This is a clarification ?

[jevd]

Todays Federal Register

This is a clarification???

[Belgarath]

Gosh, it seems simple enough. Take 1 eye of lizard, 4 ears of swine, some chicken gizzards soaked in wine, mix with 4 moonbeams and an alembic of essence of pixie dust, and stir with a frozen dead rat. The result is IRS clarification.

[Guest Sieve]

Actually, Bel, that's 5 moonbeams. Can't you read?!?!

[BG5150]

This position is supported by the

clear language of the statute.

This sentence cracks me up.

[Belgarath]

Sorry, Sieve. I was reading from the Warlock's Manual PRIOR to the PPA (Permitted Permutations Advisory) 2006 update.

[J Simmons]

Gosh, it seems simple enough. Take 1 eye of lizard, 4 ears of swine, some chicken gizzards soaked in wine, mix with 4 moonbeams and an alembic of essence of pixie dust, and stir with a frozen dead rat. The result is IRS clarification.

Didn't someone suggest a while back, Masteff, that you might be medieval? I like how you brought it current as an 'IRS clarification'.

[david rigby]

From the "Explanation of Provisions"

The Treasury Department and the IRS propose to amend § 1.1563–1 to clarify that an excluded member of a controlled group, such as a corporation described in sections 1563(b)(2)(B) through 1563(b)(2)(E), is nevertheless a member of the group.

Is this a regulatory end-run around a poorly-drafted statute? If so, let's hope the IRS puts some effort into due process, and encourages a correction to the statute.

[Guest Sieve]

Rightly or wrongly, I've always thought that the use of "component member" (IRC Section 1563(b)) related only to consolidated tax return issues, NOT to whether or not a company is a member of a controlled group in the first place, primarily because I don't think that "component member" appears anywhere in Section 1563 other than in Section 1563(b). Note, too, that Section 1563 is a definitional section, anyhow.

Therefore--again, rightly or wrongly--I've always ignored Section 1563(b) in any pension controlled group analysis. So, to me, it appears that this proposed revision to the regs only clarifies what I had always thought was the proper rule, and I don't see it as an end-around (of course, I'm not so sure anyone from Detroit can be trusted in defining anything related to football other than "loss").

I don't think that the consolidated return/controlled group statutory provisions are drafted any more inartfully than any other statutory provisions. It's just been twisted by creative attorneys into something it isn't.

[david rigby]

I don't think that the consolidated return/controlled group statutory provisions are drafted any more inartfully than any other statutory provisions.

Any interesting "compliment".

[GMK]

(of course, I'm not so sure anyone from Detroit can be trusted in defining anything related to football other than "loss").

Sieve, who beat Detroit last Sunday?

Wait a minute ... oh, yah. Detroit won! Congrats.

[Guest Sieve]

David -- I don't want to give Congress & its staff too much credit . . .

GMK -- I don't think that gives the Lions much more credibility yet--but then, I'm not a football freak. I'd gladly trade that one Lions win to the Tigers straight-up for one of the Tigers losses right about now!

[Tom Poje]

yeh, but it is interesting that the losing pitcher for Detroit yesterday was named Lyon.

so technically a 'Lyon' still lost

actually we always called them them the "Ions", not because they are superchareged, but because they get the "L" knocked out of them each week.

Hey at least the Tigers won the nightcap.

[Belgarath]

"I'm not a football freak."

Apparently, then, you are just a freak?

In their own inimitable style, the BoSox clinched a wild card berth by losing their last 5 games, thanks to Texas. Maybe Boston could trade Dice-K to the Lions for a quarterback? Or work a three-way trade with the Tigers thrown in there - Verlander can quarterback for the Lions, Dice-K can pitch for the Tigers, and it makes no difference who Boston gets, because their trades typically end in disaster anyway.

On a business note, I haven't looked at Derrin Watson's tome to see what, if anything, he has said on this issue prior to this clarification. If I get inspired sometime, maybe I will, but I am currently barren of inspiration.

[Guest Sieve]

Tom -- No more "Ions". How does 14-2 sound?

Bel -- Me, a freak? Well, . . . maybe. But I know enough NOT to trade Verlander and to keep starting the Ions' rookie quarterback until he has a legitimate opportunity to prove that he's a bust (which he has not yet shown). (The Tigers lost the last 5 games of 2006, & lost the division by 1. They then had the inauspicious task of playing the Yankees in the 1st round, and therefore the opportunity to play a near-perfect playoff series & knock off the hated (at least in Detroit) Yanks, which they did. Moral: losing 5 in a row isn't always a bad thing.)

[Belgarath]

I agree. My trade talk was, of course, tongue in cheek. I think people expect way too much of rookie quarterbacks in general anyway. If I had a bunch of 350 pound gorillas trying to kill me every time I got the ball, I don't think I'd do so well either, but then, I'm not getting paid 16 billion per game, or whatever those guys make.

And rest assured that the Yankees are hated everywhere. They are even hated by the smart people in New York (who, obviously, root for Boston) - it's just that in a city of 8 million, there are enough screwballs to manage a small rooting section for the Yankees.

I had never actually seen any discussion of this component member issue, that I recall, until this thread. Is this something that came up much in a qualified plan context?

[Guest Sieve]

I've never had the component member issue raised, either--but, then, I'm the one usually doing the analysis. I used to look at 1563(b), and try to square it with controlled group concept, and finally concluded that it was immaterial. But I've never had anyone claim that an entity was not a controlled group member based on a 1563(b) analysis. Maybe others have . . .

BTW, even though I'm an unapologetic Yankee hater (or am I really simply jealous?), I still had to make one trip to see a game in the old Yankee Stadium--which I did last August. I was taken aback by the many fans who so quickly and boisterously turned on their own players at the first opportunity (for such inexcusable and egregious mistakes as a pitcher walking 2 in a row, or a superstar striking out with a runner on 2nd, or a runner getting thrown out trying to steal). Here in Detroit, we're much more patient--we usually wait until the 3rd straight walk . . .

[jevd]

I agree. My trade talk was, of course, tongue in cheek. I think people expect way too much of rookie quarterbacks in general anyway. If I had a bunch of 350 pound gorillas trying to kill me every time I got the ball, I don't think I'd do so well either, but then, I'm not getting paid 16 billion per game, or whatever those guys make.

And rest assured that the Yankees are hated everywhere. They are even hated by the smart people in New York (who, obviously, root for Boston) - it's just that in a city of 8 million, there are enough screwballs to manage a small rooting section for the Yankees.

I had never actually seen any discussion of this component member issue, that I recall, until this thread. Is this something that came up much in a qualified plan context?

It came up in the Federal Register a couple of days ago as a proposal for a regulation with a request for comments. See the original link and the first paragraph or so.