Private Letter Ruling 1039005 Released October 1, 2010 Approved

PLR 1039005: IRS restored S corporation treatment after an inadvertent second class of stock

Apply this to your situation

This page covers one taxpayer's ruling from 2010, which can't be cited as precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current Code and IRS guidance say, with citations.

Currency note: this determination was released in 2010
Statutory amendments, regulation changes, court decisions, or later IRS guidance may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current tax advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or position mentioned here.
Not precedent. Under 26 U.S.C. § 6110(k)(3), this written determination may not be used or cited as precedent. It resolved one taxpayer's situation on its specific facts, and identifying details were redacted by the IRS before release. The official IRS release (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source.
About this page: The plain-English summary and ruling snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official IRS release. The full text is the IRS's own document.
View official IRS release (PDF)

Plain-English summary

A corporation discovered that its charter had created Class A and Class B shares with a possible special dividend for only one class. That structure violated the S corporation requirement that a corporation have only one class of stock, although the corporation never paid the special dividend and consistently allocated tax items pro rata. The IRS concluded that the S election was ineffective because of the second class of stock, but that the failure was inadvertent under IRC § 1362(f). It therefore treated the corporation as an S corporation from the redacted effective date, provided the election was not otherwise terminated.

Ruling snapshot

  • Question: Could the corporation retain S corporation status after inadvertently creating a second class of stock?
  • Outcome: Approved
  • Key authorities: IRC §§ 1361(b)(1)(D) and 1362(f); Treas. Reg. § 1.1361-1(l)

Full text (IRS public release)

Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury
Washington, DC 20224

Number: 201039005 Third Party Communication: None
Release Date: 10/1/2010 Date of Communication: Not Applicable
Index Number: 1362.04-00
Person To Contact:
-------------------------------- -------------------, ID No. -------------
------------------------------- Telephone Number:
------------------------------- ---------------------
---------------------------------- Refer Reply To:
CC:PSI:B02
PLR-104568-10
Date:
June 28, 2010

X = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------

State = -------------

D1 = -----------------------
D2 = -----------------------
D3 = ----------------------
D4 = --------------------------

Dear ---------------:

   This responds to a letter dated January 27, 2010, submitted on behalf of X by its

authorized representative, requesting a ruling under § 1362(f) of the Internal Revenue
Code.

    The information submitted states X was incorporated under the laws of State on

D1. On D2, X filed a certificate of correction to divide the common stock of X into Class
A and Class B shares. The certificate of correction permitted X to declare a special
dividend payable only with respect to the Class B shares. X elected subchapter S
status, effective D3. On D4, X filed a restated certificate of incorporation eliminating the
right to declare a special dividend with respect to the Class B shares. X represents it
never declared any special dividend payable with respect to the Class B shares.

   X determined that due to the issuance of Class A and B stock to its shareholders,

X inadvertently created a second class of stock in violation of the one class of stock
requirement in § 1361(b)(1)(D).

  X represents that it did not intend to create a second class of stock. X and its

shareholders represent that all allocations of income, losses, deductions and credits for
X were made on a pro rata basis among all the shareholders of both classes of stock as
PLR-104568-10 2

though all shares were one class of stock for all years at issue. Furthermore, X
represents that the issuance of more than one class of stock was not motivated by tax
avoidance.

   X represents that it and its shareholders timely and consistently filed their tax

returns consistent with the treatment of X as an S corporation. X and its shareholders
have agreed to make any adjustments that the Commissioner may require, consistent
with the treatment of X as an S corporation.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

   Section 1361(a)(1) of the Code provides that the term "S corporation" means,

with respect to any taxable year, a small business corporation for which an election
under § 1362(a) is in effect for such year.

   Section 1361(b)(1)(B) provides that the term "small business corporation" means

a domestic corporation which is not an ineligible corporation and which does not have
as a shareholder a person (other than an estate, a trust described in § 1361(c)(2), or an
organization described in § 1361(c)(6)) who is not an individual.

   Section 1361(b)(1)(D) provides that, for purposes of subchapter S, the term

"small business corporation" means a domestic corporation that is not an ineligible
corporation and that does not have more than one class of stock.

   Section 1.1361-1(I)(1) of the Income Tax Regulations provides that a corporation

is generally treated as having only one class of stock if all outstanding shares of stock of
the corporation confer identical rights to distribution and liquidation proceeds.

    Section 1.1361-1(I)(2)(i) provides that the determination of whether all

outstanding shares of stock confer identical rights to distribution and liquidation
proceeds is made based on the corporate charter, articles of incorporation, bylaws,
applicable state law, and binding agreements relating to distribution and liquidation
proceeds (collectively, the "governing provisions"). A commercial contractual
agreement, such as a lease, employment agreement, or loan agreement, is not a
binding agreement relating to distribution and liquidation proceeds and thus is not a
governing provision unless a principal purpose of the agreement is to circumvent the
one class of stock requirement. Although a corporation is not treated as having more
than one class of stock so long as the governing provisions provide for identical
distribution and liquidation rights, any distributions (including actual, constructive, or
deemed distributions) that differ in timing or amount are to be given appropriate tax
effect in accordance with the facts and circumstances.

   Section 1362(d)(2) provides that (A) in general, an election under § 1362(a) shall

be terminated whenever (at any time on or after the first day of the first taxable year for
PLR-104568-10 3

which the corporation is an S corporation) such corporation ceases to be a small
business corporation and (B) any termination under § 1362(d)(2) shall be effective on
and after the date of cessation.

    Section 1362(f) provides that if (1) an election under § 1362(a) by any

corporation (A) was not effective for the taxable year for which made (determined
without regard to § 1362(b)(2)) by reason of a failure to meet the requirements of
§ 1361(b) or to obtain shareholder consents or (B) was terminated under § 1362(d)(2)
or (3), (2) the Secretary determines that the circumstances resulting in the
ineffectiveness or termination were inadvertent, (3) no later than a reasonable period of
time after discovery of the circumstances resulting in the ineffectiveness or termination,
steps were taken (A) so that the corporation is a small business corporation or (B) to
acquire the shareholder consents; and (4) the corporation and each person who was a
shareholder of the corporation at any time during the period specified pursuant to
§ 1362(f), agrees to make such adjustments (consistent with the treatment of the
corporation as an S corporation) as may be required by the Secretary with respect to
such period, then, notwithstanding the circumstances resulting in the ineffectiveness or
termination, the corporation will be treated as an S corporation during the period
specified by the Secretary.

   Based on the information submitted and the representations made, we conclude

that X's S corporation election was ineffective because X had more than one class of
stock. However, we conclude that, such ineffectiveness was inadvertent within the
meaning of § 1362(f) of the Code. Consequently, we rule that X will be treated as an S
corporation from D3, and thereafter, provided that X's S election otherwise is not
terminated under § 1362(d).

   Except as specifically ruled above, we express no opinion concerning the federal

tax consequences of the transactions described above under any other provisions of the
Code. In particular, we express no opinion as to whether X otherwise qualifies as a
subchapter S corporations under § 1361.

  This ruling is directed only to the taxpayer that requested it. Section 6110(k)(3)

provides that it may not be used or cited as precedent.
PLR-104568-10 4

   Pursuant to a power of attorney on file, a copy of this letter is being sent to X’s

authorized representative.

                                   Sincerely,



                                   Bradford R. Poston
                                   Acting Chief, Branch 2
                                   Office of the Associate Chief Counsel
                                   (Passthroughs & Special Industries)

Enclosures: 2
Copy of this letter
Copy for § 6110 purposes

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what the IRS ruled for one taxpayer in 2010, and it can't be cited as precedent. Ezel checks the current Internal Revenue Code and IRS guidance and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.