US Outbound: IRS issues notice clarifying section 901(m) disposition rule

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

US Outbound: IRS issues notice clarifying section 901(m) disposition rule

foley.jpg

mcgrew.jpg

Sean Foley


Landon McGrew

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and US Treasury Department recently released Notice 2014-44 (the notice), announcing its intent to issue regulations on the application of section 901(m) to certain dispositions of assets following a covered asset acquisition (CAA). These regulations will apply to dispositions occurring on or after July 21, 2014. Section 901(m) denies a foreign tax credit for the "disqualified portion" of any foreign income tax determined with respect to the income or gain attributable to assets acquired in a CAA. In general, a CAA is a transaction that results in an asset basis step-up for US tax purposes, without a corresponding step-up for foreign tax purposes. For the purposes of section 901(m), the "disqualified portion" of a foreign income tax for a taxable year is computed based on the ratio of the aggregate basis differences allocable to that taxable year (as allocated under applicable US cost recovery rules) over the income on which the foreign income tax is determined.

Section 901(m) also provides a special disposition rule in the event that an asset is disposed of before the end of its applicable cost recovery period. Under section 901(m)(3)(B), if there is a disposition of an asset acquired in a CAA, any unallocated basis difference is allocated entirely to the year of disposition and no basis difference is allocated to any taxable year thereafter.

The notice states that the IRS and Treasury have become aware that certain taxpayers are engaging in transactions intended to inappropriately trigger the application of the disposition rule to avoid the purposes of section 901(m). The notice provides the following example:

USP wholly owns FSub, which acquires 100% of the stock of FT in a qualified stock purchase (as defined in section 338(d)(3)) for which an election under section 338(g) is made. Accordingly, the acquisition of FT is a CAA. Shortly after the CAA, FT elects to be treated as a disregarded entity for US tax purposes under reg. section 301.7701-3. As a result, FT is deemed to distribute all of its assets to USP in a tax-free liquidation for US tax purposes.

The notice states that taxpayers have taken the position that the deemed liquidation constitutes a disposition for purposes of section 901(m)(3)(B). As a result, taxpayers claim that all of the basis difference attributable to the CAA is allocated to the final taxable year of FT, and that no basis difference is allocated to any later taxable year. The notice states that this position is inappropriate because (i) the basis difference in the assets of FT for purposes of US income tax and foreign income tax continues to exist after the deemed liquidation and (ii) no gain is recognised for foreign income tax purposes as a result of the deemed liquidation.

To address this situation, the notice limits the definition of a disposition for purposes of section 901(m) to an event that results in gain or loss recognition for US or foreign tax purposes, or both. Accordingly, the tax-free deemed liquidation in the example described above would not result in a disposition for purposes of section 901(m) under the notice because no gain or loss is recognised for US or foreign purposes. The notice further provides that if a transaction results in a disposition that is not fully taxable for US and foreign purposes, a portion of the basis difference may carry over to the new owner. In addition, the notice provides a number of additional rules, including a definition of the "disposition amount", special rules for assets acquired in a section 743(a) CAA, and successor rules.

As noted above, the future regulations will apply to dispositions occurring on or after July 21 2014. Shortly after the release of the notice, the IRS issued Notice 2014-45 to clarify that the notice also applies to check-the-box elections filed on or after July 29 2014, with an effective date on or before July 21 2014.

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 LLP.

Sean Foley (sffoley@kpmg.com) Washington, DC and Landon McGrew (lmcgrew@kpmg.com), McLean, VA

KPMG LLP

Tel: +1 202 533 5588

Fax: +1 202 315 3087

Website: www.us.kpmg.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The US itself was the biggest loser of tax revenue to American multinationals’ profit shifting, the Tax Justice Network reported; in other news, firms made key tax hires
Identifying who will bear the costs and concerns around confidentiality are issues yet to be resolved, advisers say
As multinationals embed tax technology into their TP functions, a new breed of systems – built on multi-model databases – is quietly transforming intercompany pricing logic
The president described it as ‘one of the most important cases in the history of our country’; in other news, Portugal established a VAT group regime
Clients are facing increased TP audit scrutiny in Hungary. DLA Piper Hungary is therefore using AI and advanced analytics to augment its advice, the firm’s head of TP says
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and MinterEllisonRuddWatts were among the firms that advised on the deal
AI will mean fewer entry-level roles in tax but also the emergence of new jobs, according to tax expert Isabella Barreto
As World Tax unveils its much-anticipated rankings for 2026, we focus on standout performances by PwC, KPMG and Deloitte across the Asia-Pacific region
The partnership model was looking antiquated even before the UK chancellor’s expected tax raid on LLPs was revealed. An additional tax burden may finally kill it off
The US’s GILTI regime will not be forced upon American multinationals in foreign jurisdictions, Bloomberg has reported; in other news, Ropes & Gray hired two tax partners from Linklaters
Gift this article