In the recent case of Soroban Capital Partners LP v. Commissioner, 161 T.C. No. 12 (2023), the Tax Court held that the limited partner exception under section 1402(a)(13) does not apply to limited partners who the Court concluded were not limited partners “as such”; thus certain “limited partners” of a partnership may be subject to Self-Employed Contributions Act tax. The Tax Court in Soroban held that determining a “limited partner” for section 1402(a)(13) purposes requires a factual inquiry into the functions and roles carried out by such limited partner. If the factual inquiry shows that a limited partner is heavily involved in the partnership’s business and/or performed services for the partnership, such limited partner’s distributive share may be subject to Self-Employed Contributions Act tax.
Looking back at 2023, it is clear that the IRS has begun to increasingly assert anti-abuse doctrines, most notably the economic substance doctrine (ESD), in contentious tax controversies. Correspondingly, courts have had more opportunities to analyze and conceptualize the various anti-abuse doctrines. Courts in Liberty Global, GSS Holdings, and Chemoil have each offered unique and sometimes conflicting analyses in this regard. When reviewing these cases at a high level, a worrisome pattern emerges of courts conceiving of the traditional three anti-abuse doctrines as simply manifestations of a much broader substance over form tax principle. Further, despite the text of section 7701(o), courts are rejecting the idea that there exist certain transactions to which the ESD does not apply.
Almost two long years following the announcement of proposed rules revising the framework for regulating initial public offerings and business combinations of special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted in a three-two vote final rules on the topic. While much has changed in the SPAC market since the SEC’s proposed rules were announced – notably a cooling in the face of regulatory and economic headwinds – the final rules largely enact the SEC’s proposals from March 2022.
The Federal Trade Commission has just announced its annual adjustment to the notification thresholds that determine whether proposed transactions may trigger a filing obligation under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended. The corresponding adjustments to the HSR filing fee schedule also were included in the announcement. The adjusted notification thresholds and filing-fee schedule will apply to transactions that close on or after the effective date, which will be 30 days after publication in the Federal Register and no earlier than 26 February 2024.
The requirement that an inventor provides an enabling disclosure of their invention in exchange for patent protection lies at the heart of the patent system and is a central consideration for organizations across innovative sectors, especially those in life sciences and pharmaceuticals. This webinar delves into the dynamic landscape of patent enablement and plausibility standards, comparing and contrasting the nuanced approaches adopted in the US and Europe. In this session, we will discuss these recent developments, with a special focus on what they mean with respect to licensing, M&A and other transactions in the healthcare space and how you can anticipate issues as they arise in deals.
On 28 December 2023, the Treasury and the IRS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding whether a debt instrument is worthless for US federal income tax purposes under Code section 166 (the “Proposed Regulations”). The Proposed Regulations would update the standards under Treas. Reg. § 1.166-2 used to determine when debt instruments held by regulated financial companies or members of a regulated financial group are conclusively presumed worthless.
Join us for our virtual New York 2023-2024 Employment Law Update on Tuesday, 13 February 2024 at 1 pm ET.
In this 60-minute session, our team will highlight what employers in New York and the surrounding areas need to know to effectively navigate 2024, with practical tips to handle the latest developments.
Much of the focus around climate legislation coming out of the latest California legislative session has been on new, far-reaching requirements pertaining to disclosure of climate data and climate-related financial risk. However, California also adopted a third law related to climate change last year – AB 1305 – which has received somewhat less attention but may well have a wider and more immediate effect. Intended to address greenwashing claims, particularly related to voluntary carbon offsets (“VCO”), the Voluntary Carbon Market Disclosure Act mandates disclosure by entities that: (1) sell VCO credits in California; (2) buy or use VCO credits sold in California; and/or (3) make climate claims about corporate performance or products.
In Christensen v. United States, the Court of Federal Claims held that a husband and wife could credit French income taxes against their US net investment income tax. Christensen has an immediate and direct impact on taxpayers who are subject to the 3.8% net investment income tax.
Taxpayers who pay the net investment income tax and who reside in treaty jurisdictions should review their treaty positions and evaluate their ability to claim foreign tax credits under an applicable treaty for prior years and going forward.