International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

US Inbound: Obama releases FY 2016 Budget

fuller.jpg

forst.jpg

Jim Fuller


David Forst

The Obama Administration released a series of tax proposals in February 2015 in connection with its Fiscal Year 2016 Budget. There are some differences from previous years' Obama Administration Budgets and some signals as to the extent to which the Administration believes it can press its authority to write regulations absent Congressional action. The Budget essentially repeats last year's proposal that restricts the amount of interest income a US subsidiary of a foreign parent can deduct. Under the proposal a US member's deduction for interest expense generally would be limited if the member has net interest expense for tax purposes and the member's net interest expense for financial reporting purposes (computed on a separate company basis) exceeds the member's proportionate share of the net interest expense reported on the financial reporting group's consolidated financial statements (excess financial statement net interest expense). Also, if a member fails to substantiate the member's proportionate share of the group's net interest expense, or a member so elects, the member's interest expense will be limited to the member's interest income plus 10% of the member's adjusted taxable income.

The fact that this proposal exists at all is evidence that the Obama Administration believes that additional restrictions on interest deductibility (on top of the existing Code sec. 163(j)) must be achieved through Congressional action and cannot be achieved through regulatory action alone. Also in this regard, Notice 2014-52, last year's anti-inversion Notice, did not contain any further restrictions on interest deductibility.

The Budget's proposals enhancing Code sec. 7874, the anti-inversion provision, are also largely the same as last year's, such as reducing the 80% test in § 7874 to a 50% test, and eliminating the 60% test. The new Budget does ameliorate last year's proposal providing that a foreign company acquiring a US company would be treated as US if the expanded affiliated group is primarily managed and controlled in the US and does not conduct substantial business activities in a country in which the foreign acquiring corporation is created or organised. Under the new Budget, this rule would only apply if, immediately before the acquisition, the fair market value of the stock of the domestic entity is greater than the fair market value of the stock of the foreign acquiring corporation. Of course, the Administration, through Notice 2014-52, has already made an impact on inversion transactions by creating new rules under, inter alia, Code secs. 956 and 7701(l). However, a change in the basic mechanics of Code sec. 7874 would need Congressional action. We have discussed the operations of Code sec. 7874 and Notice 2014-52 in previous columns.

The Budget also repeats the Administration's proposal to codify Rev. Rul. 91-32, the revenue ruling that, in contravention of Code sec. 741, would treat a non-US person's sale of a partnership interest as US taxable income to the extent of the partnership's US business assets. The Administration has not taken regulatory action in this area, presumably because Code sec. 741 clearly addresses this issue.

Jim Fuller (jpfuller@fenwick.com) and David Forst (dforst@fenwick.com)

Fenwick & West

Tel: +1 650 335 7205; +1 650 335 7274

Website: www.fenwick.com

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The Brazilian government may be about to align the country’s unique system with OECD standards, but this is a long-awaited TP reform and success is uncertain.
Two months since EU political agreement on pillar two and few member states have made progress on new national laws, but the arrival of OECD technical guidance should quicken the pace. Ralph Cunningham reports.
It’s one of the great ironies of recent history that a populist Republican may have helped make international tax policy more progressive.
Lawmakers have up to 120 days to decide the future of Brazil’s unique transfer pricing rules, but many taxpayers are wary of radical change.
Shell reports profits of £32.2 billion, prompting calls for higher taxes on energy companies, while the IMF warns Australia to raise taxes to sustain public spending.
Governments now have the final OECD guidance on how to implement the 15% global minimum corporate tax rate.
The Indian company, which is contesting the bill, has a family connection to UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak – whose government has just been hit by a tax scandal.
Developments included calls for tax reform in Malaysia and the US, concerns about the level of the VAT threshold in the UK, Ukraine’s preparations for EU accession, and more.
A steady stream of countries has announced steps towards implementing pillar two, but Korea has got there first. Ralph Cunningham finds out what tax executives should do next.
The BEPS Monitoring Group has found a rare point of agreement with business bodies advocating an EU-wide one-stop-shop for compliance under BEFIT.