A success-fee election statement received 60 days for correction

Plain-English summary

A corporation acquired a target in a taxable stock purchase and paid a contingent advisory fee. Its return deducted 70 percent and capitalized 30 percent under Revenue Procedure 2011-29, and it attached the required safe-harbor election statement. The statement mistakenly named the acquired target rather than the buyer as the taxpayer making the election. After another accounting firm found the error, the buyer sought relief and showed that it intended the safe-harbor treatment from the outset, relied on a qualified return preparer, was not using hindsight, and would not reduce its aggregate tax liability. The IRS granted 60 days to file a corrected statement identifying the proper electing taxpayer, the transaction, and the amounts deducted and capitalized.

Ruling snapshot

• Question: Could the buyer correct a timely filed success-fee safe-harbor statement that named the wrong taxpayer?
• Outcome: Approved, a 60-day extension was granted
• Key authorities: IRC § 263(a); Treas. Reg. §§ 1.263(a)-5 and 301.9100-3; Rev. Proc. 2011-29

Full text (IRS public release)

Internal Revenue Service                                  Department of the Treasury
                                                          Washington, DC 20224

Number: 201624009                                         Third Party Communication: None
Release Date: 6/10/2016                                   Date of Communication: Not Applicable
Index Number: 9100.00-00
                                                          Person To Contact:
----------------------                                    -----------------, ID No. --------------
------------------------------------------------          Telephone Number:
----------------------------                              ----------------------
----------------------------                              Refer Reply To:
--------------------------                                CC:ITA:B03
                                                          PLR-129788-15
                                                          Date:
                                                          March 08, 2016




                  TY: -------

LEGEND:

Taxpayer = ------------------------------------------------------

Target = --------------------------------------------------

Merger Sub = ---------------------------

Date 1 = ---------------------------

Date 2 = ----------------------

Date 3 = --------------------

Date 4 = ---------------

Date 5 = ---------------------

Date 6 = --------------

Date 7 = ---------------

Taxable Year = -------

$a = ------------------

$b = ----------------

Financial Advisor = ------------------
PLR-129788-15                                   2


Tax Return Preparer = ---------------------------

CPA Firm = -----------------

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

This responds to a letter ruling request dated Date 1, submitted on behalf of Taxpayer.
Taxpayer requests an extension of time under §§ 301.9100-1 and 301.9100- 3 of the
Procedure and Administration Regulations to make a late election concerning the
treatment of success-based fees in accordance with Rev. Proc. 2011-29, 2011-1 C.B.
746, which requires that a statement be attached to Taxpayer's original federal income
tax return for Taxable Year.

                                            FACTS

On Date 2, Taxpayer acquired 100% of the outstanding stock of Target. The acquisition
was structured as a reverse subsidiary cash merger, whereby Merger Sub, a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Taxpayer, merged with and into Target, with Target surviving. For
U.S. federal income tax purposes, the formation of Merger Sub and its merger into
Target was disregarded and treated as a direct taxable purchase of the stock of Target
by Taxpayer.

In connection with the acquisition, Taxpayer engaged Financial Advisor to provide
various advisory services. Taxpayer agreed to pay Financial Advisor a fee of $a, which
was contingent upon the consummation of the acquisition. Of this amount, $b was a
success-based fee.

Taxpayer’s tax department prepared, and Tax Return Preparer reviewed and signed,
Taxpayer’s consolidated U.S. federal income tax return for the tax year ended Date 3.
In accordance with Rev. Proc. 2011-29, Taxpayer deducted 70% of the success-based
fee and capitalized the remaining 30% of the success-based fee. Taxpayer complied
with the ministerial requirement of filing the election statement pursuant to Rev. Proc.
2011-29. However, the incorrect taxpayer, Target, was inadvertently listed on the
election statement as the party making the election.

On Date 4, CPA Firm provided preliminary findings from its review of the transaction
costs analysis pertaining to the acquisition. During the initial part of its review, and
before providing a final transaction costs analysis to the Taxpayer, CPA Firm observed
that the wrong taxpayer was listed on the election statement with respect to the
acquisition. On Date 5, Taxpayer’s tax department discussed with CPA Firm the validity
of the election statement given that Target, rather than Taxpayer, had been listed on the
election statement. CPA Firm’s transaction cost analysis was not complete at the time
PLR-129788-15                                  3

and no analysis was made or conclusion reached concerning the impact of having the
wrong taxpayer listed on the election statement.

On Date 6, upon further consideration of CPA Firm’s concern, it was determined by
Taxpayer and CPA Firm that the election statement was invalid and that Taxpayer
should seek relief under Rev. Proc. 2015-1 and Treas. Reg. §§ 301.9100-1 and
301.9100-3. On Date 7, Taxpayer contacted Tax Return Preparer to prepare a request
for relief.

                                            LAW

Section 263(a) of the Internal Revenue Code provides generally that no deduction is
allowed for any amount paid out for new buildings or for permanent improvements or
betterments made to increase the value of any property or estate or any amount
expended in restoring property or in making good the exhaustion thereof for which an
allowance is or has been made.

Section 1.263(a)-1(d)(3) of the Income Tax Regulations provides that no deduction is
allowed for an amount paid to acquire or create an intangible, which under §§ 1.263(a)-
4(c)(1)(i) and 1.263(a)-4(d)(2)(i)(A) includes an ownership interest in a corporation or
other entity. See also § 1.263(a)-4(a).

In the case of an acquisition or reorganization of a business entity, costs that are
incurred in the process of acquisition and that produce significant long-term benefits
must be capitalized. See INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79 (1992);
Woodward v. Commissioner, 397 U.S. 572 (1970).

Under § 1.263(a)-5, a taxpayer must capitalize an amount paid to facilitate the business
acquisition or reorganization transactions described in § 1.263(a)-5(a). In general, an
amount is paid to facilitate a transaction described in § 1.263(a)-5(a) if the amount is
paid in the process of investigating or otherwise pursuing the transaction. Whether an
amount is paid in the process of investigating or otherwise pursuing the transaction is
determined based on all of the facts and circumstances. Section 1.263(a)-5(b)(1).

Section 1.263(a)-5(f) provides that an amount that is contingent on the successful
closing of a transaction described in § 1.263(a)-5(a) (i.e., a success-based fee) is an
amount paid to facilitate the transaction except to the extent the taxpayer maintains
sufficient documentation to establish that a portion of the fee is allocable to activities
that do not facilitate the transaction. This documentation must be completed on or
before the due date of the taxpayer's timely filed original federal income tax return
(including extensions) for the taxable year during which the transaction closes.

Section 4.01 of Rev. Proc. 2011-29 provides a safe harbor election for taxpayers that
pay or incur success-based fees for services performed in the process of investigating
PLR-129788-15                                 4

or otherwise pursuing a covered transaction described in § 1.263(a)-5(e)(3). In lieu of
maintaining the documentation required by § 1.263(a)-5(f), a taxpayer may elect to
allocate a success-based fee between activities that facilitate the transaction and
activities that do not facilitate the transaction by treating 70 percent of the amount of the
success-based fee as an amount that does not facilitate the transaction and by
capitalizing the remaining 30 percent as an amount that does facilitate the transaction.
In addition, the taxpayer must attach a statement to its original federal income tax return
for the taxable year the success-based fee is paid or incurred, stating that the taxpayer
is electing the safe harbor, identifying the transaction, and stating the success-based
fee amounts that are deducted and capitalized.

Section 301.9100-1(c) provides that the Commissioner has discretion to grant a
reasonable extension of time under the rules set forth in §§ 301.9100-2 and 301.9100-3
to make certain regulatory elections. Section 301.9100-1(b) defines a “regulatory
election” as an election whose due date is prescribed by a regulation published in the
Federal Register, or a revenue ruling, revenue procedure, notice or announcement
published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.

Sections 301.9100-1 through 301.9100-3 provide the standards the Commissioner will
use to determine whether to grant an extension of time to make an election. Section
301.9100-2 provides automatic extensions of time for making certain elections. Section
301.9100-3 provides extensions of time for making elections that do not meet the
requirements of § 301.9100-2.

Section 301.9100-3(a) provides that requests for extensions of time for regulatory
elections (other than automatic changes covered under section 301.9100-2) will be
granted when the taxpayer provides evidence (including affidavits described in the
regulations) to establish to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the taxpayer acted
reasonably and in good faith, and that granting relief will not prejudice the interests of
the Government.

Section 301.9100-3(b)(1) provides that a taxpayer will be deemed to have acted
reasonably and in good faith if the taxpayer —

(i) requests relief before the failure to make the regulatory election is discovered by the
Service;

(ii) inadvertently failed to make the election because of intervening events beyond the
taxpayer's control;

(iii) failed to make the election because, after exercising due diligence, the taxpayer was
unaware of the necessity for the election;

(iv) reasonably relied on the written advice of the Service; or
PLR-129788-15                                  5


(v) reasonably relied on a qualified tax professional, and the tax professional failed to
make, or advise the taxpayer to make the election.

Section 301.9100-3(b)(3) provides that a taxpayer will not be considered to have acted
reasonably and in good faith if the taxpayer —

(i) seeks to alter a return position for which an accuracy-related penalty could be
imposed under § 6662 at the time the taxpayer requests relief and the new position
requires a regulatory election for which relief is requested;

(ii) was informed in all material respects of the required election and related tax
consequences, but chose not to file the election; or

(iii) uses hindsight in requesting relief. If specific facts have changed since the original
deadline that make the election advantageous to a taxpayer, the Service will not
ordinarily grant relief.

Section 301.9100-3(c)(1) provides that the Commissioner will grant a reasonable
extension of time only when the interests of the Government will not be prejudiced by
the granting of relief. The interests of the Government are prejudiced if granting relief
would result in a taxpayer having a lower tax liability in the aggregate for all taxable
years affected by the election than the taxpayer would have had if the election had been
timely made. The interests of the Government are ordinarily prejudiced if the taxable
year in which the regulatory election should have been made or any taxable years that
would have been affected by the election had it been timely made are closed by the
period of limitations on assessment under § 6501(a) before the taxpayer's receipt of a
ruling granting relief under this section.

                                         ANALYSIS

Taxpayer's election is a regulatory election, as defined under § 301.9100-1(b), because
the due date of the election is prescribed in Rev. Proc. 2011-29. The Commissioner has
the authority under §§ 301.9100-1 and 301.9100-3 to grant an extension of time to file a
late regulatory election.

The information and representations made by Taxpayer establish that Taxpayer acted
reasonably and in good faith. Taxpayer reasonably relied on Tax Return Preparer, a
qualified tax professional, to prepare its federal income tax return for Taxable Year.
Taxpayer is not seeking to alter a return position for which an accuracy related penalty
has been or could be imposed under § 6662 at the time relief is requested. Taxpayer
did not affirmatively choose not to make the election after having been informed in all
material respects of the required election and related tax consequences. Rather,
Taxpayer intended to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions in Rev. Proc. 2011-
PLR-129788-15                                 6

29 and filed its return for Taxable Year reflecting those provisions but failed to properly
identify the correct party making the election on the required statement. Taxpayer is not
using hindsight in requesting relief.

Further, based on the facts of the case provided, granting an extension will not
prejudice the interests of the Government. Taxpayer will not have a lower tax liability in
the aggregate for all taxable years affected by the election if given permission to make
the election at this time than Taxpayer would have had if the election had been timely
made. In addition, the taxable year in which the regulatory election should have been
made and any taxable years that would have been affected by the election had it been
timely made will not be closed by the period of limitations on assessment under §
6501(a) before Taxpayer's receipt of the ruling granting an extension of time to make a
late election.
                                          RULING

Based upon our analysis of the facts as represented, we conclude that Taxpayer acted
reasonably and in good faith, and granting relief will not prejudice the interests of the
government. Accordingly, the requirements of §§ 301.9100-1 and 301.9100-3 have
been met.

Taxpayer is granted an extension of 60 days from the date of this ruling to file the
statement required by section 4.01(3) of Rev. Proc. 2011-29, stating that it is electing
the safe harbor for success-based fees, properly identifying the party making the
election, identifying the transaction, and stating the success-based fee amounts that are
deducted and capitalized.

The rulings contained in this letter are based upon information and representations
submitted by Taxpayer and accompanied by a penalty of perjury statement executed by
appropriate parties. While this office has not verified any of the material submitted in
support of the request for rulings, it is subject to verification on examination.

Except as expressly provided herein, no opinion is expressed or implied concerning the
tax consequences of any aspect of any transaction or item discussed or referenced in
this letter, including whether Taxpayer properly included the correct costs as its
success-based fees subject to the election, or whether Taxpayer's transaction was
within the scope of Rev. Proc. 2011-29.

This ruling is directed only to the taxpayer requesting it. Section 6110(k)(3) provides that
it may not be used or cited as precedent.

A copy of this ruling should be attached to Taxpayer's federal income tax returns for the
tax years affected. Alternatively, taxpayers filing returns electronically may satisfy this
requirement by attaching a statement to their return that provides the date and control
PLR-129788-15                                7

number of this ruling.

In accordance with the power of attorney on file with this office, a copy of this letter is
being sent to your authorized representative. We are also sending a copy of this letter to
the appropriate operating division director. Enclosed is a copy of the letter ruling
showing the deletions proposed to be made in the letter when it is disclosed under
§ 6110.

                                          Sincerely,



                                          Christopher F. Kane
                                          Branch Chief, Branch 3
                                          (Income Tax and Accounting)

cc: