Treasury Issues Final Rule for Dividend Equivalents From Sources Within U.S.

Targeted News Service

WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 -- The Department of Treasury published the following final rule in the Federal Register from the Internal Revenue Service for dividend equivalents from sources within the U.S. (Document Citation: 82 FR 8144; CFR: 26 CFR 1; Agency/Docket Numbers: TD 9815; RIN: 1545-BM33; Document Number: 2017-01163):

***

This document provides guidance to nonresident alien individuals and foreign corporations that hold certain financial products providing for payments that are contingent upon or determined by reference to U.S. source dividend payments. This document also provides guidance to withholding agents that are responsible for withholding U.S. tax with respect to a dividend equivalent, as well as certain other parties to section 871(m) transactions and their agents.

DATES:

Effective Date: These regulations are effective on January 19, 2017.

Applicability Dates: For dates of applicability, see sections1.871-15(r); 1.871-15T(r)(4); 1.1441-1(f)(5); 1.1441-2(f); 1.1441-7(a)(4); 1.1461-1(i).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

D. Peter Merkel or Karen Walny at (202) 317-6938 (not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Paperwork Reduction Act

The collection of information contained in these final regulations has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) under control numbers 1545-0096 and 1545-1597. The collections of information in these regulations are in section1.871-15T(p) and are an increase in the total annual burden in the current regulations under sections1.1441-1 through 1.1441-9. This information is required to establish whether a payment is treated as a U.S. source dividend for purposes of section 871(m) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). This information will be used for audit and examination purposes. The IRS intends that these information collection requirements will be satisfied by persons complying with chapter 3 reporting requirements and the requirements of the applicable qualified intermediary (QI) revenue procedure, or alternative certification and documentation requirements set out in these regulations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.

Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Background

On January 23, 2012, the Federal Register published temporary regulations (TD 9572) at 77 FR 3108 (2012 temporary regulations), and a notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to the temporary regulations and notice of public hearing at 77 FR 3202 (2012 proposed regulations, and together with the 2012 temporary regulations, 2012 section 871(m) regulations) under section 871(m) of the Code. The 2012 section 871(m) regulations relate to dividend equivalents from sources within the United States paid to nonresident alien individuals and foreign corporations. Corrections to the 2012 temporary regulations were published on February 6, 2012, and March 8, 2012, in the Federal Register at 77 FR 5700 and 77 FR 13969, respectively. A correcting amendment to the 2012 temporary regulations was also published on August 31, 2012, in the Federal Register at 77 FR 53141. The Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the IRS received written comments on the 2012 proposed regulations, and a public hearing was held on April 27, 2012.

On December 5, 2013, the Federal Register published final regulations and removal of temporary regulations (TD 9648) at 78 FR 73079 (2013 final regulations), which finalized a portion of the 2012 section 871(m) regulations. On the same date, the Federal Register published a withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking, a notice of proposed rulemaking, and a notice of public hearing at 78 FR 73128 (2013 proposed regulations). In light of comments on the 2012 proposed regulations, the 2013 proposed regulations described a new approach for determining whether a payment made pursuant to a notional principal contract (NPC) or an equity-linked instrument (ELI) is a dividend equivalent based on the delta of the contract. In response to written comments on the 2013 proposed regulations, the Treasury Department and the IRS released Notice 2014-14, 2014-13 IRB 881, on March 24, 2014 (see section601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b)), stating that the Treasury Department and the IRS anticipated limiting the application of the rules with respect to specified ELIs described in the 2013 proposed regulations to ELIs issued on or after 90 days after the date of publication of final regulations.

On September 18, 2015, the Federal Register published final regulations and temporary regulations (TD 9734), at 80 FR 56866, which finalized a portion of the 2013 proposed regulations and introduced new temporary regulations based on comments received with respect to the 2013 proposed regulations (2015 final regulations and 2015 temporary regulations, respectively, and together, the 2015 regulations). On the same date, the Federal Register published a notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations and a notice of public hearing at 80 FR 56415 (2015 proposed regulations, and together with the 2015 final regulations, 2015 section 871(m) regulations). A correcting amendment to the 2015 final regulations and the 2015 proposed regulations was published on December 7, 2015, in the Federal Register at 80 FR 75946 and 80 FR 75956, respectively.

The Treasury Department and the IRS received written comments on the 2015 proposed regulations, which are available at www.regulations.gov. The public hearing scheduled for January 15, 2016, was cancelled because no request to speak was received.

On July 1, 2016, the Treasury Department and the IRS released Notice 2016-42, 2016-29 IRB 67 (see section601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b)) (QI Notice), containing a proposed amended qualified intermediary agreement. The QI Notice included the requirements and obligations applicable to a QI that acts as a qualified derivatives dealer (QDD). The Treasury Department and the IRS received written comments on Notice 2016-42, which to the extent related to section 871(m) and QDDs are discussed in the "Qualified Derivatives Dealer" section of this preamble. On December 30, 2016, the Treasury Department and the IRS released Revenue Procedure 2017-15, 2017-3 IRB 437 (2017 QI Agreement), which contains the final QI withholding agreement and the requirements and obligations applicable to QDDs.

On December 2, 2016, the Treasury Department and the IRS released Notice 2016-76, 2016-51 IRB 834, providing guidance for complying with the final and temporary regulations under sections 871(m) and 1441, 1461, and 1473 in 2017 and 2018 and explaining how the IRS intends to administer those regulations in 2017 and 2018.

On March 6, 2014, temporary regulations (TD 9658) revising certain provisions of the final chapters 3 and 61 regulations were published in the Federal Register (79 FR 12726), and corrections to those temporary regulations were published in the Federal Register (79 FR 37181) on July 1, 2014. Those regulations were issued to coordinate with certain provisions of the 2013 final chapter 4 regulations, as well as temporary regulations (TD 9657) under chapter 4 published in the Federal Register (79 FR 12812). A notice of proposed rulemaking cross-referencing the 2014 temporary coordination regulations was published in the Federal Register on March 6, 2014 (79 FR 12880). On January 6, 2017, the Treasury Department and IRS published in the Federal Register (82 FR 2046) final chapters 3 and 61 regulations, as well as temporary regulations (TD 9808).

This Treasury decision generally adopts the 2015 proposed regulations with the changes discussed in this preamble. This Treasury decision also includes several technical amendments to the 2015 final regulations in response to comments on those regulations, which are discussed in this preamble. Finally, this Treasury decision provides new temporary regulations based on comments received with respect to the 2015 proposed regulations.

Summary of Comments and Explanation of Provisions

I. Technical Corrections to Certain Definitions

A. Broker

Section 1.871-15(p) generally provides that a broker or dealer is responsible for determining whether a potential section 871(m) transaction is a section 871(m) transaction and for reporting to the customer the timing and amount of any dividend equivalent. Section 1.871-15(a)(1) defines the term broker as "a broker within the meaning provided in section 6045(c)." Comments explained that many regulated investment companies satisfy the definition of a broker under section 6045(c) and the regulations thereunder because the term broker includes a corporation that regularly redeems its own shares. The comments noted that these regulated investment companies may enter into transactions as a short party with a foreign financial institution who is the long party. In these transactions, the comments asserted, the foreign financial institution (not the regulated investment company) is more capable of determining delta and making other calculations.

The Treasury Department and the IRS agree that an entity should not be treated as a broker for purposes of section 871(m) solely because it redeems its own shares. The rules are intended to assign responsibility for making the determinations related to potential section 871(m) transactions to the party that regularly enters into equity derivatives with customers or holds equity derivatives on behalf of customers. When a regulated investment company is the short party in a transaction with a financial institution, the Treasury Department and the IRS agree that the financial institution is in the better position to determine delta and make other determinations required by section 871(m). Accordingly, the definition of the term broker has been revised in the temporary regulations so that it will not apply to a corporation that would be treated as a broker pursuant to section 6045(c) solely because it regularly redeems its own shares.

B. Dividend Equivalents

Section 1.871-15(c) provides that, subject to certain exceptions, a dividend equivalent includes any payment that references the payment of a dividend from an underlying security pursuant to a securities lending or sale-repurchase transaction, specified NPC, or specified ELI. A dividend is defined in section1.871-15(a)(3) as "a dividend as described in section 316." Section 1.871-15(c)(2)(ii) reduces a dividend equivalent by any amount treated in accordance with sections 305(b) and (c) as a dividend (a "section 305(c) dividend") with respect to the underlying security referenced by the section 871(m) transaction.

A comment suggested that the regulations clarify how this rule applies when a derivative references an underlying security that has a section 305(c) dividend. Another comment noted that section1.871-15(c)(2)(ii) reduces the dividend equivalent amount by section 305(c) dividends, and that this reduction arguably applies both to the person who holds the underlying security giving rise to the section 305(c) dividend and to a holder of a section 871(m) transaction that references the underlying security that gives rise to the section 305(c) dividend.

To address these comments, these final regulations revise the definition of a dividend to explicitly provide that it applies without regard to whether there is an actual distribution of cash or property. A conforming change is also made to section1.871-15(c)(2)(ii), which is revised to clarify that only a long party that is treated as receiving a section 305(c) dividend is entitled to reduce its dividend equivalent amount and that a section 305(c) dividend gives rise to a dividend equivalent.

Thus, for example, a long party that owns a convertible note that is a section 871(m) transaction and has a section 305(c) dividend can reduce its dividend equivalent by the section 305(c) dividend. In contrast, a long party that owns a specified NPC that references the same convertible note would receive a dividend equivalent that includes the section 305(c) dividend and would not be entitled to reduce its dividend equivalent by the section 305(c) dividend on the convertible note because the long party does not own the note, and therefore, is not treated as receiving a section 305(c) dividend for federal income tax purposes.

C. Simple Contract

To be a simple contract as defined in section1.871-15(a)(14)(i), the number of shares required to calculate the amounts paid or received on any payment determination date must be ascertainable at the time the delta for the transaction is calculated. Several comments noted that transactions may provide for anti-dilution adjustments to the number of shares as a result of certain corporate actions, and that these adjustments could cause contracts that otherwise would be simple contracts subject to the delta test to become complex contracts subject to the more complicated substantial equivalence test. Adjustments that are intended to maintain the status quo of shareholders generally should not preclude a transaction from being treated as a simple contract. Accordingly, a sentence is added to section1.871-15(a)(14)(i) to provide that an adjustment to the number of shares of the underlying security for a merger, stock split, cash dividend, or similar corporate action that impacts all the holders of the underlying security will not prevent the transaction from being a simple contract.

II. Certain Insurance Contracts

The exceptions for payments made pursuant to annuity, endowment, and life insurance contracts were issued as a temporary rule in section1.871-15T(c)(2)(iv) of the 2015 temporary regulations. Comments generally agreed with the result in section1.871-15T(c)(2)(iv)(A) with respect to insurance contracts issued by domestic insurance companies. Several comments requested that section1.871-15T(c)(2)(iv)(A) be issued as a final regulation without any change. These comments noted that any U.S. source dividend that a foreign insurer receives on U.S. stock it owns with respect to an annuity, endowment, or life insurance contract is already subject to withholding tax.

Another comment recommended changes to make the exception for insurance issued by a foreign company more administrable. That comment suggested that the regulations be extended to any foreign insurance company, without regard to whether the company is predominantly engaged in the business of insurance and would be subject to tax under subchapter L. This comment also recommended that the regulations define the terms "annuity contract," "insurance contract," "life insurance contract," "endowment contract," and "foreign insurance company" based on regulations under section 1471. Finally, the comment noted that the requirement that a company be "predominantly engaged in an insurance business" is unnecessary in light of the requirement that a corporation "would be subject to tax under subchapter L if it were a domestic corporation" because a corporation that would be "subject to tax under subchapter L if it were a domestic corporation" necessarily would be "predominantly engaged in an insurance business."

Comments also recommended that the temporary rule relating to reinsurance should be finalized. Another comment noted that reinsurance subject to the U.S. federal excise tax under section 4371 is not subject to withholding and expressed concern about the interaction of the excise tax and the application of section 871(m) if the reinsurance exception in the temporary regulations was allowed to expire.

These regulations finalize section1.871-15T(c)(2)(iv) with one change. The Treasury Department and the IRS agree that a company that is taxable under subchapter L as an insurance company is necessarily predominantly engaged in an insurance business. Accordingly, in finalizing section1.871-15T(c)(2)(iv)(B), the redundant phrase "predominantly engaged in an insurance business " is removed. Although comments suggested other modifications to certain terms and the addition of certain defined terms, these final regulations do not make these additional changes. The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that the scope of entities and contracts described in the temporary regulations as eligible for the exception is appropriate for section 871(m), and that it is beyond the scope of these regulations to define terms relating to insurance.

III. Determining Delta and the Initial Hedge

Section 1.871-15(g)(2) provides that the delta of a potential section 871(m) transaction is determined only when the contract is issued. For this purpose, an NPC or ELI is issued at the time of the contract's inception, original issuance, or issuance as a result of a deemed exchange pursuant to section 1001. See section1.871-15(a)(6). The same standard is used to determine when a contract is issued for purposes of the substantial equivalence test for complex contracts.

For simple contracts, comments generally suggested changing the time for calculating delta to the earlier of the trade date or the date on which the parties agreed to the material terms or final pricing for the contract. One comment recommended that the date and time when the material terms are finalized is the appropriate date for determining delta because that is the time when the economic terms of the potential section 871(m) transactions are established. Finally, the parties to the contract are generally bound by the terms on the pricing date, not the settlement date. A comment suggested using the trade date if the pricing date is more than 14 days before the issue date because providing too long a period between the pricing and issue date may present an opportunity for abuse.

For listed options, comments suggested a different method for determining the delta of the contract. These comments recommend that the delta for listed options should be based on the closing price from the prior trading day. The comments acknowledged that this approach would be less accurate than the requirement in the final regulations; however, these comments asserted that using the delta calculation from the prior day for listed options would substantially reduce the burden on taxpayers and make the rules more administrable. Comments also noted that the Options Clearing Corporation currently calculates the end-of-day delta for options listed on U.S. options exchanges.

For complex contracts, comments recommended that the substantial equivalence test should be conducted on the date when the short party's hedge is established. According to the comments, the issuer of a complex contract enters into a hedge on the pricing date, not the settlement date. The pricing date therefore reflects the economics of a complex contract more accurately than the settlement date, as long as the two dates are not separated by too much time.

The Treasury Department and the IRS agree with the comments that the date for determining delta and for performing the substantial equivalence test should be revised to be more administrable and to reflect more accurately the economics of the transactions. Accordingly, these regulations provide that the delta of a simple contract is determined on the earlier of the date that the potential section 871(m) transaction is priced and the date when the potential section 871(m) transaction is issued; however, the issue date must be used to determine the delta if the potential section 871(m) transaction is priced more than 14 calendar days before it is issued. A similar rule also applies to the substantial equivalence test.

In addition, the regulations provide a new rule for determining the delta of an option listed on a regulated exchange. For these options, the delta is determined based on the delta of the option at the close of business on the business day before the date of issuance. For this purpose, the regulations define a regulated exchange. A regulated exchange is any exchange defined in section1.871-15(l)(3)(vii) or a foreign exchange that (A) is regulated by a government agency in the jurisdiction in which the exchange is located, (B) maintains certain requirements designed to protect investors and to prevent fraud and manipulation, (C) maintains rules to promote active trading of listed options, and (D) had trades for which the notional value exceeded $10 billion per day during the prior calendar year.

The 2015 final regulations provided a simplified delta calculation for certain simple contracts that reference 10 or more underlying securities, provided that the short party uses an exchange-traded security that references substantially all the underlying securities to hedge the NPC or ELI at the time it is issued (the "hedge security"). The simplified delta calculation allows the short party to calculate the delta of the NPC or ELI by reference to changes in the value of the hedge security. Comments suggested that this rule be extended to cases in which the short party could fully hedge its position by acquiring the exchange-traded security even if it does not in fact hedge in this manner. Because the exchange-traded security must provide a full hedge of the NPC or ELI for this rule to apply, the Treasury Department and the IRS agree that the exchange-traded security will provide an acceptable delta calculation whether or not the short party actually uses that security as its hedge. Accordingly, the regulations are amended to permit the delta with respect to those NPCs and ELIs to be calculated by determining the ratio of the change in the fair market value of the simple contract to a small change in the fair market value of an exchanged-traded security when the exchange-traded security would fully hedge the NPC or ELI.

Some comments noted that third-party data, including delta calculations, may be available for certain potential section 871(m) transactions. These comments requested that the final regulations be amended to explicitly permit withholding agents to rely on this data. Although the final regulations are not amended, the Treasury Department and the IRS note that nothing in the regulations prohibits a taxpayer from obtaining information from a third party. While taxpayers and withholding agents can use third party data to determine whether a potential section 871(m) transaction is a section 871(m) transaction, taxpayers and withholding agents that rely on third-party data remain responsible for the accuracy of that information.

One comment noted that the issuer of a structured note (or an affiliate of the issuer) may act as a market maker for the structured note, and thus may purchase the note in its dealer capacity and then sell the note to the market. According to the comment, if the purchase is treated as a redemption by the issuer of the instrument for tax purposes, the subsequent sale to the market would be treated as a new issue for section 871(m) purposes, in which case the delta for the instrument (or substantial equivalence test) would need to be recomputed at such time. The comment suggested that rules similar to those in section 108 with respect to the purchase of debt instruments by an issuer acting in a dealer capacity could apply to equity derivative structured notes. The Treasury Department and the IRS acknowledge the concern raised by the comment. However, the Treasury Department and the IRS are concerned that an overly broad exception for dealer activity may facilitate transactions that are inconsistent with section 871(m) by allowing dealers to offer instruments that would be subject to section 871(m) so long as the instruments were originally issued with a delta below 0.80. While a dealer that issued such an instrument holds the instrument in inventory, the dealer does not need to hedge the position with an unrelated party. For this reason, market making activity by the issuer of an instrument (or an affiliate of the issuer) presents different policy concerns from market making by an unrelated dealer. The Treasury Department and the IRS invite further comments on the appropriate treatment of structured notes and similar instruments that are acquired by the issuer or an affiliate in its dealer capacity.

IV. Substantial Equivalence Test

Comments to the 2013 proposed regulations generally agreed that the delta test was fair and practical for the majority of equity-linked derivatives. However, comments explained that the delta test would be impractical or impossible to apply to more exotic equity derivatives, such as structured notes in which the long party's return was determined based on an initially indeterminate number of shares of the underlying security. The 2015 section 871(m) regulations address this concern by providing an alternative test--the "substantial equivalence test"--for contracts with indeterminate deltas. For purposes of applying this test, the regulations distinguish between simple and complex contracts. Generally, a simple contract is a contract that references a single, fixed number of shares and has a single maturity or exercise date. A complex contract is any contract that is not a simple contract. Contracts with indeterminate deltas are classified as complex contracts and are subject to the substantial equivalence test.

For the full-text of this document, click this link or copy it into your browser: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/24/2017-01163/dividend-equivalents-from-sources-within-the-united-states

[FR Doc. 2017-01163 Filed 1-19-17; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P

Myron Struck, editor, Targeted News Service, Springfield, Va., 703/304-1897; [email protected]; http://www.targetednews.com

61Ggianani-1290328