Tax Planning

Look out for hidden swap taxes

Changes will affect U.S. tax-exempt entities that invest overseas

Apr 4, 2010 @ 12:01 am

By Robert N. Gordon

Buried in the jobs creation law signed by President Barack Obama last month were a number of tax and reporting provisions that have nothing to do with employment opportunities.

One such provision (the new Subsection K of Internal Revenue Code 871) provides for withholding on those “owning shares synthetically” through swaps. The Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act treats as dividends both “substitute dividends” and “dividend-equivalent payments” received by foreign persons. Thus, such payments will be subject to a 30% withholding tax.

The swap provisions in the HIRE Act cover swap payments on single stocks, as well as swaps on an index or a basket of securities. One wonders how these rules might affect U.S. tax-exempts — notably the pension plans, foundations and endowments that advisers serve — which own foreign dividend-paying shares synthetically through swaps.

The law specifically includes any payment under a “specified notional principal contract” (a swap) that is directly or indirectly determined by the payment of a dividend from sources in the U.S., as is the case with an equity swap. Adding insult to injury, payments are determined on a gross basis. Thus, because a payment is defined as “any gross amount which is used in computing any net amount which is transferred to or from the taxpayer,” a party could be liable for a withholding payment even though it may have received no payments from the swap.

These provisions are the culmination of congressional discomfort with this type of trading activity. On Sept. 11, 2008, the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations held a hearing on the financial services industry's efforts to help foreign investors reduce the effect of withholding taxes.

The subcommittee took aim at the use of equity swaps and stock loans. It also criticized the Internal Revenue Service for being aware of this activity for decades yet doing nothing to change the situation. The concern was with transactions entered into in a circular manner.

The legislation targets transactions such as one described by the subcommittee, in which an investment bank bought shares from an offshore hedge fund just before the record date, after which the hedge fund became the same bank's counterparty to an equity swap on the security.

At the end of the swap, the bank's trading desk sold the shares back to the hedge fund. At the time, it was thought that the transaction did not require withholding, because payments from the swap were not dividends.

Under the new law, a “specified notional principal contract” will be subject to the 30% withholding tax if any of the following apply:

• The long party transfers the underlying security to the short party to the contract.

• In connection with the termination of the contract, any short party transfers the underlying security to any long party to the contract.

• The underlying security is not readily tradable on an established securities market.

• The security is posted as collateral by any short party to the contract with any long party to it.

• Treasury identifies the contract as covered.

Interestingly, Treasury did propose in its Green Book more-encompassing requirements that, as of now, are not part of the HIRE Act. The Treasury Department, and therefore the IRS, has the authority to look for additional transactions close enough to these so that the same withholding rules can be applied. Avoiding fitting within the five types of “specified notional principal contracts” might be possible, say, with an underlying security that is publicly traded, since Treasury would have to take action to -implement the fifth category. The effective date for this new provision is Sept. 14, which is 180 days from enactment of the HIRE Act.

Ironically, the swap issue wouldn't exist without the unrelated-business-income-tax rules that drive U.S. tax-exempts to invest offshore. In fact, withholding on these dividends wouldn't even take place if their owners held the shares directly. Tax-exempt investors flock to so-called “offshore blocker funds” so that they won't run afoul of the UBIT rules and be forced to pay tax on their profits. If the government didn't have those rules, the tax-exempts would invest in domestic funds, and this “problem” would disappear.

Robert N. Gordon is chief executive of Twenty-First Securities Corp. and an adjunct professor at New York University's Leonard N. Stern School of Business. He can be reached at bob@twenty-first.com.

For archived columns, go to InvestmentNews.com/taxconsciousadviser.

0
Comments

What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Upcoming Event

Oct 22

Conference

San Francisco Women Adviser Summit

The InvestmentNews Women Adviser Summit, a one-day workshop now held in six cities due to popular demand, is uniquely designed for the sophisticated female adviser who wants to take her personal and professional self to the next level.... Learn more

Featured video

INTV

What drove Finra's new 529 share class initiative?

Reporter Ryan W. Neal and managing editor Christina Nelson discuss what is behind the regulator's push for brokerages to self-report sales of high-cost college savings plans.

Latest news & opinion

ESG options scarce in 401(k) plans

There's growing interest among plan participants, but reluctance to add funds that take into account environmental, social and governance factors persists.

Ameriprise getting ready to launch its bank

Firm's advisers will soon have access to lending products such as mortgages.

Envestnet acquires MoneyGuide for $500 million

Deal will allow Envestnet to deepen integrations between MoneyGuide and its other wealth management solutions.

Genworth move could signal big shift in distribution of long-term-care insurance

Insurers may turn to direct-to-consumer sales only, bypassing brokers and insurance agents.

Morgan Stanley threatens to pull out of Nevada over state's fiduciary rule

Wirehouse says it would not be able to work there under state's current proposal.

X

Hi! Glad you're here and we hope you like all the great work we do here at InvestmentNews. But what we do is expensive and is funded in part by our sponsors. So won't you show our sponsors a little love by whitelisting investmentnews.com? It'll help us continue to serve you.

Yes, show me how to whitelist investmentnews.com

Ad blocker detected. Please whitelist us or give premium a try.

X

Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print