- 1 -
April 3, 1992
TO: TAX MEMBERS NO. 23-92
ACCOUNTING/TREASURERS MEMBERS NO. 20-92
CLOSED-END FUND MEMBERS NO. 19-92
INTERNATIONAL MEMBERS NO. 7-92
RE: PROPOSED REGULATIONS ON PASSIVE FOREIGN INVESTMENT COMPANIES
CONTAIN MARK-TO-MARKET SYSTEM FOR OPEN- AND CLOSED-END FUNDS
__________________________________________________________
As you know, the passive foreign investment company
("PFIC") provisions of the Internal Revenue Code cause a
regulated investment company ("RIC") which sells at a gain shares
of a PFIC held by the RIC in more than one tax year to incur a
fund-level tax which cannot be avoided by distributing the gain.
The Institute has been working to eliminate this tax either
legislatively or through regulations. The recent, vetoed tax
bill contained a mark-to-market regime which would have resolved
this problem. (See Institute Memorandum to Board of Governors
No. 19-92, Tax Members No. 15-92, Closed-End Fund Members No. 13-
92, Unit Investment Trust Members No. 20-92, Accounting/
Treasurers Members No. 12-92, Operations Members No. 11-92,
International Committee No. 7-92, Institutional Funds Committee
No. 3-92 and Transfer Agent Advisory Committee No. 14-92, dated
March 23, 1992.)
We are pleased to announce that the Treasury Department has
issued proposed regulations on PFICs which include the mark-to-
market system for RICs that the Institute has sought. Although
there are a few minor technical problems with the regulations,
they contain essentially all of the provisions requested by the
Institute.
The proposed regulations would allow all open-end RICs and
closed-end RICs which publish their net asset value at least
weekly to elect to mark to market all shares of PFICs (referred
to in the proposed regulations as "section 1291 funds") as of the
end of each tax year. Among the consequences of the election are
the following:
o Any gain on such marking-to-market would be
ordinary income and treated as an excess
distribution; any loss would not be recognized.
- 2 -
Because the income would all be recognized in a
single tax year, however, it would be gross income
to the RIC and could be distributed to avoid a
fund-level tax.
o Any section 1291 fund stock which had been marked-
to-market would be considered to restart its
holding period at the beginning of each year, even
if marking-to-market resulted in an unrecognized
loss.
o The basis of any section 1291 fund stock with mark-
to-market gain would be adjusted to avoid double
inclusion of income.
o Marking-to-market would have no effect on the
treatment of the section 1291 fund for other PFIC
purposes. Therefore, distributions from such a
fund would remain taxable under the general PFIC
rules. Gain on disposition of a section 1291 fund
also would be treated as an excess distribution;
thus, even actual disposition gain would be
ordinary income.
Although the proposed regulations are not retroactive, they
do provide for a transition rule under which a RIC may make an
election for its first taxable year ending after the date the
regulations are finalized to include as ordinary income all of
the gain on each section 1291 fund and to pay a nondeductible
interest charge. Similarly, if a RIC discovers an "undiscovered
PFIC", it may elect to recognize the prior years' gains on the
discovered stock in the year of discovery and pay the
nondeductible interest charge.
Currently, no public hearing has been scheduled. Please
call the undersigned at (202) 955-3521 by Monday, April 20, 1992,
if you have any comments on the proposed regulations. Although
this requested comment deadline is significantly ahead of the
date set by the Treasury for comments, the Institute plans to
file comments as soon as possible requesting that the proposed
regulations be finalized promptly or, in the alternative, that
they be issued in Temporary form, so that RICs may sooner take
advantage of the transition rule.
We will keep you informed of further developments.
David J. Mangefrida Jr.
Assistant Counsel - Tax
Attachment
Latest Comment Letters:
TEST - ICI Comment Letter Opposing Sales Tax on Additional Services in Maryland
ICI Comment Letter Opposing Sales Tax on Additional Services in Maryland
ICI Response to the European Commission on the Savings and Investments Union