International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 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 Outbound: IRS Proposes New GRA Regulations



Sean Foley

Landon McGrew

The US Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently proposed new regulations that, if enacted, would amend existing rules addressing the consequences for failing to file gain recognition agreements (GRAs) and other related documents that are required to be filed in connection with certain outbound transfers of stock under sections 367(a) and 6038B (REG-140649-11). Under the current regulations, a US taxpayer that fails to either timely file an initial GRA or comply with the requirements of an existing GRA is generally subject to full gain recognition under section 367(a)(1) unless the taxpayer, upon discovering the failure, promptly files an amended return that includes a corrected GRA or other required information. The taxpayer must also demonstrate that the failure was because of reasonable cause and not willful neglect, and must notify the IRS of the amended return.

Ordinarily, the timely filing of a GRA satisfies the reporting requirements of section 6038B for the outbound transfer of the stock. Section 6038B reporting is otherwise generally satisfied through the filing of a Form, 926 Return by a US Transferor of Property to a Foreign Corporation. When a taxpayer fails to file a GRA for an outbound stock transfer, however, the foregoing coordination rule is not satisfied and therefore the taxpayer can be treated as having failed to satisfy the section 6038B reporting requirement as well. The penalty for failure to comply with this requirement is 10% of the fair market value of the transferred property, but not to exceed $100,000 (per transfer) unless the failure was because of intentional disregard. The section 6038B penalty is not imposed if the taxpayer can demonstrate that the failure was because of reasonable cause and not willful neglect – the same standard as that of the section 367(a) regulations.

If enacted, the proposed regulations would revise the section 367(a) regulations to require that the US taxpayer demonstrate only that the failure was not a "willful failure". Whether a failure is willful is determined based on all of the facts and circumstances. The proposed regulations provide a number of examples of what constitutes a willful failure. One important example provides that a taxpayer is intentionally not including the fair market value or adjusted US tax basis of the transferred property, including noting that the information is "available upon request," would constitute a willful failure.

While the standard for relief under the 367(a) regulations would be relaxed (from reasonable cause to no willful failure), the proposed regulations would retain the reasonable cause standard for purposes of the section 6038B reporting requirements. The government notes in the preamble that it believes that full gain recognition under section 367(a)(1) should only apply where a failure to file a GRA is willful, and that the penalty imposed under section 6038B is sufficient to encourage proper reporting and compliance.

The new regulations were proposed just over two and half years after the IRS issued a directive (LMSB-4-0510-017; the GRA Directive), which provided taxpayers with a favourable opportunity to correct certain errors in a timely filed gain recognition agreement (GRA) without having to request reasonable cause relief (for a more detailed discussion of the GRA Directive, see our November 2010 column, IRS Directive Offers Opportunity to Correct GRA Mistakes). Notably, the proposed regulations do not revoke the GRA Directive and do not announce a timetable for the revoking the Directive. It is, however, widely speculated that the Directive will be revoked upon finalisation of the proposed regulations, if not earlier.

As the new regulations are in proposed format only (and not temporary), taxpayers cannot rely on them until when and if finalised. In the meantime, taxpayers should follow the process set out in the GRA Directive to correct deficient GRAs as soon as possible given that it potentially could be revoked at any time.

The information contained herein is of a general nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. Applicability of the information to specific situations should be determined through consultation with your tax adviser.

This article represents the views of the authors only, and does not necessarily represent the views or professional advice of KPMG.

Sean Foley ( and Landon McGrew (, Washington, DC, KPMG.

Tel: +1 202 533 5588

Fax: +1 202 315 3087


more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The General Court reverses its position taken four years ago, while the UN discusses tax policy in New York.
Discussion on amount B under the first part of the OECD's two-pronged approach to international tax reform is far from over, if the latest consultation is anything go by.
Pillar two might be top of mind for many multinational companies, but the huge variations between countries’ readiness means getting ahead of the game now, argues Russell Gammon, chief solutions officer at Tax Systems.
ITR’s latest quarterly PDF is going live today, leading on the looming battle between the UN and the OECD for dominance in global tax policy.
Company tax changes are central to the German government’s plan to revive the economy, but sources say they miss the mark. Ralph Cunningham reports.
The winners of the ITR Americas Tax Awards have been announced for 2023!
There is a ‘huge demand’ for tax services in the Middle East, says new Clyde & Co partner Rachel Fox in an interview with ITR.
The ECB warns the tax could leave banks with weaker capital levels, while the UAE publishes guidance on its new corporate tax regime.
Caroline Setliffe and Ben Shem-Tov of Eversheds Sutherland give an overview of the US transfer pricing penalty regime and UK diverted profits tax considerations for multinational companies.
The result follows what EY said was one of the most successful years in the firm’s history.