We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 138

Final regulations on disregarded entities involved in conduit arrangements

  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 15 2011

On December 9, 2011, the IRS published final regulations that address the application of the conduit financing arrangements effected through disregarded entities

Foreign F reorganizations

  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 4 2011

U.S. Parent owned FS1, which owned DRE1, which owned DRE2. FS1 was domiciled in Country A but DRE1 and 2 were domiciled in Country B

Convertible preferred equity certificates

  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • -
  • Luxembourg, USA
  • -
  • July 13 2011

Instruments may be treated as debt for foreign income tax purposes but as equity or U.S. tax purposes

CFC’S Subpart F earnings not qualified dividends

  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 15 2011

On December 7, 2011, The U.S. Tax Court ruled that inclusions in U.S. residents’ gross income that were required under the Subpart F provisions with respect to their controlled foreign corporation’s investments in U.S. property did not constitute qualified dividend income under Section 1(h) (11

Reorganization and consolidated rulings issued

  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 27 2012

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

Avoiding the section 338 consistency rules

  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 9 2012

LTRS 201213013 and 201214012 are the same ruling, evidently issued to a buyer and a seller, in the common scenario where the seller consolidated group wants to sell subsidiary stock and the buyer wants to buy assets and obtain a cost basis; both taxpayers got what they wanted, including placing the target corporation into the buying consolidated group, without having a qualified stock purchase and thereby avoiding the consistency rules

Home Concrete decided: taxpayer wins

  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 25 2012

On April 25, 2012 the Supreme Court ruled that the overstatement of the basis of property sold, resulting in a substantial understatement of gain, is not an omission from gross income, and so the three year and not the six year statute of limitations applied to the taxpayer’s assessment, meaning the assessment came too late

Sections 305 and 306 and tracking stock

  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 25 2013

LTR 201308001 rules on sections 305 and 306 are bread and butter subchapter C provisions that were designed for "tax shelters" that are so quaint and

Section 304 games

  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 23 2013

Since the repeal of the collapsible corporation rules, section 304 has been the most confusing corporate tax section in the domestic context. Its

Non-355 ruling

  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 31 2012

Sometimes, a corporation wants to distribute stock of a subsidiary to its shareholders in a taxable transaction and does not want Section 355 to apply to