Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden (D-OR) today released a discussion draft of proposed legislation to modify the taxation of financial derivatives.
The “Modernization of Derivatives Tax Act” (MODA) attempts to unify and simplify the treatment of derivatives by creating one timing rule, one character rule, and one sourcing rule for all derivatives.
The proposed draft is estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to increase tax revenues by $16.5 billion over 10 years. Documents relating to the discussion draft—including legislative text and a technical explanation prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation—are available on the Finance Committee’s website.
Among other modifications, the proposals in the discussion draft would:
The discussion draft defines a derivative as any contract (including any option, forward contract, futures contract, short position, swap, or similar contract) the value of which is determined directly or indirectly by reference to one or more of the following:
Among the items excluded from the definition of a derivative by the discussion draft are: American depositary receipts (ADRs); contracts that require the physical delivery of real property; hedging transactions (as defined under section 1221(b)); certain positions in securities lending and sale-repurchase transactions; options received for the performance of services; insurance, annuity, and endowment contracts if issued by an insurance company; contracts relating to stock issued by members of the same affiliated group; and contracts generally requiring physical delivery of a commodity that is used in the normal course of a taxpayer’s trade or business.
The discussion draft generally provides that taxpayers must recognize gain or loss on a derivative contract and an underlying investment held at the close of the taxpayer’s tax year as if it had been transferred or terminated at that time. The discussion draft also has special rules regarding taxable events for investment hedging units.
The discussion draft provides a comprehensive regime for the taxation of “investment hedging units” or “IHUs.” In general, an IHU would comprise one or more derivatives and one or more underlying investments or portions thereof. The derivative and underlying investment would be subject to the mark-to-market method of accounting and gain or loss on those items would be ordinary.
The existence of an IHU would be determined when a taxpayer holds (directly or indirectly including through certain related-party attribution rules) both a derivative and an underlying investment or portions thereof during the applicable hedging period, provided the derivative and the underlying investment have a certain financial relationship (“delta”). To be considered an IHU, all derivatives relating to an underlying investment would have to have, singularly or in combination, a delta between -0.7 and -1.0.
Further, a taxpayer could elect to apply the IHU rules to all derivatives with respect to an underlying investment and all of such underlying investments without regard to the delta test, but such an election would be irrevocable. A taxpayer that fails to satisfy the IHU derivative testing and identification requirements would be treated as having made the election to apply the IHU rules to all derivatives with respect to an underlying investment.
IHU taxable events would include the establishment of the IHU, and any modifications to the IHU made thereafter—such as the acquisition, termination, transfer, sale or exchange of any included derivative or underlying investment. Built-in losses would not be recognized during the establishment of an IHU or when position are added to the IHU, while built-in gains would be recognized at such times. In general, the IHU derivative testing and identification requirements would apply at the following times during which a taxpayer simultaneously holds one or more derivatives with respect to an underlying investment and one or more portions of the underlying investment: (1) the beginning of that period; (2) immediately after the taxpayer enters into another derivative with respect to the underlying investment or acquires an additional amount of such underlying investment; (3) after the taxpayer terminates or transfers one or more derivatives with respect to the underlying investment or sells or exchanges any portion of the underlying investment (except if the underlying investment is not part of an IHU); or (4) such other times as prescribed in regulations.
After the IHU is terminated, the underlying investment again would receive capital treatment and the holding period is reset.
Finally, the discussion draft would repeal nine Code sections—sections 1233, 1234, 1234A, 1234B, 1236, 1256, 1258, 1259—and amend numerous other Code sections that apply to derivatives.
This discussion draft proposal, if enacted, would sweep away the various timing and character rules that apply to different derivative contracts. Applying a single timing and character rule to all types of derivative contracts would simplify certain aspects of any tax analysis. No longer would it be necessary to categorize a contract and identify the rules that would apply—although it would still be necessary to determine whether the contract is a “derivative” as defined under the discussion draft. A single rule for all derivatives would eliminate the electivity that comes with different rules for different types of contracts. It would also clarify the tax treatment of new financial products.
Furthermore, this proposal appears to be based, in significant part, on the earlier discussion draft presented in 2014 by then-chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Dave Camp. The Camp proposal addressed the tax treatment of financial derivatives, although today’s proposal addresses a number of uncertainties presented by the Camp proposal, including scope and valuation.
For example, the discussion draft clarifies that a derivative would not include direct ownership of an underlying investment, and expressly carves out of the definition of derivative certain things such as insurance contracts, annuities, options received in connection with the performance of services, and lenders of a security under a securities loan. The proposal also does not apply to certain contracts on real property and commodities used in the normal course of a trade or business if those contracts require physical settlement or permit cash settlement only in unusual or exceptional circumstances. Furthermore, the discussion draft expressly applies to any derivative with respect to any rate, price, amount, index, formula or algorithm, something that was uncertain in Chairman Camp’s proposal.
<p>© 2018 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.</p> <p>KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”) is a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm.</p>
The KPMG logo and name are trademarks of KPMG International. KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent member firms. KPMG International provides no audit or other client services. Such services are provided solely by member firms in their respective geographic areas. KPMG International and its member firms are legally distinct and separate entities. They are not and nothing contained herein shall be construed to place these entities in the relationship of parents, subsidiaries, agents, partners, or joint venturers. No member firm has any authority (actual, apparent, implied or otherwise) to obligate or bind KPMG International or any member firm in any manner whatsoever. The information contained in herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 4366, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.