Corporate Tax | Just Tax

Personal Holding Company Tax (§§ 541, 542, 543, 547)

This checklist determines whether a corporation is a personal holding company under § 542, computes PHC income and undistributed PHC income under §§ 543 and 545, applies the § 547 deficiency-dividend remedy, and coordinates PHC status with the accumulated earnings tax. Use it whenever a closely held corporation derives significant investment or personal-service income.

Step 1. The PHC Tax in Outline

"Every personal holding company shall be subject to an additional tax equal to 20 percent of its undistributed personal holding company income." (§ 541(a))

• Rate and base. The PHC tax is a flat 20% tax on undistributed personal holding company income (UPHCI). The tax is imposed IN ADDITION TO the regular corporate income tax. There is no intent or mens rea requirement. The tax is purely mechanical.
  • The 20% rate applies to UPHCI which is taxable income adjusted under § 545(b) minus the dividends paid deduction. (§ 541(a)). The rate has been reduced multiple times from an original 75%.
  • The tax is computed on Form 1120 Schedule PH and is self-assessed by the corporation without any IRS determination or assertion required.
• Historical rates. Enacted in 1934 at 75%. Increased to 85% by the Revenue Act of 1936. Reduced to 70% by the Tax Reform Act of 1984. Reduced to 39.6% by the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993. Reduced to 20% by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA 2012). The 20% rate matches the maximum individual rate on qualified dividends, eliminating any rate arbitrage.
  • The 75% original rate reflected Congress's intent to strongly discourage incorporation of personal investment portfolios and personal service income. (S. Rep. No. 73-558 (1934)).
  • The ATRA 2012 reduction to 20% eliminated the historical rate differential between PHC tax and qualified dividend rates that had driven much PHC planning. At parity, PHC status is often neutral or favorable compared to AET exposure.
• Self-assessment mechanism. The corporation self-assesses the PHC tax on Schedule PH (Form 1120). The IRS does not need to assert the tax on audit. Failure to file Schedule PH does NOT excuse liability. It merely extends the statute of limitations to 6 years under § 6501(f).
  • Schedule PH is filed as part of Form 1120. The corporation computes its own PHC status, AOGI, PHC income, UPHCI, and tax liability. This is fundamentally different from the AET which requires an IRS determination under § 534.
  • Even if a corporation inadvertently fails to file Schedule PH, the PHC tax is still owed. The failure to file does not create a safe harbor or exemption. (Rev. Rul. 75-397, 1975-2 C.B. 445).
• Mutual exclusivity with AET. PHCs are expressly exempt from the accumulated earnings tax (AET) under § 532(b)(1). A corporation cannot be subject to both taxes in the same year. If a corporation qualifies as a PHC, the AET does not apply.
  • § 532(b)(1) states that the AET "shall not apply to any corporation which is a personal holding company for the taxable year." This exemption is automatic and mandatory, not elective.
  • The IRS cannot assert the AET as an alternative if the PHC tax applies. If the IRS challenges PHC status and loses, it may still assert the AET in the same proceeding if the PHC exemption is negated.
• Deficiency dividends as exclusive remedy. PHCs have a unique remedy under § 547 allowing a post-determination dividend deduction. The AET has no equivalent mechanism. This makes PHC status potentially more favorable than AET exposure in some planning scenarios.
  • § 547 allows a PHC to pay a deficiency dividend within 90 days of a determination and claim a deduction that reduces or eliminates the PHC tax base. The AET has no comparable retroactive distribution mechanism.
  • The deficiency dividend reduces the tax base but does NOT eliminate interest, penalties, or the underlying determination of PHC status. § 547(g) completely denies the remedy if fraud is found.
• Constitutional validity. The PHC tax has been upheld against constitutional challenges as a valid exercise of congressional taxing power. (Fox v. Commissioner, 37 B.T.A. 271 (1938)) (court rejected taxpayer argument that PHC provisions were unconstitutional as applied to personal service corporation).
  • The Tax Court in Fox held that the PHC tax is a valid excise tax on the privilege of doing business in corporate form, not a direct tax requiring apportionment. The classification of a personal service corporation as a PHC does not violate due process.
  • Subsequent courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the PHC provisions. The tax is viewed as a legitimate mechanism to prevent tax avoidance through corporate accumulation of personal income.

Step 2. The Two-Pronged Definition of Personal Holding Company

"The term 'personal holding company' means any corporation (other than a corporation described in subsection (c)) if. . . (1) at least 60 percent of its adjusted ordinary gross income for the taxable year is personal holding company income, and (2) at any time during the last half of the taxable year more than 50 percent in value of its outstanding stock is owned, directly or indirectly, by or for not more than 5 individuals." (§ 542(a))

• Both tests mandatory. A corporation must satisfy BOTH the income test (§ 542(a)(1)) AND the stock ownership test (§ 542(a)(2)) to be classified as a PHC. Failure on either prong means the corporation is not a PHC for that year.
  • The income test measures whether at least 60% of AOGI consists of PHC income categories. The stock ownership test measures whether more than 50% in value of outstanding stock is owned by 5 or fewer individuals.
  • Both tests are applied annually. A corporation may be a PHC in one year and not the next based on changes in income composition or stock ownership. There is no carryover of PHC status from year to year.
• The income test. At least 60% of adjusted ordinary gross income (AOGI) must be personal holding company income (PHCI). This threshold was reduced from 80% by the Revenue Act of 1964. The 60% threshold is computed on an annual basis. A corporation may be a PHC in one year and not the next.
  • The 60% fraction is PHC income (numerator) divided by AOGI (denominator). Capital gains and § 1231 gains are excluded from the denominator. Specific deductions for rents, mineral royalties, and tax-exempt interest reduce gross income to reach AOGI.
  • The income test is strictly mechanical. There is no reasonable cause or good faith exception. Even an inadvertent crossing of the 60% threshold triggers PHC status if the ownership test is also met.
• The stock ownership test. More than 50% IN VALUE (not voting power) of outstanding stock must be owned by 5 or fewer individuals. If YES (5 or fewer individuals own >50% in value) → proceed to income test. If NO → corporation is not a PHC regardless of income composition.
  • The test uses constructive ownership rules under § 544 to attribute stock among family members, partners, beneficiaries, and option holders. See Step 3 for detailed attribution rules.
  • "At any time during the last half" means the test is satisfied if the 5-or-fewer threshold is met on any single day during the second half of the taxable year. Even transient concentration triggers the test.
• "In value" critical distinction. The test measures value, not voting power. Non-voting preferred stock counts fully at its fair market value. A corporation with widely dispersed voting common but concentrated non-voting preferred may still be a PHC. (Treas. Reg. § 1.542-2(b)) (value determined by all factors including dividend rights, liquidation rights, and market price).
  • Preferred stock with significant dividend preferences or liquidation preferences may have substantial value even without voting rights. All classes of stock must be valued together to determine if 5 or fewer individuals own more than 50% in value.
  • Treasury stock and stock held in a fiduciary capacity are generally excluded from the value computation. Only bona fide outstanding stock is counted. (Treas. Reg. § 1.542-2(a)).
• "At any time during the last half" test. The ownership test is satisfied if the 5-or-fewer-individuals threshold is met at ANY single moment during the last half of the taxable year. Even one day of concentrated ownership during months 7-12 triggers the test. Ownership shifts at year-end do not retroactively cleanse PHC status.
  • A corporation that undergoes a public offering in month 10 but was closely held through month 9 is a PHC for that year because the ownership test was met "at any time" during the last half.
  • Stock redemptions, gifts, and transfers to unrelated parties during the first half of the year do not affect the last-half test. The test looks only at months 7 through 12.
• TRAP. Treas. Reg. § 1.542-2 not updated. The regulation text still states the 80% income threshold that applied before the 1964 amendment. The regulation was never updated after the statutory change to 60%. Practitioners must cite the statute (§ 542(a)(1)), not the regulation, for the correct threshold. The regulation is misleading if relied upon without checking the Code.
  • The regulation is not merely ambiguous. It affirmatively states the wrong threshold. A practitioner who relies solely on Treas. Reg. § 1.542-2 will incorrectly conclude that a corporation with 65% PHC income is NOT a PHC.
  • Always verify the statute first. The 60% threshold has been in the Code since 1964. The regulation's failure to update is a known trap that has caused compliance failures.
• Determining the number of owners. Constructive ownership rules under § 544 apply to attribute stock ownership among related parties. See Step 3 below for detailed application of attribution rules.
  • § 544 includes family attribution (spouse, ancestors, descendants, AND siblings), partnership attribution, trust attribution, option attribution, and the partner-rule. Each partner is deemed to own ALL stock owned by every other partner.
  • The § 544 rules are MORE expansive than § 318 in some respects (siblings included, no 50% threshold for partnership attribution, unexercisable options trigger attribution) and narrower in others (no upward attribution from shareholder to corporation).
• Outstanding stock defined. Stock that is bona fide issued and outstanding. Treasury stock and stock held by the corporation in a fiduciary capacity are generally excluded. Unissued authorized stock is ignored.
  • Stock is "bona fide outstanding" if it has been validly issued, is fully paid (or credited as fully paid), and has not been reacquired and held as treasury stock. (Treas. Reg. § 1.542-2(a)).
  • Stock held by the corporation as executor, trustee, or in a similar fiduciary capacity is not treated as outstanding for the ownership test. Stock held by a subsidiary is attributed to the parent under general principles.
• Latchis Theatres lineage. The PHC ownership test traces its lineage to predecessor AET provisions. (Latchis Theatres v. Commissioner, 19 T.C. 1054 (1953), aff'd, 214 F.2d 834 (1st Cir. 1954)) (court addressed concentrated ownership patterns that Congress sought to tax through penalty tax regimes).
  • Latchis Theatres involved a family-controlled theatre business. The court's analysis of concentrated ownership patterns informed the statutory framework that Congress later codified in the PHC provisions.
  • The case illustrates that the ownership test targets the same concentrated-control structures that the AET targets, but through an objective rather than subjective mechanism.

Step 3. Constructive Ownership Rules

"In determining whether a corporation is a personal holding company. . . stock constructively owned by a person by reason of the application of paragraph (1), (2), or (3) shall not be treated as owned by him for purposes of again applying such paragraph. . . ." (§ 544(a)(5))

• § 544(a)(1). Entity-to-owner proportionate attribution. Stock owned by a partnership, estate, or trust is considered as owned proportionately by its partners or beneficiaries. This is a proportionate attribution based on the partner's or beneficiary's interest in the entity. There is NO 50% ownership threshold. Even a 1% limited partner is attributed his proportionate share of partnership-owned stock. This differs from § 318(a)(2) which requires a 50% threshold for partnership attribution.
  • If a partnership owns 100% of Corporation X and Partner A has a 10% interest in the partnership, Partner A is deemed to own 10% of Corporation X. Under § 318(a)(2), Partner A would own zero because the 50% threshold is not met.
  • This proportionate attribution applies to all partnerships, estates, and trusts. There is no de minimis exception. Even a 0.1% beneficiary of a trust is attributed 0.1% of trust-owned stock.
• § 544(a)(2). Family and partner attribution. Stock owned by a family member is attributed to other family members. "Family" for PHC purposes includes spouse, ancestors, lineal descendants, AND SIBLINGS. The sibling inclusion is a CRITICAL difference from § 318(a)(1) which excludes siblings. The § 544 family attribution also includes the partner-rule. Each partner is deemed to own ALL stock owned by every other partner. A 100-partner partnership that owns 100% of a corporation causes EACH partner to be deemed owning 100% of the corporation's stock through the partner-rule.
  • A brother who owns 30% of a corporation is deemed to own stock owned by his sister. If the sister owns 25% directly, the brother is attributed her 25%, giving him 55% constructive ownership. Under § 318(a)(1), siblings are not attributed stock.
  • The partner-rule applies to ALL stock owned by a partner, not just stock owned through the partnership. If Partner A owns 40% of Corporation X individually and Partner B has no direct stock, Partner B is still deemed to own Partner A's 40% through the partner-rule.
• § 544(a)(3). Option attribution. An individual holding an option, warrant, or convertible security is treated as owning the stock covered by the option. The option need not be exercisable. Unvested or unexercisable options still trigger attribution. This is broader than § 318(a)(4) which requires the option to be exercisable. Convertible debt, warrants, and rights are all included.
  • An employee with unvested stock options covering 1,000 shares is treated as owning those 1,000 shares for PHC purposes even though the options cannot yet be exercised. If the vesting condition is contingent on continued employment, attribution still applies.
  • Convertible preferred stock is treated as the common stock into which it converts. Warrants issued as part of a debt offering are attributed at the warrant exercise ratio.
• § 544(a)(4). ONE-WAY attribution. The attribution rules in § 544 apply ONLY if the effect is to MAKE a corporation a PHC. The rules do NOT apply if the effect would be to prevent PHC status. This is a one-way street toward PHC classification. If attribution is not needed to find 5-or-fewer ownership, it is disregarded. This is fundamentally different from § 318 which operates symmetrically.
  • If 6 individuals each own 10% directly (total 60%), and family attribution among them would consolidate ownership to 5 or fewer, the attribution applies and the corporation is a PHC. But if 4 individuals own 60% directly, attribution that would spread ownership to more than 5 is disregarded.
  • This one-way rule means practitioners only need to apply attribution when it helps the government establish PHC status. Taxpayers cannot use attribution to argue against PHC classification.
• § 544(a)(5). Reattribution rules. Stock attributed to a person under § 544(a)(1) (entity attribution) can be reattributed to another person under § 544(a)(2) or (3). Family-attributed stock under § 544(a)(2) CANNOT be reattributed. If stock is attributed from a trust to a beneficiary under § 544(a)(1), that stock can then be attributed from the beneficiary to his spouse under § 544(a)(2). But stock attributed from a father to a son under § 544(a)(2) cannot be reattributed from the son to the son's wife.
  • Example of valid reattribution. Trust T owns 50% of Corp X. Beneficiary B is attributed 50% under § 544(a)(1). B's spouse S is then attributed B's 50% under § 544(a)(2). The trust stock has been reattributed from T → B → S.
  • Example of invalid reattribution. Father F owns 30% of Corp X. Son S is attributed F's 30% under § 544(a)(2). S's wife W CANNOT be attributed the 30% from S because family-attributed stock cannot be reattributed.
• § 544(b). Mutual ownership. If 50% or more in value of each of two corporations is owned by the same person, each corporation is deemed to own the stock of the other corporation. This prevents circular ownership structures from defeating the PHC ownership test. If Corporation A and Corporation B are each 50%+ owned by the same individual, Corporation A is treated as owning Corporation B's stock and vice versa.
  • This provision prevents the use of brother-sister corporations to dilute ownership. If Individual X owns 60% of Corp A and 60% of Corp B, Corp A is deemed to own Corp B's stock (including the 60% held by X) for ownership test purposes.
  • The 50% threshold applies to ownership by the SAME person in both corporations. The person can be an individual, partnership, trust, or other entity subject to attribution rules.
• TRAP. The partner-rule magnitude. Under § 544(a)(2), each partner is deemed to own ALL stock owned by every other partner. A partnership with 100 partners that owns 100% of Corporation X causes each individual partner to be treated as owning 100% of Corporation X. If any 5 of those 100 partners are individuals, the 5-or-fewer test is met through the partner-rule alone. This can create PHC status in completely unexpected circumstances.
  • A limited partnership with 200 limited partners and 1 general partner that owns 50% of Corporation X causes EACH of the 201 partners to be deemed owning 50% of X. If 5 limited partners are individuals, the ownership test is met.
  • This trap is particularly dangerous because practitioners often assume that widely held partnerships cannot trigger PHC attribution. The partner-rule ignores the number of partners.
• TRAP. Entities are not individuals. Stock owned directly by a partnership, trust, or corporation does NOT count toward the "5 or fewer individuals" test. Only individuals count. The entity's stock must be attributed through to individual partners or beneficiaries under § 544(a)(1) before it can be counted. A partnership owning 60% of a corporation contributes zero individuals until attribution is applied.
  • A family limited partnership owning 70% of a corporation does not count as 1 individual. The partnership is not an individual. The 70% must be attributed proportionately to the individual partners under § 544(a)(1) before it can be counted toward the 5-or-fewer test.
  • A corporation owning 40% of another corporation does not count at all unless § 544(b) mutual ownership applies. Corporate shareholders do not count toward the individual ownership test.
• Attribution direction. Unlike § 318, § 544 does not have upward attribution (from shareholder to corporation). The attribution flows from entity to owner and among family members. There is no attribution from a shareholder to a corporation in which the shareholder owns stock.
  • Under § 318(a)(3), a corporation is deemed to own stock owned by its 50%+ shareholder. No such rule exists in § 544. A 100% shareholder of Corp A who also owns 30% of Corp B does NOT cause Corp A to be attributed the 30% of Corp B.
  • The attribution in § 544 flows downward (entity to owner) and laterally (family member to family member, partner to partner). There is no upward flow.

Step 4. Adjusted Ordinary Gross Income and the 60 Percent Threshold

"At least 60 percent of its adjusted ordinary gross income for the taxable year is personal holding company income." (§ 542(a)(1))

• The 60% threshold. More than 60% of AOGI must be PHC income for the income test to be met. The threshold was reduced from 80% by the Revenue Act of 1964. Practitioners must verify they are using the statutory 60% rate and not the outdated 80% rate in Treas. Reg. § 1.542-2.
  • The fraction is computed as PHC income divided by AOGI. If the result is 60% or more, the income test is satisfied. A corporation with exactly 60% PHC income meets the test. A corporation with 59.9% does not.
  • The computation is done annually. A corporation that is a PHC in Year 1 because 70% of AOGI is PHC income is not automatically a PHC in Year 2. Each year stands alone.
• Ordinary Gross Income (OGI) defined. OGI means gross income minus all gains from the sale or exchange of capital assets and all gains from the sale or exchange of § 1231 property. (§ 543(b)(1)). This prevents corporations from inflating gross income with capital gains to dilute the PHC income percentage. A corporation cannot sell appreciated assets to generate capital gains that would reduce its PHC income ratio.
  • Only GAINS are excluded from OGI. Capital losses and § 1231 losses are NOT subtracted. If a corporation has $100,000 of capital gains and $80,000 of capital losses, only the $100,000 of gains is excluded. The $80,000 of losses remains in gross income.
  • Net gain limitations apply separately to stocks/securities and commodities. If a corporation has $50,000 of gains and $70,000 of losses on stocks, the net for that basket is zero. Losses do not create negative OGI.
• Adjusted Ordinary Gross Income (AOGI) computation. AOGI is OGI further reduced by specific deductions. (§ 543(b)(2)). The adjustments are.
  • Rent deductions. Subtract depreciation, property taxes, interest, and rent paid on rental property (capped at gross rents received). (§ 543(b)(2)(A)).
  • Mineral royalty deductions. Subtract depreciation, depletion, and certain taxes, interest, and rent paid attributable to mineral royalties (capped at mineral royalties received). (§ 543(b)(2)(B)).
  • Excluded interest. Subtract interest excluded from gross income under § 103 or § 103A (tax-exempt bond interest). (§ 543(b)(2)(C)).
• Purpose of adjustments. The AOGI computation levels the playing field among different investment activities. A corporation earning rental income can deduct rental expenses before measuring against the 60% threshold. A corporation earning mineral royalties can deduct depletion. Without these adjustments, corporations with deductible expenses would face harsher treatment than those with expense-free income.
  • The rental deduction adjustment recognizes that rental income is net of property expenses. A corporation with $100,000 gross rents and $60,000 of expenses has $40,000 of net rental income. The AOGI adjustment ensures the $60,000 of expenses reduces the denominator.
  • The tax-exempt interest exclusion ensures that municipal bond interest does not inflate AOGI without contributing to PHC income. This prevents tax-exempt income from diluting the PHC income percentage.
• Capital gains and § 1231 gains excluded from denominator. By excluding capital gains and § 1231 gains from OGI, the statute prevents a corporation from avoiding PHC status by generating a single large capital gain. The numerator includes only PHC income categories. The denominator includes only ordinary gross income adjusted for specific deductions.
  • A corporation with $50,000 of dividend income and $200,000 of capital gains has OGI of $50,000 (capital gains excluded). If PHC income is $50,000, the ratio is 100%. The large capital gain does not help the corporation avoid PHC status.
  • § 1231 gains from depreciable business property are excluded even though they are technically ordinary income under the § 1231 hotchpot. Only the net § 1231 gain (treated as capital gain) is excluded from OGI.
• EXAMPLE. Corporation X has $100,000 of dividend income, $50,000 of taxable interest, and $200,000 of long-term capital gains. OGI is $150,000 ($100,000 + $50,000). The capital gains are excluded. PHC income is $150,000. 100% of OGI is PHC income. X is a PHC if the ownership test is also met.
  • The $200,000 of capital gains is completely excluded from the AOGI computation. It does not enter the numerator or the denominator. The corporation cannot use capital gains to dilute its PHC income percentage.
  • If X also had $30,000 of rental deductions, AOGI would be $120,000 ($150,000 OGI minus $30,000 rent deductions). PHC income would still be $150,000, and the ratio would exceed 100% because rental income is not part of PHC income in this example.
• EXAMPLE. Corporation Y has $80,000 of dividend income, $70,000 of rental income (before deductions), $40,000 of rental deductions, and $10,000 of capital gains. OGI is $150,000 ($80,000 + $70,000). The $10,000 capital gain is excluded. AOGI is $110,000 ($150,000 OGI minus $40,000 rent deductions). PHC income is $80,000 (dividends). The rental income may or may not be PHC income depending on whether the rent exception tests in § 543(a)(2) are met.
  • If the rent exception tests are met, only the $80,000 of dividends is PHC income. The PHC income ratio is $80,000 / $110,000 = 72.7%. Y is a PHC if the ownership test is met.
  • If the rent exception tests are NOT met, the adjusted rental income of $30,000 ($70,000 minus $40,000 deductions) is also PHC income. Total PHC income becomes $110,000. The ratio is 100%. Y is definitely a PHC.

Step 5. PHC Income. Dividends, Interest, Royalties, and Annuities

"The term 'personal holding company income' means. . . the undistributed portion of the adjusted income from rents. . . dividends. . . interest. . . royalties (other than mineral, oil, or gas royalties or copyright royalties). . . [and] annuities." (§ 543(a)(1))

• The catch-all category. § 543(a)(1) is the residual category of PHC income. It captures dividends, interest, most royalties, and annuities unless a specific exception applies. This is the starting point. Income falling within § 543(a)(1) is PHC income unless it fits one of the enumerated exceptions.
  • This is the largest category of PHC income by volume. Most investment income earned by a corporation falls within § 543(a)(1) unless a specific statutory exception removes it.
  • The exceptions are narrowly construed. The burden is on the taxpayer to show that income falls within an exception. If the income does not clearly fit an exception, it is PHC income.
• Dividends. All dividends (as defined in § 316) are PHC income unless excluded by a specific provision. This includes.
  • Ordinary dividends from domestic corporations.
  • Distributions treated as dividends under § 356(a)(2) (excess consideration in reorganization).
  • Consent dividends under § 565.
  • Liquidating distributions to the extent treated as dividends under § 562(b).
• CFC dividend exclusion. Dividends from a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) to a United States shareholder are EXCLUDED from PHC income. (§ 543(a)(1)(C)). This exclusion was added by P.L. 113-295 (the "CFC look-through" provision) effective for tax years of foreign corporations beginning after December 31, 2004, and to tax years of United States shareholders with or within which such tax years of foreign corporations end. The exclusion applies only to US shareholders (as defined in § 951(b)). Non-US shareholders cannot claim this exclusion.
  • The CFC dividend exclusion prevents a US shareholder from being whipsawed by both Subpart F/GILTI inclusion at the shareholder level and PHC tax at the CFC level. The exclusion applies to dividends that were previously taxed under Subpart F or that bypass Subpart F through the § 954(c)(6) look-through.
  • Only US shareholders (as defined in § 951(b)) benefit from this exclusion. A domestic corporation that is not a US shareholder of a CFC cannot exclude dividends from that foreign corporation under this provision.
• GILTI inclusions are NOT PHC income. Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) inclusions under § 951A are not treated as dividends for PHC purposes. (Treas. Reg. § 1.951A-5(d)) (GILTI inclusion amounts are not PHC income and are not taken into account as dividends under § 543(a)(1)). A US shareholder's GILTI inclusion is excluded from the PHC income computation.
  • GILTI inclusions are treated similarly to Subpart F inclusions for PHC purposes. Neither is treated as dividend income. This is consistent with the policy of avoiding double penalty taxation on CFC earnings.
  • The § 78 gross-up attributable to GILTI is also excluded from PHC income. The entire GILTI basket is removed from the PHC computation.
• Interest. Interest income is generally PHC income. Exceptions apply for.
  • Interest constituting rent. Interest on debt secured by real property or leased property where the interest is includible in the lessor's gross income as rent. (§ 543(a)(1)(A)). This prevents double-counting of rental income that includes an interest component.
  • Merchant Marine Act interest. Interest on a reserve fund maintained under § 607(b) of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. (§ 543(a)(1)(B)). This supports the US maritime industry.
  • Broker/dealer interest. Interest received by a broker or dealer on securities held as inventory or on margin accounts. (§ 543(a)(1)(E)). The broker/dealer must be regularly engaged in the business of buying and selling securities to customers.
• Royalties. Royalties (other than mineral, oil, gas, and copyright royalties) are PHC income. This includes.
  • Trademark and patent royalties (unless active business computer software royalties).
  • License fees for intangible property other than software, copyrights, or mineral interests.
• Annuities. Only the portion of annuity payments includible in gross income under § 72 is PHC income. The exclusion ratio under § 72(b) applies. If an annuity has a 40% exclusion ratio, only 60% of each payment is PHC income. The tax-free return of capital portion is excluded from both numerator and denominator.
  • The annuity exclusion ratio is applied payment by payment. The portion representing return of the annuitant's investment is excluded from gross income and is also excluded from PHC income. The portion representing income on the investment is includible in gross income and is PHC income.
  • If an annuity is partially exchanged under § 1035, the exclusion ratio must be recalculated for the new contract. The PHC income portion is recomputed based on the new exclusion ratio.
• Active business computer software royalties exception. Royalties received in connection with the licensing of computer software are excluded from PHC income if the corporation is engaged in an active business of developing, manufacturing, or producing computer software. (§ 543(a)(1)(D)). The corporation must be actively engaged in the software business, not merely holding software as a passive investment.
  • The corporation must be actively engaged in the development, manufacture, or production of computer software on a regular and continuous basis. Merely licensing software developed by others does not qualify.
  • The exception applies only to computer software royalties. Royalties from other types of software (e.g., firmware embedded in hardware) may not qualify unless they are treated as computer software under the regulations.

Step 6. PHC Income from Rents and the Rent Exception

"The term 'personal holding company income' means. . . the undistributed portion of the adjusted income from rents." (§ 543(a)(2))

• Adjusted income from rents as PHC income. Adjusted income from rents IS PHC income unless BOTH of two tests are satisfied. The tests are cumulative. If either test fails, the adjusted income from rents is PHC income.
  • Both Test 1 and Test 2 must be fully satisfied. If Test 1 is met but Test 2 is not, ALL adjusted income from rents is PHC income. There is no partial qualification.
  • The tests are applied in the alternative to each other. Test 1 is a pure income ratio test. Test 2 is a dividends-paid test. Both must be satisfied.
• "Rents" defined broadly. Rents means compensation however designated for the use of, or the right to use, property. The label placed on the payment is irrelevant. Payments called "license fees," "user fees," or "service charges" may be rents if they compensate for property use. (§ 543(a)(2) and Treas. Reg. § 1.543-1(b)).
  • The substance of the payment controls, not the label. A payment called a "license fee" that compensates for use of real property is rent. A payment called a "service charge" that includes compensation for property use is partially rent.
  • Payments for personal services that do not include compensation for property use are NOT rents. The service component must be separated from the property-use component. Only the property-use component is "rents."
• Rent deductions. In computing adjusted income from rents, deductions are allowed for depreciation, property taxes, interest on debt secured by the rented property, and rent paid for the property. Each deduction is capped at the amount of gross rents received. (§ 543(a)(2)).
  • The deduction cap prevents rental deductions from reducing other categories of income. If gross rents are $100,000, total rent deductions cannot exceed $100,000 even if the actual expenses are higher.
  • Interest on debt secured by the rental property is included in the rent deduction computation. This is a specific rule for rental property debt. General corporate interest is not deducted in computing adjusted income from rents.
• Exclusions from "rents." The following are NOT treated as rents for § 543(a)(2) purposes.
  • Copyright royalties.
  • Produced film rents.
  • Compensation for the use of tangible personal property manufactured or produced by the taxpayer.
  • Active business computer software royalties.
  • Payments treated as rents under § 543(a)(6) (corporate property used by shareholder).
• Test 1. The 50% AOGI test. Adjusted income from rents must equal or exceed 50% of AOGI. If adjusted rents are less than 50% of AOGI, this test fails and rents are PHC income. If YES (adjusted rents ≥ 50% AOGI) → proceed to Test 2. If NO → adjusted income from rents is PHC income.
  • This test ensures that rental income is the corporation's primary business. A corporation with significant non-rental investment income is unlikely to satisfy Test 1.
  • The 50% threshold is applied to AOGI (not OGI). This means the rent deductions and other AOGI adjustments have already been applied to the denominator.
• Test 2. The dividends-paid test. The sum of dividends actually paid during the taxable year plus consent dividends under § 565 must equal or exceed the amount by which.
  • PHC income (computed WITHOUT including adjusted income from rents and WITHOUT including § 543(a)(6) amounts) exceeds.
  • 10% of OGI (the UNADJUSTED ordinary gross income, before the § 543(b)(2) adjustments).
• Application of Test 2. First compute PHC income as if rents and shareholder-use payments were NOT PHC income. Then subtract 10% of OGI. The result is the "excess" that must be covered by dividends paid plus consent dividends. If dividends paid plus consent dividends equal or exceed this excess, Test 2 is satisfied.
  • Test 2 ensures that the corporation is distributing its non-rental investment income to shareholders. The 10% of OGI threshold allows a de minimis amount of undistributed non-rental PHC income.
  • If PHC income (excluding rents and § 543(a)(6)) is less than or equal to 10% of OGI, the excess is zero or negative. In that case, no dividends are required to satisfy Test 2.
• EXAMPLE. Corporation R has $200,000 OGI consisting of $100,000 adjusted income from rents and $100,000 dividends. AOGI is $200,000 (no adjustments needed). Test 1. Adjusted rents ($100,000) are 50% of AOGI ($200,000). Test 1 is met. For Test 2, PHC income excluding rents is $100,000 (dividends). 10% of OGI is $20,000. The excess is $80,000. R must have paid at least $80,000 in dividends (or consent dividends) to satisfy Test 2. If R paid $90,000 in dividends, both tests are met and the adjusted income from rents is NOT PHC income. If R paid only $50,000 in dividends, Test 2 fails and the $100,000 adjusted income from rents IS PHC income.
  • In the passing scenario, R's total PHC income is $10,000 ($100,000 dividends minus $90,000 dividends paid, leaving only the excess dividend amount as PHC income, plus $0 rents because both tests are met). R is likely NOT a PHC because $10,000 / $200,000 = 5%.
  • In the failing scenario, R's total PHC income is $150,000 ($100,000 dividends + $100,000 rents because Test 2 fails). R is a PHC because $150,000 / $200,000 = 75%.
• TRAP. § 543(a)(6) shareholder-use rule operates independently. The rent exception under § 543(a)(2) and the shareholder-use rule under § 543(a)(6) are SEPARATE provisions. A payment may qualify for the rent exception but still be captured as PHC income under § 543(a)(6) if the shareholder-use threshold and other requirements are met. The § 543(a)(6) amounts are also excluded from the Test 2 computation, which can make Test 2 harder to satisfy.
  • A payment from a 25%+ shareholder for use of corporate property is analyzed under BOTH § 543(a)(2) and § 543(a)(6). It may escape the rent exception but still be PHC income under the shareholder-use rule.
  • Because § 543(a)(6) amounts are excluded from the Test 2 dividend computation, having substantial shareholder-use payments increases the "excess" that must be covered by dividends, making Test 2 harder to satisfy.

Step 7. Mineral, Copyright, Produced Film, and Shareholder-Use Income

"The term 'personal holding company income' means. . . mineral, oil, and gas royalties. . . copyright royalties. . . produced film rents. . . [and] compensation for the use of corporation property by a shareholder." (§ 543(a)(3)-(6))

7.1 Mineral Royalties (§ 543(a)(3))

• Mineral royalties as PHC income. Mineral, oil, and gas royalties are PHC income unless ALL THREE of the following tests are met.
  • Test 1. Adjusted income from mineral royalties equals or exceeds 50% of AOGI.
  • Test 2. PHC income (computed WITHOUT mineral royalties and WITHOUT § 543(a)(6) amounts) equals or exceeds 10% of OGI. This is the same structure as the rent exception Test 2 but uses 10% of OGI as the threshold.
  • Test 3. Deductions allowable under Chapter 1 (other than charitable contributions and NOL deductions) that are attributable to mineral royalties equal or exceed 15% of adjusted income from mineral royalties.
• Working interests included. The mineral royalty category includes working interests and operating interests in oil and gas properties. It is not limited to passive royalty interests. Lease bonuses, delay rentals, and shut-in royalties are mineral royalties. (Bayou Verret Land Co. v. Commissioner, 52 T.C. 971 (1969)) (lease bonuses received for granting mineral leases constitute mineral royalties for PHC purposes).
  • An operating interest in an oil well (where the corporation bears the costs of production) generates mineral royalty income for PHC purposes. The income is not converted to a different category because the corporation has an active role in production.
  • Lease bonuses paid to secure the right to explore for oil or gas are mineral royalties regardless of whether production ever occurs. The payment is compensation for the use of mineral property.
• Deductions for Test 3. Allowed deductions include depletion, depreciation, intangible drilling costs, property taxes, interest on mineral property debt, and other ordinary and necessary expenses attributable to the mineral interest.
  • Percentage depletion is included in the Test 3 deduction computation even though it may exceed the property's basis. The generous depletion rules help corporations satisfy the 15% deductions threshold.
  • Intangible drilling costs (IDCs) expensed under § 263(c) count toward the Test 3 deductions. A corporation with significant IDC expenditures is more likely to meet the 15% threshold.

7.2 Copyright Royalties (§ 543(a)(4))

• Copyright royalties as PHC income. Copyright royalties are PHC income unless ALL THREE of the following tests are met.
  • Test 1. Adjusted income from copyright royalties equals or exceeds 50% of OGI (not AOGI. this uses the unadjusted OGI denominator).
  • Test 2. PHC income (computed WITHOUT copyright royalties and WITHOUT § 543(a)(6) amounts) is less than 10% of the amount by which OGI exceeds the sum of royalties paid and depreciation, depletion, and amortization related to copyright royalties. This is the most complex computation in the PHC regime.
  • Test 3. Allowable deductions under Chapter 1 (other than charitable contributions and NOL deductions) allocable to copyright royalties equal or exceed 25% of adjusted income from copyright royalties.
• "Compensation however designated" controls. Copyright royalties include compensation however designated for the use of, or the right to use, copyrights. The label on the payment is irrelevant. "License fees," "royalties," "proceeds," or any other term used in the agreement are all included. (Irving Berlin Music Corp. v. United States, 487 F.2d 540 (Ct. Cl. 1973)) (payments labeled as something other than royalties still constitute copyright royalties if they represent compensation for use of copyrighted works).
  • A payment called a "synchronization fee" for use of a song in a film is a copyright royalty. A payment called a "mechanical license fee" for reproducing a musical composition is a copyright royalty. The label does not control.
  • Payments for personal services related to a copyrighted work (e.g., hiring a songwriter to compose a new song) are NOT copyright royalties. The payment must be for use of an EXISTING copyrighted work.
• Created-by-shareholder exclusion. Copyright royalties are EXCLUDED from PHC income if the copyrighted work was created in whole or in part by an individual who is a shareholder (or related party) at the time the work was created or at any time thereafter. This exclusion protects artists, authors, and composers who incorporate to handle their creative works.
  • The shareholder need not have created the entire work. If the shareholder contributed to the creation "in part," the exclusion applies to all royalties from that work. The shareholder must be a shareholder at the time of creation or at any time thereafter.
  • Royalties from works created by non-shareholder employees or independent contractors are NOT excluded under this provision. Those royalties are PHC income unless all three tests are met.
• EXAMPLE. Music Corp earns $500,000 from licensing songs written by its sole shareholder. The created-by-shareholder exclusion applies and the copyright royalties are NOT PHC income. If Music Corp also licenses songs written by third parties, those third-party royalties are PHC income unless all three tests are met.
  • The created-by-shareholder exclusion applies to the entire $500,000 from shareholder-created works. There is no apportionment required between the shareholder's contribution and others' contributions.
  • If Music Corp has $300,000 of third-party copyright royalties and $200,000 of shareholder-created royalties, only the $300,000 is potentially PHC income. The $200,000 is fully excluded.

7.3 Produced Film Rents (§ 543(a)(5))

• Produced film rents as PHC income. Produced film rents are PHC income unless a SINGLE test is met. Adjusted income from produced film rents must equal or exceed 50% of OGI. There is no second dividends-paid test and no deductions percentage test. This is the most favorable exception regime in § 543.
  • The produced film rent exception requires only one test compared to two or three tests for the other exceptions. This reflects Congress's intent to support the film production industry.
  • The 50% threshold uses OGI (not AOGI). There are no deductions to subtract before applying the test. This makes the test simpler to compute but potentially harder to satisfy.
• Produced film rent defined. A produced film rent is compensation however designated for the use of, or right to use, an interest in a film or live or taped television program. The interest must have been acquired before the film or program was substantially completed. Films acquired after completion are not "produced film rents." They may be copyright royalties or general rents.
  • The interest can be any type of ownership interest. A limited partnership interest in a film production qualifies if the interest was acquired before substantial completion. A distribution rights agreement acquired during production may also qualify.
  • "Substantially completed" means the film or program is in a form suitable for exhibition or broadcast. Post-production work (editing, scoring, special effects) may still be ongoing at the time of substantial completion.
• Acquisition timing. The interest must be acquired before substantial completion of the film or television program. This rewards film production companies and investors who finance films during production. Mere distributors who acquire rights after completion do not qualify.
  • A distributor who acquires rights after the film is completed gets produced film rent treatment only if the acquisition was part of a financing arrangement entered into before completion. The timing of the legal commitment controls.
  • Television syndication rights acquired after a show has aired do not qualify as produced film rents. The rights must have been acquired before substantial completion of the program.

7.4 Corporate Property Use by Shareholder (§ 543(a)(6))

• Shareholder use of corporate property as PHC income. Compensation received by a corporation for the use of its tangible property by a shareholder is PHC income if ALL of the following are met.
  • The shareholder owns directly or indirectly 25% or more in value of the corporation's stock at any time during the year.
  • The property is tangible property (real or personal, but not intangible property).
  • The PHC income from this and other sources (excluding rents and copyright royalties) equals or exceeds 10% of OGI. This is a gatekeeper test. If the corporation does not have enough other PHC income, § 543(a)(6) does not apply.
• Sublease arrangements covered. If a corporation leases property from a third party and subleases it to a 25%+ shareholder at a markup, the excess may be PHC income under § 543(a)(6). The statute covers any compensation for the use of corporate property, regardless of whether the corporation owns or leases the property.
  • The sublease arrangement is analyzed by comparing the rent paid by the corporation to the rent received from the shareholder. The entire amount received from the shareholder is compensation for use of corporate property. The corporation's cost is irrelevant to the § 543(a)(6) characterization.
  • If the corporation leases a building for $50,000 and subleases it to a 25%+ shareholder for $75,000, the entire $75,000 is subject to § 543(a)(6) analysis (assuming the other two tests are met). The $50,000 the corporation pays is a deductible expense but does not reduce the § 543(a)(6) amount.
• 25% threshold. The shareholder must own 25% or more IN VALUE at any time during the year. Constructive ownership under § 544 applies. A shareholder with 20% direct ownership who is attributed 10% from a family member meets the 25% threshold.
  • The 25% threshold is applied at any time during the year. A shareholder who owns 30% at the beginning of the year and sells down to 10% by year-end still triggers § 543(a)(6) because the threshold was met "at any time" during the year.
  • Stock options and convertible securities are included in the 25% computation through option attribution under § 544(a)(3). A shareholder with 20% direct ownership and options to acquire 10% more is treated as owning 30%.
• Interaction with rent exception. § 543(a)(6) amounts are excluded from the rent exception computation in § 543(a)(2). This means shareholder-use payments reduce the amount of rent that can be sheltered by the rent exception. A corporation with significant shareholder-use payments may find it impossible to satisfy the rent exception Test 2.
  • Because § 543(a)(6) amounts are excluded from both the rent exception numerator AND the Test 2 dividend computation, they have a double negative effect. They increase PHC income directly AND make the rent exception harder to satisfy.
  • A corporation with significant shareholder-use payments should consider eliminating the 25%+ shareholder relationship or restructuring the property arrangement to avoid § 543(a)(6) application.

Step 8. Personal Service Contracts and AOGI Computation

"Amounts received under a contract. . . under which the corporation is to furnish personal services. . . if some person other than the corporation has the right to designate. . . the individual who is to perform the services. . . or if the individual who is to perform the services is designated. . . in the contract. . . and. . . at some time during the taxable year. . . 25 percent or more in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation is owned. . . by or for the individual." (§ 543(a)(7))

• Personal service contract income as PHC income. Amounts received under a contract requiring the corporation to furnish personal services are PHC income if TWO tests are BOTH met.
  • Test 1. Designation right or named performer. Some person other than the corporation has the right to designate (by name or description) the individual who is to perform the services. OR the individual performer is specifically named in the contract.
  • Test 2. Shareholder performer. The designated performer owns 25% or more in value of the corporation's stock at any time during the year.
• Enactment history. This provision was enacted in response to cases validating the structure of incorporating personal services. (Fox v. Commissioner, 37 B.T.A. 271 (1938)) (court upheld the validity of a personal service corporation structure where an actor performed services through a corporation). (Laughton v. Commissioner, 40 B.T.A. 101 (1939), remanded, 113 F.2d 103 (9th Cir. 1940)) (similar holding for another entertainer's personal service corporation). Congress responded by enacting what is now § 543(a)(7) to treat such contract income as PHC income when the performing shareholder controls the corporation.
  • Fox involved a personal service corporation formed by an actor. The Tax Court held that the PHC tax provisions were constitutional as applied to the corporation, but the specific personal service contract provision did not yet exist. Congress added § 543(a)(7) to specifically capture this income.
  • Laughton involved a similar structure for another entertainer. The B.T.A. held that the income was properly taxable to the corporation. The subsequent legislative history shows Congress intended to tax this income as PHC income when the performer is a controlling shareholder.
• "Important and essential" exclusion. If the services to be performed by non-shareholders are "important and essential" to the fulfillment of the contract, the contract income is NOT PHC income. This is a facts-and-circumstances test. Mere ministerial or support services do not qualify. The non-shareholder's contribution must be integral to the value delivered under the contract.
  • The "important and essential" test looks at whether the non-shareholder's services are central to the contractual obligation. A recording contract where the shareholder is the lead singer but non-shareholder musicians provide essential instrumental performances may qualify for the exclusion.
  • Secretarial, accounting, and administrative support services do NOT satisfy the "important and essential" test. These are incidental to the primary contractual obligation.
• The physician-patient relationship exclusion. (Rev. Rul. 75-67, 1975-1 C.B. 169) (A contract between a medical clinic and patients did not constitute a personal service contract under § 543(a)(7) because the physician-patient relationship does not give patients the right to designate the specific physician. The patient requests treatment but does not have a contractual designation right. The absence of a substitution right in the patient context means Test 1 is not satisfied).
  • The Service held that a patient seeking medical treatment does not have the contractual right to designate a specific physician. The patient agrees to receive treatment from the clinic, not from a named doctor. Test 1 is not satisfied.
  • This ruling applies broadly to professional service relationships where the client contracts with an organization rather than a named individual. A client of a law firm typically does not have the right to designate the specific attorney under a general retainer agreement.
• Athletes and entertainers. Contracts for athletes and entertainers are frequently tested under § 543(a)(7). A recording contract naming a specific artist as the performer triggers Test 1. If that artist owns 25% of the recording corporation, the contract income is PHC income. A "key person" contract with a corporation that does not name the individual may still trigger Test 1 if the other party has the right to approve or designate the performer.
  • A professional athlete's endorsement contract that names the athlete personally triggers Test 1. If the athlete performs the endorsement services through a corporation he controls, the endorsement income is PHC income.
  • A film production contract that specifies a particular director or actor by name triggers Test 1. If that person owns 25%+ of the production company, the contract income is PHC income under § 543(a)(7).

8.1 AOGI Computation Mechanics (§ 543(b))

• Starting point. Begin with gross income as defined in § 61.
  • Gross income includes all income from whatever source derived. This is the broadest possible starting point. No exclusions apply at this stage. Even tax-exempt interest is included in gross income for this initial computation (though it is later excluded in computing AOGI).
  • Capital gains are included in gross income at this stage but are excluded in computing OGI. § 1231 gains are similarly included in gross income but excluded from OGI.
• Step 1. Compute OGI. Subtract all gains from the sale or exchange of capital assets and all gains from the sale or exchange of § 1231 property. Do NOT subtract capital losses or § 1231 losses. Only GAINS are subtracted. The result is OGI.
  • The subtraction applies only to gains from the sale or exchange of capital assets and § 1231 property. Gains from the sale of inventory or ordinary business assets are NOT subtracted. These remain in OGI.
  • If a corporation has $100,000 of gross income including $40,000 of capital gains and $10,000 of § 1231 gains, OGI is $50,000 ($100,000 minus $40,000 minus $10,000).
• Step 2. Subtract rent deductions. From OGI, subtract depreciation, taxes, interest, and rent paid on real property that produces rental income. Each deduction is limited to gross rents from the property. (§ 543(b)(2)(A)).
  • The deduction is limited to gross rents from the property. If gross rents are $80,000 and eligible expenses are $100,000, only $80,000 is deducted. The excess $20,000 is not carried over or deducted elsewhere in the AOGI computation.
  • Multiple rental properties are aggregated for this purpose. The limitation applies to the total gross rents from all rental properties, not property by property.
• Step 3. Subtract mineral royalty deductions. From the result of Step 2, subtract depreciation, depletion, taxes, interest, and rent paid attributable to mineral royalties. Each deduction is limited to mineral royalties received. (§ 543(b)(2)(B)).
  • Percentage depletion is included in the mineral royalty deduction even if it exceeds basis. This can significantly reduce AOGI for corporations with mineral royalty income.
  • The deduction cap is applied to mineral royalties received. If mineral royalties are $60,000 and eligible deductions are $80,000, only $60,000 is deducted.
• Step 4. Subtract excluded interest. From the result of Step 3, subtract interest excluded from gross income under § 103 or § 103A (tax-exempt interest). (§ 543(b)(2)(C)).
  • Only tax-exempt interest under § 103 or § 103A is subtracted. Taxable interest is NOT subtracted. Taxable interest remains in AOGI and is PHC income under § 543(a)(1).
  • The excluded interest is subtracted from the AOGI computation entirely. It does not enter the numerator or denominator of the 60% test.
• Step 5. Result is AOGI. The amount after Step 4 is AOGI. This is the denominator for the 60% income test.
  • AOGI can never be negative. If deductions and exclusions exceed OGI, AOGI is zero. If AOGI is zero and PHC income is positive, the income test is technically met (any positive percentage of zero is undefined, but in practice the IRS treats this as 100% PHC income).
  • AOGI is computed before the dividends paid deduction and before PHC tax adjustments under § 545. It is purely an income-based computation.
• Net gain limitations. Only NET gains from stocks and securities and from commodities are included in OGI. Compute each category separately. (§ 543(b)(1)). If a corporation has $50,000 of gains and $70,000 of losses on stocks, the net is zero (losses do not create negative OGI). Capital loss carryovers are NOT taken into account. Each basket (stocks/securities vs. commodities) is computed separately.
  • The stocks/securities basket and the commodities basket are computed independently. A $30,000 net loss on stocks does not offset a $20,000 net gain on commodities. The stock basket contributes zero to OGI and the commodity basket contributes $20,000.
  • Capital loss carryovers from prior years are NOT taken into account in computing OGI. Only current-year gains and losses are included.
• No exclusion for § 1245 and § 1250 recapture. Recapture income under §§ 1245 and 1250 is ordinary income and is included in OGI. It is not a capital gain and is not subtracted in computing OGI.
  • When depreciable property is sold at a gain, the portion of the gain representing depreciation recapture is ordinary income under § 1245 or § 1250. This ordinary income is NOT excluded from OGI.
  • Only the portion of the gain exceeding the recapture amount (treated as capital gain under § 1231) is excluded from OGI. The recapture portion remains in the AOGI denominator.

Step 9. Corporations Excluded from PHC Status

"The term 'personal holding company' does not include. . . a corporation exempt from taxation under section 501. . . a bank. . . a life insurance company. . . a surety company. . . a foreign corporation. . . a lending or finance company. . . [a] Small Business Investment Company. . . [or] a corporation in a title 11 or similar case." (§ 542(c))

• Eight current exclusions. § 542(c) currently lists 8 categories of corporations excluded from PHC classification. The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (AJCA 2004) repealed two former exclusions for foreign personal holding companies (FPHCs) and nonresident-alien-owned domestic corporations. The current exclusions are.
  • § 542(c)(1) through (8) list the excluded categories. Each exclusion is independent. A corporation that qualifies under any one exclusion is not a PHC regardless of its income composition or ownership structure.
  • The AJCA 2004 repeal of the FPHC exclusion reflected the broader repeal of the FPHC regime and the transition to the CFC/PFIC/GILTI framework for taxing foreign corporations.
• (1) Tax-exempt corporations. Corporations exempt from tax under § 501 (charitable, religious, educational, etc.) are excluded. This exclusion is automatic if § 501 status is recognized.
  • The exclusion applies only to corporations that are actually exempt under § 501. A corporation that has applied for but not yet received exempt status is not covered. A corporation whose exempt status has been revoked is subject to PHC rules.
  • Private foundations under § 509 are included in the § 501 exemption. They are not PHCs even if they have substantial passive investment income.
• (2) Banks and building and loan associations. Corporations defined as banks under § 581 and building and loan associations under § 591 are excluded. This includes domestic building and loan associations, mutual savings banks, and certain cooperative banks.
  • The exclusion applies to the specific entity types defined in §§ 581 and 591. A corporation that operates as a bank but does not meet the § 581 definition (e.g., an unlicensed banking operation) is not excluded.
  • Building and loan associations must meet the requirements of § 591 including the 60% of assets test for qualifying loans. If a building and loan association fails to meet § 591 requirements, it may become subject to PHC tax.
• (3) Life insurance companies. Insurance companies subject to taxation under § 801 are excluded. This applies to life insurance companies, not property and casualty insurers (unless they qualify as a surety company under § 542(c)(4)).
  • The exclusion applies to companies subject to tax under § 801, which is the life insurance company tax regime. A corporation that is merely an insurance holding company (not itself an insurance company taxed under § 801) is not excluded.
  • Fraternal benefit societies under § 501(c)(8) are already excluded under § 542(c)(1). They do not need the § 542(c)(3) exclusion.
• (4) Surety companies. Corporations (other than life insurance companies) primarily engaged in the business of issuing insurance or annuity contracts or the reinsuring of such contracts are excluded if they are subject to tax under § 831.
  • The surety company exclusion is limited to corporations subject to tax under § 831 (the insurance company tax for other than life insurance). Property and casualty insurers, title insurers, and marine insurers that meet § 831 requirements are excluded.
  • A corporation that issues a few insurance contracts as an incidental part of its business is not a surety company under § 831. The corporation must be "primarily engaged" in the insurance business.
• (5) Foreign corporations. Foreign corporations as defined in § 7701(a)(5) are excluded from PHC classification. A foreign corporation cannot be a PHC. This exclusion was retained after the 2004 AJCA repeal of the FPHC provisions. Foreign corporations have their own anti-deferral regimes (Subpart F, GILTI, PFIC).
  • A foreign corporation is any corporation that is not a domestic corporation. A domestic corporation is one created or organized in the United States or under the law of the United States or any state. (§ 7701(a)(4)).
  • A dual-resident corporation that is treated as a domestic corporation under § 7701(b) is NOT excluded. If it is a domestic corporation for federal tax purposes, it is subject to PHC rules.
• (6) Lending and finance companies. This is the most complex exclusion. A corporation qualifies if ALL FOUR of the following tests are met.
  • Test 1. 60% income test. 60% or more of ordinary gross income is derived directly from the active and regular conduct of a lending or finance business.
  • Test 2. 20% PHC income cap. Personal holding company income (excluding lending/finance income) does not exceed 20% of OGI.
  • Test 3. Deductions floor. Deductions directly connected with the lending or finance business equal or exceed the sum of (a) interest paid and accrued on indebtedness incurred to carry stock, securities, or loans, plus (b) dividends paid.
  • Test 4. $5,000 shareholder loan limit. At no time during the year does the corporation hold receivables from any one shareholder (and related parties) exceeding $5,000 that are not paid before the 61st day after the close of the taxable year. This prevents shareholders from using the lending company as a personal piggy bank.
• (7) SBICs. Small Business Investment Companies operating under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 are excluded. The SBIC must be licensed and operating under that Act.
  • An SBIC that has had its license revoked or suspended is no longer excluded under § 542(c)(7). The exclusion requires active licensed status under the Small Business Investment Act.
  • The SBIC exclusion is narrow. It applies only to entities licensed as SBICs. A venture capital firm or private equity fund that is not an SBIC is not excluded.
• (8) Bankruptcy estates. A corporation that is a debtor in a case under title 11 of the United States Code (bankruptcy) at any time during the taxable year is excluded. This is a temporary exclusion that applies during the pendency of the bankruptcy case.
  • The exclusion applies only during the pendency of the title 11 case. Once the corporation emerges from bankruptcy, it is subject to PHC rules in subsequent tax years.
  • A corporation in a state law receivership or assignment for the benefit of creditors is NOT excluded unless the proceeding qualifies as a "similar case" under § 542(c)(8). The exclusion is primarily for federal bankruptcy cases.
• Consolidated return rule (§ 542(b)). For affiliated groups filing consolidated returns, the income test is applied at the GROUP level using the consolidated group's aggregate income. The 60% AOGI test uses the consolidated AOGI and consolidated PHC income. The ownership test is applied at the subsidiary level to determine which subsidiaries are PHCs. An exception applies for an "ineligible affiliated group" where.
  • More than 10% of the group's AOGI is derived from sources outside the group's ordinary business activities. AND.
  • 80% or more of that outside income is PHC income.
• Deduction availability in acquisitions. (Hart Metal Products Corp. v. Commissioner, 437 F.2d 946 (7th Cir. 1971)) (court addressed the availability of deductions to a corporation that acquired a PHC. § 269 may disallow deductions and credits when the principal purpose of an acquisition is the evasion or avoidance of federal income tax by obtaining the benefit of deductions that the acquiring corporation would not otherwise enjoy).
  • § 269 applies when the principal purpose of an acquisition is tax avoidance through the use of deductions or credits. If a corporation acquires a PHC primarily to use its NOLs or other tax attributes, § 269 may disallow those benefits.
  • The case illustrates that PHC status does not immunize a corporation from other anti-avoidance provisions. Even if a corporation validly qualifies as a PHC, § 269 may still apply to an acquisition structured for tax avoidance.

Step 10. Undistributed PHC Income Computation

"For the purposes of this part, the term 'undistributed personal holding company income' means the taxable income of a personal holding company adjusted in the manner provided in subsection (b), and diminished by the dividends paid deduction provided in section 561." (§ 545(a))

• UPHCI formula. UPHCI = Taxable income adjusted under § 545(b), MINUS the dividends paid deduction under § 561. The PHC tax is 20% of UPHCI. If UPHCI is zero or negative, no PHC tax is due.
  • The starting point is taxable income computed under the regular corporate tax rules. From this starting point, § 545(b) makes several adjustments that increase or decrease taxable income to arrive at adjusted taxable income.
  • After the § 545(b) adjustments, the dividends paid deduction (including actual dividends, consent dividends, and dividend carryovers) is subtracted. The remainder is UPHCI. The 20% PHC tax is applied to this amount.
• § 545(b)(1). Federal and foreign income taxes. Taxable income is reduced by federal income taxes accrued during the taxable year and foreign income taxes accrued or paid. ACCRUAL BASIS IS REQUIRED. Taxes are deducted in the year they accrue, not the year paid (even for cash-basis taxpayers). The PHC tax itself is NOT deductible. The accumulated earnings tax is NOT deductible. Refunds of tax are includible in gross income when received.
  • The accrual basis requirement applies even to corporations that otherwise use the cash method. For § 545(b)(1) purposes, taxes are always deducted in the year they accrue. A cash-basis corporation cannot deduct taxes in the year paid.
  • The federal income tax deduction includes regular corporate tax, alternative minimum tax, and environmental tax. It does NOT include the PHC tax itself or the AET. These penalty taxes are not deductible.
• § 545(b)(2). Charitable contributions. The corporate 10% limitation on charitable contributions does NOT apply. Instead, the individual limitations apply. 60% of adjusted gross income for cash contributions to public charities. 30% of AGI for contributions of appreciated capital gain property to public charities. 30% of AGI for cash contributions to private foundations. 20% of AGI for appreciated property to private foundations. If YES (charitable contributions fall within individual limits) → fully deductible for UPHCI. If NO (contributions exceed applicable individual limit) → excess is NOT deductible and does NOT carry over. There are no carryovers for excess contributions.
  • The individual limitations are computed using the corporation's adjusted taxable income (as computed under § 545) in place of AGI. This is a specific rule for PHC charitable contribution limitations.
  • Unlike the corporate rules, excess charitable contributions under § 545(b)(2) do NOT carry over to future years. If a PHC makes contributions exceeding the applicable individual limit, the excess is permanently lost as a deduction.
• § 545(b)(3). Part VIII deduction disallowance. The dividends received deduction under § 243 and Part VIII deductions are DISALLOWED for UPHCI purposes. The corporate DRD does not reduce PHC taxable income. Organizational expenditures under § 248 ARE retained and allowed as a deduction. Amortization of organizational expenses continues to be deductible.
  • The disallowance of Part VIII deductions means a PHC with substantial dividend income cannot shelter that income through the DRD. The dividends are fully includible in PHC taxable income.
  • Organizational expenditure amortization under § 248 survives the Part VIII disallowance. A PHC can continue to amortize organizational expenses over the 180-month period.
• § 545(b)(4). Net operating loss adjustment. Current-year NOLs are NOT allowed as a deduction. Prior-year NOL carryovers ARE allowed but must be computed AS IF Part VIII deductions were not allowed. Recompute the NOL for the loss year without the DRD and other Part VIII deductions. This typically increases the available NOL carryover.
  • The disallowance of current-year NOLs prevents a PHC from using current operating losses to offset PHC income from dividends, interest, or other passive sources. A PHC with both operating losses and passive income still pays PHC tax on the passive income.
  • Prior-year NOL carryovers are recomputed without Part VIII deductions. This recomputation typically INCREASES the NOL because the DRD was originally allowed in computing the NOL but is now disallowed.
• § 545(b)(5). Net capital gain adjustment. Taxable income is reduced by the excess of net long-term capital gain over net short-term capital loss, MINUS federal and foreign income taxes attributable to such net capital gain. This is a netting computation. First compute the net capital gain. Then compute the taxes attributable to that gain (using a hypothetical tax computation). The deduction is the net capital gain minus those attributable taxes.
  • The net capital gain adjustment is a three-step computation. Step 1. Compute net capital gain (NLTCG minus NSTCL). Step 2. Compute the federal and foreign taxes that would be attributable to that gain. Step 3. Subtract the taxes from the gain. The result is the § 545(b)(5) deduction.
  • If the taxes attributable to the net capital gain equal or exceed the gain itself, the § 545(b)(5) deduction is zero. The deduction cannot be negative.
• § 545(b)(6). Excess business property deductions. Deductions for depreciation, depletion, and other expenses attributable to property are CAPPED at the rent or compensation received for the use of the property. UNLESS the corporation meets a 3-part test.
  • The deductions would be allowable if the corporation were an individual.
  • The deductions are not attributable to mineral/oil/gas royalties or copyright royalties.
  • The property is not used by a 25%+ shareholder under § 543(a)(6).
• § 545(c). Repealed. The qualified indebtedness deduction under former § 545(c) was repealed by the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990. It still applies to pre-1990 set-asides made before the repeal date. Any corporation with a grandfathered qualified indebtedness set-aside must still account for it. New set-asides are not permitted.
  • Pre-1990 qualified indebtedness set-asides remain deductible under the grandfather rule. The deduction is limited to the amount set aside before the repeal date.
  • New set-asides after 1990 are not permitted. A corporation that establishes a new qualified indebtedness reserve cannot deduct additions to that reserve.
• Other adjustments. In addition to the enumerated § 545(b) adjustments, practitioners must also consider.
  • The § 265 disallowance for expenses allocable to tax-exempt income.
  • Related party transaction adjustments under § 267.
  • Limitations on passive activity losses (though these generally apply to individuals, not corporations).

Step 11. The Dividends Paid Deduction

"The dividends paid deduction provided in section 561 shall, for purposes of this part, be allowed only to the extent provided in this part." (§ 545(a))

• § 561. Components of the deduction. The dividends paid deduction equals the sum of three amounts.
  • Dividends actually paid during the taxable year.
  • Consent dividends under § 565.
  • Dividend carryover under § 564 (available ONLY to PHCs, not regular corporations).
• § 562(a). Qualifying dividends. Only distributions that are dividends within the meaning of § 316 qualify for the dividends paid deduction. A § 316 dividend is a distribution out of current or accumulated earnings and profits. Return of capital distributions and capital gain dividends do NOT qualify. Exceptions apply for.
  • Distributions in kind to the extent treated as dividends.
  • Certain distributions in complete liquidation under § 562(b).
  • Certain throwback dividends by trusts.
• § 562(b). PHC liquidating distributions. In a complete liquidation of a PHC, distributions to CORPORATE distributees are treated as dividends to the extent of the distributee's allocable share of the corporation's UPHCI. (§ 562(b)(1)(A)). This is a PHC-specific rule. § 562(b)(1)(B) (the general rule for non-PHC liquidating distributions) does NOT apply to PHCs. The liquidating dividend treatment applies only to corporate distributees, not individual distributees. The amount treated as a dividend cannot exceed the corporation's UPHCI.
  • The § 562(b)(1)(A) rule is unique to PHCs. In a non-PHC liquidation, distributions to corporate shareholders are treated as payment in exchange for stock under § 331. For PHCs, corporate distributees receive dividend treatment instead.
  • The liquidating dividend amount is limited to the corporation's UPHCI. If UPHCI is $100,000 and the corporation distributes $500,000 to corporate distributees, only $100,000 is treated as a dividend.
• § 562(c). Strict pro rata requirement. The dividends paid deduction is allowed ONLY if the distribution is PRO RATA with no preference to any share of stock as compared with other shares of the same class. If ANY preference is given to any share. the ENTIRE deduction is VOID. There is NO de minimis exception. Even a fractional preference voids the entire deduction. This is the strictest preference rule in the Code.
  • EXAMPLE. Corporation P has 100 shares outstanding. It declares a dividend of $10 per share on 99 shares and $10.01 on 1 share held by the CEO. The entire dividends paid deduction is VOID because of the $0.01 preference. Even though the preference is trivial, § 562(c) contains no de minimis exception.
  • If the corporation has multiple classes of stock, each class is tested separately for pro rata distribution within that class.
• § 562(d). Inter-affiliate distributions. A dividend paid to an affiliated corporation qualifies for the dividends paid deduction ONLY if the distribution would have been a dividend if paid to a non-affiliated recipient. If the distribution would be a return of capital to an unrelated corporation, it does not qualify merely because paid to an affiliate. The affiliated group rules of § 1504 apply to determine affiliation.
  • The affiliation test uses § 1504(a) which generally requires 80% ownership of voting power and value. If the distributee is not an affiliate under § 1504, the normal dividend qualification rules apply without the § 562(d) limitation.
  • A distribution to an affiliated corporation that exceeds the distributor's E&P is treated as a return of capital. Such a distribution does NOT qualify for the dividends paid deduction under § 562(d).
• § 563(b). Post-year-end dividends. A corporation may elect to treat dividends paid after the close of the taxable year but within a specified period as having been paid on the last day of the prior taxable year. The election is made on the corporation's return. Limitations apply.
  • The amount cannot exceed the LESSER OF the corporation's UPHCI or 20% of the dividends actually paid during the taxable year.
  • If NO dividends were paid during the taxable year, NO post-year-end dividend may be elected.
  • The election is made by attaching a statement to the return.
• § 564. Dividend carryover. A PHC may carry over excess dividends from the prior 2 years. The dividend carryover equals the excess of dividends paid in a year over the corporation's adjusted taxable income (as computed under § 545 as if the corporation were a PHC in that year). Even if the corporation was not actually a PHC in the carryover year, the computation is made AS IF it were a PHC. The carryover may be used in the current year to reduce UPHCI. The carryover period is 2 years. Only PHCs have a dividend carryover. Regular corporations do not.
  • The dividend carryover is computed as if the corporation were a PHC even if it was not. This means the § 545(b) adjustments are applied hypothetically to compute adjusted taxable income for the carryover year.
  • The carryover period is strictly 2 years. Excess dividends from Year 1 can be carried to Year 2 and Year 3. Any remaining excess after Year 3 is lost. The carryover is used on a first-in-first-out basis.
• The adjusted basis rule for property dividends. (Fulman v. United States, 434 U.S. 528 (1978)) (property dividends are deductible only to the extent of the corporation's adjusted basis in the distributed property, NOT fair market value. The Supreme Court rejected the lower courts and Treasury regulation that had allowed FMV-based deductions. A corporation distributing appreciated property as a dividend receives a dividends paid deduction limited to its basis in the property, not the higher FMV).
  • Fulman overruled the prior regulation (Treas. Reg. § 1.562-1(a)) which had allowed a dividends paid deduction equal to FMV. The Supreme Court held that § 562 limits the deduction to the corporation's adjusted basis in the distributed property.
  • A corporation distributing appreciated property as a dividend creates a mismatch. The shareholder recognizes dividend income equal to FMV under § 301(b), but the corporation's deduction is limited to basis. The excess of FMV over basis is effectively taxed twice at the corporate level (once through non-deductibility and once through potential gain recognition under § 311(b)).
• The rejected fair market value approach. (H. Wetter Mfg. Co. v. United States, 458 F.2d 1033 (6th Cir. 1972)) (the Sixth Circuit had held that Treasury regulations permitting a dividends paid deduction equal to FMV of distributed property were valid. The Supreme Court in Fulman rejected this position and held the regulation invalid. Wetter Mfg. Co. is no longer good law on this point).
  • The Sixth Circuit's decision in Wetter Mfg. Co. was the leading circuit court decision upholding the FMV regulation. After Fulman, the FMV approach is definitively rejected.
  • Practitioners should ensure that dividends paid deductions for property distributions are computed using adjusted basis, not FMV. Reliance on pre-Fulman authority is erroneous.
• Property dividend basis allocation. When property with a value different from basis is distributed, the dividends paid deduction is limited to adjusted basis. Any excess of FMV over basis does NOT generate additional deduction. The shareholder still recognizes dividend income equal to FMV under § 301(b) and § 301(d), but the corporation's deduction is capped at basis.
  • If a corporation distributes property with a basis of $50,000 and FMV of $100,000, the dividends paid deduction is $50,000. The shareholder has $100,000 of dividend income. The corporation may also recognize $50,000 of gain under § 311(b).
  • If the distributed property has a basis exceeding FMV (depreciated property), the dividends paid deduction is still limited to basis. The shareholder has dividend income equal to FMV, which is less than the corporation's deduction. This creates a favorable result for the corporation.

Step 12. Consent Dividends

"If any person who is a shareholder during any part of the taxable year agrees in writing. . . that the amount specified in such consent shall be considered as a dividend. . . such amount shall constitute a consent dividend. . . " (§ 565(a))

• Hypothetical distribution mechanism. A consent dividend is a purely hypothetical distribution. NO cash changes hands. The shareholder agrees to treat a specified amount as if it were actually received as a dividend and immediately contributed back to the corporation as paid-in capital. The corporation receives a dividends paid deduction. The shareholder reports dividend income and increases basis in stock.
  • The consent dividend is treated as occurring on the last day of the taxable year. The shareholder reports the consent dividend amount as dividend income on their individual return and simultaneously increases their stock basis by the same amount.
  • The net economic effect is a shift from retained earnings to paid-in capital on the corporation's balance sheet. No cash leaves the corporation. The shareholder receives no cash but has taxable dividend income.
• Treated as distributed and contributed. A consent dividend is treated as distributed in money to the shareholder on the last day of the taxable year, and as immediately contributed by the shareholder to the corporation as paid-in capital on the same day. (§ 565(a)). The shareholder's stock basis increases by the consent dividend amount. The corporation's E&P is reduced as if an actual dividend were paid.
  • The basis increase is important for later sales of stock. The shareholder's higher basis reduces gain (or increases loss) on a subsequent disposition. The basis increase partially offsets the tax cost of reporting the consent dividend as income.
  • E&P is reduced by the full consent dividend amount. This reduction occurs even though no cash was distributed. The corporation's ability to pay future dividends is correspondingly reduced.
• Consent stock requirement. Only shareholders of "consent stock" may consent. Consent stock means common stock entitled to participate in dividends pro rata with all other common stock. (§ 565(e)). Preferred stock with limited or non-participating dividend rights generally does not qualify as consent stock.
  • Preferred stock with participating dividend rights (where preferred shares participate with common beyond their stated dividend preference) may qualify as consent stock. The test is whether the stock participates pro rata with all other common stock.
  • Non-voting common stock that participates in dividends pro rata with voting common IS consent stock. The voting feature is irrelevant. The participation right controls.
• Filing requirements. Two forms are required.
  • Form 972 (Consent of Shareholder to Include Specific Amount in Gross Income). Filed by EACH consenting shareholder. Must be filed by the due date of the corporation's return (including extensions).
  • Form 973 (Corporation Claim for Deduction for Consent Dividends). Filed by the corporation. Must be attached to the corporate return.
• Two limitations on consent dividends.
  • Limitation 1. No preference. Consent dividends must satisfy the pro rata requirement of § 562(c). If consent dividends are preferential, the entire consent dividend deduction is void.
  • Limitation 2. E&P ceiling. The total consent dividends cannot exceed the corporation's current and accumulated earnings and profits. A consent dividend in excess of E&P is void to the extent of the excess.
• Consent is irrevocable. Once filed, a shareholder's consent to a dividend is IRREVOCABLE. The shareholder cannot change their mind or revoke the consent after the due date of the return. The shareholder must report the full consent dividend amount as income on their individual return even though no cash was received.
  • The irrevocability rule applies strictly. Even if the shareholder discovers an error in the consent amount after filing, the consent cannot be amended or revoked after the return due date.
  • If the corporation's E&P is subsequently determined to be less than the consent dividend amount, the excess consent dividend is void but the shareholder's income inclusion remains to the extent of actual E&P.
• TRAP. Foreign shareholder withholding. A foreign shareholder who consents to a dividend is treated as having received an actual dividend for withholding tax purposes. If the shareholder is a nonresident alien or foreign corporation, the 30% withholding tax under § 1441 or § 1442 applies. The corporation must withhold 30% (or lower treaty rate) on the consent dividend amount even though NO CASH WAS DISTRIBUTED. The foreign shareholder receives no cash from which to pay the withholding tax. This creates a cashless income event with a real withholding obligation.
  • The withholding obligation falls on the corporation, not the shareholder. The corporation must remit the withholding tax to the IRS even though no cash was distributed. The corporation may need to use its own funds to satisfy the withholding obligation.
  • Treaty rates may reduce the 30% withholding rate. But the treaty benefit requires proper documentation (typically Form W-8BEN) and may require the shareholder to certify eligibility.
• State tax consequences. Consent dividends are generally treated as actual dividends for state income tax purposes. The shareholder may owe state income tax on the consent dividend amount without receiving cash. Some states may not recognize consent dividends as taxable events if the state statute does not parallel § 565.
  • State conformity with federal tax law determines whether consent dividends are recognized. States that start with federal taxable income generally conform. States with independent tax systems may not recognize the consent dividend mechanism.
  • A shareholder in a high-tax state may face significant state tax liability on a consent dividend without receiving cash to pay the tax. This should be factored into the consent dividend decision.
• Comparison with actual dividends. A consent dividend has the same federal income tax effect as an actual dividend except that no cash moves. The shareholder has dividend income and increased stock basis. The corporation has a dividends paid deduction and reduced E&P. The economic effect is a shift from retained earnings to paid-in capital on the balance sheet.
  • The shareholder's tax liability is identical whether the dividend is actual or consented. The only difference is the absence of cash. The shareholder must find other funds to pay the tax on the consent dividend.
  • From the corporation's perspective, a consent dividend preserves cash while still obtaining the dividends paid deduction. This is valuable when the corporation needs cash for operations or investment but wants to reduce UPHCI.

Step 13. Deficiency Dividends

"If a determination (as defined in subsection (c)) with respect to a taxpayer establishes an amount of personal holding company tax. . . the corporation. . . may consent. . . to the assessment and collection of the amount determined. . . and. . . may take a dividend deduction." (§ 547(a))

• The deficiency dividend remedy. § 547 provides a unique remedial mechanism for PHCs. After a "determination" establishes PHC tax liability, the corporation may pay a "deficiency dividend" and claim a deduction that reduces or eliminates the UPHCI on which the PHC tax is computed. The deduction does NOT eliminate the underlying determination of PHC status. It merely reduces the tax base.
  • The deficiency dividend remedy is available ONLY after a formal determination. The corporation cannot unilaterally declare a deficiency dividend. It must wait for the IRS to assert PHC liability or proactively negotiate a determination.
  • The deduction reduces UPHCI which in turn reduces the 20% PHC tax. It does NOT eliminate interest on the underpayment, penalties, or the stigma of the PHC determination itself.
• Determination defined (§ 547(c)). Three types of determinations trigger the deficiency dividend procedure.
  • (1) Final decision. A final decision of a court and any resulting judgment.
  • (2) Closing agreement. A closing agreement under § 7121 that determines the existence and amount of PHC tax liability.
  • (3) Signed agreement. A signed agreement in writing (Form 2198, Determination of Personal Holding Company Tax) between the corporation and the District Director (now Area Director) consenting to the assessment and collection of PHC tax.
• TRAP. PHCs cannot self-determine. Unlike RICs and REITs under § 860, a PHC CANNOT unilaterally declare a deficiency dividend without a formal determination. The corporation must wait for the IRS to assert PHC liability or must proactively negotiate a determination. There is no mechanism for a PHC to file a protective claim. This is a critical disadvantage compared to the RIC/REIT regime.
  • A RIC or REIT can file a "claim for deficiency dividends" under § 860 without any prior IRS determination. A PHC has no comparable self-help mechanism. This asymmetry reflects the different policy treatment of regulated investment companies versus ordinary corporations.
  • The only way for a PHC to trigger the deficiency dividend procedure proactively is to negotiate a closing agreement under § 7121 or a Form 2198 agreement with the IRS. Neither is guaranteed.
• 90-day HARD deadline to pay. After a determination, the corporation has EXACTLY 90 DAYS to pay the deficiency dividend. (§ 547(a)). The 90 days are counted from the date of the determination. There are NO extensions. There is NO reasonable cause exception. If the 91st day passes without payment, the deficiency dividend remedy is FOREVER LOST for that determination.
  • The 90-day deadline is absolute. Unlike other tax deadlines, there is no reasonable cause exception, no extension, and no equitable relief. Missing the deadline by even one day permanently forfeits the remedy.
  • Practitioners should calendar the determination date immediately and ensure that board resolutions, shareholder approvals, and payment mechanisms are in place before the deadline expires.
• 120-day deadline to file Form 976. The corporation must file Form 976 (Claim for Deficiency Dividends Deduction by a Personal Holding Company, Regulated Investment Company, or Real Estate Investment Trust) within 120 DAYS after the determination. (§ 547(b)). The form must include.
  • A copy of the determination.
  • A detailed schedule of the computation.
  • Proof of payment of the deficiency dividend.
• Form 843 for refund claims. If the deficiency dividend deduction eliminates or reduces an assessed PHC tax, the corporation must also file Form 843 (Claim for Refund) to obtain the actual refund of tax paid. Form 976 alone does not generate a refund. It merely establishes the right to the deduction.
  • The distinction between Form 976 and Form 843 is critical. Form 976 establishes the entitlement to the deficiency dividend deduction. Form 843 is the actual claim for refund of tax. Both must be filed to obtain a refund.
  • If the deficiency dividend deduction only partially offsets the PHC tax, Form 843 is filed for the portion of tax that was overpaid.
• § 547(g). Complete denial for fraud. If ANY fraud or willful failure to file is found with respect to the PHC tax, the deficiency dividend deduction is COMPLETELY DENIED. Even a finding of partial fraud voids the entire remedy. This is an all-or-nothing rule. The fraud need not relate to the dividend deduction itself. Any fraud in the underlying return defeats the remedy.
  • The fraud standard is the same as for the civil fraud penalty under § 6663. A finding of fraud by the IRS or a court triggers complete denial. Even if fraud is found with respect to an unrelated item on the return, the deficiency dividend remedy is lost.
  • Willful failure to file Schedule PH constitutes a willful failure to file for § 547(g) purposes. A corporation that deliberately does not file Schedule PH to conceal PHC status may be found to have willfully failed to file.
• § 547(f). Statute suspension and collection stay. The filing of a claim for deficiency dividends has two procedural effects.
  • 2-year statute suspension. The statute of limitations on assessment and collection is suspended for 2 years from the date of filing the claim.
  • 120-day collection stay. Collection of the assessed PHC tax is stayed for 120 days after the claim is filed. If a suit for refund is commenced, the stay continues until the suit is dismissed or a final judgment is entered.
• What the deduction does NOT do. The deficiency dividend deduction does NOT reduce or eliminate.
  • Interest on the underpayment of PHC tax.
  • Penalties (including failure-to-file and failure-to-pay penalties).
  • Any "additional amount" under the Code.
  • No interest is paid on any refund generated by the deficiency dividend deduction.
• § 381(c)(17). Deficiency dividend carryover in acquisitions. In a corporate acquisition to which § 381 applies, the acquiring corporation may inherit the target's deficiency dividend rights. The carryover applies to determinations made after the acquisition with respect to tax years of the acquired corporation. The acquiring corporation must pay the deficiency dividend within 90 days of the post-acquisition determination.
  • The acquiring corporation steps into the shoes of the target for deficiency dividend purposes. Any determination relating to a pre-acquisition tax year of the target can be remedied by the acquirer through a deficiency dividend.
  • The § 381(c)(17) carryover is an important due diligence item. An acquirer should investigate whether the target has any PHC exposure from prior years that could be addressed through a post-acquisition deficiency dividend.
• Payment mechanics. The deficiency dividend must actually be paid to shareholders of record. It is a REAL distribution, not hypothetical like a consent dividend. The shareholders receive cash. The corporation reduces its assets and E&P. The shareholders have actual dividend income.
  • The payment must be made within 90 days of the determination. The corporation should prepare payment instructions, obtain current shareholder addresses, and coordinate with its bank to ensure timely payment.
  • Shareholders who have sold their stock after the tax year in question but before the deficiency dividend payment are still entitled to receive the payment if they were shareholders of record on the payment date.
• Designation requirement. The payment must be designated as a deficiency dividend. The corporation should obtain waivers or acknowledgments from shareholders documenting the designation.
  • Proper designation ensures that shareholders report the payment as a dividend and not as a return of capital or other type of distribution. The corporation should provide written notice to shareholders explaining the tax character of the payment.
  • If the deficiency dividend is paid in connection with a specific year, the designation should reference that year. This helps shareholders and the IRS track the payment to the correct tax year.

Step 14. Comparison with Accumulated Earnings Tax and Anti-Avoidance Doctrines

• Objective vs. subjective regimes. The PHC tax and the accumulated earnings tax (AET) under §§ 531-537 are the two principal penalty taxes on improper accumulation of corporate earnings. They operate in fundamentally different ways.
  • PHC tax. Objective, mechanical, and self-assessed. Intent is irrelevant. If the income test and ownership test are met, the tax applies. The corporation files Schedule PH and computes the tax itself.
  • AET. Subjective, intent-based, and IRS-assessed. The IRS must prove that earnings were accumulated beyond the reasonable needs of the business for the purpose of avoiding shareholder-level tax. The corporation does not self-assess AET.
• Mutual exclusivity. § 532(b)(1) provides that the AET does NOT apply to a corporation that is a PHC. A corporation can be subject to only one of the two taxes in any given year. If a corporation qualifies as a PHC, the AET is inapplicable. The IRS cannot assert both taxes.
  • The mutual exclusivity is automatic. A corporation that meets both the income test and the ownership test is a PHC and is exempt from AET for that year. The IRS cannot elect to apply the AET instead.
  • If the IRS successfully challenges PHC status (e.g., by proving the income test was not met), the corporation is no longer protected by § 532(b)(1). The IRS may then assert the AET for that year if the facts support it.
• Rate parity. Both taxes are currently imposed at a 20% rate. The PHC tax rate was reduced to 20% by ATRA 2012. The AET rate was reduced to 20% by the same legislation. This parity eliminates rate-driven planning between the two regimes.
  • Prior to ATRA 2012, the PHC tax rate was 15% (for qualified dividends) while the AET rate was 20%. This differential created planning opportunities to prefer PHC status. Rate parity eliminated this arbitrage.
  • Even with rate parity, the different mechanisms (self-assessment vs. IRS assessment, deficiency dividends vs. no remedy) create planning considerations beyond the rate.
• Remedy asymmetry. Only PHCs have the deficiency dividend remedy under § 547. The AET has no equivalent mechanism. Once AET liability is assessed, the corporation cannot retroactively distribute earnings to eliminate the tax. This makes AET exposure more dangerous in some respects because there is no safety valve after the fact.
  • The deficiency dividend gives PHCs a "second chance" to eliminate tax after a determination. AET taxpayers have no such mechanism. This is often cited as a reason to prefer PHC status in borderline cases.
  • The AET's lack of a remedy is offset by its subjective nature. The IRS must prove intent to avoid tax, which is a high burden. Many AET cases are resolved in the taxpayer's favor because the IRS cannot meet this burden.
• Step-transaction doctrine. The step-transaction doctrine may collapse multi-step transactions designed to avoid PHC status. If a corporation structures a transaction in steps to avoid crossing the 60% income threshold or the 50% ownership threshold, the IRS may argue the steps should be collapsed. Income-shifting structures that route passive income through intervening entities may be challenged.
  • The step-transaction doctrine applies when a series of transactions are interdependent and designed to achieve a particular result. If the steps have no independent business purpose other than tax avoidance, the IRS may collapse them.
  • A common target is the "income washing" structure where a PHC routes passive income through an operating subsidiary to convert it to non-PHC income. The step-transaction doctrine may collapse this structure and treat the income as PHC income.
• Economic substance doctrine (§ 7701(o)). Transactions lacking economic substance may be disregarded for PHC purposes. Under § 7701(o), a transaction has economic substance only if.
  • The transaction changes in a meaningful way (apart from federal income tax effects) the taxpayer's economic position. AND.
  • The taxpayer has a substantial purpose (apart from federal income tax effects) for entering into the transaction.
• Assignment of income doctrine. The assignment of income doctrine prevents a taxpayer from channeling personal service income or investment income through a corporation to obtain tax advantages. Income is taxed to the person who earns it. If a shareholder individually owns income-producing assets but assigns the income to a corporation, the doctrine may reallocate the income to the shareholder. (Higgins v. Commissioner, 312 U.S. 212 (1941)) (rents from real property managed by the taxpayer individually were taxable to the taxpayer. The mere management of investments through employees or agents does not constitute a trade or business. Passive investment management is not a trade or business).
  • Higgins stands for the principle that passive investment management (collecting rents, paying expenses, hiring agents) does not rise to the level of a trade or business. A corporation that merely manages investments is not engaged in an active business that would exclude its income from PHC treatment.
  • The assignment of income doctrine is particularly relevant to personal service contract structures. If a shareholder performs services and assigns the income to a corporation, the doctrine may reallocate the income to the shareholder personally.
• TRAP. The embezzlement trap. (Rod Warren Ink v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 995 (1989)) (stolen funds embezzled by a shareholder from the corporation are treated as PHC income in the year of embezzlement. The shareholder's obligation to repay does not negate the corporation's receipt of the funds. When the theft loss deduction is ultimately allowed in the year of discovery, it may not offset the prior-year PHC income. There is no carryback of the theft loss to the year the embezzled funds were included in income. The corporation may pay PHC tax on funds it never economically enjoyed).
  • The embezzlement trap creates a timing mismatch. The embezzled funds are included in gross income (and potentially PHC income) in the year of embezzlement. The theft loss deduction is allowed in the year of discovery (which may be years later). There is no NOL carryback to offset the prior-year PHC income.
  • A corporation that discovers shareholder embezzlement should carefully analyze the PHC implications. Even if the corporation ultimately recovers the funds or claims a theft loss, the PHC tax may be due for the year of embezzlement.
• Substance over form. The IRS may recharacterize transactions based on their substance. A payment labeled as a "management fee" may be recharacterized as a royalty or rent if it represents compensation for use of intangible property. A "consulting fee" may be recharacterized as a personal service contract payment. Practitioners must ensure that the substance of each transaction matches its form.
  • The IRS has broad authority to recharacterize transactions under the substance-over-form doctrine. Labels are not controlling. A payment called a "license fee" that is actually compensation for personal services may be recharacterized as personal service contract income.
  • Practitioners should document the true business purpose of each payment and ensure that contracts accurately reflect the substance of the transaction.
• PHC status as planning tool. In some cases, taxpayers may deliberately trigger PHC status to avoid the uncertainty of AET exposure. Because the PHC tax is mechanical and the deficiency dividend remedy is available, some practitioners view PHC status as preferable to the risk of AET assessment. The 20% rate parity makes this a viable strategy in some situations.
  • Deliberately triggering PHC status involves ensuring both the income test and the ownership test are met. This may require concentrating passive income in the corporation or restructuring stock ownership.
  • The strategy works best when the corporation has sufficient E&P to pay dividends that eliminate UPHCI. If the corporation pays dividends equal to or exceeding UPHCI, the PHC tax is zero while the AET exemption remains in place.

Step 15. Documentation, Reporting, and Filing Obligations

• Schedule PH (Form 1120). Every corporation that meets both PHC tests must file Schedule PH with its Form 1120. The schedule has 4 parts.
  • Part I. Computation of UPHCI. Starts with taxable income and applies all § 545(b) adjustments.
  • Part II. PHC income categories. Detailed schedule showing the amount and percentage of each category of PHC income.
  • Part III. Computation of the 20% PHC tax.
  • Part IV. Stock ownership. Detailed listing of all shareholders, shares owned, and application of § 544 attribution rules.
• Due date. Schedule PH is due on the 15th day of the 4th month after the close of the taxable year (the same due date as Form 1120). For calendar-year corporations, this is April 15. Extensions under § 6081 apply. Attach Schedule PH to Form 1120.
  • The automatic extension for Form 1120 (generally 6 months) also extends the Schedule PH due date. The extended due date for a calendar-year corporation is October 15.
  • Late filing of Schedule PH triggers the 6-year statute of limitations under § 6501(f) but does NOT excuse the PHC tax liability. The tax is still owed even if Schedule PH is not filed.
• § 6501(f). 6-year statute of limitations. If a corporation is a PHC and FAILS to file Schedule PH, the statute of limitations for assessment of PHC tax is extended to 6 YEARS. The normal 3-year statute under § 6501(a) does not apply. The 6-year period runs from the date the return (Form 1120) was filed. Even if the corporation files Form 1120 but omits Schedule PH, the 6-year statute applies to the PHC tax.
  • The 6-year statute applies ONLY to the PHC tax. The regular 3-year statute continues to apply to the corporation's regular income tax. The extended statute is specific to PHC tax liability.
  • A corporation that mistakenly believes it is not a PHC and omits Schedule PH will face a 6-year statute. Even an honest mistake does not prevent the extended statute from applying.
• § 6655. Estimated tax inclusion. The PHC tax is included in the corporation's estimated tax computations under § 6655. A corporation that anticipates PHC liability must include the 20% PHC tax in its quarterly estimated tax payments. Failure to pay sufficient estimated tax may result in underpayment penalties under § 6655.
  • Estimated tax payments are due on the 15th day of the 4th, 6th, 9th, and 12th months of the tax year. The PHC tax must be included in the annualized or seasonal computation.
  • A corporation that discovers mid-year it will be a PHC should adjust its remaining estimated tax payments to include the anticipated PHC tax. Underpayment penalties are computed from the due date of each installment.
• Form 1099-DIV. Dividends of $10 or more paid to any shareholder must be reported on Form 1099-DIV. This includes actual dividends, consent dividends (Form 972 amount reported as dividend), and deficiency dividends. The form is due to shareholders by January 31 and to the IRS by February 28 (or March 31 if filed electronically).
  • Consent dividends are reported on Form 1099-DIV even though no cash was distributed. The shareholder receives a Form 1099-DIV showing the consent dividend amount and must report it as dividend income.
  • Deficiency dividends paid after year-end are reported on Form 1099-DIV for the year in which they are actually paid, not the year to which they relate.
• State PHC tax considerations.
  • Alaska. Imposes a separate state PHC tax at 12.6% in addition to the federal 20% tax. Alaska uses a definition similar to the federal definition but practitioners must verify state-specific variations.
  • Rhode Island. Imposes a flat $100 minimum PHC tax on corporations meeting the PHC definition.
  • Most states. The majority of states do NOT impose a separate PHC tax. State treatment of federal PHC adjustments varies. Some states start with federal taxable income and make specific adjustments. Others do not conform to federal PHC provisions.
• Form 976. Used to claim a deficiency dividend deduction. Filed within 120 days of a determination. Must include a copy of the determination, proof of payment, and detailed computation.
  • Form 976 is filed separately from the corporate return. It is not attached to Form 1120. The form is filed with the IRS campus where the corporation files its return.
  • If the deficiency dividend deduction results in a refund, Form 843 must also be filed. Form 976 alone does not generate a refund.
• Forms 972 and 973. Used for consent dividends. Form 972 is executed by each consenting shareholder. Form 973 is filed by the corporation. Both must be filed by the due date of the corporate return (including extensions).
  • Form 972 must be signed by each consenting shareholder under penalties of perjury. The shareholder specifies the amount of the consent dividend and agrees to include it in gross income.
  • Form 973 is attached to the corporation's Form 1120. It lists all consenting shareholders and the total consent dividend amount claimed as a dividends paid deduction.
• No PLRs on PHC issues. (Rev. Proc. 2015-3, § 4.01) (effective January 2, 2015, the IRS will not issue private letter rulings on issues under §§ 542, 543, and 544. This includes the income test, the definition of PHC income, the ownership test, and constructive ownership rules. Practitioners must rely on case law, regulations, published rulings, and general administrative guidance. No advance ruling certainty is available from the IRS).
  • The no-PLR policy means practitioners cannot obtain advance rulings on PHC status questions. Complex ownership structures and borderline income classifications must be analyzed without IRS guidance.
  • Practitioners should document their analysis thoroughly. A well-reasoned legal memorandum supporting a position on PHC status can support a reasonable cause defense against penalties if the position is challenged.
• Document retention. A PHC should maintain the following documentation.
  • Detailed records of all income by category (rents, royalties, dividends, interest, annuities, personal service contracts).
  • Stock ownership records showing all direct and constructive owners under § 544.
  • Partnership agreements, trust instruments, and option agreements triggering attribution.
  • Charitable contribution substantiation (for § 545(b)(2) individual limitations).
  • Tax accrual workpapers (for § 545(b)(1) federal tax deduction).
  • Dividend payment records with dates and amounts per shareholder.
  • Consent dividend Forms 972 and 973.
• Audit defense checklist. In the event of an IRS audit, the practitioner should prepare.
  • A detailed § 544 ownership analysis with family trees and entity diagrams.
  • Category-by-category PHC income schedules with supporting source documents.
  • AOGI computation worksheets with all § 543(b)(2) adjustments.
  • § 545(b) adjustment schedules with substantiation for each adjustment.
  • Dividends paid deduction support including bank records and cancelled checks.
  • Evidence of pro rata distribution compliance under § 562(c).
• Penalty exposure. In addition to the 20% PHC tax, a corporation may face.
  • Failure-to-file penalty under § 6651 (if Schedule PH is not filed).
  • Failure-to-pay penalty under § 6651 (if PHC tax is not paid timely).
  • Accuracy-related penalty under § 6662 (if there is a substantial understatement of PHC tax).
  • Fraud penalty under § 6663 (if any part of the underpayment is due to fraud), which also triggers complete denial of deficiency dividend relief under § 547(g).