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

Note: This post is part of a continuing series on the Credit Report Blog on the subject of workouts and bankruptcies involving low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) projects.

In a case of first impression, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held a tax return that is filed after the April 15 deadline is not a “return” within the meaning of § 523(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code; as a consequence, a debtor is not entitled to a discharge of tax liability if the tax return is filed after the deadline.

In re Killmer, 513 B.R. 41 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014) –

After reopening a bankruptcy case, a mortgagee moved for a determination that a post-petition delinquent property tax sale was void because it was held in violation of the automatic stay.  In response, the tax authority requested retroactive annulment of the stay.

In the aftermath of recent municipal bankruptcies in which issuers proposed and/or implemented bankruptcy plans involving partial discharges of the issuer’s payment obligation on insured bonds, there has been increased focus on whether municipal bond interest paid by a bond insurer after the bankruptcy plan’s effective date continues to be tax-exempt.