M&A Activity Expected to be Strong For 2017

According to a KMPG, LLP survey, 84% of those surveyed expect to initiate a deal in 2017, 75% plan on doing multiple deals. Middle market deals are expected to dominate in 2017 and 78% say their deals would be worth less than $500 million. The most active industry is technology (45%).

Not all deals made it to completion in 2016. According to the KPMG survey, deal failures were most frequently caused by valuation disagreements, a bidding loss and issues revealed during due diligence (financial, operational and management).

Here is  link to the KPMG survey.

Here is a link to a Middle Market M&A study put together by Citizens Commercial Banking.

Here is a link to a Forbes article on the 4 biggest trends in M&A for 2017.

Is your company considering restructuring its business?  Perhaps creating new legal entities or re-aligning its lines of business into different entities?  Changing the ownership structure of the legal entities within the commonly controlled affiliated group?  Or maybe it is considering acquiring or merging with a new business (unrelated third-party)?

Regardless of your company's situation, in each of the above mentioned scenarios, your company must perform its due diligence prior to completing any transaction or restructuring. That due diligence should take into consideration the impact the restructuring or transaction will have on the business operations, legal obligations, insurance, finance, and tax, etc.  

In regards to the tax implications, there can be significant tax ramifications on the transaction or restructuring itself.  In addition to the federal tax impact, the state and local tax impact can be material and varied.  Some of the potential state and local taxes to take into consideration are:  income tax, gross receipts taxes, franchise taxes, sales and use taxes, property taxes and transfer taxes.

Usually the biggest concern in regards to the transaction from a state and local tax perspective are:  

• Is there any sales tax on the sale or transfer of assets or change in ownership? 
• Is there any transfer tax on the transfer of assets or change in ownership?

The answers to these questions depends on the state or states involved.

In addition to the above, the impact that the restructuring will have on the business' state tax nexus (taxable presence) position across the country should be reviewed and considered before making any changes.

So What?

If your company is currently considering any restructuring or acquisition, don't forget about performing state and local tax due diligence.  If the transaction ends up costing the company a significant amount of state tax dollars now or in the future, you may be asked if these issues were considered or reviewed prior to completing the transaction.

Does your company have potential tax liability in multiple states?

Does your company have potential tax liability in multiple states?

Is your company looking for options to resolve?

The Multistate Voluntary Disclosure Program (“MVDP”) provides a way for a taxpayer with potential tax liability in multiple states (including the District of Columbia) to negotiate a settlement, using a uniform procedure coordinated through the National Nexus Program (“NNP”) staff of the Multistate Tax Commission (“Commission”).

For all of the details, go here.

Are you concerned about what tax law changes states will make this year?

The Pew Charitable Trusts provides The Stateline 2017 calendar which includes each state’s legislative schedule as well as maps of the political landscape. Keep it handy to help you track legislative action in all 50 states.

LEVERAGE SALT BLOG NAMED ONE OF 50 BEST

The LEVERAGE SALT blog has been chosen as one of the Top 50 Best Tax Blogs for 2017 by WalletHub. WalletHub is holding a competition where people vote to determine the final ranking of the 50 tax blogs. The voting starts today, February 27, and runs to March 13, 2017.

If you enjoy this blog, I would appreciate your vote. Help make a solo practitioner's blog on state taxes number #1. To vote, GO HERE.

If you haven't received a copy of my FREE SPECIAL REPORT, "The Top 15 State Tax Blind Spots and Top 20 Issues that Impact Businesses of All Sizes," go get it here.

Make it a great day!

Not All Intercompany Transactions Are Created Equal

For any group of affiliated entities, intercompany transactions, such as intercompany purchases, loans, licensing, services, and management, are a way of life. Even though those transactions are a part of normal business operations, they have created problems and opportunities in states that have not adopted combined reporting. States have sought to disallow the deduction of related-party expenses under the presumption that the transactions were not entered into with business purpose or economic substance, or that they distorted the true reflection of income earned in the state.

It could be argued that taxpayers abused the positive effect of ‘‘true’’ intercompany transactions by using special purpose entities such as sales companies, finance companies, and the infamous intangible holding company to shift income from one entity to another or from one state to another. The use of those types of entities and transactions exploded in the 1990s. Since then, states have worked to end that perceived abuse by enacting related-party expense addback legislation or adopting combined reporting. As a result, the ability to use intercompany transactions to shift income has become very difficult.

Taxpayers argue that economic substance and business purpose other than tax savings have always been integral parts of any state tax planning (even in the 1990s). However, taxpayers today approach state tax planning in terms of focusing on the business objective first, and then seeking to implement that objective in a tax-efficient manner. Some practitioners refer to that as business alignment planning. I like to describe it as not putting the cart before the horse.

To read more, check out my article from Tax Analysts State Tax Notes on October 28, 2013. 

Don't forget to sign up to attend the free Bloomberg BNA webinar tomorrow that I am co-presenting: "State Tax Planning for Related-Party Transactions." 

I hope you can join me to discuss:

• Triggers which create problems and opportunities (in regards to related-party transactions)
• Common inter-company transactions
• 6 ways states may respond to related-party transactions (including recent developments and how to analyze, defend and plan)

The Tightrope of Acceptable Intercompany Transactions

The following are excerpts from my January 6, 2014 article in Tax Analysts State Tax Notes. 

The Tightrope
An Indiana taxpayer paid factoring fees to a related entity that was not included in its Indiana income tax return. The taxpayer subcontracted the collection of its accounts receivable to the related entity by factoring the accounts to the entity. According to the taxpayer, the entity charged an arm’s-length rate based on a transfer pricing study prepared in accordance with IRC section 482 and related regulations. An independent third party prepared the study, and the factoring fees reported on the federal returns fell within the range of acceptable prices listed in the study. A portion of the receivable factoring expense that the taxpayer paid came back to it as dividends and loans from the related entity.

After an audit investigation, the Indiana Department of Revenue disallowed more than $57 million of the factoring fees the taxpayer paid to the related entity, which represented the portion of the fees paid to the entity that exceeded its expenses for providing the factoring services. The DOR argued that the taxpayer group, as an economic entity, did not achieve any business or operational advantage that it did not have before the taxpayer started factoring its receivables. The in-house factoring did not result in lower financing costs, the most common reason for factoring. The same departments, such as accounting, credit and collection, and customer service, that existed before the receivable factoring was put in place still existed.However, the functions became part of the operations of the related entity, which didn’t file in Indiana. Thus, the major benefit of the factoring operations was the minimization of state income tax. According to the DOR, that distorted the reported Indiana adjusted gross income without benefiting the whole organization. The factoring entity reported more income than all other entities in the consolidated group, including the taxpayer, which is supposed to be the most dominant entity.

In Indiana Letter of Findings 02-20120612, the DOR said corporate form will normally be respected unless the form is a sham or unreal. The DOR relied on the fact that courts have been consistent in holding that tax avoidance in and of itself is not a valid business purpose. It also relied on IC section 6-3-2-2(m) to distribute, apportion, or allocate income derived from sources in Indiana among organizations, trades, or businesses to fairly reflect income. According to the DOR, the regulations allow it to use any method to equitably allocate and apportion a taxpayer’s income.

Working Without a Net
The taxpayer argued that the independently prepared transfer pricing study provided enough support for the state to accept the intercompany transactions. However, the DOR stated in its letter of findings that the arm’s-length status of a transaction, considered in isolation, is not relevant to whether the substance of a taxpayer’s overall company structure, intercompany transactions, and consolidated group’s deductions fairly reflect a taxpayer’s consolidated group’s taxable Indiana income. According to the DOR, the problem was that the transfer pricing study was performed to analyze the arm’s-length status of the transactions for federal, not state, tax purposes. In fact, the transfer pricing study itself asserted it was not performed for state tax purposes and should not be used by the taxpayer as advice for state tax purposes.

Perhaps the most troublesome issue for the taxpayer was that a portion of the receivable factoring expense it paid came back to it as dividends and loans. The Indiana DOR has routinely provided guidance in letters of findings regarding the circular flow of funds between related parties, such as (i) when a taxpayer makes Intercompany payments and takes expenses for those payments but cannot explain the nature and substance of the underlying agreement and transactions; (ii) when the deduction of royalty and interest expenses are part of a continual circular flow of money between related entities—with the result of shifting taxable income to out-of-state entities that then return nontaxable income to the Indiana entities, calling into question the need for the transactions and resulting in an unfair reflection of the income earned from Indiana sources; and (iii) when the payment of royalties results in an intercompany circular flow of money that serves no commercial business purpose.

The taxpayer argued that its position should be sustained because the business purpose and substance of the related factoring entity were substantially similar to that of the factoring company described in Letter of Findings 02-20090805. However, the DOR argued that the taxpayers’ situations were not factually similar because there was no evidence that the other taxpayer had a circular flow of funds in the form of either loans or dividends. Letter of Findings 02-20090805 simply stated that the facts presented little to indicate that the factoring fees constituted an abusive tax avoidance scheme even though the claimed expenses significantly reduced the income subject to Indiana tax. In fact, the DOR held in Letter of Findings 02-20090805 that the related entity incurred legitimate and reasonable expenses associated with the collection of the factored Receivables. In this case, the DOR did request additional documentation regarding the circular flow of funds, but the taxpayer did not provide it. Thus, the DOR held it had legitimate concerns that the taxpayer exploited the company’s structure and the intercompany transactions to shift a substantial portion of its Indiana income outside the state.

Balancing Act
A related factoring entity can withstand audit scrutiny, but taxpayers should take proper steps to support the path to acceptance. Although each state differs, the lessons from the Indiana letters of findings can be used to substantiate the validity of the transactions. First, taxpayers should have a business or operational purpose for the creation of related entities when large intercompany transactions will occur. Second, taxpayers should realize some type of business benefit, such as liquidity or lower interest rates, for the whole organization as a result of the new entity or structure. Third, taxpayers should not rely on federal transfer pricing studies to substantiate state tax consequences of intercompany transactions. Lastly, taxpayers should avoid the circular flow of funds between related parties. Tax planning is each taxpayer’s right and obligation, but finding the balance between what is and isn’t acceptable is like walking a tightrope. As the Indiana letters of finding show, finding the balance is difficult, but not impossible.

Sidenote: Happy Valentine's Day!