ࡱ>  fbjbj :hhX9F F R<---8eL-&]](. &>H&H&H&H&H&H&c(+NH&|||H&4]&(((| &(| &((!!-v!%s&0&!,S+XS+!!HS+>">E,(q$H&H& &||||S+F Q:  AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS Comments on S Corporation Shareholder Basis in Indebtedness and Back-to-Back Loans Developed by the Back-to-Back-Loan Task Force Stewart Karlinsky Horacio Sobol Sydney Traum Kevin Walsh Marc A. Hyman, Technical Manager Approved by the S Corporation Taxation Technical Resource Panel and the Tax Executive Committee Submitted to The U.S. Department of the Treasury The Internal Revenue Service May 29, 2009 AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS Pre-Release Comments on S Corporations and Back-to-Back Loans May 29, 2009 I. Introduction These comments include a brief review of the back-to-back loan issue, the relevant statutory and regulatory law, selected and brief case analysis, and a suggested regulatory framework including a recommended safe harbor in this area. We are pleased that personnel from the Internal Revenue Service requested comments from us on the debt basis implications of back-to-back loans. The current economic recession is broad and deep in terms of damage to business owners. Very few industries or geographic areas are exempt. Consequently, many businesses operating as S corporations are requiring additional funds to "stop the bleeding." These funds will often be received as loans from the shareholder to the S corporation and thus it is particularly appropriate that the Service should seek to provide guidance in this area as we have entered a period in which the number of back-to-back loan transactions is increasing. Case law in this area has resulted in inconsistent, even opposite determinations as to whether a shareholder receives debt basis with respect to very similar fact patterns. This makes it difficult for the government, tax preparers and taxpayers to determine whether a particular loan transaction will result in such a basis increase. This uncertainty represents primarily a challenge to those charged with fair administration of the tax law, but also an opportunity. The challenge is to provide a fair, consistent and true-to-the-statute application of the law. The opportunity is to use the available regulatory power to provide practical and comprehensive explanations of how common transactions are covered by statutory law. Well-drafted regulations enable taxpayers to more clearly understand and apply complex tax laws to the transactions that come up in commerce. The clarity provided by such regulations can and should reduce both the number of cases tried in the subject area as well as the diversity of opinions stemming from these cases. We recommend the establishment of safe harbor criteria to provide the necessary clarity. Our discussion concerns only written obligations and does not apply to open account indebtedness. Besides our recommended safe harbor criteria, we present some examples of fact patterns which demonstrate the application of the safe harbor and could be included in the proposed and final regulations. There are also numerous fact patterns outside the safe harbor that may result in basis for shareholder indebtedness. II. Statutory & Regulatory Framework Section 1366(d)(1) provides that deductions and losses flowing through to S corporation shareholders are limited to the shareholders combined total of the basis in their stock and the basis of any indebtedness of the S corporation to the shareholder. The legislative history of this subsection refers to the need for an investment in stock or debt in the entity. Section 1366(d)(1)(B) and reg. section 1.1366-2(a)(1)(ii) provide that debt considered for loss purposes is the adjusted basis of any indebtedness of the corporation to the shareholder There is no particular definition of indebtedness of the S corporation to the shareholder found in any other section of Subchapter S or the related regulations. III. Understanding Indebtedness of the S Corporation to the Shareholder Section 1366(d)(1)(B) Is Not Ambiguous and Indebtedness Basis Should be Created Where the Terms of an Arrangement Between the S corporation and Its Shareholders Results in Debt for Federal Income Tax Purposes Normal rules of statutory construction would dictate that the words or phrases of the statute be given their common everyday meaning. The Supreme Court has, in general, noted that [b]ecause [the statute] is not ambiguous, this Court need not examine other interpretative tools, including legislative history. Indebtedness of the S corporation to the shareholder is, in our opinion, unambiguous. The clear and common use of this term is at odds with court decisions in this area, which inject a vague and subjective level of analysis not required or warranted given that the statute is unambiguous. With no statutory basis for doing so, numerous court decisions consider the source of the funds used by the shareholder to make a loan to the S corporation as determinative of whether the shareholder loan is included in basis under section 1366(d). If a shareholder has used funds borrowed from another source to make a loan to an S corporation, the two loans involved are referred to as back-to-back loans. The courts have, with one exception, adopted an economic outlay test. Interestingly, many of these court decisions discuss the fact that the economic outlay theory is based on the concept that the shareholder is poorer in a material sense. The irony of this economic outlay doctrine is, as can be demonstrated by simple balance sheet analysis, that when a loan is made to the S corporation entity, the shareholder is not poorer since the cash previously held is replaced with a note receivable, and net worth of the shareholder is unchanged immediately after the exchange. The loan from the shareholder to the corporation creates an asset. The source of funds for this asset can either be from another asset, from an increase in liabilities or from an increase in equity. In none of these instances is a shareholder poorer in a material sense. The shareholder may be less liquid but never poorer in a material sense. The corporation becomes more liquid and has additional debt but the equity balance remains the same; the corporation is not richer (or poorer) in a material sense. Non-recognition of an S corporation debt to the shareholder under this economic outlay theory, therefore, violates the clear, unambiguous language of the statute because the S corporation is, in fact, indebted to the shareholder. Accordingly, the AICPA believes the economic outlay doctrine as defined as a shareholder who is poorer in a material sense is not the appropriate test for establishing bona-fide indebtedness between a shareholder and an S corporation. Bona-fide indebtedness (and thus basis) should be created if the terms of the arrangement between the S corporation and its shareholder(s) arise to "debt" status for federal income tax purposes. A back-to-back loan (in terms of its form, mutual legal rights of the parties, and the economic substance of the transaction) generally works as follows: a person or entity (either related or unrelated to the S corporation or the shareholder) lends money to the shareholder and the shareholder in turn lends money to the S corporation. This transactional structure has been held to give the shareholder basis for loss in multiple court decisions and administrative rulings. Where the first loan from a third party is a direct loan to the shareholder, there is broad agreement that debt basis is permitted to the shareholder. Difficulties arise where the loan from the third party, often a bank or other financial institution, is not made directly to the shareholder. One approach financial institutions take is to lend directly to the S corporation while obtaining the guarantee of the shareholder and collateral from the borrowing corporation. Unlike the partnership rules where a guarantee, recourse debt or even non-recourse debt at the entity level may give the partner basis for loss, it is well settled under case law that S corporation shareholders are not permitted this benefit. Thus, lending directly to the corporation by a person other than a shareholder will not provide guaranteeing shareholders basis for loss until they actually fulfill the guarantee. A second approach is for the first loan to be made to the shareholder while obtaining collateral such as: (1) a note between the shareholder and the corporation, (2) S corporation stock, (3) assets of the S corporation (if previously pledged as collateral on a loan from the shareholder), or (4) other assets owned by the shareholder. In either case, the loan between parties should include commercially reasonable rates and terms, collateral, guarantees, and/or documents supporting the legal rights between the parties. IV. General Recommendation Regulations Should Include a Safe Harbor and Examples That Will Address Unrelated and Related Party Back-To-Back Loans The AICPA urges Treasury and the IRS to include in the proposed and final regulations under section 1366(d)(1)(B) both a safe harbor rule and clear examples that cover a spectrum of common back-to-back lending situations encountered in practice that show when an S corporation shareholder will and will not create debt basis both inside and outside of the safe harbor. Taxpayers and their advisers need this guidance as does the government to avoid unnecessary litigation. To that end, please find below our recommended criteria for such a safe harbor rule as well as a few suggested examples. We hope you agree that such a regulatory approach will provide clarity in this very important S corporation area. V. Safe Harbor Rationale In arriving at our suggested safe harbor criteria, we considered many of the significant cases in this area and, of course, considered the types of transactions both approved and not approved bythe courts. Below we discuss the aspects of these cases that have been incorporated into our recommended safe harbor. According to the Sid Paul Ruckriegel case, there is nothing inherently wrong or abusive about a related party lending money. The judge points out that it is neither unusual to conduct business with nor lend between a multitude of related entities. Thus, it follows that, as long as the terms of related party indebtedness are reasonably equivalent to a commercial loan and the transactions have legal significance, Treasury and the IRS would agree that related party transactions should be included in the safe harbor test. In addition, the courts have allowed an incorporated pocketbook to lend directly to the S corporation and treat it as a loan from the shareholder and thus have basis for loss under section 1366(d)(1). Nevertheless, because this situation is fact specific and would not always yield the results of Culnen and Yates, we have not included the incorporated pocketbook transaction in the safe harbor test. Further, courts have distinguished the incorporated pocketbook fact pattern from situations where either no money changed hands or where money was lent directly from one related entity to the loss entity but bookkeeping entries or adjusting journal entries were made after the fact. We have also omitted these transactions from our recommended safe harbor as their treatment would be case specific. Finally, we have included transactions within our safe harbor test whereby cash movement is circular as indicated in the Oren, Bergman and Kaplan cases. However, if all steps in these transactions are done in the same time frame (doesnt pass step transaction muster), are uncollateralized, and have produced few, if any legal documents, it is highly unlikely this transaction would pass our safe harbor. As noted in the Ruckriegel case cited previously, taxpayers involved in related party transactions bear a heavy burden of demonstrating that the substance of the transactions differs from their form. Please note that a transaction qualifying for debt basis by falling within our safe harbor does not automatically allow the taxpayer a deduction. The at-risk rules of section 465 and the passive activity loss rules of section 469 still represent significant barriers to deduction. The AICPA believes that the section 465 and 469 enforcement tools adequately protect the interests of the government so that a safe harbor, such as the one we are recommending, can be crafted to be of significant aid to both taxpayers and the government. VI. Safe Harbor Test A safe harbor test must provide clear guidance to taxpayers to enable them to structure the vast majority of transactions in a manner that is incontrovertibly within such safe harbor. To work efficiently, each condition must be straight forward and unequivocal in both meaning and application. We believe that such seven-point criteria below achieves these goals, but are happy to work with Treasury and the IRS to modify the criteria if modifications are believed necessary. A shareholder note would be treated as debt qualified to permit the S corporation shareholder to increase its basis in indebtedness from the corporation and, assuming at-risk and passive activity loss limitations are met, to deduct losses under section 1366(d) only if it has all of the following characteristics: The note is a written unconditional promise by the corporation to pay the shareholder, on demand or on a specified date, a sum certain in money. The interest rate specified in the instrument meets, at a minimum, the published applicable federal rate for the type of loan and for the time the loan is made. Interest payment dates are specified in the instrument. The instrument is legally enforceable under state law. That is, a transferee, under a voluntary or involuntary transfer, receiving the note would have the right to proceed against the corporation to enforce the terms of the note. The S corporation is not an obligor or co-obligor on the note issued by the shareholder to the primary lender in a back-to-back situation. A guarantee or pledge of corporate assets is not to be considered as making the company an obligor with respect to the shareholders loan from the primary lender. Interest and principal payments are made pursuant to the agreement, i.e. the company pays the shareholder and the shareholder pays the primary lender (if mistakes are made and direct payment is made, the books and records are adjusted and appropriate information reporting forms are filed). A doctrine of substantial compliance as opposed to strict compliance would apply. Routine use of offsetting accounting entries without actual payment would not be considered within the safe harbor. Loans are reported appropriately on tax returns and year-end financial statements, if any, of the company and shareholder. We note that these criteria are more extensive than those of the straight debt safe harbor of section 1361(c)(5)(B) which are intended solely to ensure that debt does not create a second class of S corporation stock. Given that the sole purpose of this new debt safe harbor is to ensure a shareholders debt basis increase, it clearly cannot cover all situations. Factual situations outside of the safe harbor would be judged on facts and circumstances under statute, regulation and case law. We encourage Treasury and the IRS to approve of back-to-back transactions, for example, in which the primary lender is not related (as defined in sections 267(b) or 707(b)) to the shareholders. Below, we provide three sets of examples: one for unrelated party back-to-back loans, another for related party back-to-back loans and one for substituted or subrogated debt. VII. Suggested Examples Back-to-Back Loans Involving Unrelated Third Party Lenders Example 1: Bank lends $100,000 to Individual A at commercially reasonable rates and terms (the "X Bank Loan"). Individual A immediately lends the funds to Corporation L, an S corporation, in the form of debt for use as working capital. The terms of the loan from A to L are also commercially reasonable. The payments of the X Bank Loan to A are made by A according to the terms. If the shareholder debt otherwise meets all requirements of the safe harbor, Individual A would have an increase in adjusted basis in debt of $100,000 under section 1366(d)(1). Example 2: Bank lends $200,000 to Individual A at commercially reasonable rates and terms including As pledging of publicly traded stocks and bonds he owns. Individual A immediately lends the funds to Corporation L, an S corporation in the form of debt to purchase equipment. The note between A and L is collateralized by assets purchased with the loan proceeds. Because of the size of the loan between Bank and A, Bank requires the note between A and L as additional collateral. Payments are made from L to A and from A to Bank under an automatic withdrawal system that Bank maintains. Proper book keeping adjustments are made on L's books. If the shareholder debt otherwise meets all requirements of the safe harbor, Individual A would have an increase in adjusted basis in debt of $200,000 under section 1366(d)(1). Example 3: Bank lends $350,000 to Individual A at commercially reasonable rates and terms, and collateralized by As pledging of publicly traded stocks and bonds he owns as well as a second mortgage on As home. Individual A immediately lends the funds to Corporation L, an S corporation in the form of debt to fund an acquisition. Because of the size of the loan between Bank and A, Bank requires the note between A and L as additional collateral as well as a guarantee by the S corporation. The payments are often made from L to A and from A to Bank, but periodically, L pays Bank directly on behalf of A. Proper book keeping adjustments are made on L's books. If the shareholder debt otherwise meets all requirements of the safe harbor, Individual A would have an increase in adjusted basis in debt of $350,000 under section 1366(d)(1). Back-to-Back Loans Involving Related Parties Example 4: Individual B wholly owns PR, a C corporation and M, a loss S corporation. M needs working capital funds so B borrows $50,000 from PR and contemporaneously records a receivable on PR's books and a payable on his books. B then lends the $50,000 to M at commercially reasonable rates and terms including taking as collateral some tangible and intangible assets. The principal and interest payments are paid from M to B and from B to PR; appropriate information reporting forms are filed in connection with the loans. If the shareholder debt otherwise meets all requirements of the safe harbor, Individual B would have an increase in adjusted basis in debt of $50,000 under section 1366(d)(1). Example 5: Individual B wholly owns M, an S corporation and 50% of Partnership PP. M needs working capital funds so PP distributes $150,000 excess cash to B. B then lends the $150,000 to M at commercially reasonable rates and terms including taking as collateral some tangible and intangible assets. M uses some of the loan proceeds to pay the rent on its premises to a trust set up by Bs family. If the shareholder debt otherwise meets all requirements of the safe harbor, Individual B would have an increase in adjusted basis in debt of $150,000 under section 1366(d)(1). Example 6: Individual B wholly owns M, an S corporation and 50% of Partnership PP. M rents a building from PP with annual rental of $20,000 (determined in arm's length negotiations). Partnership PP borrows $250,000 from Bank at commercially reasonable rates and terms. M guarantees the loan between PP & Bank. M needs working capital funds so B withdraws $300,000 cash from PP, including proceeds from PPs borrowing from Bank. B then lends the $300,000 to M at commercially reasonable rates and terms including taking as collateral some tangible and intangible assets. M uses $20,000 of the loan proceeds to pay the rent to Partnership PP. If the shareholder debt otherwise meets all requirements of the safe harbor, Individual B would have an increase in adjusted basis in debt of $300,000 under section 1366(d)(1). Substituted or Subrogated Debt Example 7: A, an S corporation, is owned by shareholders B and C. A has borrowed $500,000 from Bank. Subsequently, shareholders B and C substitute personal notes with the bank for As corporate note with the bank such that the corporation now owes B and C $500,000 and B and C owe the bank. The bank fully extinguishes the indebtedness of the corporation to the bank. If the shareholder debt otherwise meets all requirements of the safe harbor, the new shareholder loans should give rise to combined B and C debt basis of $500,000. Example 8: Individual D owns stock in X, a C corporation. Individual D also owns stock in Y, an S corporation. D has no basis in the Y stock. X lends money directly to Y. Journal entries are made contemporaneously to reflect the intent of the parties to create a back-to-back loan situation, interest is paid from D to X. Also, Y pays D interest on the loan and eventually pays off the loan. Forms 1099-INT are issued by the appropriate parties. The lack of a legally enforceable instrument documenting the debt from shareholder D to S Corporation Y would prevent this loan from qualifying under the safe harbor. VIII. Conclusion We believe that given the litigious history of this subject, and especially in light of the deep economic recession through which S corporations and their shareholders are currently struggling to survive, it is critical that Treasury and the IRS provide regulatory clarity in the area of debt basis and back-to-back loans. Corporations, shareholders and their advisors must react quickly to the changing times or risk economic extinction as a consequence. They need to be able to put in place loan arrangements which will satisfy the critical needs of the business while, at the same time, have a high degree of certainty as to the tax treatment of the transaction. We believe our proposed safe harbor and examples are well within statutory law and that the proposed safe harbor will cover a very large percentage of these types of transactions. We believe it would be appropriate for Treasury and the IRS to also offer additional examples of transactions that would and would not produce debt basis both inside and outside of any safe harbor rule. We would be happy to work with the Administration to develop these additional examples.  S. Rept. 1983, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958), 1958-3 C.B. 922, 1141  Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. (04-70) 545 U.S. 546 (2005) No. 0470, 333 F.3d 1248  See Raynor 50 TC 762 (1968), Estate of Leavitt 90 TC 206 (1988), William H. Perry 47 TC 159 (1966; affd 68-1 USTC 9297 CA-8), and its progeny such as Lawrence Uri Jr. 56 TCM 1217 (1989) affd 91-2 USTC 50,556 (CA-10), Grojean TC Memo 1999-425, Maloof (6th Circuit, 2006) and the latest which is Marvin S. Kerzner v. Commr. TC Memo 2009-76; but see Selfe 86-1 USTC 9115, CA-11 for an exception.  See Oren, Perry and Underwood cases cited throughout the footnotes for this phrase.  See Sid Paul Ruckriegel TC Memo 2006-78, Timothy Miller TC Memo 2006-125 as well as Revenue Ruling 75-144 1975-1 CB 277, PLR 8747013, Seven Sixty Ranch Co. v. Kennedy 66-1 USTC 9293 (DC-Wyo), and Raynor 50 TC 762 (1968).  Sleiman v. Comm., 84 AFTR 2d 99-5987 (187 F.3d 1352), 09/10/1999, Donald L. Russell, et ux., et al. v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2008-246  TC Memo 2006-78  The Ruckrielgel court defined the term incorporated pocketbook as the taxpayers habitual practice of having his whollyowned corporation pay money to third parties on his behalf.  Culnen Tax Court Memo 2000-139 and Yates Tax Court Memo 2001-280  See Ruckrielgel; also Thomas v. Commissioner 92 AFTR 2d 2003-5301 and Kerzner v. Commissioner TC Memo 2009-541  Oren TCM 2002-172 affd (2004, CA-8) 93 AFTR 2d 2004-858; Larry Bergman 83 AFTR 2d 99-1882 (CA-8) and Kaplan TC Memo 2005-218  These safe harbor criteria do not address open account debt which, by definition, is not written.  Gilday TC Memo 1982-242 & Rev. Rul. 75-144     PAGE 10  PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 1 567Cr  $ % ' ( - ^ ` b f g h ǿ|x|tph(h_Gh&Rh@h*mhh">* h<h*m h*mh*mh*mh<hh">* h*m>* hh">*hh"hdhZ h<hh"h<hh"5 h4hh"hVhh"5CJaJh&R5CJaJmHnHu+jhhhh5CJUaJmHnHu,67C    + , - ^ $a$gd*m$a$gdh"`gd4 $`a$gd&R^ _ g h   [ \ i j z gd]gdh"$a$gdh"  ) 5 Z [ \ b h i j m z {    + 5 Y l    * + 7 = P R i y z {  ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿôÿÿÿÿh8^Xh h6ih}s h4Zhx6hx6h hh"hh"5>*h]h]5h<hd5 h_G5 h(5h<hh"5 hh"5hh"h_GBz { h i 12-.ST&'qrEF=>k!$a$gd3c$a$gd8^X$a$gd]q^gd]$a$gdh"gdh"   / W -=PYdkw =dr1&+7K~ *-.hOh~hh!h BhZhh"h8^XhJxh}sh hx6R.23RSPR$%&',7prDEٽĽvlh^J_H aJhB^J_H aJhh3ch05>*CJaJh3c5CJaJh3ch3c5CJaJ h3c5h3ch]5>* h]5>* h4Zh8^X h4Zh]q^hNjhj?0JUh]q^h8^XhOhx6 hh"5>*hh"hx65>* h]5'|}~{RZoz>0123a$34  , 3 d p ÿÿÿÿǵDZǧǣǟǟǛǛǛǗh'5hxb_hhMh h >h}shFjhx60JUh]q^jh]q^0JUhhithx6h h-7hx6%jh-7hx60JU^J_H aJh-7hx6^J_H aJhj?^J_H aJ5 j!l!z!}!!!!!!!"Z"["""##########$$Q$R$S$t$$$$$$$$$$$$$%%%%%&!&%&.&E&I&M&O&r&y&&&&&&&&&&*'B'd'ԾܺܺܺhJ|hO~HhX)hh-jh+Q0JUhnh}sh)hzh+Qhy9h]q^h >hx6h'5hxb_Hk!l!##%%|(}(****++----7/8/F1G122n4$a$gd;1$a$gd;SI$a$gd3c$a$gdh"d''''''((>(?(x(y(z((((((())#)7)8)<)W)))))))*"*#*,*-*8*9*D*E*F*M******+++8+D+G+¸hh"h/55>*h3ch3cCJaJh3ch3c5CJaJ h3c5hh"hh"5>*haIGhaIG5>* hW5hW h4fhx6h/5hhzjh0JUhO~HhOh}shx6hF*hX)5G+O++++++++,@,E,R,Y,^,c,,,,,,,,--W-p-q-------------- .'./.0.J.y.z.........../)/./6/8/F/I/ºضخضخخئ䮦hi3h3chC)hSh>hh"h;SI>* h;SI5>*hh"h;SI5>* h;SI5h;1hX[fh`haIGhdh}shx6h'5hhW@I/\/a/b/c//////070B0F0G0]0{0000000000031G1U111112222)2I2t2z222222222222*3.3@3G3a3g3333333334"4ݰh;SIjhB 0JUh]hx h^E6jh0JUhh^Ehh}sh`jh;10JUhaIGh;1haIGh;16D"474D4E4n4o4y444444444445555 5555#5U5|5~5555555555555666 6i6666677 7c7d7x7y77777777888ũh/ hezh\[hsh;SIhyt6hyth]jh;10JU h'5h'5 h'56h'5hP/uhxhzuh?  h;15h;1h;SIBn4o4668899::<<<<Q=R===r>s>??AAB $ & Fa$gdh"$a$gd? $a$gdh"$a$gd;1 $ n a$gd;18?8^8f8t88888888888888999999':(::::;B;;;;;;;;<<1<2<I<\<b<s<<<<=Ž h;5h/oh B5h/ohP}^5jh;0J5Uh/ohx65 hyhx6h{/Ghx66h/ohx6h[h? hg hx65 h? 5>* h/o5>*hh"hx65>* h? 5 hyS5h;1h/ hez1===-=O=s>t>y>z>>>>>>>>?a?????*@1@8@@@AtAAAAAAAB BFBoByBBBBCCMCPCXC[CCCC DD'D4D껱ꭩht(hi3h:hm2h|Uwh[4 h&hP}^hhh;hg56h;hx656h/oh[4 5 h'55h/ohg5h/ohS5h/oh~>5h/ohx65 h;5h/oh\[57B BDDjEkEEEEE* hm25>* hm25 h5hZh\[ht(hi3AIIIIIIIIJ:JrJsJuJJJJKK'K0KTKUKKKKKKKKLL^LqLLLLLLLLLMM:M;MEMFMJMNMTMaMbMcMvMMMMMM NNN\N]NoNpNqNrNNNNhZhZ6 hZ6hhQ$6 hT,6huhSHhhBhx65hhr]hm2hVhx6h$ h hx6FNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOO{OOOOOEPFPJPKPUPVPjPPPPPPQQKQLQ`QiQvQwQQQQQQRRRRRRRRRRRR>SISJSSSSSSSSSShhx65hOh hx65hhhr]h bhl#hJfhx65hx6 hZhx6 hZ6hhZ6hZGRRSS(V)VVVVVmXnXYYZZ|[}[[[`G```;b$a$gd]q^ $1$7$8$H$a$gdh"$a$gdh"$a$gdd$a$gdh"SS\TTTTTTTTTQUTUoUpUUUU)VvVVVVVVVVVVVVWW WWWW6W9W=W>W`WmW}WWWWWWWWWWWXiXjXkXXXXXXYhO-jhx60JUhqhOhM h]hZhHThx65hhx66hhQ$6hh hQ$5>*h bhhEhx6hr]hl#?YY*Y+Y1Y:Y?YAYBYLYMYYYZYeYnYtYvYYYYYYYZ$Z7Z9ZOZPZdZeZZZZZZZZ[['[)[.[/[:[<[Y[{[|[}[[[[[[[[[[ŽԙԕhdhQ$h/5hQ$h/55>*hQ$hQ$5>*hh5h|4hz|6h{h6i h[hh h[hx6h _hZh bh@8hO-hx6hjahx65:[[[\Z\\\_\b\x\y\\\\\\\\\]]]])^*^4^5^B^k^^^^^^^^^____````F`G`H`I`w``˼~hh"hqCJ\^J_H aJ"hB hq6CJ\^J_H aJ!jhh"hq0JCJUaJhh"hqCJaJhh"hqB*CJaJphhqjhq0JU h#.hx6hfhyhDhx6hhhQ$hd1``````````aGaWaaaaaaaaaaa bb(b:b;bڿ?)x£5I.CIÏ??T?@oğ8wO:4_OOWX0YOG?* 7O};Qq~$ӿ| uNtG uNcK?o'?0?>Pj{'>ƫQ\~ӹ4_?O?0Ho?T?@oğ8wCIÏ4#9HPO gď8wPj?x!i8qy?ƗCgR{'>ƨPj:9qy?Ɨ4/}_0YGG?* 7O};R߉?q5_]~ӟ]iŧ|%G 1}rkF[JHs_pX|4ch_3C71:xeG)y.yCQ~ҟ7ݬڳDB L>壯"S_~ e~ў*X5`$ceg|%̣s'}Y^'}_ŏxKI[} Ė, xH@E0NI5Y-:&Qa.!Ѓ2 ?&=@I#hIVQpvh Bￓ=bq#IQmKE 27 ƒ?𯪩GGv"s:7iF[6g)Ź-hcQo E)tN7͜~WxUybZB?6vWҏ7= z&S*ԣ՝94}8R(m_F}K񯅾z8ld9PAlGm|z$ʤG{a T*k 1q#&x'>#xw]Z\ZLPzpx_04qSNvs,y[.4Jqm$('Oş j>[ƏY,{0_+=?~|$5 G$evU 8;0ĭK}^rBepoBJNGnMf|LyE3>c}`gKmh@ZBHeYHax77!8D~IjԈV<+ۃقgw/><z|mեfЅfK5=AW|GK%/sxy 8YU5s̏Z)G4W}{ 7|I@WsNjy_ƞM0ϩ~;A ̏k3̍@? Wf?_w:/'=ڙ1ʥ~w~M~7^UʾG?U<?uI萔QFq޿T?λ_­com ᆇ4ڭD샔__)}[[54]&8 dq<|2WRuCĚna`EY p3^O'%/Ѽ 0Vγ-i |zWgD*?u_~&:럴?ZICNDP#UZCg1y}G2;LIr}{pV/6bk>k/$txU|/eT4ȤvF\Q_n~@Q%jׯҏ ͿM-Wq~_?MK7|qF?獿_9Zm^B-Ԣ8-BNW2қ^.ָqT 5d+vf/tG}w3~>YKJ4K}xI|v'JR~fo`l߲imEƓuc> W⇊ow͏MO_T(?h} |{o wjZ3Ͼ|BIL^ 嘼5:RY^ݗcQ<2sQGO# _ $&McS9 If1޿U_/o-o5dhQ#ĒqB٭-l5kĚ0m7ByW _؊ G7oڊ@үHue g5cPçzT5~e\lJ،cuk_#mv>\^m(RVɖPv}X~">?o/m|EanɧtךCm6l8?hy?gC.LZN0Al)Bc85w?߆`/dr^@pj`e_1_ׅ g {R dтOJIk􅢺w?,躥އkztŝO pUу)؊_qOkI"7fbM[MՄQÚ[gk:?95~k-<%T5?c+G7o)|ӷ~ s~P2?)V~k՚| (5|2}ƽ.8DH__'}?k> !hҵI][~|x?ƃZ|yy>@{X}N`b|U|'n/'wŭN)`;`b:0 Ua&WOnj7%RW-VJWoNvlꗱffe}UeoWlLg6{{2k01{-=z/m\g04%(qI;|о~Ϻ7kY[i+“3/?|dOkW^ uKuypO#j˖v9'z|D>5Ŝz<_iդ(3*;?Ŏ5I&irV?{> jN]%?QC4 2YY_Q%kxW|_yy=88xl3u]GOTs8,>\F䔓^?[V=x&jN-|H?B>e~5[Oпi̵K^5ђZы.)}CG4Z? Ul%#A^d_^kNO55{}猿W^W~)$bk?NO6{ # M~TuπE]hͦ#Z\ !f%{kk~?Mm`z[>}5m>x~y?rB^#함>aW^POVqn~ho#h8En|Ek(o ]iZ"'؊`9~J*RMwGz]*qѧi@, JOo"t)n.'$P…F'~n@`ӴySΒdqíc[vv`V6ܝIy_o<jׯҏ7f/?&O'j4}_a%O+m?TQ e }S,wfcԻdW/>Ozy6+2*pȠQmR׌z{I~bkr}q$C١|qKSEn]-r,?B?uSژZz~+q'PiK_([?G>|/ltl#o߱{.[yi&e,ĒO$-/m;n%MR%O;Sog.oGmhu?ƿ>8o:EgG)nj)|5 QO_%+kX^]@&7W?;Z-AHTz}O,Ҽ#a[㍿h?Mgrɬͩ|&kr1gӞCQɒ\~l#=:ך߲?ய㿄bt=^bKyܚ&) 9ȭ(֫ݤ91<>a(I4yC~??fqm E??$B#<_f7&#_Q-uw[MXU|8\}k/?&G[r_+?tCsB|nhq|$>/? ηomX3çcDsa᱕}MzεG:2f9N0Z$ߋξF%ܗ3;Eb/&^^]Lxt-3#f{c5\9T _Ґ ^ me2wW7<_Ř,T`aGs־ਟ?e|b[)e̶c<dw~|Ÿһ,etq 5}ljcV+' 5:o?'GȬY{˧Q?B;k\%.4۸v C9B:KsV00"qh u#Z^8 |wɬ2P~SfM:J'o&7dЩ\_ ZFW?S)wjO >PKud;/ךO6I[9c!yoһraqQbk:z#s ,[C BJEj׭q_C Ch'$?0ݏjܠu@r*`kp4|XYOJj|o 縞iTs_Gu{n}NGcfx_,;ɼh  w==(-3玸4A_u`()ʒgi[(rrKeo-Vp 4`$x޿egOOi:oů j>%ia5.P嘗!}J)|#nדS.w>8խ^Nʤ|ֆ_>kNDܤo][+K'<;ź-Ew^Gqo"6d`G?fZ:Q⛤ׇo呂vv!'JwMgKѕ(˙4Փ!ߍ?>5\jݼS[ݪ=;~ x%MI:%[Zxﻥz'_wJO=;}E!I# ҹS_pO WN=#?\C# Nye;j5:Xc=pjswLJN`Ϧ,#|lٞ:~I_ t/ 48t úd6:e ((N2Os K f/ t.oWMs$ybNp:{ gWUlf"UZ7+pF XAY!QEsEP=gC~ZM|S.>jc'?GGgS@cG+/1 :% F:%-}o?% G?`.Qhx/>S@cG+/_Σt¿у_ΣuE[}??._|`.W_/0.Qhx/>S@cG+/O`.W_/0.Qhx/>S@cG=`.@?_a]~G_{|˯W_0.@?c~+]~ҏOC_E`~@._F_{*4J}BҺUJmˎYP|?(??> YoPo+yS61Gw_a_v~ i_|?𦟢6142`%Z$x;tC袊QE^ 002 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmH nH sH tH @`@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH N@2N  Heading 3dd@&[$\$5CJ"\aJ"DA`D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k (No List >@> * Footnote TextCJaJ@&@@ *Footnote ReferenceH*4 @4 -70Footer  !.)@!. -7 Page Number212 aFhit5\q (6UA6 rP Hyperlink >*B*ph.Q. rP descriptionHbH :_ Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJB'qB X[fComment ReferenceCJaJ<< X[f Comment TextCJaJ@j@ X[fComment Subject5\B^B 4 Normal (Web)dd[$\$44 h0Header  H$66 h0 Header CharCJaJ66 0 Footer CharCJaJPK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi};~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭?PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!چPtheme/theme/theme1.xmlYMoE#F{oc'vjGuرhF[xw;jf7q7J\ʯ AxgfwIFPA{h1^r/fIyk"hp!p`fDzW62P Dn)nHS 1V(•@#Zm}%4Pc`{s2>A#̙<&JfM !g:Ĭぜ=!fy+WFF]կm2 8X52E8.킿0~gRKgcЪws%ȻWk.mAvm3],S? Vm Fw[wd zPhr 2dN%V-Q Evie\ + 5K=Z .raIB4UCE|gO:~CL|17/~Qe?|ϟW|0Ws2F10-Sl% R*Uo0ˢ%o hUӻHL|-.EiY%7IX-\L˸}dpķ?MoiދÉ!IB? º;:~ݥOCQJɦ9!.*!ގovo.gUVoC UY#7^S*#ïcU)9 K )hn k:Vew,vBу*1e6?E8NCDeR=ܭ qpߦ   L%j4v(c׎>QEfx J9~N6}{6&{|qyrߵ\?rYBs͈/'1r]!Y> `Qә!)NLi?B \}DU4p vLB%JY0+{,l]5 6f 3Uڥ):Z3KLs&C M›0 [p>ע` ޛDfO(8Bc6¯S ܣioWnsΊ|{epv4Y%W:.t0O%Jݍqn)s23S~7k׸#] qBiDאTpl rښV43H v@A1 Nv&fe]Nkf}Γn!fg+:\qN-3;kK] =Y42&0V߅@o)i ) hH7PK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!چPtheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] |2y b')*+-14jP^ D8m x\^ 888; . d'G+I/"48=4DINSY[`cff479:;<>?@ACDFGHJKLMOP^ z k!n4BR;bff568=BEINQ 24;!!@  @ 0(  B S  ?H0(   OLE_LINK1 OLE_LINK2j?>@~\@aFF~FaIG_GSHO~H;SIJKf/LrP&RTRV8^X[ [Z^]q^P}^ _xb_`?,bQcX[fjf i6il*mF*;h3cwt.yMn$Z\)ZE lJM Z=+QD@FJ|dgQ yS;Z/5hO-;>l#<?cSic~:xzSnl Br80y)x$IOg&&4\[{I'EXX %@^x@UnknownG* Times New Roman5Symbol3. * ArialY TrebuchetMSTrebuchet MS7.  Verdana5. *aTahomaA BCambria Math"1hՆՆH<" J ," J ,!x4dWW2qHX ?u2!xx First Draft mhyman ?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghiklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry FDm Data SG-1Tablejc+WordDocument :SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8%MsoDataStore DmDm5IKSPUKGM4BTTB==2DmDmItem  PropertiesCompObj yND4T45DFV==2 DmDm &!"#$%*'()+,-./01345DocumentLibraryFormDocumentLibraryFormDocumentLibraryForm w>schemaRef ds:uri="http://schemas.open y">BA9374-07C0-4CEA-A8F0-65A803C7AF08}" xml ?@A!B"C#8$p$'|$&$BRoles7display_urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office#Editor LegacyUrlArticleStartDate7display_urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office#Author ContentTypeOrigArticleDate Subject Keywords _Author _Category CategoriesApproval Level _Comments Assigned To _PID_HLINKSPublishingContactFooterCopyrightInfoCopyrightInfoPublishingRollupImageCSCAccessLevel TemplateUrl Audience AbstractTopicRSSPublishingContactEmailCoremetricsPageID _SourceUrl_SharedFileIndex Comments! Subtitle"PublishingPageLayout# DocumentType$ xd_Signature%PublishingContactPicture&PublishingExpirationDate'PublishingStartDate(_Source) xd_ProgID*PublishingVariationGroupID+ Committee,ContentTypeId-AICPAPageContent.PublishingContactName/CoremetricsCategoryID0 PracticeArea1+PublishingVariationRelationshipLinkFieldID2GoogleAnalyticsCode3ExcludeFromSearch4 Industry5DisplayGuidedNavigation6 Single xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography">ds:schemaRef ds:uri="http://schemas.open {EFB844D1-E594-4F05-ADAA-7C310F805AE4}" xmlOh+'0p   , 8 DPX`h  Normal.dotmmhyman2Microsoft Office Word@G@h@i@i " JAICPA Offers Pre-Release Comments on AnticipPlayer7AICPAMetaKeywords8 HomePageTab39AICPAMetaDescription: HomePageTab1;ShowUtilityNavigation<AICPABecomeAMember=AICPAResourceSlider>AICPAPromotionSlider? HomePageTab2@AICPAInterestAreasAShowGlobalSearchBoxBShowPrimaryNavigationCAICPAMetaTitle ;#AICPA.RLUNV0001;#http://tax.aicpa.org/NR/rdonlyres/CC92B762-994B-42E3-A6E3-00A2803BD2F4/0/BacktoBackLoan_PreReleaseCommentsFINAL.doc, http://tax.aicpa.org/NR/rdonlyres/CC92B762-994B-42E3-A6E3-00A2803BD2F4/0/BacktoBackLoan_PreReleaseCommentsFINAL.doc2009-11-25T00:00:00Z metalogixDownloadable Document2009-11-25T16:32:00Z A11ndex="52" nillable="true" ma:displayName="Home Page Tab1" ma:internalName="HomePageTab1"> This value indicates the number of saves or revisions. The application is responsible for updating this value after each revision. 0J67aaefdd-a22d-427a-b82a-e67d00291903,626bac4a-6a0f-4ea9-bb0a-caa35abb8f4a%addab077-652b-4b4e-922e-4f5a3ca7b0fb';#;#;#;#;#Full;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#News & Insights;#300;#Journal Of Accountancy;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#false;#Journal Of Accountancy;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#false;#Journal Of Accountancy;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#false;#Journal Of Accountancy;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#false;#false;#tThe AICPA suggests a safe-harbor where an S corporation shareholder would receive debt basis for loan transactions ;#News & Insights;#300;#Journal Of Accountancy;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#false;#Journal Of Accountancy;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#false;#Journal Of Accountancy;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#false;#Journal Of Accountancy;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#false;#false;#0;#Image::;#Header::;#MossEditor::;#Link::;#Position::Right;#Image::;#Header::;#MossEditor::;#Link::;#Position::Right;#Image::;#Header::;#MossEditor::;#Link::;#Position::Right;#Image::;#Header::;#MossEditor::;#Link::;#Position::Right;#Image::;#Header::;#Mo{;#Image::;#MossEditor::;#Position::Right;#Image::;#MossEditor::;#Position::Right;#Image::;#MossEditor::;#Position::Right;#;#News & Insights;#300;#Journal Of Accountancy;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#false;#Journal Of Accountancy;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#false;#Journal Of Accountancy;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#false;#Journal Of Accountancy;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#false;#false;#;#DynCount::16;#ManCount::1;#DynOrder::1;#DynOrder::1;#DynOrder::1;#DynOrder::1;#DynOrder::1;#DynOrder::1;#DynOrder::1;#DynOrder::1;#DynOrder::1;#DynOrder::1;#DynOrder::1;#DynOrder::1;#DynOrder::1;#DynOrder::1;#DynOrder::1;#DynOrder::1;#ManOrder::1;#;#;#;00tThe AICPA suggests a safe-harbor where an S corporation shareholder would receive debt basis for loan transactions.AICPA Offers Pre-Release Comments on Anticipated Proposed Regulations to Determine when S Corporation Shareholders Receive Debt Basis for Certain LoansJeaneen ZanovellonOrder::1;#ManOrder::1;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#]]>