The Solvency Problem and Tax-Free Mergers

Most transactions generally result in a taxable event, unless they qualify for nonrecognition treatment under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). IRC Sections 332 and 368, specifically, provide for nonrecognition treatment of qualifying liquidations and reorganizations. But a conflict is brewing. There...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Pennsylvania CPA Journal 2014-07, Vol.85 (2), p.22
Hauptverfasser: Ruffner, William G, Wilkes, Kevin
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 2
container_start_page 22
container_title Pennsylvania CPA Journal
container_volume 85
creator Ruffner, William G
Wilkes, Kevin
description Most transactions generally result in a taxable event, unless they qualify for nonrecognition treatment under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). IRC Sections 332 and 368, specifically, provide for nonrecognition treatment of qualifying liquidations and reorganizations. But a conflict is brewing. There are proposed regulations that have been in the works for a decade that, if finalized, will potentially cause complications among certain mergers. The trouble began with an effort to create uniform prerequisites for nonrecognition treatment of most corporate transactions under IRC Sections 332 and 368. In 2005, the IRS and US Treasury Department issued proposed regulations to clarify the requirements for nonrecognition treatment. Regarding Section 368, the net value requirement controversy sprung from the issuance of Revenue Ruling 59-296. Revenue Ruling 59-296 held that the relevant principles under Section 332 applied to Section 368 reorganizations. As to a merger involving one or more insolvent corporations, the logic underpinning a solvency requirement is less compelling, and the IRS's position is less defensible.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_reports_1540735964</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3350648161</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_reports_15407359643</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpjYeA0MDcx0zU0MDPiYOAqLs4yMDAwNjW34GTQDMlIVQjOzylLzUuuVAgoyk_KSc1VSMxLUQhJrNB1K0pNVfBNLUpPLSrmYWBNS8wpTuWF0twMSm6uIc4eugVF-YWlqcUl8UWpBflFJcXxhqYmBubGppZmJsZEKQIAy6cueA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1540735964</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Solvency Problem and Tax-Free Mergers</title><source>Business Source Complete</source><creator>Ruffner, William G ; Wilkes, Kevin</creator><creatorcontrib>Ruffner, William G ; Wilkes, Kevin</creatorcontrib><description>Most transactions generally result in a taxable event, unless they qualify for nonrecognition treatment under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). IRC Sections 332 and 368, specifically, provide for nonrecognition treatment of qualifying liquidations and reorganizations. But a conflict is brewing. There are proposed regulations that have been in the works for a decade that, if finalized, will potentially cause complications among certain mergers. The trouble began with an effort to create uniform prerequisites for nonrecognition treatment of most corporate transactions under IRC Sections 332 and 368. In 2005, the IRS and US Treasury Department issued proposed regulations to clarify the requirements for nonrecognition treatment. Regarding Section 368, the net value requirement controversy sprung from the issuance of Revenue Ruling 59-296. Revenue Ruling 59-296 held that the relevant principles under Section 332 applied to Section 368 reorganizations. As to a merger involving one or more insolvent corporations, the logic underpinning a solvency requirement is less compelling, and the IRS's position is less defensible.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0746-1062</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Philadelphia: Pennsylvania Institute of Certified Public Accountants</publisher><subject>Acquisitions &amp; mergers ; Federal court decisions ; Internal Revenue Code ; Proposals ; Proprietary ; Revenue procedures &amp; rulings ; Solvency ; State court decisions ; Stockholders ; Tax courts ; Tax free</subject><ispartof>Pennsylvania CPA Journal, 2014-07, Vol.85 (2), p.22</ispartof><rights>Copyright Pennsylvania Institute of Certified Public Accountants Summer 2014</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>312,776,780,787</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ruffner, William G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilkes, Kevin</creatorcontrib><title>The Solvency Problem and Tax-Free Mergers</title><title>Pennsylvania CPA Journal</title><description>Most transactions generally result in a taxable event, unless they qualify for nonrecognition treatment under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). IRC Sections 332 and 368, specifically, provide for nonrecognition treatment of qualifying liquidations and reorganizations. But a conflict is brewing. There are proposed regulations that have been in the works for a decade that, if finalized, will potentially cause complications among certain mergers. The trouble began with an effort to create uniform prerequisites for nonrecognition treatment of most corporate transactions under IRC Sections 332 and 368. In 2005, the IRS and US Treasury Department issued proposed regulations to clarify the requirements for nonrecognition treatment. Regarding Section 368, the net value requirement controversy sprung from the issuance of Revenue Ruling 59-296. Revenue Ruling 59-296 held that the relevant principles under Section 332 applied to Section 368 reorganizations. As to a merger involving one or more insolvent corporations, the logic underpinning a solvency requirement is less compelling, and the IRS's position is less defensible.</description><subject>Acquisitions &amp; mergers</subject><subject>Federal court decisions</subject><subject>Internal Revenue Code</subject><subject>Proposals</subject><subject>Proprietary</subject><subject>Revenue procedures &amp; rulings</subject><subject>Solvency</subject><subject>State court decisions</subject><subject>Stockholders</subject><subject>Tax courts</subject><subject>Tax free</subject><issn>0746-1062</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNpjYeA0MDcx0zU0MDPiYOAqLs4yMDAwNjW34GTQDMlIVQjOzylLzUuuVAgoyk_KSc1VSMxLUQhJrNB1K0pNVfBNLUpPLSrmYWBNS8wpTuWF0twMSm6uIc4eugVF-YWlqcUl8UWpBflFJcXxhqYmBubGppZmJsZEKQIAy6cueA</recordid><startdate>20140701</startdate><enddate>20140701</enddate><creator>Ruffner, William G</creator><creator>Wilkes, Kevin</creator><general>Pennsylvania Institute of Certified Public Accountants</general><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4S-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X1</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8A9</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ANIOZ</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRAZJ</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYYUZ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140701</creationdate><title>The Solvency Problem and Tax-Free Mergers</title><author>Ruffner, William G ; Wilkes, Kevin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_reports_15407359643</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Acquisitions &amp; mergers</topic><topic>Federal court decisions</topic><topic>Internal Revenue Code</topic><topic>Proposals</topic><topic>Proprietary</topic><topic>Revenue procedures &amp; rulings</topic><topic>Solvency</topic><topic>State court decisions</topic><topic>Stockholders</topic><topic>Tax courts</topic><topic>Tax free</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ruffner, William G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilkes, Kevin</creatorcontrib><collection>Global News &amp; ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>BPIR.com Limited</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Accounting &amp; Tax Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Accounting &amp; Tax Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Accounting, Tax &amp; Banking Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Accounting, Tax &amp; Banking Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Pennsylvania CPA Journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ruffner, William G</au><au>Wilkes, Kevin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Solvency Problem and Tax-Free Mergers</atitle><jtitle>Pennsylvania CPA Journal</jtitle><date>2014-07-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>85</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>22</spage><pages>22-</pages><issn>0746-1062</issn><abstract>Most transactions generally result in a taxable event, unless they qualify for nonrecognition treatment under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). IRC Sections 332 and 368, specifically, provide for nonrecognition treatment of qualifying liquidations and reorganizations. But a conflict is brewing. There are proposed regulations that have been in the works for a decade that, if finalized, will potentially cause complications among certain mergers. The trouble began with an effort to create uniform prerequisites for nonrecognition treatment of most corporate transactions under IRC Sections 332 and 368. In 2005, the IRS and US Treasury Department issued proposed regulations to clarify the requirements for nonrecognition treatment. Regarding Section 368, the net value requirement controversy sprung from the issuance of Revenue Ruling 59-296. Revenue Ruling 59-296 held that the relevant principles under Section 332 applied to Section 368 reorganizations. As to a merger involving one or more insolvent corporations, the logic underpinning a solvency requirement is less compelling, and the IRS's position is less defensible.</abstract><cop>Philadelphia</cop><pub>Pennsylvania Institute of Certified Public Accountants</pub></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0746-1062
ispartof Pennsylvania CPA Journal, 2014-07, Vol.85 (2), p.22
issn 0746-1062
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_reports_1540735964
source Business Source Complete
subjects Acquisitions & mergers
Federal court decisions
Internal Revenue Code
Proposals
Proprietary
Revenue procedures & rulings
Solvency
State court decisions
Stockholders
Tax courts
Tax free
title The Solvency Problem and Tax-Free Mergers
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T23%3A36%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Solvency%20Problem%20and%20Tax-Free%20Mergers&rft.jtitle=Pennsylvania%20CPA%20Journal&rft.au=Ruffner,%20William%20G&rft.date=2014-07-01&rft.volume=85&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=22&rft.pages=22-&rft.issn=0746-1062&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E3350648161%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1540735964&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true