date of the definition of political subdivision
for existing entities. For existing entities that are created or
organized before March 24, 2016, the definition of political
subdivision in paragraph (c) of this section does not apply for any
purpose of sections 103 and 141 to 150 during the three-year period
beginning on the
[[Page 8874]]
general applicability date under paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(5) Elective application of definition of political subdivision. An
issuer may choose to apply the definition of political subdivision in
paragraph (c) of this section to an issue of bonds in circumstances in
which that section otherwise would not apply to that issue under
paragraph (d)(2) or (3) of this section, provided that choice is
applied consistently to the issue. An entity may choose to apply the
definition of political subdivision in paragraph (c) of this section to
an entity in circumstances in which that section otherwise would not
apply to that entity under paragraph (d)(4) of this section, provided
that choice is applied consistently to the entity.
John Dalrymple,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2016-03790 Filed 2-22-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P