In considering single, discrete issue, IRS rules on distributing corporation’s retention of stock in spinoff

Tax Hot Topics
Tax Hot TopicsIn a private letter ruling released on Jan. 16 (PLR 201503006), the IRS considered a single, discrete legal issue related to a proposed Section 355 spin-off transaction. The IRS ruled that the distributing corporation’s (Distributing) retention of certain shares of stock in the controlled corporation (Controlled) was not in pursuance of a plan that had as one of its principal purposes the avoidance of U.S. federal income tax under Section 355(a)(1)(D)(ii).

In the facts of the PLR, Distributing owned 100% of the outstanding stock of Controlled. Distributing distributed some, but not all, of Controlled’s stock to Distributing’s public shareholders. The amount of Controlled stock distributed by Distributing was at least equal to, or in excess of, the amount needed to constitute control of Controlled as defined in Section 368(c).

Distributing retained a certain amount of Controlled stock to accomplish various business purposes. Distributing said it intended to eventually dispose of the retained stock in Controlled through (1) transferring the stock to a director trust, (2) awarding the stock to various participants in a restricted stock plan, and/or (3) selling the stock on the open market. Distributing represented that its business purposes for the retention of stock in Controlled were to reflect the diminution of value, because of the spinoff, of shares of Distributing stock held by the director trust, to support Distributing’s obligations with respect to its restricted stock award plan, to facilitate the reduction of debt, to enhance liquidity and to maintain its credit rating.

The IRS did not rule on whether the spin-off transaction qualified under Section 355 and did not review information pertaining to the overall tax consequences of the spin-off. Instead the IRS merely ruled on a single, discrete legal issue with respect to the transaction, ruling that Distributing’s retention of Controlled stock was not in pursuance of a plan that had as one of its principal purposes the avoidance of U.S. federal income tax under Section 355(a)(1)(D)(ii).

Andy Cordonnier
T +1 202-521-1502

Tax professional standards statement
This document supports Grant Thornton LLP’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. If you are interested in the subject of this document, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax adviser to discuss the potential application to your particular situation. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein. To the extent this document may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this document is not intended by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.

The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal or tax advice provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.