Fish Bites Section 1239 Trap

 

Let’s talk about how a business purchase transaction can blow up.

The pepper in this stew is that the seller and buyer have different tax goals:

• The buyer wants to deduct as much as possible. In general, this means that the other side (the seller) will be recognizing ordinary income to offset those ordinary deductions.

• The seller wants as much capital gains as possible. In general, this means that the other side (the buyer) may have to amortize or depreciate assets over time rather than deducting them immediately.

M&A tax planning at heart comes down to the above tension.

Sometimes reading M&A cases can be difficult: numerous entities, mind-numbing detail, this move, that move, everyone come down and bust a move. Let’s take one case that caught my attention. As we have (sometimes) done before, we will modify the names to make the story easier to follow.

In 1996 Vernon started a one-man technology company in Kansas City. By 2004 it was one of the largest network security companies in the nation.

Let’s call his company Harry.

Vernon wanted cash for his troubles and travails. He would keep majority control of the company, but he would also have cash for little things - like expensive cars and multiple houses. I am with Vernon here.

Petunia was looking to invest in Harry.

Dial-in the tension between the seller and the buyer. Here is what they came up with

• Vernon owned 100% of Harry, an S corporation.
• Vernon transferred 100% of his stock in Harry to Hermione, a newly-formed S corporation.

COMMENT: There is a problem here: S corporations generally have to be owned by individuals, estates and certain trusts. A corporation cannot own an S corporation, except for …

• Harry immediately elected to be a Qualified Subchapter S Subsidiary (QSSS), an exception to that corporation-owning-an-S thing. Hermione owned Harry and it was all okay.

• Petunia dropped $10.5 million into Hermione in exchange for 43% of newly-issued preferred stock.

COMMENT: The money is now in play. The issue is getting it out to Vernon.

• We have a problem with Hermione. First, an S corporation must have only one class of stock, and Hermione now had two: common and preferred. Second, a QSSS can have only one shareholder: a parent who owns 100% of the QSSS stock. Hermione now had two shareholders. No surprise …

• Hermione’s S election blew up.

COMMENT: This was intentional. Harry was deemed to have transferred its interest in Hermione to a new corporation in exchange for 57% of the new stock. Petunia was deemed to have transferred $10.5 million for the remaining 43% interest. We will call the new corporation Ron.

COMMENT: There is a Code section (Section 351) that normally prevents incorporations from being taxable. There are ways to make it taxable, but most planners stay far away from them. One way? Pay money back to an incorporator (in this case, Harry via Hermione). The geek term for this money is “boot.”

• Ron paid $9.7 million in boot to Harry/Hermione upon reincorporation.

COMMENT: There you go: the planners deliberately sprung the trap. I do not recall ever doing this in my career. Why did they do it? To move the money to Vernon, of course, but also to have a chance at capital gains treatment by rinsing it through a Section 351 transaction.

• Let’s take stock of where we are.

a.     Petunia wanted ordinary deductions. She now has it in the way of amortization and depreciation. She put money into Hermione/Ron – and that money was buying assets; tangible, intangible, whatever. Petunia never bought stock.

b.    Vernon wanted capital gains. The easiest way would have been to sell Harry/Hermione stock, but Petunia wasn’t interested. All this ambulation was to mimic the sale of stock.

I admit: the tax work up to this point is clever.

But someone overlooked this interloper:

26 U.S. Code § 1239 - Gain from sale of depreciable property between certain related taxpayers

(a) Treatment of gain as ordinary income

In the case of a sale or exchange of property, directly or indirectly, between related persons, any gain recognized to the transferor shall be treated as ordinary income if such property is, in the hands of the transferee, of a character which is subject to the allowance for depreciation provided in section 167.

The idea here is simple: Congress did not want related parties to depreciate assets and then sell them to a related party to start the depreciation over again.

Tax being tax, the words have a loaded meaning. For example, does “depreciation” under Section 167 include amortization, which is the equivalent of depreciation but for intangible assets? “Related persons” also has multiple definitions, depending upon where you are in the Code.

Let’s continue.

Remember that we are dealing with a technology consulting company in Kansas City. This is a not a manufacturing plant in Pennsylvania with all kinds of real estate and machinery and equipment. Most of what Petunia bought for $10.5 million was intangible assets, amortizable under Section 197 over 15 years.

At which point I presume the tax planners stopped, reasoning that Section 197 is not Section 167 and therefore Section 1239 was not an issue.

Except for Reg 1.197-2(g)(8):

Also, an amortizable Section 197 intangible is section 1245 property and Section 1239 applies to any gain recognized upon its sale or exchange between related persons (as defined in Section 1239(b)).”

Buried deep, but there it is. Section 1239 slipped its first noose on the transaction.

But were the parties related? Could Harry/Hermione/Ron avoid the second noose?

Here is Section 267(f):

Think of Section 1563 as applying to consolidated corporations (where corporations own other corporations). Section 267 addresses individuals owning corporations (what we would call brother-sisters). Section 267 is taking a consolidation definition and changing it for brother-sisters. It is changing the definition to make it less stringent.

Section 1239 wants related parties, and Section 267 says you have related with more than 50% common ownership.

Vernon owned 100% of Harry and 100% of Hermione. He also owned 57% of Ron.

Yep, related.

Section 1239 applied.

Vernon got ordinary income, not capital gain, treatment on the $9-plus million dollars.

Petunia got her ordinary deductions - over time and not right away.

It is very tough to accommodate both sides.

But Vernon did get his $9-plus million dollars.

Our case this time, modified a spot for ease of writing and readability, was Fish v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2013 - 270.

A Like-Kind Exchange To Avoid Tax

 

Let’s talk about like-kind exchanges.

A key point is - if done correctly - it is a means to exchange real estate without immediate tax consequence.

There was a time when one could exchange either personal property or real property and still qualify under the tax-deferral umbrella of a like-kind exchange. Congress removed the personal property option several years ago, so like-kinds today refer only to real estate.

The Code section for like-kinds is 1031, but today let’s focus on Section 1031(f):

(f) Special rules for exchanges between related persons

(1) In general If—

(A) a taxpayer exchanges property with a related person,

(B) there is nonrecognition of gain or loss to the taxpayer under this section with respect to the exchange of such property (determined without regard to this subsection), and

(C) before the date 2 years after the date of the last transfer which was part of such exchange—

(i)  the related person disposes of such property, or

(ii) the taxpayer disposes of the property received in the exchange from the related person which was of like kind to the property transferred by the taxpayer,

there shall be no nonrecognition of gain or loss under this section to the taxpayer with respect to such exchange; except that any gain or loss recognized by the taxpayer by reason of this subsection shall be taken into account as of the date on which the disposition referred to in subparagraph (C) occurs.

(2) Certain dispositions not taken into accountFor purposes of paragraph (1)(C), there shall not be taken into account any disposition—

(A) after the earlier of the death of the taxpayer or the death of the related person,

(B) in a compulsory or involuntary conversion (within the meaning of section 1033) if the exchange occurred before the threat or imminence of such conversion, or

(C) with respect to which it is established to the satisfaction of the Secretary that neither the exchange nor such disposition had as one of its principal purposes the avoidance of Federal income tax.

(3) Related person

For purposes of this subsection, the term “related person” means any person bearing a relationship to the taxpayer described in section 267(b) or 707(b)(1).

(4) Treatment of certain transactions

This section shall not apply to any exchange which is part of a transaction (or series of transactions) structured to avoid the purposes of this subsection.

This verbiage came into the tax Code in 1989.

What is the issue here?

Let’s use an easy example:

CTG owns a hotel building worth $1 million. Its adjusted basis is $175,00.

CTG II owns a warehouse worth $1 million and an adjusted basis of $940,000.

If CTG sells its building, the gain is $825,000 ($1 million minus 175,000).

If CTG II sells its building, the gain is $60,000 ($1 million minus 940,000).

Say that someone wants to buy CTG’s hotel. Can we beat down that $825,000 gain?

What if we have CTG and CTG II swap buildings? CTG Jr would then own the hotel but keep its $940,000 adjusted basis. CTG II would then sell the hotel at a gain of $60,000.

Yeah, no. Congress already thought of that.

You better wait at least two years before the (second) sale, otherwise you have smashed right into Section 1031(f)(1)(C). The Code then says that- unless you can sweet talk the IRS - there was never a like-kind exchange. You instead have taxable income. Thanks for playing.

Let’s look at the Teruya Brothers case.

This case requires us to determine whether two like-kind exchanges involving related parties qualify for nonrecognition treatment under 26 U.S.C. § 1031.

This appeal concerns the tax treatment of real estate transactions involving two of Teruya's properties, the Ocean Vista condominium complex (“Ocean Vista”), and the Royal Towers Apartment building (“Royal Towers”).

We will look at the Ocean Vista (OV) transaction only.

Someone wanted to buy OV.

Teruya was initially not interested. It relented – IF it could structure the deal as a Section 1031 like-kind exchange.

So far this is relatively commonplace.

Teruya wanted to buy property from Times Super Market (Times) as the replacement.

Issue: Teruya owned 62.5% of Times.

The gain (which Teruya was trying to defer) was in excess of $1.3 million.

Teruya exchanged and filed its tax return accordingly.

The IRS balked.

The IRS argued that Teruya went foul of Section 1031(f)’s “established to the satisfaction” and “structured to avoid” prohibitions.

Teruya argued that the IRS was making no sense: Times reported the gain on its tax return. It had no deferred gain from the like-kind exchange. Who would structure a transaction to avoid tax when one of the parties reported gain?

On first impression, the argument makes sense.

The Court noted that Times had a net operating loss that wiped out the gain from the sale. There was no tax.

Teruya had a problem. It sold the property within two years, meaning that the IRS had a chance to challenge. The IRS challenged, both under Section 1031(f)(2)(C) and (f)(4).

Here is the Court:

We conclude that these transactions were structured to avoid the purposes of Section 1031(f).

Teruya lost.

Teruya went into this transaction in 1995, when Section 1031(f) was relatively new. There would not have been much case law on working and planning with this Code section.

Teruya provided practitioners some of that case law. 

We now know that an advisor must expand his/her perspective beyond just the Section 1031 exchange and consider other tax attributes sitting on the tax returns of the related parties.

And sales within two years are courting death.

Dodge that and Section 1031(f)(4) might still nab you.

Our case this time was Teruya Brothers, LTD v Commissioner, 124 TC No. 4.