DOCSLIB.ORG

M&A Tax Talks

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
M&A Tax Talks M& A Tax Talk Power shift, tax shift? A change in presidential administrations often signals the possibility of changes in tax policy, and this is certainly true in the case of the current transition. This article provides a high-level overview of President Biden’s proposed tax law changes to corporate and individual taxes and the potential impact on M&A transactions if such changes are enacted. Setting the stage policy documents to the public or deliver • Narrow majorities: House Democrats More than two months after the nation a substantial, tax-focused economic control 222 seats in the 117th Congress, went to the polls on Election Day, questions address. The proposals discussed herein compared with 211 for Republicans—a around who will control the levers of power are gleaned largely from statements on significantly smaller majority than over in the White House and on Capitol Hill are Biden’s campaign website, as well as from the past two years. Democratic victories now finally settled. Joe Biden became the comments made during Democratic primary in the two Georgia Senate runoff races nation’s 46th president at noon on debates, rallies, campaign speeches, on January 5 mean that Democrats January 20 and will be working with a and briefings to reporters. Additionally, and the GOP hold 50 seats each in that Democratic Congress. consideration will need to be given to the chamber. Democrats effectively control potential impact on state tax legislation that the Senate since Vice President Harris, A change in presidential administrations may ensue following any federal tax in her role as president of the Senate, often signals the possibility of changes in tax policy changes. will cast the tiebreaking vote whenever policy, and this is certainly true in the case lawmakers are deadlocked. Democrats’ of the current transition. President Biden Second, it’s important to note that tax slender majorities in both chambers will campaigned on a platform of ensuring that law originates in Congress, not the White leave leaders with little room for error as businesses and wealthy individuals pay House, so any legislation that is enacted into they navigate the sometimes conflicting “their fair share” in taxes. To that end, he law inevitably will reflect the priorities of priorities of lawmakers in the progressive has proposed modifying or repealing key congressional leaders. Democrats hold the and moderate wings of the party. provisions of the 2017 tax code overhaul majority in the House in the 117th Congress, known informally as the Tax Cuts and Jobs which officially convened on January 3, and Finally, the full impact of any tax law changes Act (TCJA, P.L. 115-97). Among other things, have a narrow majority in the Senate after enacted in the early days of the Biden he has called for increasing the top tax Sen. Kamala Harris became vice president administration will depend on whether rates on corporations and upper-income on January 20. This potentially provides those provisions take effect prospectively individuals (generally those with income an opportunity to enact some level of tax or are retroactive to January 1, 2021. greater than $400,000) and for phasing increases in the coming two years. But the Retroactive enactment of tax law changes out the deduction for certain passthrough shape, breadth, and timing of any legislative is uncommon and generally is viewed as business income. If signed into law, these proposals that advance on Capitol Hill are unlikely. Nonetheless, the potential risk that proposed changes may also affect M&A likely to be affected by: future tax changes might be retroactive transactions and other deal activity. prior to the date of enactment is something • Differing priorities:The Democratic that should be kept in mind. This article provides a high-level overview party has historically brought together of Biden’s proposed tax law changes to politicians with widely disparate views Higher rates and other tax increases corporate and individual taxes and the on many issues, including tax policy, and Biden proposes to increase the corporate potential impact on M&A transactions if finding common ground could prove to tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent. such changes are enacted. However, be challenging in 2021 and 2022. While Further, he has called for a 15 percent some significant caveats are worth Democratic taxwriters are united in their minimum tax on book income for companies keeping in mind. public criticism of the Republicans’ 2017 that report net income of more than $100 First, very little detail is currently available tax overhaul, they have not, for the most million for financial statement purposes but on many of the proposals Biden has part, weighed in on many of the owe no US income tax. put forward. Over the course of the specific proposals Biden laid out during campaign, he did not release detailed tax his campaign. 1 M&A Tax Talk | Power shift, tax shift? On the individual side of the tax code, after-tax cash proceeds of $72,000, resulting taxed at capital gains tax rates. If the gap Biden proposes to increase the top rate in $7,000 of additional tax versus current between ordinary tax rates and capital on ordinary income from 37 percent to its law; and the individual would recognize gains tax rates shrinks, tax sensitivities with pre-TCJA level of 39.6 percent for those with after-tax cash proceeds of $60,400, respect to structuring earnouts between taxable income greater than $400,000. resulting in $19,600 of additional tax versus buyers and sellers may become less Long-term capital gains and certain current law. Similarly, if an investment important. dividends would be taxed at ordinary rates fund treated as a partnership for federal Alternatively, businesses may become for individuals with income greater than $1 income tax purposes sells its interest in a more concerned with tax structuring million—an increase from the current top business today that was held for more than alternatives. For example, a buyer typically long-term capital gains and dividend tax rate three years, an individual investor (with favors a structure that is treated as an asset of 20 percent. Income from carried interests income of greater than $1 million) in a fund acquisition or deemed asset acquisition would also be taxed at ordinary rates. management partnership would generally because it may deliver a step-up in tax basis. (Under the TCJA, carried interests are taxed be taxed at the current capital gains rate of If the rates increase, the tax basis step-up at preferential long-term capital gains rates 20 percent versus 39.6 percent on his or her will drive incremental value by providing if held for more than three years.) In addition share of the “carried interest” income from additional deductions that would offset to raising the top individual rate, Biden the sale. taxable income subject to higher tax rates. proposes to tighten tax benefits currently Additionally, if Biden’s 15 percent minimum available to owners of large passthrough Importance of M&A future cash tax on certain businesses becomes law, entities, who are taxed as individuals, by tax analysis a corporation with net operating losses phasing out the deduction under section When planning for an M&A transaction, (NOL) and paying no US income tax may not 199A for taxpayers with income of more buyers and sellers should consider seem as attractive a target for acquisition. than $400,000. evaluating these proposed changes and Depending on how the 15 percent minimum the potential impact they may have on The current-law 37 percent top rate for tax is drafted, the new owner of the transactions now. The potential increase in individuals and the 20 percent deduction for corporation could be liable for taxes on the tax rates and value of future tax attributes, passthrough business income, both of which corporation’s financial income, even though such as NOLs and tax basis step-up, should were enacted in the TCJA, are currently the company may not have any taxable all be considered when projecting future scheduled to expire after 2025. income due to the NOLs. cash tax flows, analyzing potential M&A implications On the other hand, a business’s NOLs and outcomes, and considering appropriate There has been some acceleration of other tax attributes may become more tax planning alternatives. M&A deal activity in anticipation of these valuable as tax rates increase, because they International tax proposals proposed income tax rate increases. can be utilized to offset income that would Biden’s proposed increase in the corporate Business owners (corporations and otherwise be subject to the higher tax rates. tax rate would also have an impact on global individuals) that are contemplating such a The analysis of different structuring intangible low-tax income (GILTI) and foreign transaction may be motivated to close a alternatives may also change. If long-term derived intangible income (FDII). Biden transaction before the potential increase capital gains are taxed at ordinary rates (for proposes to increase the tax rate on GILTI to in tax rates. The following are simplified certain individuals), sellers may not be as 21 percent from 10.5 percent and eliminate examples to illustrate the impact of an concerned with structuring transactions the exemption of a 10 percent return on the increase in tax rates and do not contemplate to achieve capital gains tax treatment. For average adjusted basis of foreign tangible other taxes such as the net investment example, if a buyer or seller is considering property from GILTI. income tax or state-level taxes. If a an earnout (i.e., generally a contractual corporation sells today and recognizes gain Biden would encourage domestic commitment to make a future contingent of $100,000, the corporation will have after- manufacturing—and discourage offshoring payment if post-closing conditions are met) tax cash proceeds of $79,000 at current of US jobs and production activity— in a proposed transaction, the earnout rates.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • REPLACING CORPORATE TAX REVENUES with a MARK to MARKET TAX on SHAREHOLDER INCOME Eric Toder and Alan D
    REPLACING CORPORATE TAX REVENUES WITH A MARK TO MARKET TAX ON SHAREHOLDER INCOME Eric Toder and Alan D. Viard October 2016 ABSTRACT We propose reducing the corporate tax rate to 15 percent and replacing the foregone revenue with a tax at ordinary income rates on the accrued, or mark-to-market income of American shareholders of publicly traded corporations, accompanied by an imputation credit for U.S. corporate income taxes paid. The proposal would dramatically reduce the tax significance of the source of corporate profits and the residence of corporations, both of which can be easily manipulated. Lowering the corporate tax rate to 15 percent would encouraging a capital inflow to the United States and reduce incentives to shift reported profits overseas and engage in inversion transactions while continuing to impose tax on foreigners who earn economic rents from investing in the United States. The proposal includes provisions for averaging of mark-to- market income, transition relief for firms that move from closely held to publicly traded status, and other measures to address the challenges of mark-to-market taxation. We estimate that the proposal would be approximately revenue-neutral and would make the distribution of the tax burden slightly more progressive. A revised version of the article was been published in the September 2016 issue of the National Tax Journal, Volume 69 (3), 701-731. The findings and conclusions contained within are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect positions or policies of the Tax Policy Center or its funders. I. INTRODUCTION This paper presents a proposal for reform of the taxation of corporate income.
    [Show full text]
  • Innovative Sources of Development Finance
    Discussion Paper No. 2002/98 Innovative Sources of Development Finance Global Cooperation in the Twenty-first Century Raghbendra Jha* October 2002 Abstract This paper argues that in view of the resource crunch confronting many developing countries and the fall in overseas development aid flows to them, new sources of development finance need to be found. We consider international taxes, fees and levies that could considerably augment aid flows to developing countries and some of which may have coincident beneficial effects. Estimates of the revenue yield from such taxes and levies are also presented. The paper proposes the establishment of a ‘world development organization’ to coordinate such effort. A formula for voting within the organization and another for disbursal of such aid are suggested. Keywords: global taxes, fees and charges, world development organization JEL classification: F02, F35, H23, H87 Copyright UNU/WIDER 2002 * Australia South Asia Research Centre, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University; email: [email protected] This study has been prepared within the UNU/WIDER project on the Sustainability of External Development Financing, which is directed by Matthew Odedokun. UNU/WIDER gratefully acknowledges the financial contribution to the project by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland. Acknowledgement I would like to thank Matthew Odedokun and mark McGillivrary for helpful comments and Anurga Sharms for research assistance. All opinions and any errors are mine. UNU World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU/WIDER) was established by the United Nations University as its first research and training centre and started work in Helsinki, Finland in 1985.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Avoidance Due to the Zero Capital Gains Tax
    2 Capital gains tax regimes abroad—countries without capital gains taxes Tax avoidance due to the zero capital gains tax Some indirect evidence from Hong Kong BERRY F. C . H SU AND CHI-WA YUEN Consistent with its image as a free-market economy with minimal government intervention, Hong Kong is a city with low and simple taxation. Unlike most industrial and developed economies with full-fledged tax structures, Hong Kong has a relatively narrow tax base. It has direct taxes, which account for about 60% of the total tax revenue. These direct levies fall on earnings and profits and in- clude an estate duty. Hong Kong also has indirect taxes, which ac- count for the remaining 40%. These consist of rates, duties, and taxes on motor vehicles and so on.1 Nonetheless, Hong Kong has neither a sales or value-added tax nor a capital gains tax. In this paper, we explain the absence of the capital gains tax and provide some indirect evidence on the tax-avoidance effects induced by this fact. Notes will be found on pages 51–53. 39 40 International evidence on capital gains taxes Why is there no capital gains tax in Hong Kong? Under the British colonial rule, no tax was levied on capital gains in Hong Kong.2 This continues to be the case since the Chinese gov- ernment took over in 1997. During the pre-1997 (colonial) period, the tax structure in Hong Kong was based on the British tax system, which uses the source concept of income for the taxation of different kinds of in- come.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Environmental Tax Reforms: International Experiences
    EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL TAX REFORMS: INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCES Final Report Prepared by: Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) 55 Quai au Foin 1000 Brussels Belgium 21 June 2013 Disclaimer: The arguments expressed in this report are solely those of the authors, and do not reflect the opinion of any other party. This report should be cited as follows: Withana, S., ten Brink, P., Kretschmer, B., Mazza, L., Hjerp, P., Sauter, R., (2013) Evaluation of environmental tax reforms: International experiences , A report by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) for the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) and the Federal Finance Administration (FFA) of Switzerland. Final Report. Brussels. 2013. Citation for report annexes: Withana, S., ten Brink, P., Kretschmer, B., Mazza, L., Hjerp, P., Sauter, R., Malou, A., and Illes, A., (2013) Annexes to Final Report - Evaluation of environmental tax reforms: International experiences . A report by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) for the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) and the Federal Finance Administration (FFA) of Switzerland. Brussels. 2013. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the following for their contributions to the study: Kai Schlegelmilch (Green Budget Europe); Stefan Speck (European Environment Agency - EEA); Herman Vollebergh (PBL – Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency); Hans Vos (Independent); Mikael Skou Andersen (European Environment Agency – EEA); Frank Convery (University College Dublin); Aldo Ravazzi (Ministry of Environment, Italy); Vladislav Rezek (Ministry of Finance, Czech Republic); Frans Oosterhuis (Institute for Environmental Studies - Vrije Universiteit - IVM); Constanze Adolf (Green Budget Europe); and Janne Stene (Bellona). The authors would also like to thank the members of the Working Group accompanying the study: Carsten Colombier (Leiter) (EFV); Marianne Abt (SECO); Fabian Mahnig (EDA MAHFA); Nicole Mathys (BFE); Reto Stroh (EZV); Michel Tschirren (BAFU); and Martina Zahno (EFV).
    [Show full text]
  • FINANCE Offshore Finance.Pdf
    This page intentionally left blank OFFSHORE FINANCE It is estimated that up to 60 per cent of the world’s money may be located oVshore, where half of all financial transactions are said to take place. Meanwhile, there is a perception that secrecy about oVshore is encouraged to obfuscate tax evasion and money laundering. Depending upon the criteria used to identify them, there are between forty and eighty oVshore finance centres spread around the world. The tax rules that apply in these jurisdictions are determined by the jurisdictions themselves and often are more benign than comparative rules that apply in the larger financial centres globally. This gives rise to potential for the development of tax mitigation strategies. McCann provides a detailed analysis of the global oVshore environment, outlining the extent of the information available and how that information might be used in assessing the quality of individual jurisdictions, as well as examining whether some of the perceptions about ‘OVshore’ are valid. He analyses the ongoing work of what have become known as the ‘standard setters’ – including the Financial Stability Forum, the Financial Action Task Force, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. The book also oVers some suggestions as to what the future might hold for oVshore finance. HILTON Mc CANN was the Acting Chief Executive of the Financial Services Commission, Mauritius. He has held senior positions in the respective regulatory authorities in the Isle of Man, Malta and Mauritius. Having trained as a banker, he began his regulatory career supervising banks in the Isle of Man.
    [Show full text]
  • The High Burden of State and Federal Capital Gains Tax Rates in the United FISCAL FACT States Mar
    The High Burden of State and Federal Capital Gains Tax Rates in the United FISCAL FACT States Mar. 2015 No. 460 By Kyle Pomerleau Economist Key Findings · The average combined federal, state, and local top marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains in the United States is 28.6 percent – 6th highest in the OECD. · This is more than 10 percentage points higher than the simple average across industrialized nations of 18.4 percent, and 5 percentage points higher than the weighted average. · Nine industrialized countries exempt long-term capital gains from taxation. · California has the 3rd highest top marginal capital gains tax rate in the industrialized world at 33 percent. · The taxation of capital gains places a double-tax on corporate income, increases the cost of capital, and reduces investment in the economy. · The President’s FY 2016 budget would increase capital gains tax rates in the United States from 28.6 percent to 32.8, the 5th highest rate in the OECD. 2 Introduction Saving is important to an economy. It leads to higher levels of investment, a larger capital stock, increased worker productivity and wages, and faster economic growth. However, the United States places a heavy tax burden on saving and investment. One way it does this is through a high top marginal tax rate on capital gains. Currently, the United States’ top marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains income is 23.8 percent. In addition, taxpayers face state and local capital gains tax rates between zero and 13.3 percent. As a result, the average combined top marginal tax rate in the United States is 28.6 percent.
    [Show full text]
  • Itep Guide to Fair State and Local Taxes: About Iii
    THE GUIDE TO Fair State and Local Taxes 2011 Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy 1616 P Street, NW, Suite 201, Washington, DC 20036 | 202-299-1066 | www.itepnet.org | [email protected] THE ITEP GUIDE TO FAIR STATE AND LOCAL TAXES: ABOUT III About the Guide The ITEP Guide to Fair State and Local Taxes is designed to provide a basic overview of the most important issues in state and local tax policy, in simple and straightforward language. The Guide is also available to read or download on ITEP’s website at www.itepnet.org. The web version of the Guide includes a series of appendices for each chapter with regularly updated state-by-state data on selected state and local tax policies. Additionally, ITEP has published a series of policy briefs that provide supplementary information to the topics discussed in the Guide. These briefs are also available on ITEP’s website. The Guide is the result of the diligent work of many ITEP staffers. Those primarily responsible for the guide are Carl Davis, Kelly Davis, Matthew Gardner, Jeff McLynch, and Meg Wiehe. The Guide also benefitted from the valuable feedback of researchers and advocates around the nation. Special thanks to Michael Mazerov at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. About ITEP Founded in 1980, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization, based in Washington, DC, that focuses on federal and state tax policy. ITEP’s mission is to inform policymakers and the public of the effects of current and proposed tax policies on tax fairness, government budgets, and sound economic policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Gains) Above $250,000 Per Year
    Members of the Washington State Senate have an historic opportunity to create a more just state tax code while bolstering and sustaining our state’s fiscal and economic recovery long after federal recovery funds fade away. Senate Bill 5096 would create a new 7% excise tax on extraordinary profits from the sale of financial assets (capital gains) above $250,000 per year. If approved, this would be the most equitable change to Washington state’s upside-down tax code in nearly 90 years. And it would generate over $500 million per year in permanent new resources for child care and investments to help correct the upside-down nature of our tax code. Below are three reasons why Senators should act now and pass SB 5096 off the Senate floor. 1. Taxing capital gains would begin to address longstanding economic and racial injustices in our state tax code and economy We have the most upside-down or regressive state and local tax code in the nation, in which the poorest households face average tax rates that are six times higher than the rates paid by those at the very top of the income and wealth ladders. This regressive tax code is especially damaging to Washingtonians who are Black, Indigenous, or people of color, who face considerably higher average tax rates than wealthy white households. Because financial assets are so heavily concentrated among the very wealthiest householdsi in our state, SB 5096 would be paid only by those who can afford to pay more for investments in schools and other priorities that benefit us all.
    [Show full text]
  • The Financial Secrecy Index: Shedding New Light on the Geography of Secrecy
    The Financial Secrecy Index: Shedding New Light on the Geography of Secrecy Alex Cobham, Petr Janský, and Markus Meinzer Abstract Both academic research and public policy debate around tax havens and offshore finance typically suffer from a lack of definitional consistency. Unsurprisingly then, there is little agreement about which jurisdictions ought to be considered as tax havens—or which policy measures would result in their not being so considered. In this article we explore and make operational an alternative concept, that of a secrecy jurisdiction and present the findings of the resulting Financial Secrecy Index (FSI). The FSI ranks countries and jurisdictions according to their contribution to opacity in global financial flows, revealing a quite different geography of financial secrecy from the image of small island tax havens that may still dominate popular perceptions and some of the literature on offshore finance. Some major (secrecy-supplying) economies now come into focus. Instead of a binary division between tax havens and others, the results show a secrecy spectrum, on which all jurisdictions can be situated, and that adjustment lfor the scale of business is necessary in order to compare impact propensity. This approach has the potential to support more precise and granular research findings and policy recommendations. JEL Codes: F36, F65 Working Paper 404 www.cgdev.org May 2015 The Financial Secrecy Index: Shedding New Light on the Geography of Secrecy Alex Cobham Tax Justice Network Petr Janský Institute of Economic Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University in Prague Markus Meinzer Tax Justice Network A version of this paper is published in Economic Geography (July 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Design for Inclusive Economic Growth
    OECD Taxation Working Papers No. 26 Bert Brys, Tax Design for Inclusive Sarah Perret, Economic Growth Alastair Thomas, Pierce O’Reilly https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jlv74ggk0g7-en OECD CENTRE FOR TAX POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION OECD TAXATION WORKING PAPERS SERIES This series is designed to make available to a wider readership selected studies drawing on the work of the OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration. Authorship is usually collective, but principal writers are named. The papers are generally available only in their original language (English or French) with a short summary available in the other. OECD Working Papers should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its member countries. The opinions expressed and arguments employed are those of the author(s). Working Papers describe preliminary results or research in progress by the author(s) and are published to stimulate discussion on a broad range of issues on which the OECD works. Comments on Working Papers are welcomed, and may be sent to the Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, OECD, 2 rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France. This working paper has been authorised for release by the Director of the Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, Pascal Saint-Amans. Comments on the series are welcome, and should be sent to either [email protected] or the Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, 2, rue André Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16, France. This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
    [Show full text]
  • Reform of U.S. International Taxation: Alternatives
    Reform of U.S. International Taxation: Alternatives Jane G. Gravelle Senior Specialist in Economic Policy August 1, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL34115 Reform of U.S. International Taxation: Alternatives Summary A striking feature of the modern U.S. economy is its growing openness—its increased integration with the rest of the world. The attention of tax policymakers has recently been focused on the growing participation of U.S. firms in the international economy and the increased pressure that engagement places on the U.S. system for taxing overseas business. Is the current U.S. system for taxing U.S. international business the appropriate one for the modern era of globalized business operations, or should its basic structure be reformed? The current U.S. system for taxing international business is a hybrid. In part, the system is based on a residence principle, applying U.S. taxes on a worldwide basis to U.S. firms while granting foreign tax credits to alleviate double taxation. The system, however, also permits U.S. firms to defer foreign-source income indefinitely—a feature that approaches a territorial tax jurisdiction. In keeping with its mixed structure, the system produces a patchwork of economic effects that depend on the location of foreign investment and the circumstances of the firm. Broadly, the system poses a tax incentive to invest in countries with low tax rates of their own and a disincentive to invest in high-tax countries. In theory, U.S. investment should be skewed toward low-tax countries and away from high-tax locations.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Gains Taxation
    58 Capital gains taxation Capital gains taxation joint returns). The new exclusion can be claimed whenever the taxpayer meets the eligibility require- Gerald Auten ment of owning and occupying the residence for at Department of the Treasury least two of the previous five years and using the exclusion only once in a two-year period. Prior law Treatment of the changes in value of capital had been criticized as being complex, distorting assets such as corporate stock, real estate, certain housing decisions, and generating little tax or a business interest. revenue. When appreciated assets are transferred by be- quest, the basis is stepped up to the value of the as- Under a pure net accretion (Haig-Simons) approach sets on the date of death. Thus, the accrued gains on to income taxes, real capital gains would be taxed assets held at death are not taxed under the income each year as they accrued and real capital losses tax, although they may be subject to the estate tax. would be deducted. Capital gains are generally A 50 percent exclusion for capital gains from taxed only when “realized” by sale or exchange, the sale of certain small business stocks purchased however, because it would be difficult to estimate at the time of issue and held for at least five years the value of many assets, it would be viewed as un- was introduced in 1993. Eligible businesses must fair to tax income that had not been realized, and it have less than $50 million in assets (including the could force the liquidation of assets to pay the proceeds of the stock issue) and meet certain other tax on accruals.
    [Show full text]