Section 382 limits a loss corporation’s ability to use its Net Operating Losses (NOLs) carryforwards following an "ownership change."1 An ownership change is triggered if one or more "5-percent shareholders" of the loss corporation increase their ownership in the aggregate by more than 50 percentage points during a testing period. Following an ownership change, the "Section 382 limitation" generally reduces the ability to use NOLs to offset taxable income in any post-change year.2
The IRS and Treasury recently proposed regulations that, if finalized, would permit an employer in bankruptcy to amend its defined benefit plan to eliminate certain optional forms of benefit, including lump sum payments.
The IRS issued proposed regulations providing a limited exception to the anti-cutback rules under Code section 411(d)(6) for a plan sponsor that is a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding. The anti-cutback rules generally prohibit amendments to qualified retirement plans that reduce or eliminate accrued benefits, early retirement benefits, retirement-type subsidies or optional forms of benefits.
On May 14, 2012, the Supreme Court decided Hall v. United States, No. 10-875, holding that a federal income tax liability resulting from the postpetition sale of an individual debtor's farm during the pendency of a Chapter 12 bankruptcy is not "incurred by the estate" within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(B)(i) and therefore is not dischargeable in the bankruptcy.
Code Section 409A is, in part, a response to perceived deferred compensation abuses at companies like Enron and WorldCom. The story of Code Section 409A’s six month delay provision is inextricably tied to the Enron and WorldCom bankruptcies.
The usual Friday release of a large number of letter rulings by the IRS included several rulings of interest on reorganizations and consolidated return issues.
In a very recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit,In re J.H. Investment Services, Inc., the court held that a creditor must take an affirmative step to pursue an unsecured claim, and that section 506(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code does not automatically provide for a deficiency claim.
On November 22, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a per curiam opinion that piqued the interest of bankruptcy practitioners nationwide and sent secured creditors scrambling to ensure that their rights to a deficiency claim had been properly preserved in pending bankruptcy cases. The Eleventh Circuit held that the IRS had waived its right to an unsecured deficiency by filing a proof of claim that evidenced a secured claim but failed to note that a portion of the claim may be unsecured.
Introduction
On November 15, 2011, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") and the U.S. Department of Treasury ("Treasury") issued final regulations under Section1 108(e)(8) and certain other Sections relating to the application of Section 108(e)(8) to partnerships (collectively, the "Final Regulations").