The Great ETF Tax Swindle: The Taxation of In-Kind Redemptions

Since the repeal of the General Utilities doctrine over 30 years ago, corporations must recognize gain when distributing appreciated property to their shareholders. Regulated investment companies (RICs), which generally must be organized as domestic corporations, are exempt from this rule when distributing property in kind to a redeeming shareholder. In-kind redemptions, while rare for mutual funds, are a fundamental feature of exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Because fund managers decide which securities to distribute, they distribute assets with unrealized gains and thereby significantly reduce the future tax burdens of their current and future shareholders. Many ETFs have morphed into investment vehicles that offer better after-tax returns than IRAs funded with after-tax contributions. Furthermore, this rule is now being turbocharged. Some mutual fund families have created ETF classes of shares for some of their mutual funds, which permits the ETF shareholders to remove the gains attributable to the shareholders of the regular share class. Another firm acts as a strategic investor to assist mutual funds in eliminating their unrealized gains through contributions and redemptions. These transactions permit current and future fund shareholders to inappropriately defer tax on their economic gains and give ETFs and other mutual funds with ETF share classes a significant tax advantage over other investment vehicles. This article considers various options that tax policymakers should consider to eliminate the ETF tax subsidy including explicitly extending this favorable tax treatment to all RICs by exempting fund-level gains from tax, repealing the exemption rule, limiting the amount of unrealized gains a fund can distribute, requiring ETFs to reduce the basis of their remaining property by the unrecognized gain of distributed property, or requiring ETFs to be taxed as partnerships

A Stock Index Mutual Fund Without Net Capital Gains Realizations

This paper reconsiders the literature on tax options by examining the ability to defer net capital gains realizations within an equity portfolio whose constituents change over time. Unlike previous studies on the value of tax options, this paper examines after-tax returns to shareholders within an equity mutual fund. The mutual fund context allows certain features of the United States' tax laws -- namely, wash-sale rules and the offsetting of short-term and long-term capital gains and losses -- to be incorporated in assessing the potential improvement in post-tax returns to investors engaging in tax minimization strategies. Specifically, this paper examines the feasibility of managing open-end and closed-end Standard and Poor's 500 index funds which defer net capital gains realizations. A combination of HIFO (highest in, first out) accounting procedures and the systematic booking of significant losses in portfolio constituents would have allowed the open-end fund variant to match the annual pre-tax return of Vanguard's Index 500 Fund while improving annual after-tax performance by as much as ninety-seven basis points through the elimination of all capital gains realizations between 1977 and 1991. Deferring capital gains is shown to be easier for open-end funds relative to closed-end funds while the additional turnover required to implement these strategies is quite modest. The authors name the tax-sensitive funds in this paper 'SURGE (Strategies Using Realized Gains Elimination) funds.'

Effects of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 on Corporate Financial Policy and Organizational Form

We examine the effects of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 on the financial decisions made by firms. We review the theory and empirical predictions of prior literature for corporate debt policy, for dividend and equity repurchase payouts to shareholders, and for the choice of organizational form. We then compare the predictions to post-1986 experience. The change in debt/value ratios has been substantially smaller than expected. Dividend payouts increased as predicted, but stock repurchases increased even more rapidly which was unexpected and is difficult to understand. Based on very scant data, it appears that some activities have shuffled among organizational forms; in particular, loss activities may have been moved into corporate form where they are deducted at a higher tax rate, while gain activities may have shifted towards noncorporate form, to be taxed at the lower personal rates. In addition, several interesting new issues are raised. One concerns previously neglected implications for the effective tax on retained earnings that follow from optimal trading strategies when long- and short-term capital gains are taxed at different rates. Also, new interest allocation rules for multinational corporations provide a substantial incentive for many firms to shift their borrowing abroad.

Diversification and the Taxation of Capital Gains and Losses

Current U.S. law nets the total portfolio of realized capital gains and losses to compute capital gains taxes. Prior research, however, typically ignores the implication of this provision, i.e., the marginal tax rate for a specific gain or loss depends on the taxpayer's total portfolio of realized gains and losses. We find that these nettings introduce complexity into the relation between share values and capital gains taxes, creating an incentive to diversify. For firms with stock returns that are positively (negatively) correlated with those of the overall market, share values generally are decreasing (increasing) in the capital gains tax rate.

CPA Client Bulletin, November 2011

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_news/4792/thumbnail.jp

CPA Client Tax Letter, October/November/December 2011

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_news/5174/thumbnail.jp