Reflections on Section 367(b) Regulations and Inbound Transactions

Cross-border combinations of U.S. and foreign public companies are unusual but happen from time to time. Our broad and often arbitrary anti-inversion rules discourage such transactions utilizing a foreign parent company for the combined group. But using a U.S. parent company can also be painful to the foreign company shareholders. Our section 367(b) regulations require gain recognition for the foreign company’s material shareholders subject to U.S. tax. That seems to be a high price to pay for the pleasure of bringing the foreign corporate group into the U.S. tax net. Much has been discussed and written about the section 367(b) regulations that compel this result since the regulation’s finalization in 2000 and especially since the enactment of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This article reflects our exploration into what led the original regulation writers down the path they took and suggests that maybe they were wrong in their thinking. Our hope is that it will stimulate a broader discussion of the goals of the section 367(b) regulations as applied to inbound transactions and how they should be implemented in the current regime of section 245A deductions and GILTI and Subpart F inclusions.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Columbia Journal of Tax Law
Published
2025-04-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.52214/cjtl.v16i2.13768
Primary Topic
European and International Contract Law
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Reflections on Section 367(b) Regulations and Inbound Transactions

Paul Oosterhuis, Mayté Quinn Salazar
Columbia Journal of Tax Law
European and International Contract Law
article

Reflections on Section 367(b) Regulations and Inbound Transactions

Paul Oosterhuis, Mayté Quinn Salazar
article en

Abstract

Cross-border combinations of U.S. and foreign public companies are unusual but happen from time to time. Our broad and often arbitrary anti-inversion rules discourage such transactions utilizing a foreign parent company for the combined group. But using a U.S. parent company can also be painful to the foreign company shareholders. Our section 367(b) regulations require gain recognition for the foreign company’s material shareholders subject to U.S. tax. That seems to be a high price to pay for the pleasure of bringing the foreign corporate group into the U.S. tax net. Much has been discussed and written about the section 367(b) regulations that compel this result since the regulation’s finalization in 2000 and especially since the enactment of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This article reflects our exploration into what led the original regulation writers down the path they took and suggests that maybe they were wrong in their thinking. Our hope is that it will stimulate a broader discussion of the goals of the section 367(b) regulations as applied to inbound transactions and how they should be implemented in the current regime of section 245A deductions and GILTI and Subpart F inclusions.

Columbia Journal of Tax LawVol. 16(2)
Openalex Percentile: Top 86%
European and International Contract Law
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.