Final BEAT Regulations Issued By Treasury

On September 1, 2020, the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (collectively, Treasury) released final regulations under Section 59A, commonly referred to as the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT). The final regulations provide additional guidance on the application of the BEAT.

Details

Section 59A imposes on each applicable taxpayer a tax equal to the base erosion minimum tax amount for the taxable year. On December 6, 2019, Treasury published final regulations (TD 9885) under Sections 59A, 383, 1502, 6038A and 6655 (the 2019 final regulations) in the Federal Register (84 FR 66968). On the same date, Treasury also published proposed regulations (REG-112607-19) under Section 59A and proposed amendments to 26 CFR part 1 under Section 6031 of the Code in the Federal Register (84 FR 67046). On February 19, 2020, the Treasury Department and the IRS published a correction to the 2019 final regulations in the Federal Register (85 FR 9369).

The final regulations retain the basic approach and structure of the proposed regulations, with certain revisions. We’ve summarized some of the key aspects to the final regulations, below.
 
The final regulations retain the rule in the proposed regulations that permits the use of a reasonable approach to determine whether a taxpayer’s aggregate group meets the gross receipts test and base erosion percentage test with respect to a short taxable year of the taxpayer.  However, the final regulations clarify that excluding the gross receipts, base erosion tax benefits and deductions of a member from the taxpayer’s aggregate group when the member does not have a taxable year that ends with or within a short taxable year of the taxpayer constitutes an unreasonable approach.1 In addition, to provide guidance for taxpayers in determining whether a particular approach is reasonable and does not over-count nor under-count, the final regulations include examples of methods that may or may not constitute a reasonable approach.2
 
The final regulations provide that when a corporation has a deemed taxable year-end under §1.59A-2(c)(4), the deemed taxable year-end is treated as occurring at the end of the day of the transaction.3 Thus, a new taxable year is deemed to begin at the beginning of the day after the transaction. A taxpayer determines items attributable to the deemed short taxable years ending upon and beginning the day after the deemed taxable year-end by either deeming a close of the corporation’s books or, in the case of items other than extraordinary items, making a pro-rata allocation without a closing of the books.4 Extraordinary items that occur on the day of, but after, the transaction that causes the corporation to join or leave the aggregate group are treated as occurring in the deemed taxable year beginning the next day. For this purpose, the term “extraordinary items” has the meaning provided in §1.1502-76(b)(2)(ii)(C). This term is also expanded to include any other payment that is not made in the ordinary course of business and that would be treated as a base erosion payment.
 
Section 1.59A-2(c)(5)(ii)(A) provides that, if a member of a taxpayer’s aggregate group has more than one taxable year that ends with or within the taxpayer’s taxable year and together those taxable years are comprised of more than 12 months, then the member’s gross receipts, base erosion tax benefits and deductions for those years are annualized to 12 months for purposes of determining the gross receipts and base erosion percentage of the taxpayer’s aggregate group. To annualize, the amount is multiplied by 365 and the result is divided by the total number of days in the year or years.
 
The final regulations also adopt a corresponding rule to address short taxable years of members. Specifically, if a member of the taxpayer’s aggregate group changes its taxable year-end, and as a result the member’s taxable year (or years) ending with or within the taxpayer’s taxable year is comprised of fewer than 12 months, then for purposes of determining the gross receipts and base erosion percentage of the taxpayer’s aggregate group, the member’s gross receipts, base erosion tax benefits and deductions for that year (or years) are annualized to 12 months.5 This rule does not apply if the change in the taxable year-end is a result of the application of §1.1502-76(a), which provides that new members of a consolidated group adopt the common parent’s taxable year. But see §1.59A-2(c)(5)(iii) (providing an anti-abuse rule that applies to transactions with a principal purpose of changing the period taken into account for the gross receipts test or the base erosion percentage test).
 
The final regulations also adopt a corresponding anti-abuse rule to address other types of transactions that may achieve a similar result of excluding gross receipts or base erosion percentage items of a taxpayer or a member of the taxpayer’s aggregate group that are undertaken with a principal purpose of avoiding applicable taxpayer status.6
 
The final regulations provide that gross receipts of foreign predecessor corporations are taken into account only to the extent that the gross receipts are taken into account in determining income that is effectively connected with the conduct of a U.S. trade or business (ECI) of the foreign predecessor corporation, which would be consistent with the ECI rule for gross receipts of foreign corporations in §1.59A-2(d). Section 1.59A-2(c)(6)(i) clarifies that the operating rules set forth in §1.59A-2(c) (aggregation rules) and §1.59A-2(d) (gross receipts test) apply to the same extent in the context of the predecessor rule. Thus, the ECI limitation on gross receipts in §1.59A-2(d)(3) continues to apply to the successor.
 
If a taxpayer elected to forego a deduction and followed specified procedures (the “BEAT waiver election”), the proposed regulations provided that the foregone deduction would not be treated as a base erosion tax benefit.The final regulations explicitly clarify that, in order to make or increase the BEAT waiver election under §1.59A-3(c)(6), the taxpayer must determine that the taxpayer could be an applicable taxpayer for BEAT purposes but for the BEAT waiver election. §1.59A-3(c)(6)(i).
 
In addition, when a taxpayer does not make a BEAT waiver election (or when this waiver is not permitted), §1.59A-3(c)(5) and §1.59A-3(c)(6)(i) have no bearing on whether or how a taxpayer’s failure to claim an allowable deduction, or to otherwise “waive” a deduction, is respected or taken into account for tax purposes other than Section 59A.8
 
The final regulations include a provision for the waiver of amounts treated as reductions to gross premiums and other consideration that would otherwise be base erosion tax benefits within the definition of Section 59A(c)(2)(A)(iii) and provide that similar operational and procedural rules apply to this waiver, such as the rule providing that the waiver applies for all purposes of the Code and regulations.9 The BEAT waiver election affects the base erosion tax benefits of the taxpayer, not the amount of premium that the taxpayer pays to a foreign insurer or reinsurer (or the amount received by that foreign insurer or reinsurer). Therefore, for example, the waiver of reduction to gross premiums and other consideration (or of premium payments that are deductions for federal income tax purposes) does not reduce the amount of any insurance premium payments that are subject to insurance excise tax under Section 4371.
 
Regarding the documentation requirements to make the BEAT waiver election, §1.59A-3(c)(6)(ii)(B)(1) of the final regulations omits the requirement to provide a “detailed” description. Section 1.59A-3(c)(6)(ii)(B)(6) and (7) is also revised to make certain non-substantive, clarifying changes.
 
The final regulations have been revised to state more explicitly that a deduction may be waived in part.10 Treasury also states in the preamble to the final regulations that the IRS plans to revise Form 8991, Tax on Base Erosion Payments of Taxpayers with Substantial Gross Receipts, to incorporate reporting requirements relating to the reporting of deductions that taxpayers have partially waived.
 
Subject to certain special rules in connection with the centralized partnership audit regime enacted in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (the BBA), the final regulations explicitly permit a corporate partner in a partnership to make a BEAT waiver election with respect to partnership items.11 The final regulations also clarify that a partnership may not make a BEAT waiver election.12 In addition, the final regulations provide that waived deductions are treated as non-deductible expenditures under Section 705(a)(2)(B).13
 
Further, the final regulations provide rules to conform the partner-level waiver with Section 163(j).14 Specifically, the final regulations clarify that, when a partner waives a deduction that was taken into account by the partnership to reduce the partnership’s adjusted taxable income for purposes of determining the partnership-level Section 163(j) limitation, the increase in the partner’s income resulting from the waiver is treated as a partner basis item (as defined in §1.163(j)-6(b)(2)) for the partner, but not the partnership.
 
The final regulations clarify that a partner may make the BEAT waiver election with respect to an increase in a deduction that is attributable to an adjustment made under the BBA audit procedures, but only if the partner is taking into account the partnership adjustments either because the partnership elects to have the partners take into account the adjustments under Sections 6226 or 6227, or because the partner takes into account the adjustments as part of an amended return filed pursuant to Section 6225(c)(2)(A).15 If the partner makes the BEAT waiver election, the partner will compute its additional reporting year tax (as described in §301.6226-3) or the amount due under §301.6225-2(d)(2)(ii)(A), treating the waived amount as provided in §1.59A-3(c)(6).
 
The final regulations clarify that waived deductions attributable to a consolidated group member are treated as noncapital, nondeductible expenses that decrease the tax basis in the member’s stock for purposes of the stock basis rules in §1.1502-32 to prevent the shareholder from subsequently benefitting from a waived deduction when disposing of the member’s stock.16
 
The final regulations in §1.59A-3(b)(3)(iii)(C) expand the ECI exception, whereby a base erosion payment does not result from amounts paid or accrued to a foreign related party that are subject to tax as ECI, to apply to certain partnership transactions. The expanded ECI exception in §1.59A-3(b)(3)(iii)(C) applies if the exception in §1.59A-3(b)(3)(iii)(A) or (B) would have applied to the payment or accrual as characterized under §1.59A-7(b) and (c) for purposes of Section 59A (assuming any necessary withholding certificate were obtained).
 
The ECI exception reflected in §1.59A-3(b)(3)(iii)(C) also may apply in other situations, such as when (1) a U.S. taxpayer contributes cash and a foreign related party of the U.S. taxpayer contributes depreciable property to the partnership (see §1.59A-7(c)(3)(iii)), (2) a partnership with a partner that is a foreign related party of the taxpayer partner engages in a transaction with the taxpayer (see §1.59A-7(c)(1)) or (3) a partnership engages in a transaction with a foreign related party of a partner in the partnership (id.).
 
The general ECI exception reflected in §1.59A-3(b)(3)(iii)(A) would not apply if a U.S. person purchased depreciable or amortizable property from a foreign related party and that property was not held in connection with a U.S. trade or business. Similarly, when a U.S. person is treated as purchasing the same depreciable or amortizable property from a foreign related party under §1.59A-7(c)(3)(iii) because the foreign related party contributes that property to a partnership, the ECI exception does not apply even though the property becomes a partnership asset after the transaction and the partnership uses the property in its U.S. trade or business.
 
To implement this addition, the final regulations include modified certification procedures similar to those set forth in §1.59A-3(b)(3)(iii)(A) in order for the taxpayer to qualify for this exception. Specifically, the final regulations require a taxpayer to obtain a written statement from a foreign related party that is comparable to a withholding certification provided under §1.59A-3(b)(3)(iii)(A), but which takes into account that the transaction is a deemed transaction under §1.59A-7(b) or (c) rather than a transaction for which the foreign related party is required to report ECI. The taxpayer may rely on the written statement unless it has reason to know or actual knowledge that the statement is incorrect.
 
The final regulations provide that the partnership anti-abuse rule for derivatives does not apply when a payment with respect to a derivative on a partnership asset qualifies for the qualified derivative payment (QDP) exception.17
 
The 2019 final regulations include an anti-abuse rule that provides that if a transaction, plan or arrangement has a principal purpose of increasing the adjusted basis of property that a taxpayer acquires in a specified nonrecognition transaction, the nonrecognition exception of §1.59A-3(b)(3)(viii)(A) will not apply to the nonrecognition transaction. Additionally, §1.59A-9(b)(4) contains an irrebuttable presumption that a transaction, plan or arrangement between related parties that increases the adjusted basis of property within the six-month period before the taxpayer acquires the property in a specified nonrecognition transaction has a principal purpose of increasing the adjusted basis of property that a taxpayer acquires in a nonrecognition transaction. The final regulations modify the anti-abuse rule to now provide that when the rule applies, its effect is to turn off the application of the specified nonrecognition transaction exception only to the extent of the basis step-up amount. Second, §1.59A-9(b)(4) has been revised to clarify that the transaction, plan, or arrangement with a principal purpose of increasing the adjusted basis of property must also have a connection to the acquisition of the property by the taxpayer in a specified nonrecognition transaction.
 
The final regulations generally apply to taxable years beginning on or after the date of publication in the Federal Register. The rules in §§1.59A-7(c)(5)(v) and (g)(2)(x), and 1.59A-9(b)(5) and (6) apply to taxable years ending on or after December 2, 2019. Taxpayers may apply the final regulations in their entirety for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, and before their applicability date, provided that, once applied, taxpayers must continue to apply these regulations in their entirety for all subsequent taxable years.18 Alternatively, taxpayers may apply only §1.59A-3(c)(5) and (6) for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, and before their applicability date, provided that, once applied, taxpayers must continue to apply §1.59A-3(c)(5) and (6) in their entirety for all subsequent taxable years. Taxpayers may also rely on §§1.59A-2(c)(2)(ii) and (c)(4) through (6), and 1.59A-3(c)(5) and (c)(6) of the proposed regulations in their entirety for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, and before the date of publication in the Federal Register.
 
For additional details, including items not discussed in this summary, see the final regulations.  

UPCO Insights

Despite numerous comments, the final regulations retain the rule in the proposed regulations and do not permit a taxpayer to decrease the amount of deductions that are waived either by filing an amended federal income tax return or during an examination.

The New Reality Of Commercial Real Estate

There’s no question the global pandemic of 2020 quickened trends of the future that were hitting the wall of the present: Employers resistant to allowing employees to work remotely suddenly had no choice as localities enacted mandatory state-at-home measures.

Businesses migrated to remote work on an unprecedented scale – a great experiment, the ripple effects of which are many for real estate. As parts of the business world adjust to working from home, some are finding multi-year office leases may no longer be required or, at a minimum, their needs for physical space will decrease. Others are looking to downsize given the impact of the recession on revenues. What does the future hold for landlords and developers managing commercial space?

Suburban Commercial Migration

The pandemic has accelerated a quiet yet steady suburban migration that has been underway for the last few years. 

As Millennials coming of working age helped shape reurbanization in the 2000s, so will they shape suburbanization in their search for different space needs, better quality of life and better schools for the families they are starting. The so-called death knell of suburbia was never to ring; the fluctuations in urban/suburban living over the last several decades are cyclical—and COVID-19 is accelerating the cycle. 

Satellite offices and suburban headquarters are two ripple effects we will see. What are the opportunities arising from them?

SATELLITE OFFICES

As businesses streamline their urban operations and seek small offices closer to where their employees live, they will be searching for the right mix of convenience and safety—for example, strip mall-like single- or two-story buildings to which employees can drive up and walk into without having to pass through a crowded office building lobby or ride an elevator with other people.

SUBURBAN HEADQUARTERS

Some may abandon urban headquarters entirely. Workers moving from urban areas will take their urban tastes and preferences with them. Landlords looking to support companies that want to attract and retain talent will try to understand and cater to those preferences. Suburban offices should consider:

  • Building out an “amenitized” campus
  • Outfitting areas for working outdoors (patios, balconies, rooftop gardens)
  • Adapting larger floor plates away from open floor plans
  • Building out amenities (redesigning shared spaces such as fitness centers, cafes or lunchrooms for social distancing and health safety, and providing childcare centers) 

Moving to a Hub and Spoke

With poll after poll finding that a significant percentage of workers desire work-from-home flexibility when offices reopen or will no longer accept long commutes to city centers, many businesses are tailoring their space needs and pivoting to a hub-and-spoke model, in which they downsize their urban presence and open satellite offices in suburban locations.

A dispersed client base and empty space are two ripple effects we will see. What are the opportunities arising from them?

DISPERSED CLIENT BASE

Hub as keeper of brand + culture: Concerns about keeping a cohesive culture and identity, even brand, in a post-COVID world in which employees don’t occupy the same space can be allayed by making headquarters the heart and soul of the company. For efficiency’s sake, landlords making changes to their buildings should also consider changes that support companies that are seeking to solve the culture challenge.

EMPTY SPACE

Coworking: COVID-19 will not be the end of coworking, but landlords will change how coworking looks. Companies will need smaller satellite spaces within cities to accommodate employees who live in urban areas and need to meet with clients or don’t necessarily want to work from home. In this scenario, businesses downsize their main headquarters and lease space that has been redesigned for social distancing and contagion concerns yet boasts modern amenities and flexible lease terms (more favorable than locking in a multi-year lease). 

Competition: Rising vacancy rates will mean competition for tenants. Landlords who take steps to address contagion concerns—offering touchless access and installing thermal cameras and HVAC systems, for example—will have an edge.

Suburban Industrial Migration

E-commerce has transformed the industrial sector: Tenants’ new needs (e.g., on-demand warehousing) altered business as usual. Now new pockets of e-commerce—like online grocery—are increasing market share; e-commerce sales are estimated to hit $1.5T by 2025, creating demand for 1 billion square feet of industrial space, according to JLL. Leaders should consider: 

  • Modernizing distribution centers and locating closer to end markets to keep up with growing consumer demand
  • Making new investments in areas where rapid growth in e-commerce is expected 
  • Locating in areas where valuations are lower than primary or more saturated markets

Increased demand and shifting population demographics are two ripple effects we will see. What are the opportunities arising from them?

SHIFTING POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS

Suburban demand: As city dwellers seek out the suburbs, there will be a synchronous shift in the location of demand: Companies like Amazon will desire fulfillment centers located closer to the end user, for example. Industry operators should reassess their projections for where demand will be and make investments accordingly.

INCREASED DEMAND

Creative space: Net absorption rates vary depending on the market. The global impact of e-commerce is here to stay, and landlords should consider:  

  • Giving prospective tenants flexibility within their lease terms to utilize industrial space according to their specific needs, which could be seasonal or based on other fluctuations in product demand
  • Building out adjacent acreage, if possible
  • Outfitting space with the latest digital capabilities in order to increase operational efficiencies and lower costs

This Great Experiment may prove to be a value proposition for both employer and employee, causing a shift in real estate. Employees may now see the value in shorter commutes and demand additional suburban locations to accommodate their lifestyles while employers may be willing to accommodate based on lower suburban rents and proof that everyone does not need to be in a downtown office for a business to succeed.  Still, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the future of work. The future will shift as the impacts of the global pandemic continue to unfold, but we will continue to feel the ripple effects of the Great Experiment for the foreseeable future.

PPP Loan Forgiveness Update: Change For 5% Owner-Employees Of Corporations And Certain Non-Payroll Costs

On August 24, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR) that, for the first time, sets a de minimis rule for Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan forgiveness for owner-employees who own less than 5% of a corporation. The IFR also provides additional guidance on PPP loan forgiveness of certain nonpayroll costs. The IFR is effective immediately.


New Rule for 5% Owners of Corporations

SBA guidance on PPP loan repayment from May and June capped the amount of loan forgiveness for owner-employee payroll compensation and attempted to explain what that meant for different types of entities – with different results for C corporations, S corporations, limited liability companies (LLCs), general partnerships, and sole proprietorships.  But the earlier guidance did not set forth any exceptions based on the owner-employee’s percentage of ownership.

Under the new IFR, any individual with a less than 5% ownership stake in a PPP borrower that is a C corporation or S corporation is now exempt from the special PPP owner-employee compensation rules when determining the amount of their compensation that is eligible for PPP loan forgiveness. Less than 5% corporate owner-employees can now use the more favorable nonowner rules for payroll costs to be forgiven.

In issuing the de minimis ownership rule for C and S corporation owners, the SBA said that the exemption was intended “to cover owner-employees who have no meaningful ability to influence decisions over how loan proceeds are allocated.” The new IFR creates different results based on the PPP borrower’s choice of entity.

Accordingly, borrowers may want to revisit their PPP loan forgiveness application to increase payroll costs for owner-employees who own less than 5% of a corporation.

UPCO Insight

The new IFR did not address LLCs, partnerships or sole proprietorships, so the 5% owner exception appears to be limited only to corporations for the time being. The owners of LLCs taxed as partnerships might not be covered. Regardless, not all partners are treated as owner-employees because earlier guidance applied the owner-employee rules only to general partners.

New Nonpayroll Cost Rules

The IFR sets out new limits for PPP loan forgiveness on rent payments and mortgage interest payments made to “related parties.” The IFR says: “Any ownership in common between the business and the property owner is a related party for these purposes.” So the typical controlled group, affiliated service group or common control rules (including family or other attribution rules) do not apply in determining if the parties are related for PPP loan forgiveness of nonpayroll costs. Now, rent or lease payments to related parties qualify for forgiveness only if (1) the payments don’t exceed the amount of mortgage interest owed on the property during the covered period that is attributable to space rented by the business, and (2) the lease and mortgage were entered into before February 15, 2020. The IFR also says that mortgage interest payments made to a related party are not eligible for PPP loan forgiveness.

Finally, the new IFR says that nonpayroll amounts attributable to a business operation of a tenant or subtenant of a PPP borrower are not eligible for forgiveness.

UPCO Insights

Many businesses pay rent to their owners that don’t have a mortgage on the property. Nothing in the CARES Act or prior IFRs hinted at these new limitations based on a landlord-tenant or related party relationship, so many borrowers likely included those amounts in their expected PPP forgiveness calculations.

Accordingly, borrowers may want to revisit the PPP loan forgiveness documentation to eliminate (1) rent paid to related parties that exceeds the interest on the property’s mortgage, (2) any nonpayroll expense that is reimbursed by a sublease tenant, and (3) mortgage interest payments to a related party.