Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG."— Presentation transcript:

1 © 2014 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. Year End Planning TEI Conference October 10, 2014

2 © 2014 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. Notice The following information is not intended to be “written advice concerning one or more Federal tax matters” subject to the requirements of section 10.37(a)(2) of Treasury Department Circular 230. You (and your employees, representatives, or agents) may disclose to any and all persons, without limitation, the tax treatment or tax structure, or both, of any transaction described in the associated materials we provide to you, including, but not limited to, any tax opinions, memoranda, or other tax analyses contained in those materials. The information contained herein is of a general nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. Applicability of the information to specific situations should be determined through consultation with your tax adviser. 2

3 © 2014 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. Today’s presenters Presenters Ben Rohrer Partner, Tax, KPMG Edward Jankun Managing Director, Tax, KPMG Katie LeBlanc Senior Manager, Tax, KPMG

4 © 2014 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. Overview Accounting Methods −Status report: Tangible property regulations −Recent developments in:  The tax treatment of research and experimentation costs  Inventory  Capitalization  Section 199 ASC 740 Developments −SEC Comments on income taxes −ASU : Presentation of UTBs −EITF Issue 13-B: Accounting for Investments in Qualified Affordable Housing Projects −ASU : Accounting for Goodwill 4

5 Status report: Tangible property regulations

6 © 2014 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. Long journey to here  January 20, 2004Notice announces government’s plan to develop tangible property regs  August 21, 2006Government issues first set of proposed regulations  March 10, 2008Government withdraws 2006 proposed regulations and issues new proposal  December 27, proposed regulations withdrawn and replaced with third proposal (also issued as temporary regulations, so effective immediately)  September 19, 2013Final regulations published for acquisition costs and for repair and maintenance costs; proposed regulations issued for dispositions  January 24, 2014Rev. Proc issued (repair and maintenance)  February 28, 2014Rev. Proc issued (dispositions)  August 14, 2014Final regulations published for dispositions  September 18, 2014Rev. Proc issued modifying Rev. Proc  OngoingIndustry guidance

7 © 2014 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. The final regulations Final Regulations issued September 13, 2013 −Effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2014 −Either final or temporary regulations, or prior standards, may be used for 2012 and 2013 tax years Organization of regulations – three “buckets” −Acquisition costs  De minimis rule and materials and supplies standards −Repair and maintenance costs  Capitalization standards and unit of property definitions −Dispositions  Partial dispositions provide similar treatment regardless of GAA election Industry specific guidance −Pending guidance for cable TV, pipelines, and retailers, and now for restaurants and mining

8 © 2014 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. Summary of significant items Acquisition Costs −$5000 per item book-conformity safe harbor −Materials and supplies definition includes under $200 items −Focus on facilitative and inherently facilitative costs Repair and Maintenance Costs −Election to follow book capitalization policy −Routine maintenance safe harbor  Includes buildings (with a 10-year testing period)  Network assets ineligible (pipelines) −Casualty losses permitted in conjunction with restorations −Treatment of removal costs clarified Dispositions/GAAs −Disposition rules significantly modified −Losses allowable for MACRS partial dispositions but generally not permitted for GAAs

9 © 2014 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. Rev. Proc : Repair and maintenance Provides method change procedures relating to the final regulations for acquisition costs and for repair and maintenance costs −Generally effective for Forms 3115 filed on or after January 24, 2014 −Condenses many of the method changes listed in earlier transition guidance Basic procedures are consistent with other transition guidance −Automatic consent granted for covered changes −“Scope limitations” waived temporarily (tax years beginning before 2015) −After expiration of scope limitation waiver, changes will still be eligible for automatic consent, but scope limitations will apply (i.e., if under exam must consider window periods; only one automatic change within a 5 year period; etc.) Additional requirements −The authority for each change must be described in the Form 3115 −The unit of property for each change must be described in the Form 3115 Section 263A −No requirement that 263A methods be in compliance to file an automatic change −Must consider 263A in calculating the 481(a) adjustment −Adds additional changes under 263A to the automatic consent procedures

10 © 2014 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. Rev. Proc : Dispositions Provides method change procedures relating to the temporary and proposed disposition regulations −Generally effective for Forms 3115 filed on or after September 18, 2014 −Applies to changes to conform to the final disposition regulations Highlights −Applying the disposition regulations to complete or partial dispositions of property not held in a general asset account (“GAA”). −Recovering the remaining basis of property previously disposed of that is continuing to be depreciated −Revoking most GAA elections made under earlier versions of the disposition regulations −How to identify disposed assets −How to group assets −File concurrent method changes to clean up other depreciation methods −Clarify interaction of disposition regulations with 280B Basic procedures are consistent with other transition guidance −Automatic consent granted for covered changes −“Scope limitations” waived for tax years beginning before 2015

11 Recent developments in the tax treatment of research and experimentation costs

12 © 2014 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. Final Section 174 regulations (TD 9680) TD 9680 was published in the Federal Register on July 21, 2014 and its section 174 regulations are effective for tax years ending on or after that date. Taxpayers may apply the final regulations to tax years for which the limitations period for the assessment of tax has not expired. [Taxpayers had earlier been assured that the IRS would not challenge return positions consistent with the proposed regulations in tax years prior to the publication of final regulations.] TD 9680 has many significant provisions, including: −The ultimate success, failure, sale, or use of the product is not relevant to a determination of eligibility under section 174. −The term product includes any pilot model, process, formula, invention, technique, patent, or similar property, and includes products to be used by the taxpayer in its trade or business as well as products to be held for sale, lease, or license. −The IRS and Treasury also note in the preamble that they believe that the current regulations are sufficiently broad to include indirect or ancillary supplies for section 174. −In response to other concerns, and to avoid confusion between the section 174 requirements and the requirements of the shrinking-back rule under the section 41 regulations, the final regulations drop the term “shrinking back rule” and eliminate references to section 41.

13 © 2014 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. Legislative outlook Research credit – currently expired as of December 31, 2013 −Bipartisan support for a retroactive extension −An extension will be the 16th since 1981 −President Obama’s FY 2015 budget proposed a permanent credit Legislative vehicles for an extension of the research credit include: −The American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2014 (H.R. 4438) −The Expiring Provisions Improvement, Reform and Efficiency (“EXPIRE”) Act (S. 2260) −Camp “Tax Reform Act of 2014” Discussion Draft released February 26, 2014

14 © 2014 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. Final and temporary section 41 regulations regarding alternative simplified credit elections (TD 9666) On June 3, 2014, the Treasury Department and IRS published in the Federal Register temporary regulations (TD 9666) and, by cross-reference, proposed regulations (REG ) relating to the alternative simplified credit (“ASC”) election for purposes of the research credit that is available under section 41(c)(5). −The regulations revise the rules for making the ASC election and allow the election on an amended return if a return claiming the credit has not previously been filed for that tax year and if the taxpayer makes the election before the period of limitations for assessment of tax has expired for that year. −These regulations do not change the ability to claim a reduced credit under section 280C, as that election must still be made on a timely filed original return (including extensions).

15 © 2014 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. CCA regarding applicable rules for internal-use software and the FedEx case On June 6, 2014 an IRS Chief Counsel Advice (“CCA”) number , dated May 29, 2014, was published. −CCA discusses the IRS Chief Counsel’s Office position on the innovation standard that must be satisfied to claim a research credit for internal-use software, in light of the litigation in FedEx Corporation v. U.S. −Specifically, CCA notes the FedEx decision, holding that the earlier “discovery test” could not be enforced, and states: “it is inappropriate for the IRS to challenge taxpayers who apply the general eligibility provisions of 2004 Final Regulations (TD 9140). [emphasis added]” It also advises, consistent with the FedEx decision, “[The IRS] should not challenge taxpayers that choose... to follow only the internal use software provisions of section (c)(6) in either the January 2001 Final Regulations (TD 8930) or the December 2001 Proposed Regulations, and [also] follow January 2004 Final Regulations for the general eligibility rules for qualified research.”

16 © 2014 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. Other developments Shami v. Commissioner, 741 F3d 560 (5th Cir. 2014) −Certain wages paid by an S corporation cosmetics company to its shareholders, the CEO and the marketing chief, were not qualified expenses for purposes of the research credit. Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. v. U.S., USTC (USDC SDFL 2013) −Amounts that Geosyntec received under fixed price contracts were not funded research but that amounts it received under cost plus subject to a maximum contracts (“capped”) contracts were funded research. −The decision is being appealed. −This is a very factually intensive area and need to look at the totality of circumstances, e.g., payments terms and mechanisms / cost overruns provisions; warranty & default clauses; substantial rights. Trinity Industries v. U.S., U.S.T.C. ¶50,346, (5th Cir. 2014) −Key focus is consistency between current year QRE and base year QRE. −When base year information using the regular research credit may not be readily available, may consider using the ASC method of calculation.

17 Recent developments in inventory

18 © 2014 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. Final regulations for sales-based royalties (Section 263A) Historic area of controversy −Taxpayer assertion: royalty attaches upon sale, thus not capitalizable. −IRS assertion: timing of royalty liability does not affect requirement to capitalize. Final regulations −Sales-based royalties that directly benefit or are incurred by reason of production or resale activities are capitalizable, but only to cost of goods sold (COGS)  The allocation of sales-based royalties to property sold is optional rather than mandatory.  The final regulations permit taxpayers to either (1) allocate sales-based royalties entirely to property sold and include those costs in cost of goods sold or (2) allocate sales-based royalties between cost of goods sold and ending inventory using a facts-and-circumstances cost allocation method or a simplified method.  Sales-based royalties allocated entirely to inventory property sold are included in cost of goods sold and may not be included in determining the cost of goods on hand at the end of the tax year regardless of the taxpayer’s cost flow assumption.

19 © 2014 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. Final regulations for sales-based vendor allowances Narrows definition of sales-based vendor allowances to sales-based vendor chargebacks −A sales-based vendor chargeback is an allowance, discount, or price rebate that a taxpayer becomes unconditionally entitled to by selling a vendor’s merchandise to specific customers identified by the vendor at a price determined by vendor. −Like sales-based royalties, sales-based vendor allowances are an adjustment to the cost of the merchandise sold or deemed sold under the taxpayer’s cost flow assumption.

20 © 2014 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. Rev. Proc Provides procedural guidance for method changes related to sales-based royalties and sales-based vendor chargebacks under final regulations −Three new automatic changes added to Rev. Proc :  Change to capitalize sales-based royalties and allocate entirely to COGS, or change to capitalize sales-based royalties and allocate between COGS and ending inventory  Change to remove adjustments for sales-based vendor chargebacks from absorption ratio for taxpayers on simplified section 263A methods  Change to treat sales-based vendor chargebacks as a reduction to COGS −Applies to tax years ending on or after January 13, 2014 −Method changes may be filed concurrently with other automatic section 263A changes −Certain scope limitations waived

21 Recent developments in Section 199

22 © 2014 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. Co-operative advertising GLAM −Taxpayer is a retailer that produces advertising flyers and receives co-operative advertising allowances from vendors for placement in the advertisements −Taxpayer has various agreements with its vendors:  Direct payments from vendor to taxpayer  Reduction of amount owed by taxpayer to vendor for prior purchases  Issuance of credit to taxpayer for future purchases −If purpose of allowance is contingent upon performance of advertising services, it is treated as a separate item of gross income (and therefore may potentially qualify as DPGR)  Facts and circumstances-based determination

23 ASC 740 Developments

24 SEC Comments on Income Taxes 24

25 © 2014 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. SEC Comments on Income Taxes 2013 AICPA National Conference At the 2013 AICPA National Conference on Current SEC and PCAOB Developments, representatives of the SEC indicated: −With respect to the rate reconciliation, the Staff recommended to:  Clearly label items within the rate reconciliation and disclose the underlying nature of material reconciling items;  Disclose each material foreign jurisdiction, its associated tax rate, and the amount of tax when there are material reconciling items;  Do not aggregate or offset material reconciling items;  Ensure consistency of reconciling items disclosed in the rate reconciliation with amounts reported elsewhere in the filing; and  Evaluate whether adjustments presented as changes in estimates are better characterized as an error −Panelists in one session recommended:  Companies have ICFR that monitors both tax law changes and court rulings

26 © 2014 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. SEC Comments on Income Taxes 2013 AICPA National Conference (Continued) At the 2013 AICPA National Conference on Current SEC and PCAOB Developments, representatives of the SEC indicated: −With respect to valuation allowances, the Staff:  Cautioned registrants about the use of boilerplate disclosures  For example, registrants often disclose that they considered the four sources of income. A better disclosure would provide the relative magnitude of each source of taxable income, as was as an evaluation of the negative evidence  In instances where registrants have either initially recognized or reversed an existing valuation allowance, the Staff is likely to question the timing and judgments involved, particularly the key changes in the registrant's circumstance from previous periods −With respect to indefinitely reinvested foreign earnings, the Staff indicated:  All evidence should be considered when registrants assert that un- repatriated earnings will be indefinitely reinvested, particularly the parent’s liquidity needs  The Staff frequently identifies omitted disclosures, such as the cumulative amount of indefinitely reinvested earnings and the unrecognized deferred tax liability

27 ASU : Presentation of an Unrecognized Tax Benefit When a Net Operating Loss Carryforward, a Similar Tax Loss, or a Tax Credit Carryforward Exists 27

28 © 2014 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. ASU —Income Taxes (Topic 740): Presentation of an Unrecognized Tax Benefit When a Net Operating Loss Carryforward, a Similar Tax Loss, or a Tax Credit Carryforward Exists ASU impacts all entities that have unrecognized tax benefits when a net operating loss carryforward, similar tax loss or tax credit carryforward exists at the reporting date The disallowance of a tax position does not always result in a cash payment −Cash payment is not required if sufficient tax attributes are available and the tax law permits their use to settle taxes otherwise payable 28

29 © 2014 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. ASU —Income Taxes (Topic 740): Presentation of an Unrecognized Tax Benefit When a Net Operating Loss Carryforward, a Similar Tax Loss, or a Tax Credit Carryforward Exists (Cont’d) Except as noted as follows, an unrecognized tax benefit, or portion thereof, shall be presented in the financial statements as a reduction to a DTA for an operating loss, similar tax loss or tax credit carryforward Unrecognized tax benefits shall be presented as a liability to the extent: −The carryforward is not available at the reporting date to settle any additional income taxes, or −The tax law does not require the use, and the entity does not intend to use, the deferred tax asset for such purpose The assessment of whether a deferred tax asset is available is based on the unrecognized tax benefit and deferred tax asset that exist at the reporting date and shall be made presuming disallowance of the tax position at the reporting date 29

30 © 2014 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. ASU —Income Taxes (Topic 740): Presentation of an Unrecognized Tax Benefit When a Net Operating Loss Carryforward, a Similar Tax Loss, or a Tax Credit Carryforward Exists (Cont’d) An unrecognized tax benefit presented as a liability shall not be classified as a deferred tax liability unless it arises from a taxable temporary difference We believe it would be appropriate to present an unrecognized tax benefit as a reduction of an amount refundable when there is a legally enforceable right of setoff and the parties intend to setoff 30

31 © 2014 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. ASU —Income Taxes (Topic 740): Presentation of an Unrecognized Tax Benefit When a Net Operating Loss Carryforward, a Similar Tax Loss, or a Tax Credit Carryforward Exists (Cont’d) We do not believe that taxable income that would result from the assumed disallowance of a tax position can be used to support realization of an excess tax deduction −The increase in taxes payable related to the unrelated tax position should be established through an increase to tax expense from continuing operations (or as determined pursuant to the intraperiod guidance) −Recognize the benefit of carryforwards related to excess tax deductions at the time a reduction of income taxes payable occurs −No interest would be accrued on the related liability to the extent the excess tax deduction carryforwards would be utilized to settle additional income taxes 31

32 © 2014 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. ASU Effective Date and Transition Entities other than Nonpublic Entities: Fiscal years, and interim periods within such years, beginning after December 15, 2013 Nonpublic Entities: Fiscal years, and interim periods within such years, beginning after December 15, 2014 Application prospective to all unrecognized tax benefits which exist as of the transition date Retrospective application permitted Early adoption permitted 32

33 © 2014 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. ASU Reporting and Disclosure Disclosure of the impact that recently issued accounting standards will have on the financial statements of the Registrant when adopted in a future period (SAB 74) −Brief description of the new standard, the date adoption is required and the date the registrant plans to adopt (if earlier) −Discussion of the methods of adoption allowed by the standard and the method expected to be utilized by the registrant, if determined −Discussion of the impact of adoption or a statement that it is not known or reasonably estimable No additional disclosures are required including no changes to existing disclosure requirements in accordance with ASC A 33

34 © 2014 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. ASU Reporting and Disclosure (Cont’d) An entity should disclose the following in the fiscal period in which a change in accounting principle is made: −The nature of and reason for the change in accounting principle −A description of the prior-period information that has been retrospectively adjusted, if any −The effect of the change on any affected financial statement line item for the current period and any prior periods retrospectively adjusted An entity that issues interim financial statements shall provide the required disclosures in the financial statements of both the interim period of the change and the annual period of the change 34

35 © 2014 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. ASU Example 1 Facts: Corporation D begins 2012 with a deferred tax asset for a $1,000 NOL carryforward that is offset by a full valuation allowance Corporation D reports $200 of taxable income on its 2012 tax return inclusive of a tax position that reduced total taxable income by $100 The $100 tax position is not more likely than not of being sustained if challenged by the taxing authority Assume a 40% tax rate, ignore AMT and assume that Corporation D has adopted ASU Question: How would the UTB associated with the $100 tax position be presented? 35

36 © 2014 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. ASU Example 1 Solution The $40 UTB would be presented as a reduction to the deferred tax asset for the NOL carryforward with no impact to income taxes payable If Corporation D concluded it needed to maintain a valuation allowance at the end of 2012, a valuation allowance of $280 ($700 remaining NOL carryforward at 40%) would be recognized Corporation D would disclose a $40 UTB associated with the $100 tax position pursuant to ASC A(a) and (b) in

37 © 2014 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. ASU Example 2 Facts: Assume the same facts in Example 1 Corporation D reports $740 of taxable income on its 2013 tax return The $100 tax position continues to not be more likely than not of being sustained if challenged by the taxing authority, but has not been assessed as of 2013 Assume a 40% tax rate, ignore AMT and assume that Corporation D has adopted ASU Question: How would the UTB associated with the $100 tax position be presented? 37

38 © 2014 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. ASU Example 2 Solution The $40 UTB would be presented as a reduction to the deferred tax asset for the NOL carryforward to the extent an available carryforward exists as of the reporting date; however, due to the taxable income incurred during 2013, only $60 of available NOL carryforward exists ($800 - $740) on the tax returns as filed The disallowance of the UTB would reflect a reduction to the deferred tax asset for the NOL carryforward of $24 and an increase to income taxes payable of $16 As such, $0 of DTA related to the NOL carryforward and $16 of income taxes payable would be presented on the 2013 balance sheet Corporation D would continue to disclose a $40 UTB associated with the $100 tax position pursuant to ASC A(a) and (b) in

39 © 2014 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. ASU Example 3 Facts: Corporation F is a German entity and begins 2012 with a deferred tax asset for a $1,000 NOL carryforward that is offset by a full valuation allowance Corporation F reports $200 of taxable income on its 2012 tax return inclusive of a tax position that reduced total taxable income by $100 The $100 tax position is not more likely than not of being sustained if challenged by the taxing authority German tax law provides that an NOL may only offset 60% of taxable income Assume a 30% tax rate and assume that Corporation F has adopted ASU Question: How would the UTB associated with the $100 tax position be presented? 39

40 © 2014 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. ASU Example 3 Solution The $30 UTB would be presented as a partial reduction of $18 to the deferred tax asset for the NOL carryforward and an increase of $12 to income taxes payable If Corporation F concluded it needed to maintain a valuation allowance at the end of 2012, a valuation allowance of $246 ($820 remaining NOL carryforward at 30%) would be recognized Corporation F would disclose a $30 UTB associated with the $100 tax position pursuant to ASC A(a) and (b) in

41 © 2014 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. ASU Example 4 Facts: Corporation G reports $200 of taxable income on its 2012 tax return inclusive of a tax position that reduced total taxable income by $100 The $100 tax position is not more likely than not of being sustained if challenged by the taxing authority Corporation G has a 40% tax rate and paid $80 of tax with its 2012 return and reflected a liability of $40 for an unrecognized tax benefit During 2015, Corporation G made a deposit with the taxing authority of $40 and although the deposit is not related to a specific tax position, the terms dictate that it will be forfeited if the tax position is disallowed, rather than making an additional payment to the taxing authority Question: How would the UTB associated with the $100 tax position be presented in the 2015 balance sheet? 41

42 © 2014 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. ASU Example 4 Solution The $40 UTB would be presented as a reduction to the income tax receivable for the deposit resulting in a zero balance No liability for income taxes payable related to the tax position would be recognized Corporation G would continue to disclose a $40 UTB associated with the $100 tax position pursuant to ASC A(a) and (b) in

43 © 2014 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. ASU Example 5 Facts: Corporation H begins 2012 with a $1,000 NOL carryforward that is entirely related to excess tax deductions on share-based compensation Corporation H reports $200 of taxable income on its 2012 tax return inclusive of a tax position that reduced total taxable income by $100 related to litigation settlements for which there is uncertainty as to whether they represent non-deductible penalties The $100 tax position is not MLTN of being sustained if challenged by the taxing authority Assume a 40% tax rate and ignore AMT Question: How would the UTB associated with the $100 litigation settlement tax position be presented? 43

44 © 2014 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. ASU Example 5 Solution If the tax position were disallowed, Corporation H would not make a payment to the taxing authority and instead would forfeit $100 of its NOL carryforward Taxable income that would result from the assumed disallowance of a tax position is not believed to support “realization” of an excess tax benefit Corporation H would recognize current income tax expense of $120 ($300 x 40%) in continuing operations, a tax benefit of $80 ($200 x 40%) in additional paid-in capital for the portion of the excess tax benefit NOLs that were realized and an income tax liability of $40 for the UTB Interest would not be accrued on the liability since a payment would not be required upon disallowance 44

45 ASC Subtopic Accounting for Investments in Qualified Affordable Housing Projects 45

46 © 2014 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. Background Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC or Affordable Housing Tax Credit): Designed to encourage investment in the construction and rehabilitation of low income housing. Tax credits are available to investors in limited liability entities that own qualified affordable housing projects (property entities). LIHTC Investment Considerations: The property entities typically generate (and pass on) tax benefits in the form of tax credits and pre-tax losses when considering the effects of depreciation. Investors expect a positive return on investment when considering the tax credits and the tax benefits from the pass-through of pre-tax operating losses.

47 © 2014 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. Background (continued) ASC Subtopic (previously EITF Issue No. 94-1, Accounting for Tax Benefits Resulting from Investments in Affordable Housing Projects) allows an investor to apply the effective yield if: Availability of tax credits is guaranteed by a third party, Projected yield based solely on cash flow from tax credits is positive, AND It is a limited partner in the project with liability limited to its capital investment.

48 © 2014 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. Why Revisit LIHTC Investments? If Met May apply the “effective yield method” whereby the tax benefits are combined with the amortization of the investment in order to achieve a constant effective yield over the life of the investment. Both the amortization of the investment and the tax benefits are recorded in income tax expense. If Not Met Apply either the equity or cost method in accordance with ASC (previously SOP 78-9), Investments—Equity Method and Joint Ventures. Amortization of investment (modified cost method) or equity method losses are recorded in pre-tax income Tax credits (and other tax benefits) are recorded separately in income tax expense. Criteria in EITF 94-1 If Met If Not Met Criteria rarely met in practice

49 © 2014 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. Why Revisit LIHTC Investments (continued) The EITF reached a final consensus, which was endorsed by the FASB to: Allow companies that meet certain criteria to apply a proportional amortization method to account for LIHTC investments. Companies may also use a practical expedient to amortize the investment. Amortization of the cost of the investment would be recognized in proportion to and over the same period as the recognition of the tax credits and other tax benefits. The amortization of the investment would be included in income tax expense. Impairment would be recognized if it was more likely than not that the carrying amount of the investment would not be realized. If the investment does not qualify for the proportional amortization method, or the company does not elect to use it, the investment would be accounted for under the equity or cost method based on existing GAAP.

50 © 2014 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. Other Considerations Change in the investment Change in the relationship that could result in the investment not meeting the criteria Ongoing Qualification More likely than not that the carrying amount of the investment will not be realized Impairment of the Investment All components related to the investment will be considered permanent items Net impact on income tax expense should be considered when estimating the annual effective tax rate used for interim reporting Effective Tax Rate and Interim Periods

51 © 2014 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. Other Considerations (continued) Enable users to understand the nature of all LIHTC investments and the effect of investments on the balance sheet and income statement Suggested disclosures provided Disclosure Requirements For public business entities, annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, For other entities, annual periods beginning after December 15, 2014 and interim periods thereafter. Effective Date Retrospective application required Elimination of existing deferred taxes at transition Continuation of the effective yield method for existing investments Early adoption permitted Transition

52 © 2014 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. Other Considerations (continued) The Task Force reached a consensus to issue an Exposure Draft to expand the use of the proportional amortization method to other tax credits. The FASB did not endorse the Exposure Draft. The FASB recently added to its agenda government assistance programs The focus of the agenda item is on disclosure only. Other Tax Credits

53 ASU : Accounting for Goodwill (A Consensus of the Private Company Council) 53

54 © 2014 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. ASU : Accounting for Goodwill Summary If elected, ASU provides an accounting alternative under U.S. GAAP in which goodwill is amortized on a straight-line basis over ten years, or less than ten years if the entity demonstrates that another useful life is more appropriate −Entities electing this standard are required to make an accounting policy decision to test goodwill for impairment at either the entity level or the reporting unit level −Tested for impairment when a triggering event occurs that indicates that the fair value of an entity (or a reporting unit) may be below its carrying amount −Measurement of goodwill impairment would be the difference between the fair value of the entity (or reporting unit) and its carrying amount 54

55 © 2014 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. ASU : Accounting for Goodwill Effective Date and Transition The accounting alternative (if elected) should be applied prospectively to goodwill existing as of the beginning of the period of adoption and new goodwill recognized in annual periods beginning after December 15, 2014, and interim periods within annual periods beginning after December 15, Early application is permitted, including application to any period for which the entity’s annual or interim financial statements have not yet been made available for issuance 55

56 © 2014 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. ASU : Accounting for Goodwill Accounting for Income Tax Considerations If an entity chooses to elect ASU , the amortization is reflected in the following manner: −Component Two Book Goodwill  Amortization is allocated pro-rata amongst Component One and Component Two book goodwill Alternative view would allocate first to Component Two then to Component One  Component Two goodwill amortization is reflected as a reconciling item within the rate reconciliation  Remaining Component One goodwill book carrying amount is compared to the tax carrying balance to determine the taxable or deductible temporary difference −Component Two Tax Goodwill  Amortization is allocated entirely to Component One book goodwill  The impact of the book amortization is reflected as an adjustment to the temporary difference thereby resulting in no reconciling item within the rate reconciliation  Remaining Component One goodwill book carrying amount is compared to the tax carrying balance to determine the taxable or deductible temporary difference 56

57 © 2014 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. ASU : Accounting for Goodwill Accounting for Changes in Valuation Allowance If an entity chooses to elect ASU , the deferred tax liability associated with the excess book over tax basis may no longer have an “indefinite” life −Consequently, the deferred tax liability may be considered a source of taxable income in assessing the realizability of deferred tax assets Changes in the valuation allowance as a result of applying ASU is recorded through income from continuing operations −We believe that the release of a valuation allowance based on the consideration of the reversal of a deferred tax liability should be treated as a change in judgment about the recoverability of the beginning of year deferred tax assets due to changes in the expectation of income that would be generated by the entity in the current and future periods 57

58 © 2014 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. Example 1: ASU Accounting for Goodwill ABC Company recognized $1M of book goodwill and $1M of tax goodwill in the taxable asset acquisition of DEF Company on January 1, 20X2. The tax goodwill is amortized over 15 years. DEF Company was acquired primarily for its proprietary technology which has a remaining useful life of 10 years. How would ABC Company account for the goodwill going forward? Assuming a 40% tax rate, what deferred tax consequences would be required at December 31, 20X2? 58

59 © 2014 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. Example 1: ASU Accounting for Goodwill (Cont’d) Under ASU , goodwill would be amortized over a period of 10 years as the primary purpose for the acquisition was for the proprietary technology $100K of book amortization expense would be recorded in the year-ended December 31, 20X2 $67K of tax amortization expense would be recorded in the year-ended December 31, 20X2 59 BookTaxTempDTA (DTL) 20X1 Carrying Amount1,000, X2 Amortization(100,000)(66,667) 20X2 Carrying Amount900,000933,33333,33313,333

60 © 2014 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. Example 2: ASU Accounting for Goodwill ABC Company recognized $1M of book and $750K tax goodwill in the taxable asset acquisition of DEF Company on January 1, 20X2. The tax goodwill is amortized over 15 years. DEF Company was acquired primarily for its proprietary technology which has a remaining useful life of 10 years. How would ABC Company account for the goodwill going forward? Assuming a 40% tax rate, what deferred tax consequences would be required at December 31, 20X2? 60

61 © 2014 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. Example 2: ASU Accounting for Goodwill (Cont’d) As noted in example 1, goodwill is amortized over 10 years $100K of book amortization expense would be recorded in the year-ended December 31, 20X2 $50K of tax amortization expense would be recorded in the year- ended December 31, 20X2 61 Component OneBookTaxTempDTA (DTL) 20X1 Carrying Amount750, X2 Amortization(75,000)(50,000) 20X2 Carrying Amount675,000700,00025,00010,000 Component TwoBookTaxTempDTA (DTL) 20X1 Carrying Amount250,0000(250,000)0 20X2 Amortization(25,000)0 20X2 Carrying Amount225,0000(225,000)0


Download ppt "© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google