Tax Issues To Consider When Navigating A SPAC Transaction

The U.S. capital markets have seen record levels of merger and acquisition activity over the last few years, including record use of special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) to facilitate initial public offerings (IPOs). Why are SPACs so popular? With proper planning, SPACs can make the process of going public faster and easier than the traditional IPO route as well as provide other benefits for the acquired company and investors.

Why Choose a SPAC?

SPACs are publicly traded companies formed for the sole purpose of raising capital through an IPO and using the proceeds to acquire one or more unspecified businesses at a future date. A SPAC can provide several benefits for target companies, including:

  • Access to significant capital;
  • Immediate liquidity;
  • Strategic partners and management expertise; and
  • Use of public company stock to fund add-on acquisitions.

The SPAC approach to an IPO takes much less time to complete as compared to a traditional IPO, therefore the amount of time needed to work with investment bankers, attorneys and other professionals to take a company public is potentially reduced. In addition, SPACs generally have a window of approximately two years or less to find a suitable acquisition target, which can increase competition and drive up the values being offered to target companies. 

In addition to understanding the benefits of using a SPAC, it is important that SPAC sponsors and shareholders of target companies understand and plan for the federal income tax consequences associated with SPAC structures.

Tax Treatment of SPAC Sponsors

The SPAC sponsors (or founders) are responsible for forming the SPAC entity, raising capital with investment groups, and taking the SPAC public. Once the SPAC is public, the SPAC must identify potential acquisition targets, undertake due diligence, and complete the acquisition (known as the “de-SPAC” transaction) on terms that will maximize the sponsors’ return on investment.

The sponsors are generally granted an initial, separate class of “founders shares” for a nominal cost, which normally convert to public shares on the completion of the de-SPAC transaction. The timing of the issuance of the founders shares should be carefully planned to avoid undesirable tax consequences for the sponsors.

The sponsors may also receive warrants to purchase additional SPAC shares. For federal income tax purposes, the warrants received are treated as investment warrants as long as the issuance of the warrants is not dependent on the sponsor’s employment status or in exchange for services provided as an employee of the SPAC. Investment warrants are not taxable when issued or exercised but result in taxable capital gain for the sponsor when the underlying shares are sold (a sale will result in long-term capital gain for the sponsor if the underlying stock is held for more than a year).

Warrants received by sponsors that have employment arrangements with the SPAC may be treated as compensatory warrants issued for services. Recipients of compensatory warrants generally do not recognize taxable income upon the grant of the warrant as long as the warrant provides for a fair market value (FMV) exercise price. However, the excess of the FMV of the warrant over its exercise price generally is taxable income to the sponsor at the time the warrant becomes transferable or is not subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture (generally when the warrant is exercised). This also marks the time when the issuing company is entitled to deduct the compensation expense on its corporate federal income tax return.

Tax Treatment of Target Shareholders

A traditional de-SPAC transaction is structured as a “reverse triangular merger” for federal income tax purposes. The SPAC creates a transitory merger subsidiary that merges with and into the target, with the target surviving as a subsidiary of the public SPAC. Shareholders of the target receive SPAC stock in exchange for their target shares.

The de-SPAC transaction is generally structured to be tax-free to the target shareholders, provided the merger meets the statutory requirements needed to qualify as a tax-free reorganization for federal income tax purposes. These requirements include:

  • The target company’s shareholders exchange stock constituting control of the target company for voting stock of the SPAC;
  • At least 80% of the total consideration paid to the target company’s shareholders is SPAC voting stock; and
  • After the merger, the target company holds “substantially all” of its assets.

In addition, the merger must meet certain continuity of shareholder interest, continuity of business enterprise and business purpose requirements.

Regardless of whether the merger qualifies as tax-free, any consideration received other than SPAC voting stock, i.e., cash or other property (referred to as “boot”), will be taxable to the target shareholders. The taxable amount is the FMV of the boot received.

The target entity that can be a party to a traditional de-SPAC transaction reorganization is normally an S corporation or a C corporation. An entity taxed as a partnership can participate in what is known as an “UP-SPAC” transaction (see discussion below). It is important to note that if the target is an S corporation, its S status will terminate in the de-SPAC transaction since a SPAC (which is taxed as a C corporation) is not an eligible S corporation shareholder.

Other Considerations

There are numerous other tax and non-tax considerations when planning for SPAC transactions. These include, for example:

  • The tax treatment of transaction costs and start-up expenses;
  • Potential limitations on net operating losses and other tax attributes due to a change in ownership of the target company;
  • International considerations such as selection of the jurisdiction where the SPAC is formed and the consequences of passive foreign investment company (PFIC) status; and
  • Additional financial reporting and accounting complexities for public companies, including SEC and Sarbanes-Oxley requirements.

Partnership IPOs: UP-Cs and UP-SPACs

While a partnership target cannot be acquired by a SPAC in a tax-free reverse triangular reorganization or merger, businesses operating as partnerships that want to go public have the option of a traditional incorporation and IPO, an umbrella partnership C corporation (“Up-C”) structure, or an umbrella partnership SPAC (“Up-SPAC”) structure, all of which have their own tax consequences. Both the Up-C and Up-SPAC structures allow the target to remain in pass-through entity form while also providing the target owners with easier access to future liquidity.

Under the Up-C/Up-SPAC structures, either a C corporation or a SPAC raises funds through an IPO, which are then used to acquire an interest in the target partnership. The target’s partners exchange their partnership interests for publicly traded shares. By electing to use a basis step-up adjustment mechanism and a tax receivable agreement, the partners are paid for a portion of the public company’s tax benefits in the form of an earnout.

Partners that materially participate in the business can avoid the net investment income tax on the exchange of their partnership interest for the publicly traded shares. In addition, the publicly traded shares will have a stepped-up basis when subsequently sold in the market. Therefore, gain may be avoided if the shares are sold immediately after the exchange. 

​Although SPACs can provide advantages over other deal structures, the SPAC IPO process and the de-SPAC transaction are highly regulated and complex transactions that require intensive planning and preparation. In addition, there are a number of tax challenges and complexities for financial statement and tax reporting purposes that should be considered up front. Rushing through the process without the right expertise can put a successful outcome at risk, not to mention loss of funding and reputation of the sponsors. Companies should employ trustworthy and experienced legal, capital, and accounting advisors to ensure a smooth transaction.

U.S. House Passes Budget Resolution

The U.S. House of Representatives on August 24 voted 220-212 in favor of a $3.5 trillion budget resolution that allows congressional committees to draft legislation that would expand Medicare, invest in education, and allocate funds to combating climate change, as well as enact other spending priorities of the Biden administration. The legislation is also likely to include tax increases to pay for the spending package.

The Senate has already passed the budget resolution, which was adopted on a 50-49 party-line vote on August 11. The resolution does not require President Biden’s signature; rather, it unlocks the reconciliation process so that Democrats can write tax-and-spending legislation that can be passed without Republican cooperation.

The legislative process now turns to the congressional committees that will transform the budget blueprint into a detailed package of measures to enact President Biden’s agenda. For example, Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and fellow Democrats Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Mark Warner (D-Va) released today a draft of a proposed overhaul of the U.S. international tax regime that they would like to see included in the budget reconciliation bill.

The draft legislation is expected to follow along the lines of the proposals outlined in the “Green Book,” the 114-page document the Treasury Department issued on May 28 to provide details regarding the administration’s tax proposals. Among those proposals are an increase in the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28% and an increase in the top marginal individual income tax rate from 37% to 39.6% for taxable income over $509,300 for married individuals filing jointly ($254,650 for married individuals filing separately), $481,000 for head of household filers, and $452,700 for single filers. Another proposed change would tax long-term capital gains and qualified dividend income of taxpayers with adjusted gross income of more than $1 million at ordinary income tax rates.

On the international tax side, the draft legislation is expected to include proposals to reform the global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) regime and increase the rate, repeal the foreign derived intangible income (FDII) provisions and replace the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT) with the more stringent SHIELD (Stopping Harmful Inversions and Ending Low-Taxed Developments) regime.

In keeping with the administration’s two-track approach to enacting its “Build Back Better” agenda, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) issued a statement committing to pass the budget resolution’s sister legislation–a $1 trillion infrastructure package the Senate approved on August 10—by September 27.   

The timing of legislative action on the two packages may pose a challenge to the Democrats’ plans, and congressional leaders will have to perform a delicate dance to ensure the support of their members—all 50 Democratic Senators, and virtually all House Democrats need to vote in favor of the legislative package to pass (assuming little to no Republican support). Progressive House Democrats favored passing the broader budget resolution before the bipartisan infrastructure package, whereas moderate Democrats insisted that the infrastructure deal be taken up first. This impasse threatened to derail the administration’s plans; the final vote dodged what would have been a setback for the administration.

Republicans oppose the budget resolution on the grounds that such large spending would trigger significant inflation and a surge in the federal deficit.

Written by Todd Simmens. Copyright © 2021 BDO USA, LLP. All rights reserved. www.bdo.com


M&A Transactions: How to Avoid Consequences & Save Money

The state and local tax (SALT) treatment of M&A transactions can have a major impact on negotiated sales prices and after-tax values of deals. Whether you are contemplating a buy-side or sell-side transaction—or reorganizing your existing corporate structure— planning for the potential SALT consequences at the beginning of the process is crucial. Failure to consider these consequences until the tax return preparation stage often leads to unintended and expensive results that reduce the return on the investment.
 

New York S Corporation Elections

Many states have nuanced rules that need to be identified up front to help prevent unwelcome surprises in the future. One example is the New York state S corporation election. A federal S corporation that wishes to be treated as an S corporation for New York state income tax purposes must make a separate New York S corporation election. However, even if the New York state S corporation election is not made, the corporation may still be deemed to be an S corporation under New York state tax laws if an often overlooked “investment ratio test” is satisfied. 
 
A recent New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal decision highlights the importance of understanding the New York S corporation rules. In Matter of Lepage (May 17, 2021), the shareholders, all nonresidents of New York, sold their stock in a federal S corporation that did business in New York but that did not make a separate New York S corporation election. At the time of the sale, the shareholders and the buyer jointly made an election under the federal tax code (a Section 338(h)(10) election) to treat the stock sale as a sale of the S corporation’s assets for federal income tax purposes. 
 
Since no separate New York state S corporation election was made, the shareholders treated the transaction as a sale of stock for New York state income tax purposes. Further, the shareholders sourced their capital gains outside of New York (i.e., to their respective states of residence). However, the Tax Appeals Tribunal deemed the corporation to be a New York S corporation by applying the investment ratio test. The deemed New York S corporation election caused the transaction to be treated as a deemed asset sale for New York tax purposes with the shareholders’ gains sourced to New York, resulting in additional tax for the shareholders.
 

Other Traps for the Unwary

There are other jurisdictions that do not conform to federal pass-through entity tax treatment (e.g., D.C., New Hampshire, New York City, Tennessee, and Texas) or that also require a separate state-only S corporation election (e.g., New Jersey). Here are additional state-specific considerations when analyzing the tax effects of M&A transactions:
 

  • The effect of an acquisition on the acquirer’s state tax liabilities (in particular, the acquirer’s pre-transaction state nexus and apportionment factors);
  • Whether gain on a sale is treated as business income or nonbusiness income;
  • Given differences between federal consolidated stock basis and E&P calculations compared to separate return states, whether intercompany distributions qualify as dividends and possibly exceed separate entity stock basis and result in gain;
  • Whether a post-transaction dividend distribution qualifies for intercompany elimination in a state that requires unitary combined reporting;
  • Whether a state requires gain to be recognized currently or deferred on intercompany transactions that take place in an internal reorganization;
  • Whether a state imposes sales tax on a transaction and which party is liable for the payment; and
  • Whether there are state-specific rules that limit net operating loss and other tax attribute carryovers.

We understand state taxation of merger and acquisition transactions can be complex, and the rules vary from state to state. State rules and elections do not necessarily follow federal tax treatment and should be carefully reviewed when analyzing the tax consequences of a potential transaction. Further, depending on the specific circumstances, acquiring a new business can change where and how the acquirer’s income is taxed. Reorganizations of existing corporate structures can also have current or deferred state tax consequences. Our experienced team of advisors are here to help guide you through this M&A transaction process so that these state and local tax consequences can be avoided.