United States

Outbound asset transfers

A review of the rules and reporting requirements

INSIGHT ARTICLE  | 

With the 2014 income tax reporting season in full swing and newly revised regulations being applied for the first time, now is a relevant time to review both the reporting requirements associated with outbound asset transfers to foreign corporations and relevant regulations finalized in 2014.

Overview

Designed to moderate the application of subchapter C non-recognition transactions, section 367 generally imposes an exit tax on certain outbound asset transfers. Section 367(a)(1) generally provides that if a U.S. person transfers property to a foreign corporation in a transfer or exchange to which the corporate non-recognition rules (section 332, 351, 354, 356 or 361) would apply, the foreign corporation will not be considered a corporation for purposes of determining gain on the transfer.Generally, by disregarding the corporate status of the foreign corporation, section 367 has the effect of taxing the gain on the transfer of assets of a U.S. person though the transfer would typically be treated as a tax-free transfer. The application of the rule differs based on the type of assets transferred, and regulations provide several exceptions to the general rule. For example, regulations exempt certain transfers of foreign stock or securities,as well as assets used in a trade or business. Additionally, if the U.S. transferor owns 5 percent or more of the stock in a foreign corporation receiving foreign stock or securities in a foreign entity (i.e., the transferred property) and enters into a gain recognition agreement (GRA) with the IRS, the taxpayer will be allowed to receive non-recognition treatment on the transfer of such stock.

Gain recognition agreements

A GRA provides parameters under which the U.S. transferor, in a transaction to which section 367(a) applies, will recognize gain if the foreign corporation disposes of transferred property during the five-year term of the GRA. The terms of a GRA also outline certain "triggering events" that could cause the early termination of the GRA and trigger recognition of gain on the transfer. If a triggering event occurs, the U.S. transferor must: (1) report the gain on an amended return for the year of transfer; (2) adjust the basis of assets on which the gain was recognized; and (3) pay additional penalties and interest on the tax assessed from the recognition event.3 Failure to fully comply with the requirements of a GRA can create harsh tax results for the unwary taxpayer.

Common transactions triggering reporting requirements

There are a variety of cross-border transactions that may trigger a reporting obligation under section 367, including:

  • Transfers of certain domestic target corporations to a foreign corporation
  • Transfers of certain domestic and foreign securities
  • Transfers of property used in an active U.S. trade or business to a foreign corporation
  • Certain "indirect stock transfers"
  • Distributions under a plan of reorganization to foreign corporations
  • Transfers of property over a certain threshold to a foreign corporation
  • Liquidations of domestic or foreign corporations into a foreign parent

The 2014 regulations

On Nov. 19, 2014, the IRS released much-anticipated final regulations outlining the consequences to U.S. and foreign persons for failing to file GRAs or related documents or to satisfy other reporting obligations associated with such non-recognition exchanges.4 The regulations affect a number of pre-existing reporting requirements under sections 367(a), 367(e) and 6038B.

With implications on a broad range of reporting requirements, the regulations will likely have a significant impact on taxpayers with international operations and prior-year reporting requirements relating to the transfer of stock to foreign entities. While the new regulations are generally consistent with the 2013 proposed regulations, the final regulations include some substantial revisions and additions of which taxpayers need to be aware.

The most notable issues addressed by the new regulations are:

  • New Form 926 filing requirements

    Under the new regulations, the IRS and the Treasury Department have expanded the reporting requirements associated with Form 926, Return by a U.S. Transferor of Property to a Foreign Corporation. Under the new regulations, a U.S. transferor of property, in a transaction in which a GRA is required, must report the fair market value, adjusted tax basis, and gain recognized with respect to the transferred stock or securities on Form 926. In addition, the taxpayer must provide a notice along with the form that a GRA is being filed pursuant to Reg. section 1.367(a)-8.5
  • Withdrawal of GRA directive

    The final regulations withdraw LMSB-4-0510-017, a taxpayer-friendly directive that provided guidance on how to remedy a defective GRA. The directive permitted taxpayers to remedy, without having to demonstrate reasonable cause, unfiled or deficient GRA documents that were associated with a timely filed GRA.6 Under the directive, the taxpayer was not required to furnish an explanatory statement outlining the reasons for the failure to file.
  • Relief for failures to comply with section 367(a) reporting obligations

    The IRS modified the standard applicable to untimely or incomplete filings. The regulations provide that the taxpayer can remedy untimely or incomplete GRA filings if the failure to comply was due to "reasonable cause and not willful neglect."7 If the taxpayer can demonstrate that the failure to file was not willful, the taxpayer can avoid gain recognition on the transaction. In order to avoid penalties under section 6038B regarding reporting requirements, the taxpayer must go a step further and demonstrate affirmatively that the failure was due to reasonable cause. The regulations provide four examples that are useful in making the "willful" determination:

    1. The taxpayer had filed numerous GRAs over the years and had never failed to file a timely GRA. In an isolated incident, the taxpayer failed to file a GRA due to an accidental oversight. The following year, the taxpayer discovered the defect and filed an amended return along with the GRA. In this scenario, the failure to file was not determined to be willful.8
    2. The taxpayer entered into a transaction that required the filing of a GRA. The taxpayer failed to file the GRA, had previously failed to file a GRA, and had an established history of failing to timely file other tax and information returns for which it was subject to penalties. The taxpayer reported non-recognition on the original return and subsequently amended the return to include the GRA. Because of the taxpayer's course of conduct regarding both prior GRAs and other unrelated returns, the taxpayer's behavior was determined to be willful.9
    3. The taxpayer filed a timely return reporting no gain in respect to a transaction that required a GRA. The taxpayer, aware that the GRA required reporting of the basis and fair market value of the stock, filed a GRA that did not contain such information. The taxpayer provided instead that the information was available on request. Because the taxpayer knowingly omitted the required information, the taxpayer's behavior was determined to be willful.10
    4. The taxpayer, after entering into a transaction requiring a GRA to avoid recognizing gain, anticipated selling a business in the following year that would produce a capital loss that could be carried back to offset the gain recognized on the transfer of the foreign stock. The taxpayer, instead of filing a GRA, chose to recognize the gain on a timely filed tax return. In the following year, the taxpayer was unable to sell the business to obtain the capital loss and sought to file a GRA to negate the gain recognized in the prior year. Because the taxpayer omitted the GRA as a planning mechanism, the failure to file was determined to be willful.11

Conclusion

 

Cross-border transfers and relevant subsequent events often may seem inconsequential. However, with any transfer of property to a foreign corporation, it is advisable to review possible reporting requirements. Failure to report such events can lead to significant adverse tax consequences. Adequate planning and a thorough review process should enable U.S. taxpayers to avoid these costly pitfalls.

[1] Section 367.
[2] Reg. section 1.367(a)-8.
[3] Id .
[4] I.R.B. 2014-50.
[5] Reg. section 1.6038B-1(b)(2)(iv).
[6] I.R.B. 2014-50.
[7] Reg. section 1.1367(a)-8(p)(1).
[8] Reg. section 1.367(a)-8(p)(3), Example 1.
[9] Reg. section 1.367(a)-8(p)(3), Example 2.
[10] Reg. section 1.367(a)-8(p)(3), Example 3.
[11] Reg. section 1.367(a)-8(p)(3), Example 4.

AUTHORS


How can we help you?

Contact us by phone 800.274.3978 or
submit your questions, comments or proposal requests.



Events/Webcasts

LIVE WEBCAST

Government contracting tax webcast

  • January 05, 2017

LIVE WEBCAST

What's next for BEPS: The multilateral instrument

  • December 14, 2016


Additional Resources

International Network
RSM International

Newsletter
Border Crossing
RSM International’s quarterly newsletter addressing tax developments in key global markets.

Podcasts
Whiteboarding: A critical step in your international tax strategy
Listen to this audiocast and learn how a whiteboarding session can set a solid plan in motion to address your international tax strategy.