The current "Great Recession," which began in late 2007 with a maelstrom in the debt capital markets, has necessitated a rethinking of the federal income tax rules governing debt restructurings. The harsh rules2 promulgated by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in reaction to the 1991 taxpayer-favorable decision in Cottage Savings v. Commissioner,3 have been inhibiting restructurings. Instead, rules that did not trigger adverse tax results have been needed to induce lenders and borrowers to restructure obligations that can no longer be paid according to their terms.

The taxpayer was able to convince the court that the creditors who got the stock in the reorganization were not the prior owners. Because the events occurred in 1992, under a prior version of the continuity of proprietary interest rules, continuity of ownership was broken and a section 338(h)(10) election could be made and the basis in the assets inside the corporation stepped up to fair market value, with no tax liability because the seller was in bankruptcy with large net operating losses (NOLs).

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently issued rulings regarding the availability of tax losses after a bankruptcy,1 the ability to take a loss under Sections 165(a) and 165(g),2 and the characterization of a loss after an ownership change.3 There are few rulings or other sources of authority for these types of issues, and thus, a review of these rulings provides insight into the IRS’s current thinking on the issues addressed.

PLR 201051020

Now we can add Program Manager’s Technical Advice or “PMTA” to the list of administrative projects on tax matters that are open to FOIA and review by the tax practitioner community. One area that needs some help are investors in tenancy-in-common programs. On May 15, 2010, the Service issue PMTA 2010-05 which provides an legal analysis from Chief Counsel’s office directed to IRS program managers in the field.

On 7 January 2011, the IRS published fi nal regulations intended to clarify when and how a debt instrument should be retested for debt vs. equity status, and when its terms have been signifi cantly modifi ed. The fi nal regulations generally apply to alterations of the terms of a debt instrument on or after 7 January 2011. Upon a signifi cant modifi cation there is a deemed retirement of the existing debt instrument and a deemed issuance of a new instrument (which may or may not be debt).

On April 29, 2011, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued Private Letter Ruling (“PLR”) 201117036 denying recognition of tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) to a nonprofit credit counseling agency (“CCA”) because its primary activity would have been the provision of pre-bankruptcy certification and post-bankruptcy counseling for fees.

On April 20, 2011, the IRS issued proposed regulations under Treas. Reg. §1.267(f)-1(c) (the Proposed Regulations), which will become effective after they are adopted as final regulations. The Proposed Regulations modify the current deferred loss rules to allow the acceleration of a deferred loss in certain circumstances that routinely arise in international restructurings of U.S. companies. Accordingly, corporations in a controlled group that are considering a sale to another member of the controlled group should evaluate the consequences under the Proposed Regulations.

With the near-historic drop in oil prices, distressed investors are evaluating a myriad of investment opportunities in the oil industry and related fields. One particular area of focus when analyzing these energy-related opportunities are the master limited partnerships that many energy companies utilize in their corporate structure.

Drop in Oil Prices

E ven well-intentioned people run into financial difficulty. Unfortunately, falling behind on one’s taxes often leads to a downward spiral, and it is not uncommon for a taxpayer who cannot pay her tax obligations to decide not to file a return. Not only does such a failure to file expose the taxpayer to additional penalties and criminal liability, but it may have devastating ramifications if she subsequently files for bankruptcy.

The Third Circuit Rules in Favor of the Bankruptcy Estate Creating a Further Circuit Split