The freely available Adobe Acrobat Reader software is required to view, print, and search the rulings and memoranda listed below.
PLR 201118012 (5/6/11)
Whether the entrance fees collected by Borrower are properly characterized as replacement proceeds within the meaning of § 148 of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) and § 1.148-1(c) of the Income Tax Regulations.
PLR 201116015 (4/22/11)
The letter requests an extension of time to make an election to waive the right to invest the net sale proceeds and investment proceeds of the New Money Bonds in higher yielding investments during the three-year temporary period pursuant to § 1.148-2 of the Income Tax Regulations.
PLR 200527014 (03/31/2005)
This is in response to your request for a ruling that a guarantee of the Bonds backed by Fund A pursuant to the Program will not cause the Amounts in Fund A to be treated as replacement proceeds of the Bonds.
PLR 200527009 (03/24/2005)
This is in response to your ruling request on behalf of State that amounts, if any, in State's General Fund, Special Fund and Budget Account will not result in "other replacement proceeds" of the Bonds within the meaning of section 1.148-1(c)(4).
PLR 200428022 (03/31/04)
This letter responds to the request for a ruling that the Trust corpus will not constitute "replacement proceeds" of the bonds under section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code.
TAM200413012 (11/26/2003) [Revised]
For purposes of the "5%" rule (Section 148-6(d)(3)(iii)(B)), do the "actual working capital expenditures of the issuer in the prior fiscal year" include expenditures made from amounts that were restricted to use for expenditures other than working capital of the type financed?
This letter responds to a letter dated March 14, 2000, and subsequent correspondence, submitted on behalf of P by its authorized representatives, requesting rulings under §29 and §702 of the Internal Revenue Code.
This letter is in response to your request on behalf of the Authority for rulings that: (1) the operating expenses to be paid with proceeds of the Notes are described in section 1.148-6(d)(3)(ii)(B) of the Income Tax Regulations and therefore, are not subject to the proceeds-spent last method of accounting set forth in section 1.148-6(3)(i); and (2) the net sale proceeds and investment proceeds of the Notes qualify for the 3 year temporary period under section 2.148-2(e)(2)(i) and may be invested in higher yielding investments during such period without causing the Notes to be arbitrage bonds within the meaning of section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Whether payments to Provider A may be taken into account when calculating the yield on the yield restricted defeasance escrows? Whether the Authority paid Provider B more than fair market value for the investments it purchased for the yield restricted defeasance escrows.
Whether the 15-month term of the TRANs constitutes overburdening the market under §1.148-10(a)(4) of the Income Tax Regulations because the TRANs are outstanding longer than necessary to accomplish the County's governmental purposes?
This responds to a request for a ruling that the bonds of the Project Issue will not be issued earlier than necessary for purposes of §1.148-10(a)(4) of the Income Tax Regulations.
This letter is in response to ar request on behalf of the Issuer for a ruling that payments on the swap described below be taken into account in the computation of yield on certain nonpurpose investments of the Issuer for purposes of the yield restriction and arbitrage rebate rules under §148 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Whether the Swap Agreements constitute a qualified hedge under §1.148-4(h)(2) with respect to the Bonds? Whether the actual amount of rebate payments with respect to the Bonds may be future valued for purposes of determining the amount of a rebate overpayment under §1.148-3(i)(1)?
This letter is in response to a ruling request concerning the allocation of certain of the proceeds of the Specified Bonds for arbitrage purposes. The proceeds that are the subject of the request are those Specified Bond proceeds that are invested in commingled funds operated by the State Treasurer (the "Treasurer").
Whether the issuance of bonds was structured in such a manner that it was expected that the credit enhancement provider would pay the debt service on the bonds rather than the issuer.
Reasonable Expectations-Artifice or Device:
Whether the Series A and B Bonds are a single issue under section 1.150-1(c) of the Income Tax Regulations or alternatively, whether they are arbitrage bonds under section 1.148-10 of the Regulations.
This is in response to your request for the following rulings: (1) the issuance, maturities and mandatory sinking fund redemptions of the Refunding Bonds and Subsequent Bonds (as defined below and together, the "Proposed Bonds") will not give rise to replacement proceeds as defined in section 1.148-1(c) of the Income Tax Regulations; (2) the Proposed Bonds will not be considered to finance restricted working capital expenses, and the proceeds-spent last rule in section 1.148-6(d)(3)(i) will not apply; and (3) the issuance of the Proposed Bonds will not be considered as the use of an abusive arbitrage device or to be an overburdening of the tax-exempt bond market under section 1.148-10.
Whether there are sufficient facts to support an argument that Bonds 2 were a reissuance of Bonds 1? What further factual development is necessary to support an argument that the Bonds 2 are arbitrage bonds?
This letter is in response to a request on behalf of the City for a ruling that the interest on the Bonds will be excluded from gross income under §103 of the Internal Revenue Code (the "Code"). This letter ruling was submitted as a letter ruling subject to review under the declaratory judgment provisions of §7478.
This letter is in response to a request on behalf of the District for a ruling that interest on the Bonds will be excluded from income under §103 of the Internal Revenue Code (the "Code"). Pursuant to §7478 and Rev. Proc. 96-16, 1996-1 C.B. 630, our private letter ruling is one subject to review under the declaratory judgment provisions of §7478.
Required Rebate to the U.S.:
TAM 200446021 (8/6/2004)
What is the period of limitations for an issuer of bonds to bring suit to recover an overpayment of abitrage rebate paid to the Service? When does the period of limitations for bringing suit to recover an overpayment of rebate begin?
This is in response to your request for a ruling permitting the Borrower to utilize the “gross proceeds spent first” method for allocating funds from different sources to expenditures for the same governmental purpose under Income Tax Regulation section 1.148-6 for the purpose of determining whether the Borrower has met the two year spending exception to the arbitrage rebate requirement under IRC section 148(f)(4)(C) and section 1.148-7(e).
On what date should A's late payment of rebate, paid for Period #1 (the first computation period), be taken into account for purposes of computing rebate for the final computation period?
Small Government Unit Exception:
Whether the Bonds satisfy the requirement of section 148(f)(4)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code for the exception to rebate for governmental units issuing $5,000,000 or less of bonds.
Whether several series of Bonds (as defined hereafter) issued by a number of school districts to provide financing to all school districts within a state are arbitrage bonds where the proceeds of the Bonds were placed in a guaranteed investment contract with an earnings rate above the stated interest rate on the Bonds.
Penalty in Lieu of Rebate:
This letter is in reply to a request for a ruling waiving the failure-to-pay penalty described in §148(f)(4)(C)(x) of the Internal Revenue Code.
For purposes of meeting the spending requirements set forth in §148(f)(4)(C)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code, may Issuer allocate Bond proceeds to operating expenses that resulted in deficits in Issuer's operating funds in each of the spending periods following the issue date of the Bonds?