June 14, 1994
TO: ACCOUNTING/TREASURERS COMMITTEE NO. 30-94
TAX COMMITTEE NO. 21-94
RE: JUNE 21 MEETING TO DISCUSS IRS RULING ON REGULATED
INVESTMENT COMPANY INVESTMENTS IN PARTNERSHIPS
__________________________________________________________
As we previously informed you, the IRS recently issued
Revenue Ruling 94-40 clarifying the application of the excise tax
minimum distribution rules of Internal Revenue Code section 4982
to a regulated investment company ("RIC") holding an interest in
a partnership. (See Institute Memoranda to Accounting/Treasurers
Members No. 15-94, Closed-End Fund Committee No. 14-94 and Tax
Members No. 25-94, dated June 10, 1994). The ruling states that
a RIC partner in a partnership must determine its required
distribution under section 4982 by taking into account its share
of partnership gain or loss as if the RIC had owned directly its
share of the partnership's assets. The ruling applies to all RIC
partnership investments.
The ruling raises substantial concerns regarding the ability
of RICs holding partnership investments to make distributions
that satisfy the section 4982 requirements. The ruling states
that, for purposes of section 4982, a RIC is to recognize income
earned by the partnership at the time the RIC would have
recognized the income had it owned its share of the partnership's
assets directly. For purposes of determining a RIC's earnings
and profits, however, the RIC recognizes its share of the
partnership's income on the last day of the partnership's taxable
year. Therefore, the RIC could have income for purposes of the
required minimum distribution rule, but not have earnings and
profits to support the required distribution.
In addition, the ruling raises substantial issues concerning
the application of special tax accounting rules and tax elections
to assets held by such partnerships. For example, under the
special RIC tax accounting rule of section 852(b)(9), it appears
that a RIC partner would recognize dividend income on stock held
by the partnership on the date the stock goes ex-dividend, even
though the partnership would not recognize the dividend income
until the payment date. Similarly, the partnership and the RIC
may have different elections concerning the amortization of bond
premium, the treatment of section 1256 contracts or the treatment
of foreign currency gains and losses under section 988. Such
differences could result in mismatches between the timing and
amount of income recognized by the partnership and the RIC for
purposes of section 4982.
The IRS has asked for comments concerning possible
exceptions to the application of the ruling. The Institute has
scheduled a meeting on June 21, 1994 to discuss the ruling and
develop industry comments. If possible, persons attending the
meeting should be prepared to provide specific information
concerning the nature and size of current RIC partnership
investments, including both information regarding 1) the
percentage of each RIC's assets invested in a single partnership
and in all its partnership holdings; and 2) the percentage of
each partnership held by a single RIC. In addition, attendees
should be prepared to consider how application of tax accounting
rules and elections, particularly elections or treatment that
differ between the partnership and a RIC partner, would affect a
RIC's minimum distribution requirement under section 4982 and its
ability to make qualifying distributions.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 21, 1994 at 10:00
a.m. in the 12th Floor Conference Room at the Institute's office
at 1401 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. Lunch will be served
following the meeting. Please indicate on the attached form if
you plan to attend.
Peter Cinquegrani
Assistant Counel - Tax
Attachment
Please fax this portion to Michelle Nasuti, Investment
Company Institute, 202-326-5841.
Meeting to Discuss Ruling Concerning RIC
Partnership Investments
10:00 a.m., Tuesday, June 21, 1994
Investment Company Institute
I (We) plan to attend the Meeting
ATTENDEE(S)
COMPANY NAME
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