Final regulations under section 36B (TD 9590) were published on May 23, 2012 (77 FR 30377). The final regulations provide that married taxpayers must file a joint return to claim the premium tax credit. However, the preamble to those regulations provided that Treasury and the IRS would propose additional regulations addressing domestic abuse, abandonment, or similar circumstances that create obstacles to filing a joint return. The preamble also requested comments on how to structure a rule to address these situations.

Several comments were received urging that such a rule be provided. Commenters suggested that the rule draw on the existing regime for innocent spouse relief. Commenters also suggested that relief should be allowed for up to three years.

Notice 2014–23, 2014–16 IRB. 942 (March 26, 2014), allows married victims of domestic abuse to claim a premium tax credit without filing a joint return in 2014. Under Notice 2014–23, for calendar year 2014, a married taxpayer will satisfy the joint filing requirement of section 36B(c)(1)(C) if the taxpayer files a 2014 tax return using a filing status of married filing separately and the taxpayer (i) is living apart from the individual’s spouse at the time the taxpayer files his or her tax return, (ii) is unable to file a joint return because the taxpayer is a victim of domestic abuse, and (iii) indicates on his or her 2014 income tax return in accordance with the relevant instructions that the taxpayer meets the criteria under (i) and (ii). Notice 2014–23 also provides that the IRS and Treasury intend to propose regulations incorporating this rule.

Accordingly, the temporary regulations incorporate the rule in Notice 2014–23 for 2014 and subsequent taxable years to provide relief from the joint filing requirement for victims of domestic abuse. The temporary regulations also provide relief to victims of spousal abandonment. Consistent with the comments received, taxpayers may not qualify for relief from the joint filing requirement for a period that exceeds three consecutive years.

The temporary regulations define domestic abuse using a definition that is closely based on the definition of spousal abuse in Rev. Proc. 2013–34, 2013– 2 CB 397, for innocent spouse relief. In particular, domestic abuse includes physical, psychological, sexual, or emotional abuse, including efforts to control, isolate, humiliate, and intimidate, or to undermine the victim’s ability to reason independently and that all facts and circumstances are considered in determining whether an individual is abused. A taxpayer qualifies as a victim of spousal abandonment for a taxable year if the taxpayer is abandoned by his or her spouse and, taking into account all facts and circumstances, the taxpayer is unable to locate his or her spouse after reasonable diligence. It is expected that the instructions for the tax form taxpayers will use to compute the premium tax credit will provide further guidance on claiming this relief, including that a taxpayer must certify that the taxpayer meets the criteria for the relief.

On March 31, 2014, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued guidance on the application of Notice 2014–23 to advance credit payments and cost-sharing reductions. In accordance with the temporary regulations included here, it is anticipated HHS will extend its guidance beyond 2014 and to include victims of spousal abandonment.

Comments are requested on the appropriateness of the relief provided in the temporary regulations, and the appropriateness of the scope of relief, including the circumstances that would make a taxpayer eligible for relief.

To compute the premium tax credit, a taxpayer determines his or her contribution amount by multiplying an applicable percentage by the taxpayer’s household income. The taxpayer uses the percentage table in section 36B(b)(3)(A)(i) to compute his or her applicable percentage. Section 36B(b)(3)(A)(ii) provides that, beginning in 2015, the percentages in the table are adjusted to reflect the excess of the rate of premium growth over the rate of income growth for the preceding calendar year. Similarly, section 36B(c)(2)(C)(iv) provides that the affordability percentage provided in section 36B(c)(2)(C)(i)(II) is updated in the same manner for plan years beginning in calendar years after 2014. The affordability percentage is used to determine whether an employer’s offer of coverage to an employee is affordable to the employee. Under section 36B(c)(2)(C)(i), a taxpayer who is not offered affordable employer coverage may be eligible for a premium tax credit.

Section 36B(b)(3)(A)(ii) does not specify what measures should be used for premium growth and income growth. The temporary regulations provide that premium growth and income growth will be determined in accordance with further published guidance, see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter. Rev. Proc. 2014–37, which is being released simultaneously with these temporary regulations, provides further details on the measures to be used for premium growth and income growth. In particular, consistent with the factors used by HHS to define premium growth in indexing the required contribution percentage in section 5000A, Rev. Proc. 2014–37 provides that premium growth for the preceding calendar year is the projected per enrollee spending for employer-sponsored private health insurance for the preceding calendar year, divided by the projected per enrollee spending for employer-sponsored private health insurance for the calendar year two years prior. Income growth for the preceding calendar year will be the projected GDP per capita for the preceding calendar year divided by the projected GDP per capita for the calendar year two years prior. Projected per enrollee spending for employer-sponsored private health insurance and projected GDP per capita are published by the Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Section 36B(b)(3)(A)(ii) also does not make clear what it means to adjust the applicable percentages to “reflect the excess” of one rate “over” the other. Rates of growth are commonly compared by taking their ratio. In addition, the applicable percentages in section 36B(b)(3)(A)(i) and the affordability percentage in section 36B(c)(2)(C)(i)(II) represent shares of income that a taxpayer is expected to spend on health care premiums. The indexing of these measures in section 36B(b)(3)(A)(ii) appears designed to adjust these fractions to reflect changes in the observed share of overall income that is spent on health care premiums. Preserving this relationship requires that the applicable percentages be adjusted based on the ratio of the rate of premium growth to the rate of income growth. Accordingly, the temporary regulations provide that, for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2014, the applicable percentages in the table will be adjusted by the ratio of premium growth to income growth for the preceding calendar year.

In addition, the temporary regulations provide that adjustments may be made to reflect updates to the data used to compute this ratio for the 2014 calendar year or to reflect updates to data sources used to compute the ratio of premium growth to income growth. Such an adjustment may be necessary to avoid error propagation when making updates. In particular, in computing this ratio for a given calendar year, the computations rely on projected data for the prior year and the 2013 calendar year. To the extent that the final data for the prior calendar year prove different from the projected data, the projected data used in later years will automatically adjust for those differences. However, if the final data for the 2013 calendar year proves different from the projected data, projected data in later years will not adjust for these differences, so an additional adjustment will be needed. Similarly, if alternative data sources are used to compute the ratio in later years, an additional adjustment may be needed to avoid error that could result from transitioning from the prior data sources to the new ones. These adjustments will be made as part of the procedure by which the applicable percentages and affordability percentage are updated by the ratio of premium growth to income growth and will apply prospectively only. For example, if data for the 2013 calendar year data is finalized in early 2016, the additional adjustment will be made in determining the applicable percentages and affordability percentage in effect for the 2017 calendar year.

With respect to the affordability percentage, the final regulations under section 36B inadvertently refer to taxable years rather than plan years beginning after 2014. Consistent with the language in section 36B(c)(2)(C)(iv), the temporary regulations provide that, for plan years beginning in a calendar year after 2014, the affordability percentage will be adjusted by the same method used to adjust the applicable percentages.

The indexing methodology provided for in the temporary regulations is based on the same data sources as the methodology adopted by HHS for adjusting the required contribution percentage in section 5000A, which is used to determine eligibility for an exemption from the shared responsibility payment, and it will result in adjustments to the applicable percentages and affordability percentage that are consistent with the adjustments made by HHS to the required contribution percentage in section 5000A. See 79 Fed. Reg. 30240 (May 27, 2014).

Comments are requested on the methodology for indexing. In particular, comments are requested on whether this approach properly captures the rate of premium growth relative to the rate of income growth and whether alternative indices or data sources should be used.

The final regulations under section 36B provide that a taxpayer must reconcile all advance credit payments for coverage of any member of the taxpayer’s family. A taxpayer’s family includes the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse and the taxpayer’s dependents. The final regulations, however, do not address how a taxpayer computes the premium tax credit and reconciles advance credit payments for coverage of a family member if the family member was enrolled in a qualified health plan by another taxpayer, especially in situations in which the family member is enrolled with others who are not in the taxpayer’s family. For example, suppose Adult 1 enrolls herself and her three children in a qualified health plan and, based on a good faith assertion that she will claim the children as dependents, is approved for advance credit payments for coverage of the family. One of the children (Child), however, is not claimed by Adult 1 and instead is properly claimed by Adult 2 as a dependent for the taxable year. In this circumstance, the final regulations neither address how much of the premium for the plan purchased by Adult 1 each taxpayer should take into account in determining his or her premium tax credit, nor the amount of advance credit payments for Adult 1’s plan that Adult 2 must reconcile for Child’s coverage. In addition, the final regulations under section 36B require Adult 1 and Adult 2 to determine their adjusted monthly premium for the applicable benchmark plan (benchmark plan premium) in this circumstance using the rules that apply to taxpayers who do not have family members enrolled by another taxpayer.

The temporary regulations provide rules to address how taxpayers determine their premium tax credit and reconcile advance credit payments in cases in which an individual is enrolled by one taxpayer but another taxpayer claims a personal exemption deduction for the individual. In particular, the temporary regulations provide that if a taxpayer (the enrolling taxpayer) enrolls an individual in a qualified health plan, but another taxpayer (the claiming taxpayer) claims a personal exemption deduction for the enrollee (the shifting enrollee), then for purposes of computing each taxpayer’s premium tax credit and reconciling any advance credit payments, the premiums and any advance credit payments for the plan in which the shifting enrollee was enrolled are allocated between the enrolling taxpayer and the claiming taxpayer using an allocation percentage. In addition, the temporary regulations provide an alternate calculation that is used to determine each taxpayer’s benchmark plan premium when advance credit payments are allocated, using the same allocation percentage.

The enrolling taxpayer and claiming taxpayer may generally agree on any allocation percentage between zero and one hundred percent. For instance, Adult 1 and Adult 2 may determine that the premium attributable to Child is 20 percent of the total premium for Adult 1’s family plan, and agree on an allocation percentage of 20 percent. If the claiming taxpayer and enrolling taxpayer do not agree on a percentage, the allocation percentage is equal to the number of shifting enrollees divided by the total number of individuals enrolled by the enrolling taxpayer in the same qualified health plan as the shifting enrollees. In the example above, if Adult 1 and Adult 2 did not agree on an allocation percentage, the allocation percentage would be 25 percent (one, the number of shifting enrollees, divided by four, the total number of individuals enrolled by Adult 1 in the same plan as the shifting enrollee).

In computing the premium tax credit, the claiming taxpayer is allocated a portion of the premiums for the plan in which the enrollee was enrolled equal to the premiums times the allocation percentage. The enrolling taxpayer is allocated the remainder of the premiums. Similarly, in reconciling advance credit payments, the claiming taxpayer is allocated a portion of the advance credit payments for the plan in which the shifting enrollee was enrolled equal to the advance credit payments times the allocation percentage. The enrolling taxpayer is allocated the remainder of these amounts. Advance credit payments are allocated to the claiming taxpayer only if advance credit payments are made for coverage of the shifting enrollee.

Finally, if advance credit payments are allocated under the rules above, the taxpayers, in computing their premium tax credit, must use an alternative calculation to determine their benchmark plan premium. The benchmark plan premium is generally the premium an issuer would charge for the applicable benchmark plan to cover all members of the taxpayer’s coverage family, adjusted only for the age of each member of the coverage family. Under the alternative calculation, each taxpayer will first determine the allocable portion of the enrolling taxpayer’s benchmark plan premium (allocable portion). The allocable portion is equal to the product of (1) the allocation percentage and (2) the benchmark plan premium for the enrolling taxpayer’s coverage family had the enrolling taxpayer claimed a personal exemption deduction for the shifting enrollee or enrollees for the taxable year. If the enrolling taxpayer’s coverage family is enrolled in more than one qualified health plan, the allocable portion is determined as if the enrolling taxpayer’s coverage family includes only the family members who enrolled in the same plan as the shifting enrollee or enrollees. The benchmark plan premium for the claiming taxpayer is equal to this allocable portion plus the benchmark plan premium for the claiming taxpayer’s coverage family excluding the shifting enrollee or enrollees. The enrolling taxpayer’s benchmark plan premium is equal to the benchmark plan premium for the enrolling taxpayer’s coverage family had the enrolling taxpayer claimed a personal exemption deduction for the shifting enrollee or enrollees, minus the allocable portion.

The temporary regulations clarify how taxpayers who legally separate or divorce allocate the benchmark plan premium, the premium for the plan in which the taxpayers or their dependents enroll, and the advance credit payments to compute their respective premium tax credit and excess advance credit payments. The final section 36B regulations provide that if just one of the taxpayers is enrolled in the qualified health plan for the married months, all of the items are allocated to that taxpayer, even if the taxpayer’s former spouse had one or more dependents also enrolled in the same plan. The temporary regulations expand the circumstances in which the items are allocated between the former spouses to include dependent situations and limit the instances in which all of the items are allocated to just one of the spouses.

Under the temporary regulations, taxpayers who are married (within the meaning of section 7703) to each other during a taxable year but are not married to each other on the last day of the taxable year, and who are enrolled in the same qualified health plan, must allocate the benchmark plan premium, the premium for the plan in which the taxpayers and their dependents enroll, and the advance credit payments for the period the taxpayers are married during the taxable year. In addition, these items must be allocated for periods in which just one of the former spouses is enrolled if one or more dependents of the other former spouse is also enrolled in the plan. The taxpayers may allocate these items to each former spouse in any proportion but must allocate all items in the same proportion. If the taxpayers do not agree on an allocation that is reported to the IRS in accordance with the relevant forms and instructions, 50 percent of each item is allocated to each taxpayer. If a plan covers for a time period only one of the taxpayers and no dependents, only one of the taxpayers and one or more dependents of that same taxpayer, or only one or more dependents of just one of the taxpayers, then the benchmark plan premium, the premium for the plan in which the taxpayers or their dependents enroll, and the advance credit payments for that period are allocated entirely to that taxpayer.

The temporary regulations also amend the reconciliation rules for taxpayers who are married and file separate returns. The final regulations under section 36B provide that a married taxpayer who receives advance credit payments and files an income tax return as married filing separately has received excess advance payments. Under the temporary regulations, a taxpayer who uses a filing status of married filing separately may be allowed a premium tax credit if the taxpayer is a victim of spousal abuse or abandonment. Consequently, in these limited circumstances, a married taxpayer who receives advance credit payments and uses a married filing separately filing status will not have excess advance payments by reason of his or her filing status. The temporary regulations also clarify the manner in which taxpayers reconcile advance credit payments in situations in which the taxpayers indicate that they are married when applying for advance credit payments, but one or both file their tax return using the head of household filing status. Taxpayers who qualify to use the head of household filing status may be eligible for a premium tax credit. In particular, the temporary regulations provide that, in such cases, 50 percent of the advance credit payments for a period of coverage in a qualified health plan are allocated to each taxpayer. However, all of the advance credit payments are allocated to only one of the taxpayers for a period in which a qualified health plan covers only that taxpayer, only that taxpayer and one or more dependents of that taxpayer, or only one or more dependents of that taxpayer. Premiums for the plan in which the taxpayers or their dependents are enrolled are allocated in the same manner whether or not the taxpayers receive advance credit payments. These rules result in the advance credit payments and premiums being allocated in the same proportion to the two taxpayers.

Under section 162(l), a taxpayer who is an employee within the meaning of section 401(c)(1) (generally, a self-employed individual) is allowed a deduction for all or a portion of the taxpayer’s premiums paid during the taxable year for health insurance for the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, the taxpayer’s dependents, and any child of the taxpayer under the age of 27. The section 162(l) deduction is allowed in computing adjusted gross income. The deduction allowed under section 162(l) may not exceed the taxpayer’s earned income from the trade or business with respect to which the health insurance plan is established. In addition, section 280C(g) provides that no deduction is allowed under section 162(l) for the portion of premiums for a qualified health plan equal to the amount of the premium tax credit determined under section 36B(a) with respect to those premiums.

The temporary regulations provide rules for the interaction between the section 162(l) deduction and both the premium tax credit and the limitation on additional tax under section 36B(f)(2)(B). The temporary regulations provide that a taxpayer is allowed a deduction under section 162(l) for specified premiums not to exceed the lesser of (1) the specified premiums less the premium tax credit attributable to the specified premiums; and (2) the sum of the specified premiums not paid through advance credit payments and the additional tax imposed (if any) under section 36B(f)(2)(A) with respect to the specified premiums after applying the limitation in section 36B(f)(2)(B). Specified premiums means premiums for a specified qualified health plan or plans for which the taxpayer may otherwise claim a deduction under section 162(l). A specified qualified health plan is a qualified health plan, as defined in § 1.36B–1(c), covering the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or a dependent of the taxpayer (enrolled family member) for a month that is a coverage month within the meaning of § 1.36B–3(c) for the enrolled family member. If a specified qualified health plan covers one or more individuals other than enrolled family members, the specified premiums include only the portion of the premiums for the specified qualified health plan that is allocable to the enrolled family members under rules similar to § 1.36B–3(h), which provides rules for determining the amount under § 1.36B–3(d)(1) when two families are enrolled in the same qualified health plan.

Although a taxpayer’s section 162(l) deduction is limited under section 280C(g) only to the extent of the taxpayer’s premium tax credit, some taxpayers with advance payments in excess of their premium tax credit will not have to repay the entire excess because of the limitation on additional tax in section 36B(f)(2)(B). Because the taxpayer does not bear the cost of any portion of the premium that is paid through advance credit payments and that is not subject to repayment due to the limitations, any such amount is treated as an amount of premium tax credit for purposes of section 280C(g).

As a computational matter, the premium tax credit and the limitation on additional tax bear a circular relationship to the section 162(l) deduction that may create challenges for taxpayers. Specifically, the amount of the section 162(l) deduction affects a taxpayer’s adjusted gross income, which affects both the premium tax credit and the limitation on additional tax. Conversely, both the premium tax credit and the limitation on additional tax affect the amount a taxpayer spends on health insurance premiums, which in turn affects the taxpayer’s section 162(l) deduction.

A taxpayer may resolve the circularity between the section 162(l) deduction and the premium tax credit by taking any position that satisfies the requirements of section 36B, section 162(l) and other applicable tax law and the regulations issued under those sections, including the temporary regulations in this rulemaking.

To address the circularity between the section 162(l) deduction and the limitation on additional tax under section 36B(f)(2)(B) (limitation amount), the temporary regulations provide rules for determining which limitation amount, if any, a taxpayer may use. Taxpayers make this determination before calculating their section 162(l) deduction and premium tax credit. To determine the limitation amount, a taxpayer tests his or her eligibility for each of the limitation amounts that may apply, starting with the lowest, until the taxpayer either determines that he or she qualifies for one of the limitation amounts or exhausts them without qualifying for one. For each limitation amount, the taxpayer qualifies to use that limitation amount if the taxpayer’s household income as a percentage of the Federal poverty line, determined by using a section 162(l) deduction equal to the sum of (1) specified premiums, as defined above, not paid through advance credit payments, (2) the limitation amount, and (3) premiums other than specified premiums for which the taxpayer may claim a section 162(l) deduction, is equal to or less than the maximum household income as a percentage of the Federal poverty line for which that limitation amount is available. For example, if a taxpayer’s 2014 household income, using a section 162(l) deduction equal to the sum of the specified premiums not paid through advance credit payments and the $600 limitation amount, is less than 200 percent of the Federal poverty line, the taxpayer uses the $600 limitation amount in determining additional tax under section 36B(f)(2)(B). If a taxpayer is unable to qualify for any limitation amount under this rule, the limitation on additional tax under section 36B(f)(2)(B) does not apply to the taxpayer.

A taxpayer who deducts specified premiums under section 162(l) must use the limitation amount determined under this rule notwithstanding that household income as a percentage of the Federal poverty line would, but for this rule, result in a different limitation amount. After a taxpayer determines his or her limitation amount, if any, under this rule, the taxpayer then determines the section 162(l) deduction and premium tax credit under the other rules described above, except using the limitation amount determined under these rules when necessary. These rules apply only for purposes of determining the limitation amount; they do not affect eligibility for the premium tax credit. Thus, it is possible that a taxpayer with household income under 400 percent of the Federal poverty line for the taxpayer’s family size may properly claim a premium tax credit but not qualify for a limitation on additional tax.

The temporary regulations further provide that Treasury and IRS may issue additional published guidance to address potential complexities arising from the interaction of the section 36B premium tax credit and the section 162(l) deduction.

To provide additional assistance to taxpayers with addressing the circularity between the section 162(l) deduction and the premium tax credit, Rev. Proc. 2014–41 provides calculation methods that a taxpayer may use to determine amounts of the section 162(l) deduction and the premium tax credit. The IRS and Treasury request comments on other methods for simplifying these calculations.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–2T(b)(2).

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) * * *

(v) * * *

(C) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–2T(c)(3)(v)(C).

* * * * *

(d) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–2T(d).

Par. 3. Section 1.36B–2T is added to read as follows:

(a) through (b)(1) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–2(a) through (b)(1).

(2) Married taxpayers must file joint return—(i) In general. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, a taxpayer who is married (within the meaning of section 7703) at the close of the taxable year is an applicable taxpayer only if the taxpayer and the taxpayer’s spouse file a joint return for the taxable year.

(ii) Victims of domestic abuse and abandonment. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this section, a married taxpayer satisfies the joint filing requirement of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section if the taxpayer files a tax return using a filing status of married filing separately and the taxpayer—

(A) Is living apart from the taxpayer’s spouse at the time the taxpayer files the tax return;

(B) Is unable to file a joint return because the taxpayer is a victim of domestic abuse, as described in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section, or spousal abandonment, as described in paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section; and

(C) Certifies on the return, in accordance with the relevant instructions, that the taxpayer meets the criteria of this paragraph (b)(2)(ii).

(iii) Domestic abuse. For purposes of paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, domestic abuse includes physical, psychological, sexual, or emotional abuse, including efforts to control, isolate, humiliate, and intimidate, or to undermine the victim’s ability to reason independently. All the facts and circumstances are considered in determining whether an individual is abused, including the effects of alcohol or drug abuse by the victim’s spouse. Depending on the facts and circumstances, abuse of the victim’s child or another family member living in the household may constitute abuse of the victim.

(iv) Abandonment. For purposes of paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, a taxpayer is a victim of spousal abandonment for a taxable year if, taking into account all facts and circumstances, the taxpayer is unable to locate his or her spouse after reasonable diligence.

(v) Three-year rule. Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section does not apply if the taxpayer met the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section for each of the three preceding taxable years.

(b)(3) through (c)(3)(v)(B) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–2(b)(3) through (c)(3)(v)(B).

(C) Required contribution percentage. The required contribution percentage is 9.5 percent. For plan years beginning in a calendar year after 2014, the percentage will be adjusted by the ratio of premium growth to income growth for the preceding calendar year and may be further adjusted to reflect changes to the data used to compute the ratio of premium growth to income growth for the 2014 calendar year or the data sources used to compute the ratio of premium growth to income growth. Premium growth and income growth will be determined under published guidance, see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter. In addition, the percentage may be adjusted for plan years beginning in a calendar year after 2018 to reflect rates of premium growth relative to growth in the consumer price index.

(c)(3)(v)(D) through (c)(4) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–2(c)(3)(v)(D) through (c)(4).

(d) Effective/applicability date. Paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(3)(v)(C) of this section apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013.

(e) Expiration date. Paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(3)(v)(C) of this section expire on July 24, 2017.

Par. 4. Section 1.36B–3 is amended by:

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 1.36B–3 Computing the premium assistance credit amount.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(1) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–3T(g)(1).

* * * * *

(m) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–3T(m).

Par. 5. Section 1.36B–3T is added to read as follows:

(a) through (f) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–3(a) through (f).

(g) Applicable percentage—(1) In general. The applicable percentage multiplied by a taxpayer’s household income determines the taxpayer’s annual required share of premiums for the benchmark plan. The required share is divided by 12 and this monthly amount is subtracted from the adjusted monthly premium for the applicable benchmark plan when computing the premium assistance amount. The applicable percentage is computed by first determining the percentage that the taxpayer’s household income bears to the Federal poverty line for the taxpayer’s family size. The resulting Federal poverty line percentage is then compared to the income categories described in the table in paragraph (g)(2) of this section (or successor tables). An applicable percentage within an income category increases on a sliding scale in a linear manner and is rounded to the nearest one-hundredth of one percent. For taxable years beginning after December 31, 2014, the applicable percentages in the table will be adjusted by the ratio of premium growth to income growth for the preceding calendar year and may be further adjusted to reflect changes to the data used to compute the ratio of premium growth to income growth for the 2014 calendar year or the data sources used to compute the ratio of premium growth to income growth. Premium growth and income growth will be determined in accordance with published guidance, see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter. In addition, the applicable percentages in the table may be adjusted for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2018, to reflect rates of premium growth relative to growth in the consumer price index.

(g)(2) through (l) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–3(g)(2) through (l).

(m) Effective/applicability date. Paragraph (g)(1) of this section applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013.

(n) Expiration date. Paragraph (g)(1) of this section expires on July 24, 2017.

Par. 6. Section 1.36B–4 is amended by:

The revisions and additions read as follows:

(a) * * * (1) * * *

(ii) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–4T(a)(1)(ii).

* * * * *

(3) * * *

(iii) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–4T(a)(3)(iii).

(4) * * *

Example 4. [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–4T(a)(4), Example 4.

* * * * *

Example 10. [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–4T(a)(4), Example 10.

Example 11. [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–4T(a)(4), Example 11.

Example 12. [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–4T(a)(4), Example 12.

Example 13. [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–4T(a)(4), Example 13.

Example 14. [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–4T(a)(4), Example 14.

(b) * * *

(3) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–4T(b)(3).

(4) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–4T(b)(4).

(5) * * *

Example 9. [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–4T(b)(5), Example 9.

Example 10. [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–4T(b)(5), Example 10.

* * * * *

(c) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–4T(c).

Par. 7. Section 1.36B–4T is added to read as follows:

(a)(1)(i) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–4(a)(1)(i).

(ii) Allocation rules and responsibility for advance credit payments—(A) In general. A taxpayer must reconcile all advance credit payments for coverage of any member of the taxpayer’s family.

(B) Individuals enrolled by a taxpayer and claimed as a personal exemption deduction by another taxpayer—(1) In general. If a taxpayer (the enrolling taxpayer) enrolls an individual in a qualified health plan and another taxpayer (the claiming taxpayer) claims a personal exemption deduction for the individual (the shifting enrollee), then for purposes of computing each taxpayer’s premium tax credit and reconciling any advance credit payments, the premiums and advance credit payments for the plan in which the shifting enrollee was enrolled are allocated under this paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B) according to the allocation percentage described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B)(2) of this section. If advance credit payments are allocated under paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B)(4) of this section, the claiming taxpayer and enrolling taxpayer must use this same allocation percentage to calculate their § 1.36B–3(d)(2) adjusted monthly premiums for the applicable benchmark plan (benchmark plan premiums). This paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B) does not apply to amounts allocated under § 1.36B–3(h) (qualified health plan covering more than one family) or if the shifting enrollee or enrollees are the only individuals enrolled in the qualified health plan. For purposes of this paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B)(1), a taxpayer who is expected at enrollment in a qualified health plan to be the taxpayer filing an income tax return for the year of coverage with respect to an individual enrolling in the plan has enrolled that individual.

(2) Allocation percentage. The enrolling taxpayer and claiming taxpayer may agree on any allocation percentage between zero and one hundred percent. If the enrolling taxpayer and claiming taxpayer do not agree on an allocation percentage, the percentage is equal to the number of shifting enrollees claimed as a personal exemption deduction by the claiming taxpayer divided by the number of individuals enrolled by the enrolling taxpayer in the same qualified health plan as the shifting enrollee.

(3) Allocating premiums. In computing the premium tax credit, the claiming taxpayer is allocated a portion of the premiums for the plan in which the shifting enrollee was enrolled equal to the premiums for the plan times the allocation percentage. The enrolling taxpayer is allocated the remainder of the premiums not allocated to one or more claiming taxpayers.

(4) Allocating advance credit payments. In reconciling any advance credit payments, the claiming taxpayer is allocated a portion of the advance credit payments for the plan in which the shifting enrollee was enrolled equal to the enrolling taxpayer’s advance credit payments for the plan times the allocation percentage. The enrolling taxpayer is allocated the remainder of the advance credit payments not allocated to one or more claiming taxpayers. This paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B)(4) only applies in situations in which advance credit payments are made for coverage of a shifting enrollee.

(5) Premiums for the applicable benchmark plan. If paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B)(4) of this section applies, the claiming taxpayer’s benchmark plan premium is the sum of the benchmark plan premium for the claiming taxpayer’s coverage family, excluding the shifting enrollee or enrollees, and the allocable portion. The allocable portion for purposes of this paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B)(5) is the product of the benchmark plan premium for the enrolling taxpayer’s coverage family if the shifting enrollee was a member of the enrolling taxpayer’s coverage family and the allocation percentage. If the enrolling taxpayer’s coverage family is enrolled in more than one qualified health plan, the allocable portion is determined as if the enrolling taxpayer’s coverage family includes only the coverage family members who enrolled in the same plan as the shifting enrollee or enrollees. The enrolling taxpayer’s benchmark plan premium is the benchmark plan premium for the enrolling taxpayer’s coverage family had the shifting enrollee or enrollees remained a part of the enrolling taxpayer’s coverage family, minus the allocable portion.

(C) Responsibility for advance credit payments for an individual for whom no personal exemption deduction is claimed. If advance credit payments are made for coverage of an individual for whom no taxpayer claims a personal exemption deduction, the taxpayer who attested to the Exchange to the intention to claim a personal exemption deduction for the individual as part of the advance credit payment eligibility determination for coverage of the individual must reconcile the advance credit payments.

(a)(1)(iii) through (a)(3)(ii) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–4(a)(1)(iii) through (a)(3)(ii).

(iii) Limitation on additional tax for taxpayers who claim a section 162(l) deduction for a qualified health plan—(A) In general. A taxpayer who receives advance credit payments and deducts premiums for a qualified health plan under section 162(l) must use paragraphs (a)(3)(iii)(B) and (C) of this section to determine the limitation on additional tax in this paragraph (a)(3) (limitation amount). Taxpayers must make this determination before calculating their section 162(l) deduction and premium tax credit. For additional rules for taxpayers who may claim a deduction under section 162(l) for a qualified health plan for which advance credit payments are made, see § 1.162(l)–1T.

(B) Determining the limitation amount. A taxpayer described in paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A) of this section must use the limitation amount for which the taxpayer qualifies under the requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(C) of this section. The limitation amount determined under this paragraph (a)(3)(iii) replaces the limitation amount that would otherwise be determined under the additional tax limitation table in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section. In applying paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(C) of this section, a taxpayer must first determine whether he or she qualifies for the limitation amount applicable to taxpayers with household income of less than 200 percent of the Federal poverty line for the taxpayer’s family size. If the taxpayer is unable to meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(C) of this section for that limitation amount, the taxpayer must next determine whether he or she qualifies for the limitation applicable to taxpayers with household income of less than 300 percent of the Federal poverty line for the taxpayer’s family size. If the taxpayer is unable to meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(C) of this section for taxpayers with household income of less than 300 percent of the Federal poverty line for the taxpayer’s family size, the taxpayer must next determine whether he or she qualifies for the limitation applicable to taxpayers with household income of less than 400 percent of the Federal poverty line for the taxpayer’s family size. If the taxpayer is unable to meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(C) of this section for any limitation amount, the limitation on additional tax under section 36B(f)(2)(B) does not apply to the taxpayer.

(C) Requirements. A taxpayer meets the requirements of this paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(C) for a limitation amount if the taxpayer’s household income as a percentage of the Federal poverty line is less than or equal to the maximum household income as a percentage of the Federal poverty line for which that limitation is available. Household income for this purpose is determined by using a section 162(l) deduction equal to the sum of the specified premiums for the plan not paid through advance credit payments and the limitation amount in addition to any deduction allowable under section 162(l) for premiums other than specified premiums. For purposes of this paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(C), specified premiums not paid through advance credit payments means specified premiums, as defined in § 1.162(l)–1T(a)(2), minus advance credit payments made with respect to the specified premiums.

(D) Examples. For examples illustrating the rules of this paragraph (a)(3)(iii), see Examples 13 and 14 of paragraph (a)(4) of this section.

(a)(4), Example 1, through Example 3 [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–4(a)(4), Example 1 through Example 3.

Example 4. Family size decreases. (i) Taxpayers B and C are married and have two children, K and L (ages 17 and 20), whom they claim as dependents in 2013. The Exchange for their rating area projects their 2014 household income to be $63,388 (275 percent of the Federal poverty line for a family of four, applicable percentage 8.78). B and C enroll in a qualified health plan for 2014 that covers the four family members. The annual premium for the applicable benchmark plan is $14,100. B’s and C’s advance credit payments for 2014 are $8,535, computed as follows: benchmark plan premium of $14,100 less contribution amount of $5,565 (projected household income of $63,388 × .0878) = $8,535.

(ii) In 2014, B and C do not claim L as their dependent (and no taxpayer claims a personal exemption deduction for L). Consequently, B’s and C’s family size for 2014 is three, their household income of $63,388 is 332 percent of the Federal poverty line for a family of three (applicable percentage 9.5), and the annual premium for their applicable benchmark plan is $12,000. Their premium tax credit for 2014 is $5,978 ($12,000 benchmark plan premium less $6,022 contribution amount (household income of $63,388 × .095)). Because B’s and C’s advance credit payments for 2014 are $8,535 and their 2014 credit is $5,978, B and C have excess advance payments of $2,557. B’s and C’s additional tax liability for 2014 under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, however, is limited to $2,500 under paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

Example 5 through Example 9 [Reserved]. For further guidance, see 1.36B–4(a)(4), Example 5 through Example 9.

Example 10. Allocation percentage, agreement on allocation. (i) Taxpayers G and H are divorced and have two children, J and K. G enrolls herself and J and K in a qualified health plan for 2014. The premium for the plan in which G enrolls is $13,000. The Exchange in G’s rating area approves advance credit payments for G based on a family size of three, an annual benchmark plan premium of $12,000 and projected 2014 household income of $58,590 (300 percent of the Federal poverty line for a family of three, applicable percentage 9.5). G’s advance credit payments for 2014 are $6,434 ($12,000 benchmark plan premium less $5,566 contribution amount (household income of $58,590 × .095)). G’s actual household income for 2014 is $58,900.

(ii) K lives with H for more than half of 2014 and H claims K as a dependent for 2014. G and H agree to an allocation percentage, as described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B)(2) of this section, of 20 percent. Under the agreement, H is allocated 20 percent of the items to be allocated and G is allocated the remainder of those items.

(iii) If H is eligible for a premium tax credit, H takes into account $2,600 of the premiums for the plan in which K was enrolled ($13,000 × .20) and $2,400 of G’s benchmark plan premium ($12,000 × .20). In addition, H is responsible for reconciling $1,287 ($6,434 × .20) of the advance credit payments for K’s coverage.

(iv) G’s family size for 2014 includes only G and J and G’s household income of $58,900 is 380 percent of the Federal poverty line for a family of two (applicable percentage 9.5). G’s benchmark plan premium for 2014 is $9,600 (the benchmark premium for the plan covering G, J and K ($12,000), minus the amount allocated to H ($2,400). Consequently, G’s premium tax credit is $4,004 (G’s benchmark plan premium of $9,600 minus G’s contribution amount of $5,596 ($58,900 × .095)). G has an excess advance payment of $1,143 (the excess of the advance credit payments of $5,147 ($6,434 – $1,287 allocated to H) over the premium tax credit of $4,004).

Example 11. Allocation percentage, no agreement on allocation. (i) The facts are the same as in Example 10, except that G and H do not agree on an allocation percentage. Under paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B)(2) of this section, the allocation percentage is 33 percent, computed as follows: the number of shifting enrollees, 1 (K), divided by the number of individuals enrolled by the enrolling taxpayer on the same qualified health plan as the shifting enrollee, 3 (G,J, and K). Thus, H is allocated 33 percent of the items to be allocated and G is allocated the remainder of those items.

(ii) If H is eligible for a premium tax credit, H takes into account $4,290 of the premiums for the plan in which K was enrolled ($13,000 × .33). H, in computing H’s benchmark plan premium must include $3,960 of G’s benchmark plan premium ($12,000 × .33). In addition, H is responsible for reconciling $2,123 ($6,434 × .33) of the advance credit payments for K’s coverage.

(iii) G’s benchmark plan premium for 2014 is $8,040 (the benchmark premium for the plan covering G, J, and K ($12,000), minus the amount allocated to H ($3,960). Consequently, G’s premium tax credit is $2,444 (G’s benchmark plan premium of $8,040 minus G’s contribution amount of $5,596 ($58,900 × .095)). G has an excess advance credit payment of $1,867 (the excess of the advance credit payments of $4,311 ($6,434 − $2,123 allocated to H) over the premium tax credit of $2,444).

Example 12. Allocations for an emancipated child. Spouses L and M enroll in a qualified health plan with their child, N. L and M attest that they will claim N as a dependent and advance credit payments are made for the coverage of all three family members. However, N files his own return and claims a personal exemption deduction for himself for the taxable year. Under paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B)(1) of this section, L and M are enrolling taxpayers, N is a claiming taxpayer and all are subject to the allocation rules in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B) of this section.

Example 13. Taxpayer with advance credit payments allowed a section 162(l) deduction but not a limitation on additional tax. (i) In 2014, B, B’s spouse, and their two dependents enroll in the applicable second lowest cost silver plan with an annual premium of $14,000. B’s advance credit payments attributable to the premiums are $8,000. B is self-employed for all of 2014 and derives $75,000 of earnings from B’s trade or business. B’s household income without including a deduction under section 162(l) for specified premiums is $103,700. The Federal poverty line for a family the size of B’s family is $23,550.

(ii) Because B received advance credit payments and deducts premiums for a qualified health plan under section 162(l), B must determine whether B is allowed a limitation on additional tax under paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section. B begins by testing eligibility for the $600 limitation amount for taxpayers with household income at less than 200 percent of the Federal poverty line for the taxpayer’s family size. B determines household income as a percentage of the Federal poverty line by taking a section 162(l) deduction equal to the sum of the amount of premiums not paid through advance credit payments, $6,000 ($14,000 − $8,000), and the limitation amount, $600. The result is $97,100 ($103,700 − $6,600) or 412 percent of the Federal poverty line for B’s family size. Since 412 percent is not less than 200 percent, B may not use a $600 limitation amount.

(iii) B performs the same calculation for the $1,500 ($103,700 − $7,500 = $96,200 or 408 percent of the Federal poverty line) and $2,500 limitation amounts ($103,700 − $8,500 = $95,200 or 404 percent of the Federal poverty line), the amounts for taxpayers with household income of less than 300 percent or 400 percent, respectively, of the Federal poverty line for the taxpayer’s family size, and determines that B may not use either of those limitation amounts. Because B does not meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section for any of the limitation amounts in section 36B(f)(2)(B), B is not eligible for the limitation on additional tax for excess advance credit payments.

(iv) Although B may not claim a limitation on additional tax for excess advance credit payments, B may still be eligible for a premium tax credit. B would determine eligibility for the premium tax credit and the amounts of the premium tax credit and the section 162(l) deduction using other rules, including the regulations under section 36B and section 162(l), applying no limitation on additional tax.

Example 14. Taxpayer with advance credit payments allowed a section 162(l) deduction and a limitation on additional tax. (i) Same facts as Example 13, except that B’s household income without including a deduction under section 162(l) for specified premiums is $78,802.

(ii) Because B received advance credit payments and deducts premiums for a qualified health plan under section 162(l), B must determine whether B is allowed a limitation on additional tax under paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section. B first determines that B does not meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(C) of this section for using the $600 or $1,500 limitation amounts, the amounts for taxpayers with household income of less than 200 percent or 300 percent, respectively, of the Federal poverty line for the taxpayer’s family size. That is because B’s household income as a percentage of the Federal poverty line, determined by using a section 162(l) deduction for premiums for the qualified health plan equal to the sum of the premiums for the plan not paid through advance credit payments and the limitation amount, is more than the maximum household income as a percentage of the Federal poverty line for which that limitation is available (using the $600 limitation, B’s household income would be $72,202 ($78,802 – ($6,000 + $600)), which is 307 percent of the Federal poverty line for B’s family size; and using the $1,500 limitation, B’s household income would be $71,302 ($78,802 – ($6,000 + $1,500)), which is 303 percent of the Federal poverty line for B’s family size).

(iii) However, B meets the requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(C) of this section using the $2,500 limitation amount for taxpayers with household income of less than 400 percent of the Federal poverty line for the taxpayer’s family size. This is because B’s household income as a percentage of the Federal poverty line by taking a section 162(l) deduction equal to the sum of the amount of premiums not paid through advance credit payments, $6,000, and the limitation amount, $2,500, is $70,302 (299 percent of the Federal poverty line), which is below 400 percent of the Federal poverty line for B’s family size, and is less than the maximum amount for which that limitation is available. Thus, B uses a limitation amount of $2,500 in computing B’s additional tax on excess advance credit payments.

(iv) B may then determine the amount of the premium tax credit and section 162(l) deduction using the rules under section 36B and section 162(l), applying the $2,500 limitation amount determined above.

(b)(1) through (b)(2) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–4(b)(1) through (b)(2).

(3) Taxpayers not married to each other at the end of the taxable year. Taxpayers who are married (within the meaning of section 7703) to each other during a taxable year but legally separate under a decree of divorce or of separate maintenance during the taxable year, and who are enrolled in the same qualified health plan at any time during the taxable year must allocate the benchmark plan premium, the premium for the plan in which the taxpayers enroll, and the advance credit payments for the period the taxpayers are married during the taxable year. Taxpayers must also allocate these items if one of the taxpayers has a dependent enrolled in the same plan as the taxpayer’s former spouse or enrolled in the same plan as a dependent of the taxpayer’s former spouse. The taxpayers may allocate these items to each former spouse in any proportion but must allocate all items in the same proportion. If the taxpayers do not agree on an allocation that is reported to the IRS in accordance with the relevant forms and instructions, 50 percent of the premium for the applicable benchmark plan, the premium for the plan in which the taxpayers enroll, and the advance credit payments for the married period are allocated to each taxpayer. If for a period a plan covers only one of the taxpayers and no dependents, only one of the taxpayers and one or more dependents of that same taxpayer, or only one or more dependents of one of the taxpayers, then the benchmark plan premium, the premium for the plan in which the taxpayers enroll, and the advance credit payments for that period are allocated entirely to that taxpayer.

(4) Taxpayers filing returns as married filing separately or head of household—(i) Allocation of advance credit payments. Except as provided in § 1.36B–2(b)(2)(ii), the premium tax credit is allowed to married (within the meaning of section 7703) taxpayers only if they file joint returns. See § 1.36B–2(b)(2)(i). Taxpayers who receive advance credit payments as married taxpayers and do not file a joint return must allocate the advance credit payments for coverage under a qualified health plan equally to each taxpayer for any period the plan covers and advance credit payments are made for both taxpayers, only one of the taxpayers and one or more dependents of the other taxpayer, or one or more dependents of both taxpayers. If for a period a plan covers or advance credit payments are made for only one of the taxpayers and no dependents, only one of the taxpayers and one or more dependents of that same taxpayer, or only one or more dependents of one of the taxpayers, the advance credit payments for that period are allocated entirely to that taxpayer. If one or both of the taxpayers is an applicable taxpayer eligible for a premium tax credit for the taxable year, the premium tax credit is computed by allocating the premiums for the plan in which the taxpayers or their family members enroll under paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section. The repayment limitation described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section applies to each taxpayer based on the household income and family size reported on that taxpayer’s return. This paragraph (b)(4) also applies to taxpayers who receive advance credit payments as married taxpayers and file a tax return using the head of household filing status.

(ii) Allocation of premiums. If taxpayers who are married within the meaning of section 7703, without regard to section 7703(b), do not file a joint return, 50 percent of the premiums for a period of coverage in a qualified health plan are allocated to each taxpayer. However, all of the premiums are allocated to only one of the taxpayers for a period in which a qualified health plan covers only that taxpayer, only that taxpayer and one or more dependents of that taxpayer, or only one or more dependents of that taxpayer.

(b)(5), Example 1 through Example 8 [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.36B–4(b)(5), Example 1 through Example 8.

Example 9. (i) The facts are the same as in Example 8, except that X and Y live apart for over 6 months of the year and X properly files an income tax return as head of household. Under section 7703(b), X is treated as unmarried and therefore is not required to file a joint return. If X otherwise qualifies as an applicable taxpayer, X may claim the premium tax credit based on the household income and family size X reports on the return. Y is not an applicable taxpayer and is not eligible to claim the premium tax credit.

(ii) X must reconcile the amount of credit with advance credit payments under paragraph (a) of this section. The premium for the applicable benchmark plan covering X and his two dependents is $9,800. X’s premium tax credit is computed as follows: $9,800 benchmark plan premium minus X’s contribution amount of $5,700 ($60,000 × .095) equals $4,100.

(iii) Under paragraph (b)(4) of this section, half of the advance payments ($6,880/2 = $3,440) is allocated to X and half is allocated to Y. Thus, X is entitled to $660 additional premium tax credit ($4,100 − $3,440). Y has $3,440 excess advance payments, which is limited to $600 under paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

Example 10. (i) A is married to B at the close of 2014 and they have no dependents. A and B are enrolled in a qualified health plan for 2014 with an annual premium of $10,000 and advance credit payments of $6,500. A is not eligible for minimum essential coverage (other than coverage described in section 5000A(f)(1)(C)) for any month in 2014. A is a victim of domestic abuse as described in § 1.36B–2(b)(2)(iii). At the time A files her tax return for 2014, A is unable to file a joint return with B for 2014 because of the domestic abuse. A certifies on her 2014 return, in accordance with relevant instructions, that she is living apart from B and is unable to file a joint return because of domestic abuse. Thus, under § 1.36B–2(b)(2)(ii), A satisfies the joint return filing requirement in section 36B(c)(1)(C) for 2014.

(ii) A’s family size for 2014 for purposes of computing the premium tax credit is one and A is the only member of her coverage family. Thus, A’s benchmark plan for all months of 2014 is the second lowest cost silver plan offered by the Exchange for A’s rating area that covers A. A’s household income includes only A’s modified adjusted gross income. Under paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section, A takes into account $5,000 ($10,000 × .50) of the premiums for the plan in which she was enrolled in determining her premium tax credit. Further, A must reconcile $3,250 ($6,500 × .50) of the advance credit payments for her coverage under paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section.

(c) Effective/applicability date. Paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), (a)(3)(iii), (a)(4), Examples 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(5), Examples 9 and 10 apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013.

(d) Expiration date. Paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), (a)(3)(iii), (a)(4), Examples 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(5), Examples 9 and 10 expire on July 24, 2017.

Par. 8. Section 1.162(l)–1T is added to read as follows:

(a) Coordination of section 162(l) deduction for taxpayers subject to section 36B—(1) In general. A taxpayer is allowed a deduction under section 162(l) for specified premiums, as defined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, not to exceed an amount equal to the lesser of—

(i) The specified premiums less the premium tax credit attributable to the specified premiums; and

(ii) The sum of the specified premiums not paid through advance credit payments, as described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, and the additional tax (if any) imposed under section 36B(f)(2)(A) and § 1.36B–4(a)(1) with respect to the specified premiums after application of the limitation on additional tax in section 36B(f)(2)(B) and § 1.36B–4(a)(3).

(2) Specified premiums. For purposes of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, specified premiums means premiums for a specified qualified health plan or plans for which the taxpayer may otherwise claim a deduction under section 162(l). For purposes of this paragraph (a)(2), a specified qualified health plan is a qualified health plan, as defined in § 1.36B–1(c), covering the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or a dependent of the taxpayer (enrolled family member) for a month that is a coverage month within the meaning of § 1.36B–3(c) for the enrolled family member. If a specified qualified health plan covers individuals other than enrolled family members, the specified premiums include only the portion of the premiums for the specified qualified health plan that is allocable to the enrolled family members under rules similar to § 1.36B–3(h), which provides rules for determining the amount under § 1.36B–3(d)(1) when two families are enrolled in the same qualified health plan.

(3) Specified premiums not paid through advance credit payments. For purposes of paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, specified premiums not paid through advance credit payments equal the amount of the specified premiums minus the advance credit payments attributable to the specified premiums.

(b) Additional guidance. The Secretary may provide by publication in the Federal Register or in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter) additional guidance on coordinating the deduction allowed under section 162(l) and the credit provided under section 36B.

(c) Effective/applicability date. This section applies for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013.

(d) Expiration date. This section expires on July 24, 2017.

Approved July 22, 2014.

(a) In general. If a partnership that has elected to amortize start-up expenditures under section 195(b) and § 1.195–1 terminates in a transaction (or a series of transactions) described in section 708(b)(1)(B) or § 1.708–1(b)(2), the termination shall not be treated as resulting in a disposition of the partnership’s trade or business for purposes of section 195(b)(2). See § 1.708–1(b)(6) for rules concerning the treatment of these start-up expenditures by the new partnership.

(b) Effective/applicability date. This section applies to a technical termination of a partnership under section 708(b)(1)(B) that occurs on or after December 9, 2013.

Par. 3. Section 1.708–1 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(6) to read as follows:

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(6) Treatment of certain start-up or organizational expenses following a technical termination—(i) In general. If a partnership that has elected to amortize start-up expenditures under section 195(b) or organizational expenses under section 709(b)(1) terminates in a transaction (or a series of transactions) described in section 708(b)(1)(B) or paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the new partnership must continue to amortize those expenditures over the remaining portion of the amortization period adopted by the terminating partnership. See section 195 and § 1.195–1 for rules concerning the amortization of start-up expenditures and section 709 and § 1.709–1 for rules concerning the amortization of organizational expenses.

(ii) Effective/applicability date. This paragraph (b)(6) applies to a technical termination of a partnership under section 708(b)(1)(B) that occurs on or after December 9, 2013.

Par. 4. Section 1.709–1 is amended by:

The additions read as follows:

Courts developed the actual economic outlay standard, which requires that shareholders be made “poorer in a material sense” to increase their bases of indebtedness. Some courts concluded that an S corporation shareholder was not poorer in a material sense if the shareholder borrowed funds from a related entity and then lent those funds to his S corporation. See, for example, Oren v. Commissioner, 357 F.3d 854 (8th Cir. 2004), aff’g, T.C. Memo. 2002–172. Instead of applying the actual economic outlay standard, the proposed regulations provided that shareholders receive basis of indebtedness if it is bona fide indebtedness of the S corporation to the shareholder.

One commentator suggested that language be added to the regulations providing that actual economic outlay is no longer the standard used to determine whether a shareholder obtains basis of indebtedness. After considering this comment, the Treasury Department and the IRS believe that the proposed regulations clearly articulate the standard for determining basis of indebtedness of an S corporation to its shareholder, and further discussion of the actual economic outlay test in the regulations is unnecessary. Accordingly, the final regulations adopt the rule in the proposed regulations without change.

With respect to guarantees, however, the final regulations retain the economic outlay standard by adopting the rule in the proposed regulations that S corporation shareholders may increase their basis of indebtedness only to the extent they actually perform under a guarantee. The final regulations make some minor changes to clarify the treatment of guarantees, including changing the heading to reiterate that the rule for guarantees is distinguished from the general rule adopting a bona fide indebtedness standard and moving the guarantee example after the examples illustrating the general rule consistent with the order of the regulations.

One commentator requested a change to the fact pattern presented in proposed regulations § 1.1366–2(a)(2)(iii), Example 4. In Example 4, a loan that originally was made by S1 to S2, two related S corporations wholly-owned by the same shareholder, is restructured to be a loan from the shareholder. The restructuring involved S1 distributing the debt to the shareholder and S2 being relieved of its liability to S1 so that S2 is only liable to the shareholder on the debt. The commentator recommended that Example 4 not require that S2 be relieved of its liability to S1. As stated in the proposed regulations and finalized in these regulations, whether indebtedness is bona fide indebtedness to a shareholder is determined under general Federal tax principles and depends upon all of the facts and circumstances. Whether S2 is relieved of the original liability is an appropriate fact to consider in determining whether the transaction is a restructuring of a debt that results in a bona fide debt that runs directly from S2 to the shareholder. See, for example, Rev. Rul. 75–144 (1975–1 CB 277) (holding that a shareholder increases the shareholder’s basis of indebtedness when the shareholder, who had guaranteed a liability of his S corporation, executed his own promissory note in full satisfaction of the S corporation’s note to the bank, the bank relieved the S corporation of its liability, and the S corporation became obligated to the shareholder under the doctrine of subrogation). See also Gilday v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982–242 (holding that shareholders increased their bases of indebtedness when the shareholders gave a bank their notes, the bank canceled the S corporation’s note to the bank, and the facts indicated that the S corporation became indebted to the shareholders, regardless of whether subrogation occurred under state law). Accordingly, this comment is not adopted.

This commentator also requested that an example be added to the regulations addressing a “circular flow of funds.” The commentator described a circular flow of funds as including a restructuring of a loan originally made by an S corporation owned by the shareholder to another S corporation owned by that shareholder (for purposes of this discussion, S1 and S2, respectively). This loan is restructured by one of two alternative methods: (i) S1 lends money to the shareholder, the shareholder lends that money to S2, and S2 uses that money to repay S1; or (ii) S2 repays S1, S1 lends money to the shareholder, and the shareholder lends that money back to S2.

The Treasury Department and the IRS recognize that there are numerous ways, including certain circular cash flows, in which an S corporation can become indebted to its shareholder. The proposed regulations included Example 4 as an example of a loan originating between two related entities that is restructured to be from the S corporation to the shareholder to show that the debt need not originate between the S corporation and its shareholder, provided that the resulting debt running between the S corporation and the shareholder is bona fide. The Treasury Department and the IRS are aware, however, of cases involving circular flow of funds that do not result in bona fide indebtedness. See, for example, Oren v. Commissioner, 357 F.3d at 859 (purported loans, although meeting all the proper formalities, lacked substance); Kerzner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009–76, at *5 (transaction lacked substance because money wound up right where it started and shareholder was merely a conduit through which the money flowed). Whether a restructuring results in bona fide indebtedness depends on the facts and circumstances. Because the Treasury Department and the IRS believe that the examples in the proposed regulations adequately illustrate that a restructuring of a debt that did not originate between the shareholder and the S corporation may result in basis of indebtedness as long as the resulting debt is bona fide, these final regulations do not contain additional examples.

Another commentator requested that an example be added to the regulations concerning a fact pattern in which bona fide indebtedness is present, but the shareholder has zero basis in that indebtedness. The commentator concluded that the shareholder would have zero basis of indebtedness in the shareholder’s S corporation because the shareholder’s basis in the debt is zero. The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that the regulations are clear that shareholders only increase their basis of indebtedness to the extent of the shareholder’s adjusted basis (as defined in § 1.1011–1 and as specifically provided in section 1367(b)(2)) in that bona fide indebtedness of the S corporation that runs directly to the shareholder. If the shareholder’s basis in the indebtedness is zero, then the shareholder’s basis of indebtedness is increased by zero. As such, an additional example illustrating a zero basis of indebtedness has not been added to the final regulations.

The preamble to the proposed regulations requested comments regarding the basis treatment when an S corporation shareholder or a partner contributes the shareholder’s or partner’s own note to an S corporation or a partnership. An S corporation shareholder does not increase his basis in the stock of his S corporation under section 1366(d)(1)(A) from a contribution of his own note. See Rev. Rul. 81–187 (1981–2 CB 167) (holding that a shareholder who (i) merely executed and transferred the shareholder’s demand note to the shareholder’s wholly owned S corporation, and (ii) made no payment on the note until the following year had a zero basis in the note until the following year when the shareholder made a payment on the note). The preamble to the proposed regulations described as one potential model § 1.704–1(b)(2)(iv)(d)(2), which provides that a partner’s capital account is increased with respect to non-readily tradable partner notes only (i) when there is a taxable disposition of such note by the partnership, or (ii) when the partner makes principal payments on such note. One commentator recommended consideration of, and consistency with, § 1.166–9(c) (regarding contributions of debt to capital). Another commentator noted that courts have applied the “actual economic outlay” standard to determine when shareholders increase their bases in their S corporation stock. See, for example, Maguire v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012–160. This commentator requested that the final regulations provide that actual economic outlay does not apply to determinations of a shareholder’s stock basis under section 1366(d)(1)(A). To expedite finalization of the proposed regulations, the scope of these final regulations is limited to basis of indebtedness. The Treasury Department and the IRS continue to study issues relating to stock basis and may address these issues in future guidance.

One commentator stressed that, because S corporations are passthrough entities, allowing shareholders to claim S corporation losses if they have basis of indebtedness could allow shareholders to claim losses that are not bona fide. This commentator recommended that the IRS require that shareholders provide information to the IRS that all claimed S corporation losses are bona fide. The proposed regulations, however, do not affect the normal substantiation rules for the validity of claimed losses. See sections 6001 and 6037. See also INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992) (providing that “an income tax deduction is a matter of legislative grace and that the burden of clearly showing the right to the claimed deduction is on the taxpayer” (quoting Interstate Transit Lines v. Commissioner, 319 U.S. 590, 593 (1943))). Accordingly, this comment is beyond the scope of these final regulations.

Commentators also suggested that the Treasury Department and the IRS should permit retroactive application of the regulations. These commentators suggest that, pursuant to section 7805(b)(7), final regulations should allow taxpayers to elect to apply the rules in the regulations retroactively.

The proposed regulations provided that these regulations apply to transactions entered into on or after the regulations are published as final in the Federal Register. Upon further consideration of the applicability date, the Treasury Department and the IRS believe that allowing taxpayers to rely on these regulations will provide greater certainty for determining when shareholders have basis of indebtedness. As such, taxpayers may rely on these regulations with respect to indebtedness between an S corporation and its shareholder that resulted from any transaction that occurred in a year for which the period of limitations on the assessment of tax has not expired before July 23, 2014.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(2) * * * Paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section applies on and after July 23, 2014. For rules that apply before that date, see 26 CFR part 1 (revised as of April 1, 2014).

Par. 3. Section 1.1366–0 is amended:

1. By redesignating the entries in the table of contents for § 1.1366–2(a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(6) as § 1.1366–2 (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7), respectively, and adding new entries for § 1.1366–2 (a)(2) and (a)(2)(i) through (iii).

2. By revising the heading in the table of contents for § 1.1366–5.

The additions and revisions read as follows:

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(2) Basis of indebtedness.

(i) In general.

(ii) Special rule for guarantees.

(iii) Examples.

* * * * *

Par. 4. Section 1.1366–2 is amended by:

1. Removing the language “(a)(3)(i)” in paragraph (a)(1)(i), and adding the

language “(a)(4)(i)” in its place.

2. Removing the language “paragraph (a)(3)(ii)” in paragraph (a)(1)(ii), and

adding the language “paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(4)(ii)” in its place.

3. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(6) as

paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7) respectively, and adding a new paragraph (a)(2).

4. Removing the language “(a)(3)(i) and (ii)” in newly designated paragraph

(a)(3), and adding the language “(a)(4)(i) and (ii)” in its place.

5. Removing the language “paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (2)” in newly designated

paragraph (a)(4)(i), and adding the language “paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (3)” in its place.

6. Removing the language “paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (2)” in newly designated

paragraph (a)(4)(ii), and adding the language “paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (3)” in its place.

7. Removing the language “(a)(3)(i)” and “(a)(3)(ii)” in newly designated

paragraph (a)(5), and adding the language “(a)(4)(i)” and “(a)(4)(ii)”, respectively, in their place.

8. Removing the language “(a)(5)(ii)” in newly designated paragraphs (a)(6)(i)

and (a)(6)(iii), and adding the language “(a)(6)(ii)” in its place.

9. Removing the language “(a)(4)” in newly designated paragraph (a)(6)(ii),

and adding the language “(a)(5)” in its place.

10. Removing the language “paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (2)” in newly designated

paragraph (a)(7), and adding the language “paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (3)” in its place.

The additions read as follows:

its shareholders.

(a) * * *

(2) Basis of indebtedness—(i) In general. The term basis of any indebtedness of the S corporation to the shareholder means the shareholder’s adjusted basis (as defined in § 1.1011–1 and as specifically provided in section 1367(b)(2)) in any bona fide indebtedness of the S corporation that runs directly to the shareholder. Whether indebtedness is bona fide indebtedness to a shareholder is determined under general Federal tax principles and depends upon all of the facts and circumstances.

(ii) Special rule for guarantees. A shareholder does not obtain basis of indebtedness in the S corporation merely by guaranteeing a loan or acting as a surety, accommodation party, or in any similar capacity relating to a loan. When a shareholder makes a payment on bona fide indebtedness of the S corporation for which the shareholder has acted as guarantor or in a similar capacity, then the shareholder may increase the shareholder’s basis of indebtedness to the extent of that payment.

(iii) Examples. The following examples illustrate the provisions of paragraph (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section:

Example 1. Shareholder loan transaction. A is the sole shareholder of S, an S corporation. S received a loan from A. Whether the loan from A to S constitutes bona fide indebtedness from S to A is determined under general Federal tax principles and depends upon all of the facts and circumstances. See paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. If the loan constitutes bona fide indebtedness from S to A, A’s loan to S increases A’s basis of indebtedness under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. The result is the same if A made the loan to S through an entity that is disregarded as an entity separate from A under § 301.7701–3 of this chapter.

Example 2. Back-to-back loan transaction. A is the sole shareholder of two S corporations, S1 and S2. S1 loaned $200,000 to A. A then loaned $200,000 to S2. Whether the loan from A to S2 constitutes bona fide indebtedness from S2 to A is determined under general Federal tax principles and depends upon all of the facts and circumstances. See paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. If A’s loan to S2 constitutes bona fide indebtedness from S2 to A, A’s back-to-back loan increases A’s basis of indebtedness in S2 under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.

Example 3. Loan restructuring through distributions. A is the sole shareholder of two S corporations, S1 and S2. In May 2014, S1 made a loan to S2. In December 2014, S1 assigned its creditor position in the note to A by making a distribution to A of the note. Under local law, after S1 distributed the note to A, S2 was relieved of its liability to S1 and was directly liable to A. Whether S2 is indebted to A rather than S1 is determined under general Federal tax principles and depends upon all of the facts and circumstances. See paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. If the note constitutes bona fide indebtedness from S2 to A, the note increases A’s basis of indebtedness in S2 under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.

Example 4. Guarantee. A is a shareholder of S, an S corporation. In 2014, S received a loan from Bank. Bank required A’s guarantee as a condition of making the loan to S. Beginning in 2015, S could no longer make payments on the loan and A made payments directly to Bank from A’s personal funds until the loan obligation was satisfied. For each payment A made on the note, A obtains basis of indebtedness under paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section. Thus, A’s basis of indebtedness is increased during 2015 under paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section to the extent of A’s payments to Bank pursuant to the guarantee agreement.

* * * * *

Par. 5. Section 1.1366–5 is revised to read as follows:

(a) Sections 1.1366–1, 1.1366–2(a)(1), and 1.1366–2(b) through 1.1366–4 apply to taxable years of an S corporation beginning on or after August 18, 1998.

(b) Section 1.1366–2(a)(2) applies to indebtedness between an S corporation and its shareholder resulting from any transaction occurring on or after July 23, 2014. In addition, S corporations and their shareholders may rely on § 1.1366–2(a)(2) with respect to indebtedness between an S corporation and its shareholder that resulted from any transaction that occurred in a year for which the period of limitations on the assessment of tax has not expired before July 23, 2014.

(c) Sections 1.1366–2(a)(3) through (7), and this section apply on and after July 23, 2014. For rules that apply before that date, see 26 CFR part 1 (revised as of April 1, 2014).

* * * Section 1.1367–1(h), Example 5(iii) applies on and after July 23, 2014. The rules that apply before July 23, 2014 are contained in § 1.1367–3 in effect prior to July 23, 2014 (see 26 CFR part 1 revised as of April 1, 2014).

Approved May 27, 2014.

Section 9008(d)(1) defines covered entity as any manufacturer or importer with gross receipts from branded prescription drug sales. Section 9008(e) defines branded prescription drug sales to mean sales of branded prescription drugs to any specified government programs or pursuant to coverage under such programs. These programs are the Medicare Part B program, the Medicare Part D program, the Medicaid program, any program under which branded prescription drugs are procured by the Department of Veterans Affairs, any program under which branded prescription drugs are procured by the Department of Defense, and the TRICARE retail pharmacy program (collectively, the Programs).

The temporary regulations defined a manufacturer or importer of a branded prescription drug as the person identified in the Labeler Code of the National Drug Code (NDC). The NDC is a unique identifier that is assigned to all drug products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including a branded prescription drug. The Labeler Code is the first five numeric characters of the NDC or the first six numeric characters when the available five-character code combinations are exhausted.

Commenters asked the IRS to allocate drug sales to an entity other than the person identified in the Labeler Code of a drug’s NDC when a covered entity transfers a drug to another covered entity during the sales year or engages in a transaction, such as a reorganization or a bankruptcy, that results in a different entity selling the drug. The final regulations do not adopt this request. A rule that uses the Labeler Code to identify the manufacturer or importer of a branded prescription drug provides certainty for both covered entities and the IRS. The FDA maintains a database that is available on the FDA website with information about each NDC, including its Labeler Code, which is assigned by the FDA. The IRS refers to this database to identify the person in the NDC’s Labeler Code. The IRS encourages covered entities to review and update their NDC data with the FDA to reflect changes in the manufacturer or importer of a branded prescription drug.

To be a covered entity, a manufacturer or importer must have gross receipts from branded prescription drug sales. Section 9008(b)(1) requires the IRS to calculate each covered entity’s fee each fee year using sales data from the preceding calendar year. Pursuant to section 9008(g), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services of the Department of Health and Human Services (CMS), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the Department of Defense (DOD) (collectively, the Agencies) provide sales data to the IRS. For purposes of calculating the fee, the temporary regulations used the second calendar year preceding the fee year as the sales year. This rule is necessary because CMS cannot complete its data processing within the necessary time frame. The temporary regulations further provided that, because the use of the second preceding year as the sales year, rather than the immediately preceding year, may affect the amount of the fee paid by a covered entity, the annual fee due in every year after 2011 will include an adjustment amount. This amount will be added (or subtracted), as appropriate, to (or from) the fee otherwise payable by the covered entity in the fee year in which the adjustment is calculated. Because CMS cannot complete its data processing any earlier, the final regulations adopt this approach.

A commenter asserted that, under the temporary regulations, a former covered entity may not be eligible for an adjustment amount if the entity does not have any sales in subsequent years and is, therefore, no longer a covered entity. According to the commenter, if a covered entity owes a fee in 2013 based on 2011 sales, but has no sales in 2012 or later years, then that entity would not qualify as a covered entity in 2014 because the temporary regulations do not provide a mechanism for the entity to receive an adjustment amount for 2013. The commenter suggested that if an adjustment amount results in a net credit to the covered entity’s fee, the IRS should treat the adjustment amount as an overpayment. The final regulations do not adopt this suggestion. However, the final regulations clarify that an entity is treated as a covered entity for any year in which the entity has branded prescription drug sales and for any year for which those sales must be taken into account in calculating the fee and determining the adjustment amount. Therefore, an entity’s status as a covered entity begins in the first year it has branded prescription drug sales to the Programs even though the fee does not take those sales immediately into account, and continues until all sales for that entity have been taken into account for both fee calculation and adjustment amount purposes.

For example, assume that an entity had sales in 2011 with no sales in earlier or later years. The entity is a covered entity beginning in 2011. The entity is not liable for a fee in 2011 or 2012 since those fee years are based on 2009 and 2010 sales, respectively. In 2013, the entity is liable for the fee based on its 2011 sales. Furthermore, the entity is liable for the adjustment amount for the difference between the 2012 fee for the entity computed using 2010 sales, which is $0, and what the 2012 fee would have been using 2011 sales. Even though the entity does not have any sales in 2012 or later years, it will continue to be a covered entity in 2014 because its 2011 sales must be taken into account for purposes of determining the adjustment amount relating to the 2013 fee that applies to the 2014 fee year. The entity will not be a covered entity after 2014 because its 2011 sales will not be taken into account after 2014. The final regulations include this example.

In accordance with the statute, the temporary regulations provided that a covered entity includes a controlled group. The temporary regulations defined the term controlled group to mean a group of at least two covered entities that are treated as a single employer under section 52(a), 52(b), 414(m), or 414(o). Under the final regulations, this definition applies through December 31, 2014. Therefore, this definition applies for purposes of determining who is in the controlled group through the 2016 fee year because the fee for the 2016 fee year is based upon data from the 2014 sales year. In this Treasury decision, the Treasury Department and the IRS are also issuing new temporary regulations (the 2014 temporary regulations), that define the term controlled group to mean a group of two or more persons, including at least one person that is a covered entity, that are treated as a single employer under section 52(a), 52(b), 414(m) or 414(o). This new definition applies beginning on January 1, 2015. Therefore, this definition applies for purposes of determining who is in the controlled group beginning with the 2017 fee year because the fee for the 2017 fee year is based upon data from the 2015 sales year. The broader definition of controlled group in the 2014 temporary regulations is supported by the statutory language and is consistent with how controlled group rules with similar statutory language are applied, including how controlled group is defined in § 57.2(c)(1) for purposes of the health insurance providers fee under ACA section 9010. The Treasury Department and the IRS expect that the broader definition in the 2014 temporary regulations will primarily impact joint and several liability for the fee and will not otherwise affect the administration of the fee. The final regulations include conforming changes to the provision for joint and several liability to clarify that joint and several liability applies to all members of the controlled group under either definition of controlled group, whichever applies.

The temporary regulations required each controlled group that files a Form 8947, “Report of Branded Prescription Drug Information,” to have a designated entity. A designated entity is the person within the controlled group that acts on behalf of the controlled group with regard to the fee. The temporary regulations further provided that if the controlled group, without regard to foreign corporations included under section 9008(d)(2)(B), is also an affiliated group that files a consolidated return for federal income tax purposes, the designated entity is the common parent of the affiliated group identified on the tax return filed for the sales year. If the controlled group is not an affiliated group that files a consolidated return, the temporary regulations allowed the controlled group to select its designated entity. However, if the controlled group did not select a designated entity, the IRS would select a member of the controlled group as the designated entity.

The final regulations modify the temporary regulations to better coordinate with the consolidated return regulations. Specifically, the final regulations provide that the designated entity of a controlled group, without regard to foreign corporations included under section 9008(d)(2)(B), that is a consolidated group (within the meaning of § 1.1502–1(h)) is the agent for the group (within the meaning of § 1.1502–77).

The temporary regulations required the designated entity to state under penalties of perjury that all the covered entities that are members of the controlled group have consented to the selection of the designated entity. The final regulations adopt this requirement and further require each member of the controlled group to maintain a record of its consent. The final regulations also require the designated entity to maintain a record of all of the members’ consents. Under the final regulations, this consent requirement does not apply to a controlled group that is a consolidated group (within the meaning of § 1.1502–1(h)). If a controlled group that is not a consolidated group does not select a designated entity, the final regulations provide that the IRS will select a designated entity and all covered entities in the controlled group will be deemed to have consented to the IRS’s selection of a designated entity.

Section 9008(e)(3) provides that the term branded prescription drug sales does not include sales of any drug or biological product with respect to which a credit was allowed for any taxable year under section 45C. Section 9008(e)(3) also provides that this exclusion does not apply with respect to any such drug or biological product after the date on which such drug or biological product is approved by the FDA for marketing for any indication other than the treatment of the rare disease or condition with respect to which such credit was allowed. In accordance with the statute, the temporary regulations generally defined the term orphan drug to mean any branded prescription drug for which any person claimed a section 45C credit and that credit was allowed for any taxable year. The temporary regulations further provided that an orphan drug does not include any drug for which there has been a final assessment or court order disallowing the full section 45C credit taken for the drug. Additionally, in accordance with the statute, the temporary regulations provided that an orphan drug does not include any drug for any sales year after the calendar year in which the FDA approved the drug for marketing for any indication other than the treatment of a rare disease or condition for which a section 45C credit was allowed, regardless of whether a section 45C credit was allowed for the drug before, in the same year as, or after this FDA approval.

Commenters requested that the final regulations treat a drug as an orphan drug if the section 45C credit was “allowable”; that is, the section 45C credit could have been claimed, but was not actually claimed. Another commenter requested that the final regulations extend orphan drug treatment to any drug for which the section 45C credit was allowable but for which a research tax credit under section 41 was claimed with respect to a taxable year ending on or before December 31, 2010. Several commenters also reasoned that the statutory exception for orphan drugs should be extended to any drug that has been designated by the FDA as an orphan drug. Commenters also requested that the final regulations extend the orphan drug exclusion to drug sales for therapies that have only been approved to treat orphan diseases, and to all products that are FDA-approved for marketing solely for rare diseases and conditions. The final regulations do not adopt these suggestions because the plain language of section 9008(e)(3) requires that the drug be an orphan drug for which the section 45C credit was actually allowed rather than merely allowable. The terms “allowed” and “allowable” have separate and distinct meanings throughout the Code. For example, under section 1016(a)(2), a taxpayer may adjust basis to the extent the amount was “allowed” as a deduction in computing taxable income but not less than the amount “allowable.”^[1] In addition, the overwhelming weight of authority under the case law interprets the term “allowed” in the Code to require the taxpayer to have actually taken the amount into account for tax purposes.^[2] The FDA’s mere classification of a drug as an orphan drug is not a determining factor because the plain language of section 9008(e)(3) applies the exclusion only to sales of drugs for which a section 45C credit was in fact allowed.

Commenters also requested that orphan drug status be given to a drug for which a section 45C credit was allowed, even though the drug had been subsequently approved by the FDA for marketing for an indication other than the treatment of a rare disease or condition for which a section 45C credit was allowed. The final regulations do not adopt this suggestion because the plain language of section 9008(e)(3) indicates that if a drug is ever approved for an indication other than the treatment of a rare disease or condition for which a section 45C credit was allowed, whether before, in the same year as, or after a section 45C credit was allowed for the drug, sales of that drug are not considered sales of an orphan drug beginning in the following sales year. However, a drug will retain its orphan drug status if the drug subsequently receives approval only for another indication for a rare disease or condition for which a section 45C credit was allowed.

The temporary regulations provided that, to determine branded prescription drug sales amounts for Medicare Part D, CMS will aggregate the ingredient cost reported in the “Ingredient Cost Paid” field and the units reported in the “Quantity Dispensed” field of the Prescription Drug Event (PDE) records at the NDC level for each sales year. Section 9008(g)(1)(A) requires Medicare Part D sales amounts to be reduced by “any per-unit rebate, discount, or other price concession provided by the covered entity.”

Commenters asked that the final regulations clarify how CMS determines these net sales amounts. The final regulations adopt this suggestion. The final regulations clarify that CMS will aggregate the “Ingredient Cost Paid” field on the PDE records at the NDC level, reduced by discounts, rebates, and other price concessions provided by the covered entity. To obtain this information, CMS uses two main data sources to determine net sales amounts: the PDE records and the Detailed Direct and Indirect Remuneration (DIR) Report. CMS obtains information for these two data sources from Medicare Part D sponsors.

The final regulations specifically define “discounts, rebates, and other price concessions provided by the covered entity” to include, in part, DIR. DIR is any and all rebates, subsidies, or other price concessions from any source (including manufacturers, pharmacies, enrollees, or any other person) that serve to decrease the costs incurred by the Medicare Part D sponsor (whether directly or indirectly) for the Medicare Part D drug. See 42 CFR 423.308. Thus, DIR includes discounts, chargebacks, rebates, cash discounts, free goods contingent on a purchase agreement, up-front payments, and coupons. DIR also includes goods in kind, free or reduced-price services, grants, legal judgment amounts, settlement amounts from lawsuits or other legal action, and other price concessions or similar benefits. However, DIR does not include price concessions that CMS does not consider to directly or indirectly impact drug costs incurred by the Medicare Part D sponsor.

The final regulations further provide that DIR includes both DIR reported on the PDE records at the point of sale and DIR reported on the Detailed DIR Report. The temporary regulations provided that, if CMS does not have Medicare Part D rebate information for a sales year, then the IRS will reduce the branded prescription drug sales reported for Medicare Part D by rebates reported by covered entities on Form 8947. This procedure was necessary for fee year 2011 because CMS did not have the information necessary to report Medicare Part D sales data net of DIR. To provide this data to the IRS at the individual drug level as the statute requires, CMS began to collect DIR at the NDC level from Medicare Part D sponsors for use in the 2012 fee year, which Medicare Part D sponsors report to CMS on the Detailed DIR Report. Medicare Part D sponsors also report DIR on the PDE records at the point of sale, though these amounts tend to be nominal. Therefore, since fee year 2012, CMS has been reporting its Medicare Part D sales data to the IRS net of all DIR by deducting from the Ingredient Cost both DIR reported on the PDE records at the point of sale and DIR reported on the Detailed DIR Report. The final regulations reflect this approach. As stated earlier in this preamble, the final regulations also eliminate the provision for separate reporting of Medicare Part D rebates by covered entities on Form 8947.

A commenter requested that the final regulations clarify the treatment of coverage gap discount amounts. The final regulations adopt this suggestion effective for fee years beginning in 2014. The Medicare Part D coverage gap, also known as the “donut hole,” is a gap in prescription drug coverage that is being closed due to the Affordable Care Act. Part of closing the coverage gap is the Coverage Gap Discount Program described in section 1860D–14A of the Social Security Act, which requires a 50-percent manufacturer-paid discount on covered brand-name drugs in certain instances. For fee years 2012 and 2013, CMS did not deduct coverage gap discount amounts from the Ingredient Cost. This comment, however, prompted CMS to recharacterize coverage gap discount amounts as a type of rebate, discount, or other price concession for purposes of the fee calculation. Therefore, beginning with the final fee calculation for fee year 2014, CMS will report Medicare Part D sales data to the IRS that is net of coverage gap discount amounts. The final regulations reflect this change.

The final regulations also remove the reference to the “Quantity Dispensed” field of the PDE records. This field has no impact on sales because CMS totals the ingredient cost at the NDC level and determines DIR reported on the PDE records at the point of sale and DIR reported on the Detailed DIR Report at the NDC level. Thus, the unit of reference used by CMS is consistently at the NDC level.

Commenters suggested that the final regulations require CMS to exclude sales in Puerto Rico in determining sales amounts for Medicare Part D. The final regulations do not adopt this suggestion. Section 9008(g) requires each Agency to report to the IRS the total branded prescription drug sales for each covered entity for each Program. Section 9008 does not provide any exclusion for sales in Puerto Rico or any other territory. When calculating its branded prescription drug sales data for Medicare Part D, CMS includes sales, DIR reported on the PDE records at the point of sale, and DIR reported on the Detailed DIR Report for all sales in the United States and its territories, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

The temporary regulations provided that CMS will determine branded prescription drug sales under Medicare Part B using two data sources. First, CMS will use the data reported by manufacturers pursuant to section 1847A(c) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–3a(c)) to calculate the annual weighted average sales price (ASP) for each Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System code (HCPCS code) for the sales year. Second, CMS will use the Medicare Part B National Summary Data File located at http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Files-for-Order/NonIdentifiableDataFiles/PartBNationalSummaryDataFile.html to obtain the number of allowed billing units per HCPCS code for claims incurred during the sales year. The temporary regulations further provided separate detailed methods for CMS to use this data to determine Medicare Part B sales amounts depending on whether (1) the HCPCS code consists solely and exclusively of branded prescription drugs manufactured by a single entity, (2) the HCPCS code consists of a mixture of branded prescription drugs made by different manufacturers and/or a mixture of branded prescription and generic drugs, or (3) CMS is unable to establish a reliable proportion of sales attributable to each NDC assigned to the HCPCS code.

Under the third method in the temporary regulations, if CMS is unable to establish a reliable proportion of sales attributable to each NDC assigned to the HCPCS code, CMS will calculate Medicare Part B sales by using Medicare Part D utilization percentages. A commenter requested that CMS develop a more accurate backup method. The final regulations do not adopt this suggestion. In CMS’s view, the existing backup method is sufficiently reliable. Additionally, CMS did not anticipate frequent use of this approach and has not needed to use the backup method for any fee calculation to date. The final regulations do, however, include a more detailed explanation of how CMS uses HCPCS codes as well as an example.

Commenters also expressed concern about whether Medicare Part B is capturing complete data on what are sometimes referred to as non-separately payable drugs. Non-separately payable drugs may not be directly correlated with a single specific HCPCS code. Some non-separately payable drugs are associated with more than one HCPCS code or are bundled with services, such as dialysis. CMS recognizes this concern and makes extensive effort to gather as complete a data set as possible. CMS will continue to work with the data available to capture non-separately payable drugs.

The temporary regulations provided that CMS will determine branded prescription drug sales as the per-unit Average Manufacturer Price (AMP) less the Unit Rebate Amount (URA) that CMS calculates based on manufacturer-reported pricing data multiplied by the number of units reported billed by the states to manufacturers. Specifically, the temporary regulations provided that for any covered entity identified in the first five (or six) digits of an NDC during any of the four quarters of a sales year, CMS uses the following methodology to derive the branded prescription sales amounts that account for third-party payers:

Step 1. Report total dollars per NDC for AMP minus URA, multiplied by the units reported by a state or states;

Step 2. Determine the percentage of the total amount reimbursed that is the Medicaid amount of that reimbursement; and

Step 3. Multiply the percentage of the Medicaid amount of that reimbursement by the dollar figure from step 1 (AMP minus URA, multiplied by units) to get the new adjusted sales dollar totals.

The final regulations clarify that CMS will determine branded prescription drug sales as the per-unit AMP less the URA that CMS calculates based on manufacturer-reported pricing data multiplied by the number of units reported as paid by the states rather than as billed by the states.

Commenters requested that the final regulations require Medicaid to use the per-unit ingredient cost paid to pharmacies by the states as provided in section 9008(g)(3) instead of AMP in computing total branded prescription drug sales. The final regulations do not adopt this suggestion. Medicaid does not have the ability to use the per-unit ingredient cost paid to pharmacies by the states because Medicaid systems are not designed to track drug sales data in this manner or obtain this type of detailed information from the states. Instead, Medicaid systems track drug sales data using AMP. AMP is the best alternative that Medicaid systems permit and serves as a reasonable proxy for the per-unit ingredient cost paid to pharmacies by the states.

The temporary regulations provided that Medicaid branded prescription drug sales data will be based on the data reported to CMS during the sales year by covered entities and the states for drugs paid for by the states in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program during the sales year. The final regulations clarify that the sales data is based on the data that covered entities report for the sales year rather than the data that covered entities report during the sales year because some reporting for a sales year may occur after that year ends.

Commenters requested that the final regulations clarify the meaning of the phrase “drugs paid for by the states in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program” and whether it includes units paid for under managed care organization plans. In response to this request, the final regulations specify that “drugs paid for by the states in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program” includes all branded prescription drug units for which the states bill rebates to covered entities under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. This program includes, but is not limited to, units paid for under various health care plans such as fee for service, managed care organizations, and drugs administered in a non-retail setting such as drugs administered in a physician’s office, clinic, hospital or other setting. Under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, states provide the required utilization data. States report separate totals for each NDC for both fee-for-service and managed care organization utilization data. Also, as stated earlier in this preamble, the final regulations specify that the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program’s calculated branded prescription drug fee does not include state-only pharmaceutical program sales or rebates.

Commenters asked how a covered entity can ensure that a state has updated its Medicaid data files to accurately reflect state rebates. This issue is beyond the scope of these regulations. However, since 2011, in the context of the dispute resolution process, CMS, IRS, and covered entities have devoted extensive resources to resolving discrepancies between a state’s reported rebate data that CMS uses to compute Medicaid’s branded prescription drug sales data for the IRS and the rebate data that covered entities receive from that state. To resolve these discrepancies on a timely basis, CMS has established a reconciliation process. To maximize the effectiveness of this reconciliation process, however, a covered entity must use the CMS reconciliation process in a timeframe that allows discrepancies to be resolved before CMS computes the branded prescription sales data that it sends the IRS for purposes of computing a covered entity’s preliminary fee calculation. A covered entity’s timely use of the CMS reconciliation process will help minimize, if not eliminate, the errors related to CMS’s Medicaid data that a covered entity would otherwise include in its error report. The web address for this resource is http://medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Benefits/Prescription-Drugs/Branded-Prescription-Drug.html. This CMS Medicaid Branded Prescription Drug Fee program webpage also has additional information regarding Medicaid sales data. Covered entities may e-mail questions to CMS Medicaid regarding the data used in this program at MedicaidBPD@cms.hhs.gov with “BPD” in the e-mail subject line.

The temporary regulations provided that VA will provide, by NDC, the total amount paid (net of refunds and rebates, when they are associated with a specific NDC) for each branded prescription drug procured by VA for its beneficiaries during the sales year. For this purpose, a drug is procured on the invoice (billing) date. The temporary regulations further provided that the basis of this information will be national procurement data reported during the sales year by VA’s Pharmaceutical Prime Vendor to the VA Pharmacy Benefits Management Service and National Acquisition Center.

A commenter requested that the final regulations require that the amount of the IFF and CRF be excluded from VA sales either by requiring VA to exclude these amounts from its sales data or by allowing a covered entity to report these amounts on its Form 8947. The final regulations do not adopt this suggestion. According to VA, these amounts are part of the total price VA pays to its Pharmaceutical Prime Vendor and are properly included in the sales amount.

A commenter requested that the final regulations confirm that VA sales data does not include DOD, Coast Guard, Indian Health, or other purchases made under the Federal Supply Schedule. VA does not include in its sales data purchases made by other agencies. Because the methodology in the regulations is already limited to purchases made by VA, the final regulations do not need further clarification.

The temporary regulations provided that, for DOD programs other than TRICARE, DOD will provide, by Labeler Code, the manufacturer’s name, the NDC, brand name, and the amount paid (net of rebates or refunds) for each branded prescription drug procured by DOD during the sales year. For this purpose, a drug is procured based upon the date it was ordered.

A commenter requested that the final regulations require that the amount of the Industrial Funding Fee (IFF) and the Cost Recovery Fee (CRF) be excluded from DOD sales, either by requiring DOD to exclude these fees from its sales data or by allowing a covered entity to report these fees on its Form 8947. The IFF and CRF are administrative fees that are added to the cost of purchasing under the Federal Supply Schedule and National Contract Service. The final regulations do not adopt this suggestion. According to DOD, these fee amounts are part of the total price DOD pays to procure a drug and are properly included in the sales amount.

The temporary regulations provided that DOD will provide, by Labeler Code, the manufacturer’s name, the NDC, brand name, and the amount paid (net of rebates or refunds) for each branded prescription drug procured by DOD through the TRICARE retail pharmacy program (TRICARE) during the sales year. For TRICARE, a drug is procured based upon the date it was dispensed. The amount paid is based on the submitted ingredient cost paid, aggregated by NDC, for eligible TRICARE claims submitted during the program year, minus any refunds or rebates for the corresponding claims.

Commenters expressed concern that TRICARE’s drug sales overlap with DOD and VA and asked that the final regulations address this perceived overlap. The final regulations do not adopt this suggestion. No overlap exists because TRICARE only reports sales from its retail pharmacy network, which is distinct from sales reported by DOD and VA. TRICARE, DOD, and VA separately maintain and report their own drug sales data.

Section 51.4T(f) described the TRICARE and DOD methodologies for calculating sales data. Section 51.4(f) continues to describe the DOD methodology. A new subsection, § 51.4(g), describes the TRICARE methodology.

As stated earlier in this preamble, because the use of the second preceding year as the sales year, rather than the immediately preceding year, may affect the amount of the fee paid by a covered entity, the temporary regulations provided that the annual fee due in every year after 2011 will include an adjustment amount. This adjustment amount will be added (or subtracted), as appropriate, to (or from) the fee otherwise payable by the covered entity in the fee year in which the adjustment is calculated.

A commenter asked that the final regulations provide for a separate dispute resolution process for the adjustment amount after the final fee calculation because errors reported in the dispute resolution process may not be resolved in time to be reflected in the final fee calculation. The final regulations do not adopt this suggestion. The adjustment amount is part of the preliminary fee calculation. Therefore, each covered entity has an opportunity to raise disputes regarding the adjustment amount during the existing dispute resolution process. Moreover, an adjustment to one covered entity’s final fee calculation would necessitate a recalculation of each covered entity’s prior final fee calculation because the fee is an allocated fee. The final regulations clarify that the IRS will not make adjustments to a final fee calculation.

Because the amount of the fee under the temporary regulations was based on sales from the second preceding year, commenters suggested that the final regulations allow a covered entity to reduce its fee liability in the same year that the covered entity experiences an event that would significantly reduce its sales to the Programs and make corresponding adjustments in future years. Such events may include a drug recall, a loss of patent exclusivity, or bankruptcy. The final regulations do not adopt this suggestion. The statute requires the IRS to determine each covered entity’s branded prescription drug sales on the basis of reports submitted by the Agencies and to uniformly apply the fee determination rules to each covered entity’s sales data. The methodology adopted in the final regulations ensures that the applicable fee amount is appropriately apportioned among the covered entities.

In accordance with section 9008(f)(1), the temporary regulations treated the fee as an excise tax for purposes of subtitle F. A commenter suggested that the final regulations provide for interest payments for adjustment amounts that are credited to a covered entity. The final regulations do not adopt this suggestion. Instead, the final regulations clarify that an adjustment amount itself is neither an overpayment nor an underpayment, but rather a component of the current year’s fee. Thus, for purposes of section 6601, any increase in the current year’s fee resulting from any adjustment amount, along with the remainder of the fee, is treated as due on the due date for the current year’s fee. Conversely, for purposes of section 6611, any adjustment amount that decreases the current year’s fee is treated as a payment towards the current fee amount made on the due date of the current fee year.

Commenters asked that the final regulations clarify whether a covered entity must file Form 843, “Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement,” to request that the IRS calculate an adjustment amount when a covered entity anticipates that it is entitled to a positive adjustment amount. As stated earlier in this preamble, a positive adjustment amount is not an overpayment. Accordingly, in response to this comment, the final regulations clarify that a covered entity does not file Form 843 to obtain an adjustment amount. The IRS automatically calculates adjustment amounts. Additionally, the final regulations clarify that if a covered entity’s adjustment amount reduces the fee below zero and results in an amount due to the covered entity for the fee year, the IRS will automatically pay this amount due to the covered entity.

Another commenter suggested that the final regulations clarify whether the period of limitations on filing a claim set forth in section 6511 applies to the adjustment amount. Under the final regulations, section 6511 applies to the fee, but not separately to the adjustment amount, because the adjustment amount is merely a component of the fee. For purposes of section 6511, any adjustment amount that decreases the current year’s fee is treated as a payment towards the current fee amount made on the due date of the current fee year.

The temporary regulations provided that, no later than August 31^st of each fee year, the IRS will send each covered entity its final fee calculation for that fee year. Several commenters suggested that the IRS send the final fee notice in an electronic format. The final regulations do not adopt this suggestion because it is outside the scope of these regulations. However, the final regulations do not prohibit the IRS from using an electronic format for the final fee notice. Moreover, at the time these comments were submitted, the IRS was already sending a covered entity’s sales data with its preliminary fee notice on a separate CD-ROM in Microsoft Excel format to each covered entity that timely requested it. After receiving these comments, the IRS began also sending a covered entity’s sales data with its final notice on a separate CD-ROM in Microsoft Excel format if the entity had made a timely request for the CD-ROM to be sent with its preliminary fee notice. More information about the manner for notifying covered entities of their preliminary and final fee calculations is contained in Notice 2014–42.

In accordance with section 9008(a)(2), the temporary regulations provided that each covered entity must pay its final fee by September 30^th of the fee year. A commenter suggested that the final regulations clarify whether section 7503 applies to the deadline for fee payment. Section 7503 provides that if the last day for performing an act required under the authority of the internal revenue laws falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday, the performance of the act is timely if the act is performed on the next succeeding day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday. The final regulations do not provide a special rule because section 9008(f)(1) and the final regulations treat the fee as an excise tax for purposes of subtitle F. Therefore, section 7503 applies to the deadline for fee payment.

The temporary regulations provided for a dispute resolution process that allows a covered entity to submit error reports in response to the preliminary fee calculation for the IRS to consider before performing the final fee calculation. The temporary regulations described the information that covered entities must submit. The final regulations adopt these provisions with the following minor changes that will allow the IRS to more accurately process a covered entity’s disputes.

The temporary regulations required that a Form 2848, “Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative” must be filed with an error report. The final regulations clarify that a Form 2848 is required only when the representative is not an employee of the covered entity who is authorized under section 6103 or designated on Form 8947 to discuss the information reported on Form 8947.

The temporary regulations required the name, telephone number, and e-mail address (if available) of one or more employees or representatives with whom errors may be discussed. The final regulations also require a fax number.

For Program errors, the temporary regulations required a covered entity to submit a separate error report for each Program with the asserted errors. For non-Program errors, the temporary regulations required a covered entity to submit one error report with all of the non-Program errors. To streamline the error reporting process, the final regulations require a covered entity to combine both Program and non-Program errors on a single error report, with each asserted error on a separate line.

The IRS notices, the revenue procedure, and the temporary regulations cited in this preamble are published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin and are available at www.irs.gov. The temporary regulations are also available in the Code of Federal Regulations.

(a) through (e)(2) [Reserved]. For further guidance see § 51.2(a) through (e)(2).

(3) Controlled Group. The term controlled group means a group of two or more persons, including at least one person that is a covered entity, that is treated as a single employer under section 52(a), 52(b), 414(m), or 414(o).

(e)(4) through (m) [Reserved]. For further guidance see § 51.2(e)(4) through (m).

Par. 5. Section 51.2 is added to read as follows:

(a) In general. This section explains the terms used in this part for purposes of the fee imposed by section 9008 on branded prescription drugs.

(b) Agencies. The term Agencies means—

(1) The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services of the Department of Health and Human Services (CMS);

(2) The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); and

(3) The Department of Defense (DOD).

(c) Branded prescription drug—(1) In general. The term branded prescription drug means—

(i) Any prescription drug the application for which was submitted under section 505(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)) (FFDCA); or

(ii) Any biological product the license for which was submitted under section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262(a)).

(2) Prescription drug. The term prescription drug means any drug that is subject to section 503(b) of the FFDCA.

(d) Branded prescription drug sales. The term branded prescription drug sales means sales of branded prescription drugs to any government program or pursuant to coverage under any such government program. However, the term does not include sales of orphan drugs.

(e) Covered entity—(1) In general. The term covered entity means any manufacturer or importer with gross receipts from branded prescription drug sales including—

(i) A single-person covered entity; or

(ii) A controlled group.

(2) Single-person covered entity. The term single-person covered entity means a covered entity that is not affiliated with a controlled group.

(3) Controlled group— (i) On or before December 31, 2014. The term controlled group means a group of at least two covered entities that are treated as a single employer under section 52(a), 52(b), 414(m), or 414(o).

(ii) After December 31, 2014. For guidance regarding the definition of controlled group after December 31, 2014, see § 51.2T(e)(3).

(4) Special rules for controlled groups. For purposes of paragraph (e)(3) of this section (related to controlled groups)—

(i) A foreign entity subject to tax under section 881 is included within a group under section 52(a) or 52(b); and

(ii) A person is treated as being a member of a controlled group if it is a member of the group on the end of the day on December 31^st of the sales year.

(5) Covered entity status—(i) Rule. An entity’s status as a covered entity begins in the first fee year in which the entity has branded prescription drug sales and continues each subsequent fee year until there are no remaining branded prescription drug sales for that entity to be taken into account as described in § 51.5(c) or used to calculate the adjustment amount described in § 51.5(e).

(ii) Example. The following example illustrates the rule of paragraph (e)(5)(i) of this section:

(A) Facts. Entity A is a manufacturer with gross receipts of more than $5 million from branded prescription drugs sales in 2011. Entity A does not have any gross receipts from branded prescription drug sales before or after 2011.

(B) Analysis. Entity A is a covered entity beginning in 2011 because it had gross receipts from branded prescription drug sales in 2011. For the 2011 fee year, Entity A does not owe a fee because the 2011 fee is based on sales data from the 2009 sales year. For the 2012 fee year, Entity A does not owe a fee because the 2012 fee is based on sales data from the 2010 sales year. Entity A continues to be a covered entity for the 2012 fee year because its branded prescription drug sales from the 2011 sales year have not yet been taken into account as described in § 51.5(c) and used to calculate the adjustment amount described in § 51.5(e). For the 2013 fee year, Entity A continues to be a covered entity because a portion of its branded prescription drug sales from the 2011 sales year are taken into account as described in § 51.5(c) for purposes of computing the 2013 fee. For the 2013 fee year, Entity A is also liable for the adjustment amount described in § 51.5(e) for the difference between its 2012 fee computed using sales data from the 2010 sales year, which is $0, and what the 2012 fee would have been using sales data from the 2011 sales year. For the 2014 fee year, Entity A continues to be a covered entity because a portion of its branded prescription drug sales for the 2011 sales year are used to calculate the adjustment amount described in § 51.5(e). Therefore, for the 2014 fee year, Entity A will receive an adjustment amount for the difference between its 2013 fee computed using sales data from the 2011 sales year, and what the 2013 fee would have been using sales data from the 2012 sales year, which is $0. After the 2014 fee year, there are no remaining branded prescription drug sales to be taken into account as described in § 51.5(c) or used to calculate the adjustment amount described in § 51.5(e) for Entity A. Accordingly, Entity A is not a covered entity after the 2014 fee year.

(f) Designated entity—(1) In general. The term designated entity means the person within a controlled group that is designated to act for the controlled group regarding the fee by—

(i) Filing Form 8947, “Report of Branded Prescription Drug Information”;

(ii) Receiving IRS communications about the fee for the group;

(iii) Filing an error report for the group, if applicable, as described in § 51.7; and

(iv) Paying the fee to the government.

(2) Selection of designated entity—(i) Controlled group selection of a designated entity. Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section, the controlled group may select a person as the designated entity by filing Form 8947 in accordance with the form instructions. The designated entity must state under penalties of perjury that all members of the controlled group have consented to the selection of the designated entity. The designated entity must maintain a record of all member consents. Each member of a controlled group must maintain a record of its consent to the controlled group’s selection of the designated entity.

(ii) Requirement for affiliated groups; agent for the group. If the controlled group, without regard to foreign corporations included under section 9008(d)(2)(B), is also an affiliated group whose common parent files a consolidated return for federal income tax purposes, the designated entity is the agent for the group (within the meaning of § 1.1502–77 of this title).

(iii) IRS selection of a designated entity. Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section, if a controlled group does not select a designated entity as provided in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section, the IRS will select a member of the controlled group as the designated entity for the controlled group. If the IRS selects the designated entity, then all members of that controlled group will be deemed to have consented to the IRS’s selection of the designated entity.

(g) Fee year. The term fee year means the calendar year in which the fee for a particular sales year must be paid to the government.

(h) Government programs. The term government programs (collectively “Programs”), means—

(1) The Medicare Part B program;

(2) The Medicare Part D program;

(3) The Medicaid program;

(4) Any program under which branded prescription drugs are procured by the Department of Veterans Affairs;

(5) Any program under which branded prescription drugs are procured by the Department of Defense; and

(6) The TRICARE retail pharmacy program.

(i) Manufacturer or importer. The term manufacturer or importer means the person identified in the Labeler Code of the National Drug Code (NDC) for a branded prescription drug.

(j) NDC. The term NDC means the National Drug Code. The NDC is a unique identifier that is assigned to all drug products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including a branded prescription drug. The Labeler Code is the first five numeric characters of the NDC or the first six numeric characters when the available five-character code combinations are exhausted.

(k) Orphan drugs—(1) In general. Except as provided in paragraph (k)(2) of this section, the term orphan drug means any branded prescription drug for which any person claimed a section 45C credit and that credit was allowed for any taxable year.

(2) Exclusions. The term orphan drug does not include—

(i) Any drug for which there has been a final assessment or court order disallowing the full section 45C credit taken for the drug; or

(ii) Any drug for any sales year after the calendar year in which the FDA approved the drug for marketing for any indication other than the treatment of a rare disease or condition for which a section 45C credit was allowed, regardless of whether a section 45C credit was allowed for the drug before, in the same year as, or after this FDA designation.

(3) FDA marketing approval for treatment of another rare disease or condition. If a drug has prior FDA marketing approval for the treatment of a rare disease or condition for which a section 45C credit was allowed, and the FDA subsequently gives the drug marketing approval for the treatment of another rare disease or condition for which another section 45C credit was also allowed, the drug retains its status as an orphan drug provided the FDA has never approved the drug for marketing for any indication other than the treatment of a rare disease or condition for which a section 45C credit was allowed.

(4) Examples. The following examples illustrate the rules of this paragraph (k):

Example 1: Allowance of section 45C credit and later FDA marketing approval of drug for an indication other than the treatment of a rare disease or condition. (i) Facts. Drug A is a branded prescription drug that was not on the market before 2011. In 2011, a covered entity claimed a section 45C credit for its qualified clinical testing expenses related to Drug A. There was no final IRS assessment or court order that disallowed the full credit for Drug A. In 2012, the FDA approved Drug A for marketing for an indication other than the treatment of the rare disease or condition for which the section 45C credit was allowed and this indication was not for another rare disease or condition for which a section 45C was allowed.

(ii) Analysis. In 2011 and 2012, Drug A is an orphan drug because: first, it was a branded prescription drug for which a person claimed a section 45C credit and for which that credit was allowed for a taxable year; second, there was not a final assessment or court order disallowing the full credit taken for the drug; and third, before 2012, the FDA did not approve the drug for marketing for any indication other than the treatment of a rare disease or condition for which a section 45C credit was allowed. However, Drug A is not an orphan drug for the 2013 sales year or later sales years because in 2012 the FDA approved Drug A for marketing for an indication other than the treatment of the rare disease or condition for which the section 45C credit was allowed and this indication was not for treatment of another rare disease or condition for which a section 45C credit was allowed.

Example 2: FDA marketing approval of drug for an indication other than the treatment of a rare disease or condition and later allowance of section 45C credit. (i) Facts. Drug B is a branded prescription drug that was not on the market before 2011. In 2011, FDA approved Drug B for marketing for the treatment of a rare disease or condition and also approved Drug B for marketing for an indication other than the treatment of a rare disease or condition. In 2012, a covered entity claimed a section 45C credit for its qualified clinical testing expenses related to Drug B. There was no final IRS assessment or court order that disallowed the full credit for Drug B.

(ii) Analysis. In 2011, Drug B is not an orphan drug because no section 45C credit was allowed and because the FDA approved Drug B for an indication other than the treatment of a rare disease or condition. In 2012, although the covered entity was allowed a section 45C credit for its qualified clinical testing expenses related to Drug B and there was no final IRS assessment or court order that disallowed the full credit, Drug B still is not an orphan drug because the FDA had approved the drug in 2011 for marketing for an indication other than the treatment of a rare disease or condition for which a section 45C credit was allowed in 2012. Thus, Drug B is not an orphan drug for the 2012 sales year or later sales years.

Example 3: Allowance of section 45C credit and subsequent allowance of section 45C credit with no intervening FDA marketing approval of drug for an indication other than the treatment of a rare disease or condition for which a section 45C credit was allowed. (i) Facts. Drug C is a branded prescription drug that was not on the market before 2010. In 2010, a covered entity claimed a section 45C credit for its qualified clinical testing expenses related to Drug C. In 2012, a covered entity claimed an additional section 45C credit for its qualified clinical testing expenses related to Drug C for marketing for the treatment of a rare disease or condition different than the one for which the section 45C credit was claimed in 2010. There was no final IRS assessment or court order that disallowed the full credit for Drug C in 2010 or 2012. The FDA has not approved Drug C for an indication other than the treatment of a rare disease or condition for which a section 45C was allowed.

(ii) Analysis. In 2010 and 2011, Drug C is an orphan drug because: first, it was a branded prescription drug for which a person claimed a section 45C credit and for which that credit was allowed for a taxable year; second, there was not a final assessment or court order disallowing the full credit taken for the drug; and third, FDA had not approved the drug for marketing for any indication other than the treatment of a rare disease or condition for which a section 45C credit was allowed. In 2012, Drug C retains its orphan drug status because another section 45C credit was allowed and the FDA did not approve Drug C for marketing for any indication other than the treatment of another rare disease or condition for which a section 45C credit was allowed. Thus, Drug C is an orphan drug for the 2013 sales year.

(l) Sales taken into account. The term sales taken into account means branded prescription drug sales after application of the percentage adjustment table in section 9008(b)(2) (relating to annual sales less than $400,000,001). See § 51.5(a)(3).

(m) Sales year. The term sales year means the second calendar year preceding the fee year. Thus, for example, for the fee year of 2014, the sales year is 2012.

Par. 6. Section 51.3 is added to read as follows:

(a) In general. Annually, each covered entity may submit a completed Form 8947, “Report of Branded Prescription Drug Information,” in accordance with the instructions for the form. Generally, the form solicits information from covered entities on NDCs, orphan drugs, designated entities, rebates, and other information specified by the form or its instructions.

(b) Due date. Form 8947 must be filed by the date prescribed in guidance in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.

(a) In general. For each sales year, the IRS will compile a list of branded prescription drugs by NDC using the data submitted on Forms 8947 and in error reports submitted as part of the dispute resolution process (described in § 51.7) and, after applying appropriate due diligence, will provide this list to the Agencies. The Agencies will provide data to the IRS on branded prescription drug sales that occurred during the sales year by Program and NDC. The Agencies will provide data for use in preparing the preliminary fee calculation (described in §§ 51.5 and 51.6) and may revise or supplement that data following review of error reports submitted as part of the dispute resolution process. The calculation methodology for calculating the sales amounts for each Program, including any reasonable estimation techniques and assumptions that the Agencies expect to use, is described in this section.

(b) Medicare Part D—(1) In general. CMS will determine branded prescription drug sales under Medicare Part D by aggregating the ingredient cost reported in the “Ingredient Cost Paid” field on the Prescription Drug Event (PDE) records at the NDC level, reduced by discounts, rebates, and other price concessions provided by the covered entity, for each sales year. CMS will only include PDE data that Part D sponsors have submitted by the PDE submission deadline (within 6 months after the end of the sales year) and that CMS has approved for inclusion in the Part D payment reconciliation.

(2) Discounts, rebates, and other price concessions—(i) In general. For purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the term discounts, rebates, and other price concessions means:

(A) Any direct and indirect remuneration (DIR) (within the meaning of paragraph (b)(2)(B) of this section), which includes any DIR reported on the PDE records at the point of sale and any DIR reported on a Detailed DIR Report (within the meaning of paragraph (b)(2)(C) of this section); and

(B) Any coverage gap discount amount (within the meaning of paragraph (b)(2)(D) of this section).

(ii) Direct and indirect remuneration. For purposes of paragraph (b)(2)(A)(i) of this section, the term direct and indirect remuneration (DIR) has the same meaning as found in the definition of actually paid in 42 CFR 423.308.

(iii) Detailed DIR Report. For purposes of paragraph (b)(2)(A)(i) of this section, the term Detailed DIR Report means the report containing any DIR (within the meaning of paragraph (b)(2)(B) of this section) that is collected yearly from Part D sponsors at the NDC level.

(iv) Coverage gap discount amount. For purposes of paragraph (b)(2)(A)(ii) of this section, the term coverage gap discount amount means a 50-percent manufacturer-paid discount on certain drugs under the Coverage Gap Discount Program described in section 1860D–14A of the Social Security Act.

(c) Medicare Part B—(1) In general. CMS will determine branded prescription drug sales under Medicare Part B using the following two data sources:

(i) CMS will use data reported by manufacturers pursuant to section 1847A(c) of the Social Security Act to calculate the annual weighted average sales price (ASP) for each Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) code for the sales year.

(ii) CMS will use the Medicare Part B National Summary Data File located at http://www.cms.gov/NonIdentifiableDataFiles/03_PartBNationalSummaryDataFile.asp to obtain the number of allowed billing units per HCPCS code for claims incurred during the sales year.

(2) Calculation—(i) In general. Using the data described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, CMS will determine branded prescription drugs sales under Medicare Part B as described in paragraphs (c)(3), (4), and (5) of this section. CMS reports sales amounts per HCPCS billing code, not per NDC. Therefore, a covered entity’s total Part B sales amounts for all NDCs in a given HCPCS billing code appears under only one NDC in each HCPCS billing code and the covered entity’s remaining NDCs in the HCPCS billing code are listed with a sales amount of zero.

(ii) Example of a Part B sales report:

(3) HCPCS code; single entity. For each HCPCS code consisting solely and exclusively of branded prescription drugs (as identified by their respective NDCs) manufactured by a single entity, CMS will multiply the annual weighted ASP by the total number of allowed billing units paid during the sales year to determine the total sales for all NDCs associated with the HCPCS code attributed to Medicare Part B.

(4) HCPCS code; multiple manufacturers and/or multiple drugs—(i) Step one. For each HCPCS code consisting of a mixture of branded prescription drugs made by different manufacturers and/or a mixture of branded prescription and generic drugs, CMS will determine—

(A) The annual weighted ASP for the HCPCS code;

(B) The total number of allowed billing units paid by Medicare Part B for each HCPCS code during the sales year;

(C) The names of the entities engaged in manufacturing each NDC assigned to the HCPCS code; and

(D) Those entities (if any) identified in paragraph (c)(4)(C) of this section that are manufacturing branded prescription drugs assigned to the HCPCS code.

(ii) Step two. Using the information from paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section, CMS will then do the following:

(A) Calculate the proportion of sales, expressed as a percentage, attributed to each NDC assigned to the HCPCS code by determining the percentage of total sales reported to CMS by each manufacturer of NDC(s) that are assigned to the HCPCS code. For example, if HCPCS code JXXXX contains three drugs with a total of $310,000 sales reported by manufacturers to CMS for the sales year, and $100,000 was reported for Drug A, $200,000 was reported for Drug B, and $10,000 was reported for Drug C, the proportion of sales attributed to each NDC will be 32.26 percent for Drug A, 64.52 percent for Drug B, and 3.22 percent for Drug C; and

(B) For each NDC, multiply the product of the annual weighted ASP and the total allowed billing units paid by Medicare Part B for the HCPCS code by the proportion of sales calculated in paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(A) of this section to determine the sales reportable to the IRS (that is, percentage × (annual weighted ASP × allowed units) = total sales reported to IRS for the NDC). The sales for each manufacturer’s NDCs assigned to a HCPCS code are summed and the total sales for each manufacturer’s NDCs in a HCPCS code will be reported to the IRS.

(5) HCPCS code; unable to establish a reliable proportion of sales. If CMS is unable to establish a reliable proportion of sales attributable to each NDC assigned to the HCPCS code using the method described in paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(A) of this section, CMS will use Medicare Part D utilization percentages in lieu of the proportion of sales determined under paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(A) of this section to perform the calculation described in paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(B) of this section.

(d) Medicaid. (1) CMS will determine the branded prescription drug sales for Medicaid as the per-unit Average Manufacturer Price (AMP) less the Unit Rebate Amounts (URA) that CMS calculates based on manufacturer-reported pricing data multiplied by the number of units reported billed by states to manufacturers. This data will be based on the data reported to CMS for the sales year by covered entities and the states for drugs paid for by the states in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program for the sales year. The data will include all branded prescription drug units for which the states bill rebates to covered entities under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. This program includes, but is not limited to, units paid for under various health care plans such as fee for service, managed care organizations, and drugs administered in a non-retail setting such as drugs administered in a physician’s office, clinic, hospital or other setting. The Medicaid Drug Rebate Program’s calculated branded prescription drug fee does not include state-only pharmaceutical program sales or rebates.

(2) For any covered entity identified in the first five (or six) digits of an NDC during any of the four quarters of a sales year, CMS will use the following methodology to derive the sales figures that account for third-party payers, such as Medicare Part B:

(i) Report total dollars per NDC for AMP minus URA multiplied by the units reported by a state or states.

(ii) Determine the percentage of the total amount reimbursed that is the Medicaid amount of that reimbursement. For example, if the total amount reimbursed is $100,000, and the Medicaid amount reimbursed is $20,000, then the percentage is 20 percent.

(iii) Multiply the percentage of the Medicaid amount of that reimbursement (in the example in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section, 20 percent) by the dollar figure derived from paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section (AMP minus URA multiplied by units) to get the new adjusted sales dollar totals.

(e) Department of Veterans Affairs. VA will determine branded prescription drug sales to VA by providing, by NDC, the total amount paid (net of refunds and rebates, when they are associated with a specific NDC) for each branded prescription drug procured by VA for its beneficiaries during the sales year. For this purpose, a drug is procured on the invoice (billing) date. The basis of this information will be national procurement data reported during the sales year by VA’s Pharmaceutical Prime Vendor to the VA Pharmacy Benefits Management Service and National Acquisition Center. VA sales data includes the Industrial Funding Fee and the Cost Recovery Fee because these amounts are part of the price VA pays to its Pharmaceutical Prime Vendor to procure a drug.

(f) Department of Defense. DOD will determine branded prescription drug sales to DOD (for DOD programs other than the TRICARE retail pharmacy program) by providing, by Labeler Code, the manufacturer’s name, the NDC, brand name, and the amount paid (net of rebates and or refunds) for each branded prescription drug procured by DOD (for DOD programs other than the TRICARE retail pharmacy program) during the sales year. For DOD programs other than the TRICARE retail pharmacy program, a drug is procured based upon the date it was ordered. DOD includes the Industrial Funding Fee and the Cost Recovery Fee in its drug sales data because these amounts are part of the price DOD pays to procure a drug.

(g) TRICARE. DOD will determine branded prescription drug sales to DOD for the TRICARE retail pharmacy program by providing, by Labeler Code, the manufacturer’s name, the NDC, brand name, and the amount paid (net of rebates or refunds) for each branded prescription drug procured by DOD through the TRICARE retail pharmacy program during the sales year. For the TRICARE retail pharmacy program, a drug is procured based upon the date it was dispensed. The amount paid is based on the submitted ingredient cost paid, aggregated by NDC, for eligible TRICARE retail pharmacy claims submitted during the program year, minus any refunds or rebates for the corresponding claims.

(a) Fee components—(1) In general. For every fee year, the IRS will calculate a covered entity’s total fee as described in this section. The IRS will determine a covered entity’s total fee by applying, if applicable, the adjustment amount described in paragraph (e) of this section to the entity’s allocated fee described in paragraph (d) of this section.

(2) Calculation of branded prescription drug sales. Each covered entity’s allocated fee for any fee year is equal to an amount that bears the same ratio to the applicable amount as the covered entity’s branded prescription drug sales taken into account during the sales year bears to the aggregate branded prescription drug sales of all covered entities taken into account during the sales year.

(3) Applicable amount. The applicable amounts for fee years are—

(4) Sales taken into account. A covered entity’s branded prescription drug sales taken into account during any calendar year are as follows:

(b) Determination of branded prescription drug sales. The IRS will compile each covered entity’s branded prescription drug sales for each Program by NDC. Each NDC will be attributed to the covered entity identified in the Labeler Code as of the end of the day on December 31^st of the sales year. For a covered entity that is a controlled group, this includes all NDCs in which a member of the covered entity is identified. For this purpose, the IRS may revise the list of NDCs as a result of information received in the dispute resolution process, and the data the IRS uses to produce the final fee calculation will include any revisions provided by the Agencies at the completion of the dispute resolution process. Each covered entity’s branded prescription drug sales will be reduced by its Medicaid state supplemental rebate amounts in the following manner. If CMS has Medicaid state supplemental rebate information for a sales year, CMS will report to the IRS branded prescription drug sales for Medicaid net of Medicaid state supplemental rebates. If CMS does not have complete Medicaid state supplemental rebate information for a sales year, the IRS will reduce the branded prescription drug sales that CMS reported for Medicaid by Medicaid state supplemental rebates reported by the covered entities on Form 8947.

(c) Determination of sales taken into account. (1) For each sales year and for each covered entity, the IRS will calculate sales taken into account. The resulting number is the numerator of the ratio described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.

(2) For each sales year, the IRS will calculate the aggregate branded prescription drug sales taken into account for all covered entities. The resulting number is the denominator of the ratio described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.

(d) Allocated fee calculation. For each covered entity for each fee year, the IRS will calculate the entity’s allocated fee by multiplying the applicable amount from paragraph (a)(2) of this section by a fraction—

(1) The numerator of which is the covered entity’s branded prescription drug sales taken into account during the sales year (described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section); and

(2) The denominator of which is the aggregate branded prescription drug sales taken into account for all covered entities during the same year (described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section).

(e) Adjustment amount—(1) In general. In addition to the allocated fee computed under paragraph (d) of this section, the IRS will also automatically calculate for each covered entity an adjustment amount. An adjustment amount reflects the difference between the allocated fee determined for the covered entity in the immediately preceding fee year, using data from the second calendar year preceding that fee year, and what the allocated fee would have been for that entity for the immediately preceding fee year using data from the calendar year immediately preceding that fee year. For example, for 2014, the adjustment amount for a covered entity will be the difference between the entity’s 2013 allocated fee, using 2011 data, and what the 2013 allocated fee would have been using 2012 data. Although the adjustment reflects a revision of the prior year’s fee based on data from the year immediately preceding the prior fee year, the adjustment is only taken into account by adding it to or subtracting it from the allocated fee computed under paragraph (d) of this section for the current fee year to arrive at the total fee for the current fee year. An adjustment amount is treated as a component of the current year’s fee. For purposes of section 6601, any increase in the allocated fee computed under paragraph (d) of this section for the current fee year resulting from any adjustment amount, along with the remainder of the fee, is treated as a fee liability due on the due date for the current year’s fee. For purposes of sections 6511 and 6611, any adjustment amount that decreases the allocated fee computed under paragraph (d) of this section for the current fee year is treated as a payment towards the current fee liability made on the due date of the current fee year.

(2) Amounts paid to a covered entity because of an adjustment amount. If a covered entity’s adjustment amount reduces the fee computed under paragraph (d) of this section below zero and results in an amount due to the covered entity for the fee year, the IRS will pay this amount due to the covered entity. A covered entity does not file Form 843, Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement, to receive this amount owed to a covered entity.

(a) Content of notice. For each sales year, the IRS will make a preliminary calculation of the fee for each covered entity as described in § 51.5. The IRS will notify each covered entity of its preliminary fee calculation for that sales year. The notification to a covered entity of its preliminary fee calculation will include—

(1) The covered entity’s allocated fee;

(2) The covered entity’s branded prescription drug sales, by NDC, by Program;

(3) The covered entity’s branded prescription drug sales taken into account after application of § 51.5(a)(4);

(4) The aggregate branded prescription drug sales taken into account for all covered entities;

(5) The covered entity’s adjustment amount calculated as described in § 51.5(e); and

(6) A reference to the fee dispute resolution procedures set forth in guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.

(b) Time of notice. The IRS will send each covered entity notice of its preliminary fee calculation by the date prescribed in guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.

(a) In general. Upon receipt of its preliminary fee calculation, each covered entity will have an opportunity to dispute this calculation by submitting to the IRS an error report as described in this section. The IRS will provide its final determination with respect to error reports no later than the time the IRS provides a covered entity with a final fee calculation.

(b) Error report information. To assert that there have been one or more errors in the drug sales data reported by a Program, the mathematical calculation of the fee, the rebate data, the listing of an NDC for an orphan drug, or any other error, a covered entity must submit an error report with each asserted error reported on a separate line. The report must include the following information—

(1) Entity name, address, and Employer Identification Number (EIN) as previously reported on the Form 8947;

(2) The name, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address (if available) of one or more employees or representatives of the entity with whom the IRS may discuss the claimed errors. If the representative is not an employee of the covered entity who is authorized under section 6103 or designated on Form 8947 to discuss the information reported on Form 8947 with the IRS, a Form 2848, “Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative,” must be filed with the error report;

(3) For an error in the drug sales data reported by a Program, the name of the Program that reported the data, the NDC, the specific amount of sales data disputed, the proposed corrected amount, an explanation of why the Agency should use the proposed corrected data instead, and documentation of any Program drug sales data or other information used to establish the existence of any errors.

(4) For a mathematical calculation error, the specific calculation element(s) that the entity disputes and its proposed corrected calculation;

(5) For a rebate data error, the NDC for the drug to which it relates; a discussion of whether the data used in the preliminary fee calculation matches previously reported Form 8947 data on rebates; and, if the data used in the preliminary fee calculation does match the Form 8947 data, an explanation of why the Form 8947 data was erroneous and why the IRS should use the proposed corrected data instead;

(6) For the listing of an NDC for an orphan drug, the name and NDC of the orphan drug; a discussion of whether the data used in the preliminary fee calculation matches previously reported Form 8947 data on orphan drugs; and, if the data used in the preliminary fee calculation does match the Form 8947 data, an explanation of why the Form 8947 data was erroneous and why the IRS should use the proposed corrected data instead;

(7) For any other asserted error, an explanation of the nature of the error, how the error affects the fee calculation, an explanation of how the entity established that an error occurred, the proposed correction to the error, and an explanation of why the IRS or Agency should use the proposed corrected data instead;

(8) If an entity is using data to establish the existence of an error and that data was not reported on Form 8947 or contained in the notification of the preliminary fee calculation, a description of what the data is, how the entity acquired the data, and who maintains it; and

(9) Documentation of any rebate and orphan drug data, or other information used to establish the existence of any errors.

(c) Form, manner, and timing of submission. Each covered entity must submit its error report(s) in the form and manner that is prescribed in guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin. This guidance will also prescribe the date by which each covered entity must submit its report(s).

(d) Finality. A covered entity must assert any basis for contesting its preliminary fee calculation during the dispute resolution period. In the interest of providing finality to the fee calculation process, the IRS will not accept an error report after the end of the dispute resolution period or alter the final fee calculation on the basis of information provided after the end of the dispute resolution period.

(a) Notification of final fee calculation. No later than August 31^st of each fee year, the IRS will send each covered entity its final fee calculation for that year. In any fee year, the IRS will base its final fee calculation on data provided to it by the Agencies as adjusted pursuant to the dispute resolution process. The notification to a covered entity of its final fee calculation will include—

(1) The covered entity’s allocated fee;

(2) The covered entity’s adjustment amount calculated as described in § 51.5;

(3) The covered entity’s branded prescription drug sales, by NDC, by Program;

(4) The covered entity’s branded prescription drug sales taken into account after application of § 51.5(a)(4);

(5) The aggregate branded prescription drug sales taken into account for all covered entities; and

(6) The final determination with respect to error reports.

(b) Differences in preliminary fee calculation and final fee calculation. A covered entity’s final fee calculation may differ from the covered entity’s preliminary fee calculation because of changes made pursuant to the dispute resolution process described in § 51.7. Even if a covered entity did not file an error report described in § 51.7, a covered entity’s final fee may differ from a covered entity’s preliminary fee because of a change in data reported by the Agencies after resolution of error reports, including a change in the aggregate prescription drug sales figure. A change in aggregate prescription drug sales data can affect each covered entity’s fee because each covered entity’s fee is a fraction of the aggregate fee collected from all covered entities. A covered entity’s final fee may also differ from its preliminary fee calculation because the data used in the preliminary fee calculation may have contained inaccurate branded prescription drug sales information that was corrected or updated at the conclusion of the dispute resolution process.

(c) Payment of final fee. Each covered entity must pay its final fee by September 30^th of the fee year. For a controlled group, the payment must be made using the designated entity’s EIN as reported on Form 8947. The fee must be paid by electronic funds transfer as required by § 51.6302–1. There is no tax return to be filed for the fee.

(d) Joint and several liability. In the case of a controlled group that is liable for the fee, all members of the controlled group are jointly and severally liable for the fee. Accordingly, if a controlled group’s fee is not paid, the IRS will separately assess each member of the group for the full amount of the controlled group’s fee.

(a) Treatment as an excise tax. The fee imposed by section 9008 is treated as an excise tax for purposes of subtitle F of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) (sections 6001–7874). Thus, references in subtitle F to “taxes imposed by this title,” “internal revenue tax,” and similar references, are also references to the fee imposed by section 9008. For example, the fee imposed by section 9008 is assessed (section 6201), collected (sections 6301, 6321, and 6331), enforced (section 7402 and 7403), subject to examination and summons (section 7602), and subject to confidentiality rules (section 6103) in the same manner as taxes imposed by the Code.

(b) Deficiency procedures. The deficiency procedures of sections 6211–6216 do not apply to the fee imposed by section 9008.

(c) Limitation on assessment. The IRS must assess the amount of the fee for any fee year within three years of September 30^th of that fee year.

(d) Application of section 275. The fee is treated as a tax described in section 275(a)(6) (relating to taxes for which no deduction is allowed).

Any claim for a refund of the fee must be made by the person that paid the fee to the government and must be made on Form 843, “Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement,” in accordance with the instructions for that form.

(a) through (b) [Reserved]. For further guidance see § 51.11(a) through (b).

(c) Section 51.2T(e)(3) applies to any fee on branded prescription drug sales that is due on or after January 1, 2015.

(d) The applicability of § 51.2T(e)(3) expires on July 24, 2017.

Par. 23. Section 51.11 is added to read as follows:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, §§ 51.1 through 51.10 apply on and after July 28, 2014.

(b) Section 51.2(e)(3) applies on July 28, 2014 through December 31, 2014.

(c) [Reserved]. For further guidance see § 51.11T(c).

(a) Fee to be paid by electronic funds transfer. Under the authority of section 6302(a), the fee imposed on branded prescription drug sales by section 9008 and § 51.5 must be paid by electronic funds transfer as defined in § 31.6302–1(h)(4)(i) of this title, as if the fee were a depository tax. For the time for paying the fee, see § 51.8.

(b) Effective/applicability date. This section applies on and after July 28, 2014.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

Approved July 22, 2014.

(1) Step 1: Determine adjusted gross income, modified adjusted gross income, and household income by taking a § 162(l) deduction for the amount of specified premiums after applying the limit in section 5.03;

(2) Step 2: Compute the initial premium tax credit using the adjusted gross income, modified adjusted gross income, and household income determined in Step 1;

(3) Step 3: Determine the § 162(l) deduction by subtracting the Step 2 premium tax credit amount from the specified premiums and then applying the limit in section 5.03;

(4) Step 4: Compute the final premium tax credit using the adjusted gross income, modified adjusted gross income and household income determined by taking into account the § 162(l) deduction in Step 3.

The taxpayer may claim the amount of the premium tax credit determined under Step 4 and the amount of § 162(l) deduction for the specified premiums determined under Step 3.

(1) This section 5.03 applies to the iterative calculation in section 5.01 and the alternative calculation in section 5.02. See Example 1 of section 7 for an example illustrating this section 5.03.

(2) A taxpayer’s § 162(l) deduction may not exceed the lesser of:

(A) The taxpayer’s earned income (within the meaning of § 401(c)) derived by the taxpayer from the trade or business with respect to which the health insurance is established; and

(B) The sum of (1) the specified premiums not paid through advance credit payments, and (2) the limitation on additional tax determined under § 1.36B–4T(a)(3)(iii).

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.36B–2(b)(2) is the same as the text of § 1.36B–2T(b)(2) published elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin].

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) * * *

(v) * * *

(C) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.36B–2(c)(3)(v)(C) is the same as the text of § 1.36B–2T(c)(3)(v)(C) published elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin].

* * * * *

(d) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.36B–2(d) is the same as the text of § 1.36B–2T(d) published elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin].

Par. 3. Section 1.36B–3 is amended by revising paragraph (g)(1) and adding paragraph (m) to read as follows:

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(1) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.36B–3(g)(1) is the same as the text of § 1.36B–3T(g)(1) published elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin].

* * * * *

(m) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.36B–3(m) is the same as the text of § 1.36B–3T(m) published elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin].

Par. 4. Section 1.36B–4 is amended by:

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.36B–4(a)(1)(ii) is the same as the text of § 1.36B–4T(a)(1)(ii) published elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin].

* * * * *

(3) * * *

(iii) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.36B–4(a)(3)(iii) is the same as the text of § 1.36B–4T(a)(3)(iii) published elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin].

(4) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.36B–4, Example 4, Example 10, Example 11, Example 12, Example 13, and Example 14 of paragraph (a)(4) is the same as the text of § 1.36B–4T(a)(4), Example 4, Example 10, Example 11, Example 12, Example 13, and Example 14 published elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin].

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.36B–4(b)(3) is the same as the text of § 1.36B–4T(b)(3) published elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin].

(4) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.36B–4(b)(4) is the same as the text of § 1.36B–4T(b)(4) published elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin].

(5) Examples. * * *

[The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.36B–4, Example 9 and Example 10 of paragraph (b)(5) is the same as the text of § 1.36B–4T, Example 9 and Example 10 of paragraph (b)(5) published elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin].

* * * * *

(c) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.36B–4(c) is the same as the text of § 1.36B–4T(c) published elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin].

Par 5. Section 1.162(l)–1 is added to read as follows:

[The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.162(l)–1(a) through (c) is the same as the text of § 1.162(l)–1T(a) through (c) published elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin].

Section 446(b) provides that, if no method of accounting has been regularly used by the taxpayer, taxable income shall be computed under a method that, in the opinion of the Secretary, clearly reflects income. The term “method of accounting” includes a taxpayer’s overall method of accounting and the accounting treatment of any item. § 1.446–1(a)(1).

In response to concerns regarding the tax compliance burdens associated with frequent redemptions of shares in floating-NAV MMFs, these proposed regulations describe a permissible, simplified method of accounting for gain or loss on shares in a floating-NAV MMF (the net asset value method, or NAV method). The NAV method, in the opinion of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, is a method of accounting that clearly reflects income from gain or loss on shares in floating-NAV MMFs. Under this method, gain or loss is based on the change in the aggregate value of the shares in the floating-NAV MMF during a computation period (which may be the taxpayer’s taxable year or certain shorter periods) and the net amount of the purchases and redemptions during the period. More specifically, the taxpayer’s net gain or loss from shares in a floating-NAV MMF for a computation period generally equals the value of the taxpayer’s shares in the MMF at the end of the period, minus the value of the taxpayer’s shares in the MMF at the end of the prior period, minus the taxpayer’s net investment in the MMF during the period. The NAV method does not change the tax treatment of, or broker reporting requirements for, dividends from floating-NAV MMFs.

The proposed method simplifies tax computations by basing them on the aggregate of all transactions in a period and on aggregate fair market values. Every floating-NAV MMF must compute these fair market values for non-tax purposes regardless of how—or even whether—the MMF’s shareholders are taxed on transactions in the MMF shares. The NAV method takes into account changes in value of floating-NAV MMF shares without regard to realization.

Under the NAV method, the character of a shareholder’s net gain or loss depends on the character of the underlying MMF shares in the shareholder’s hands. If all of a taxpayer’s floating-NAV MMF shares in an account would yield capital (or ordinary) gain or loss, then net gain or loss under the NAV method is also capital (or ordinary). When shareholders recognize a net capital gain or loss under the NAV method, the proposed regulations provide that this gain or loss is short term. This holding period convention is necessary because the aggregation that is part of the method makes normal holding period determinations impracticable.

Under the NAV method, any basis adjustment imposed under internal revenue law with respect to shares in floating-NAV MMFs will generally give rise to gain or loss in the year of the adjustment. For example, if the basis of shares in a floating-NAV MMF is reduced under section 108(b)(2)(E) as a result of a discharge of indebtedness or under section 301(c)(2) as a result of receipt of a distribution that, in whole or in part, is not a dividend, then the gain on the shares in the MMF would be increased (or the loss would be decreased) by the amount of the adjustment. Comments are requested on the appropriate treatment of these or any other basis adjustments that might be imposed under internal revenue law with respect to shares in floating-NAV MMFs.

Taxpayers may adopt the NAV method pursuant to rules under § 1.446–1(e) by use of the NAV method in the Federal income tax return for the first taxable year in which the taxpayer holds shares in a floating-NAV MMF. See Rev. Rul. 90–38 (1990–1 CB 57). Once a taxpayer has adopted a method of accounting for gains and losses on shares in floating-NAV MMFs, any change from that method (including a change to or from the NAV method) is a change in method of accounting to which the provisions of section 446 and the accompanying regulations apply. The proposed regulations provide that the change is implemented on a cut-off basis.

In addition to requiring some MMFs to become floating-NAV MMFs, the SEC MMF Reform Rules also provide that, in appropriate circumstances, MMFs may impose liquidity fees. When a liquidity fee is in place, the proceeds received by any shareholder that redeems shares are reduced by the liquidity fee even though the redeemed shares may be in an MMF that uses penny-rounding to price its shares (a stable-value MMF). Because the cost of each stable-value MMF share redeemed (generally $1.00) will exceed the net amount of proceeds received for that share ($1.00, minus the liquidity fee), these redemptions would produce recognized losses under standard tax accounting. If the acquisition of other shares causes a redemption to be a wash sale under section 1091, then under section 1091(d), the acquired shares will have a basis greater than $1.00.

Because of the rarity of gains and losses on the shares in stable-value MMFs, both the MMFs themselves and their shareholders may lack the systems necessary to record the losses and to track the basis of any shares whose basis exceeds $1.00. In these circumstances, if the NAV method were available to the stable-value MMF shareholders, use of that method would reduce the shareholders’ tax compliance burden. Accordingly, comments are requested regarding whether the NAV method should be available to shareholders of a stable-value MMF that has imposed a liquidity fee.

Sections 6045, 6045A, and 6045B establish certain reporting requirements relating to securities. Section 1.6045–1(c)(3)(vi) provides an exception to the broker reporting requirement under section 6045 for shares in an MMF “that computes its current price per share for purposes of distributions, redemptions, and purchases so as to stabilize the price per share at a constant amount that approximates its issue price or the price at which it was originally sold to the public.” Sections 1.6045A–1(a)(1)(v) and 1.6045B–1(a)(5) cross-reference § 1.6045–1(c)(3)(vi) to provide similar exceptions from the requirements of sections 6045A and 6045B, respectively. Comments received by the SEC in response to the SEC MMF Reform Proposal expressed concern that the existing exception would not apply to floating-NAV MMFs and suggested that requiring transaction-by-transaction information reporting would impose significant new costs on floating-NAV MMFs and intermediaries. The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that imposing broker reporting requirements on floating-NAV MMFs would result in administrative burdens that are not justified in light of the expected relative stability of floating-NAV MMF share prices. Therefore, the proposed regulations revise § 1.6045–1(c)(3)(vi) to clarify that the exceptions under sections 6045, 6045A, and 6045B continue to apply to all MMFs, including floating-NAV MMFs.

When the SEC MMF Reform Proposal was issued, commenters expressed concern about the difficulty of applying the wash sale rules of section 1091 to floating-NAV MMFs, especially the difficulty of tracking the basis under section 1091(d) of acquired shares. Use of the NAV method will eliminate those difficulties. Under the NAV method, net gain or loss is determined for each computation period, and no gain or loss is determined for any particular redemption of a taxpayer’s shares in a floating-NAV MMF. Without a determination of loss, a particular redemption does not implicate the wash sale rules.

A shareholder of a floating-NAV MMF that does not use the NAV method, however, may experience frequent wash sales. For a shareholder with a substantial volume of transactions in floating-NAV MMF shares, tracking wash sales of MMF shares could present significant practical challenges. On July 29, 2013, the IRS published Notice 2013–48 (2013–31 IRB 120) in response to the SEC MMF Reform Proposal. The notice proposed a revenue procedure providing that the IRS would not treat a loss realized upon a redemption of a floating-NAV MMF share as subject to the wash sale rules if the amount of the loss was not more than one half of one percent of the taxpayer’s basis in that share. The IRS received comments indicating that the proposed revenue procedure would not significantly reduce the tax compliance burdens associated with applying the wash sale rules to floating-NAV MMFs because shareholders would still have to track all wash sales to determine whether the amount of any particular wash sale exceeds the 0.5% de minimis test. The comments requested that floating-NAV MMFs be exempted entirely from the wash sale rules in section 1091.

Concurrently with these proposed regulations, the Treasury Department and the IRS are releasing a final revenue procedure providing that the wash sale rules will not be applied to redemptions of shares in floating-NAV MMFs. This revenue procedure will apply to redemptions of shares in floating-NAV MMFs on or after the effective date of the SEC MMF Reform Rules (expected to be 60 days after their publication in the Federal Register).

(a) In general. This section provides a permissible method of accounting for gain or loss on shares in a floating-NAV MMF (the net asset value method, or NAV method).

(b) Definitions. For purposes of this section—

(1) Computation period. The computation period is the period that a taxpayer selects for computing gain and loss under the NAV method for a floating-NAV MMF. The computation period may be the taxpayer’s taxable year or a shorter period, such as a month, or a number of months, weeks, or days, provided that—

(i) Computation periods must be of approximately equal duration (except for initial or final computation periods in a taxable year);

(ii) Every day during the taxable year must fall within one, and only one, computation period; and

(iii) Each computation period must contain days from only one taxable year.

(2) Ending value. The ending value of a taxpayer’s shares in a floating-NAV MMF for a computation period is the aggregate fair market value of the taxpayer’s shares at the end of that computation period.

(3) Floating-NAV MMF. A floating-NAV MMF is an MMF that distributes, redeems, and repurchases its shares at prices that are computed by rounding the MMF’s current net asset value per share to a minimum of the fourth decimal place in the case of an MMF with a share price at or about $1.0000 or an equivalent or more precise level of accuracy for an MMF with a different share price.

(4) Money market fund (MMF). A money market fund (MMF) is a regulated investment company that is permitted to hold itself out to investors as a money market fund under Rule 2a–7 under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

(5) Net investment—(i) In general. The net investment in an MMF for a computation period may be a positive amount, a negative amount, or zero, and is equal to—

(A) The aggregate cost of shares in the MMF purchased during the computation period (including purchases through reinvestment of dividends); minus

(B) The aggregate amount received during the computation period in redemption of (or otherwise in exchange for) shares in the MMF if the transaction is one in which gain or loss would be recognized.

(ii) Adjustments—(A) Dispositions in which gain or loss is not recognized. If, during the computation period, any shares in an MMF are disposed of in transactions in which gain or loss would not be recognized, the net investment in the MMF for the computation period is decreased by the fair market value of each such share at the time of its disposition.

(B) Acquisitions other than by purchase. If, during the computation period, any shares in an MMF are acquired other than by purchase, the net investment in the MMF for the computation period is increased by the adjusted basis (for purposes of determining loss) of each such share immediately after its acquisition. If the adjusted basis referred to in the preceding sentence would be determined by reference to the basis of one or more shares in an MMF that are being disposed of by the taxpayer in a transaction that is governed by paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(A) of this section, then the basis of each such disposed share is treated as being the fair market value of that share at the time of its disposition.

(6) Starting basis. The starting basis of a taxpayer’s shares in a floating-NAV MMF for a computation period is—

(i) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(6)(ii) of this section, the ending value of the taxpayer’s shares for the immediately preceding computation period.

(ii) For the first computation period in a taxable year, if the taxpayer did not use the NAV method for the immediately preceding taxable year, the aggregate adjusted basis of the taxpayer’s shares in the floating-NAV MMF at the end of the immediately preceding taxable year.

(c) NAV method—(1) Scope. A taxpayer may use the NAV method described in this section to determine the gain or loss for the taxable year on the taxpayer’s shares in each MMF that, at any time during the taxable year, was a floating-NAV MMF at a time when the taxpayer owned shares in the MMF. If a taxpayer uses the NAV method for shares in any floating-NAV MMF for a taxable year, the taxpayer must use the NAV method for that taxable year for the shares in every floating-NAV MMF in which the taxpayer holds shares. See paragraph (c)(6) of this section for rules applicable to accounting method changes.

(2) Net gain or loss for a taxable year—(i) Determination for each computation period. Subject to any adjustment under paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, the net gain or loss for each computation period on the shares in a floating-NAV MMF to which the NAV method applies equals the ending value, minus the starting basis, minus the net investment in the floating-NAV MMF for the computation period. If the computation produces a result that is greater than zero, the taxpayer has a gain for the computation period with respect to shares in the MMF; if the computation produces a result that is less than zero, the taxpayer has a loss for the computation period on shares in the MMF; and if the computation produces a result that is equal to zero, the taxpayer has no gain or loss for the computation period on shares in the MMF.

(ii) Adjustment of gain or loss to reflect any basis adjustments. If, during a computation period, there is any downward (or upward) adjustment to the taxpayer’s basis in the shares in the floating-NAV MMF under any provision of internal revenue law, then the net gain or loss for the computation period on shares in the floating-NAV MMF determined under paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section is increased (or decreased) by the amount of the adjustment.

(iii) Determination of net gain or loss for each taxable year. The taxpayer’s net gain or loss for a taxable year on shares in a floating-NAV MMF is the sum of the net gains or losses on shares in the floating-NAV MMF for the computation period (or computation periods) that comprise the taxable year.

(3) Character—(i) In general. If a taxpayer uses the NAV method for shares in a floating-NAV MMF and each of those shares otherwise would give rise to capital gain or loss if sold or exchanged in a computation period, then the gain or loss from the shares in the MMF is treated as capital. If a taxpayer uses the NAV method for shares in a floating-NAV MMF and each of those shares otherwise would give rise to ordinary gain or loss if sold or exchanged in a computation period, then the gain or loss from the shares in the MMF is treated as ordinary.

(ii) Mixed character. If a taxpayer uses the NAV method for shares in a floating-NAV MMF and those shares would otherwise give rise to both ordinary gain or loss and capital gain or loss if sold or exchanged in a computation period, then all gain or loss from the shares in this MMF is treated as capital gain or loss.

(iii) Multiple accounts. See paragraph (c)(5) of this section for the treatment of multiple accounts.

(4) Holding period. Capital gains and losses determined under the NAV method are treated as short-term capital gains and losses.

(5) More than one account. If a taxpayer holds shares in a floating-NAV MMF through more than one brokerage account, the taxpayer must treat its holdings in each account as a separate floating-NAV MMF for purposes of the NAV method and must separately apply the method to each such account.

(6) Accounting method changes. A change to or from the NAV method is a change in method of accounting to which the provisions of section 446 and the accompanying regulations apply. A taxpayer seeking to change to or from the NAV method must secure the consent of the Commissioner in accordance with § 1.446–1(e) and follow the administrative procedures issued under § 1.446–1(e)(3)(ii) for obtaining the Commissioner’s consent to change the taxpayer’s accounting method. Any such change will be made on a cut-off basis. Because there will be no duplication or omission of amounts as a result of such a change to or from the NAV method, no adjustment under section 481(a) is required or permitted.

(d) Example. The provisions of this section may be illustrated by the following example:

Example. (i) Fund is an MMF. Shareholder is a person whose taxable year is the calendar year. On January 1 of Year 1, Shareholder owns 5,000,000 shares in Fund in a single account with an adjusted basis of $5,000,000.00. On that date, Fund prices its shares using penny rounding under Rule 2a–7(c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940. On February 1 of Year 1, Fund becomes a floating-NAV MMF. During Year 1, Shareholder receives $32,158.23 in taxable dividends from Fund and makes 120 purchases of additional shares in Fund (including purchases through the reinvestment of those dividends) totaling $1,253,256.37 and 28 redemptions totaling $1,124,591.71. The fair market value of Shareholder’s shares in Fund at the end of Year 1 is $5,129,750.00. All of Shareholder’s shares in Fund are held as capital assets. There is no adjustment to the basis in Shareholder’s shares in Fund under any provision of internal revenue law during Year 1.

(ii) Shareholder adopts the NAV method with its taxable year as the computation period. Shareholder’s net investment in Fund for Year 1 equals $128,664.66 (the $1,253,256.37 in purchases, minus the $1,124,591.71 in redemptions). Shareholder’s gain therefore is $1,085.34, which is the ending value of Shareholder’s shares ($5,129,750.00), minus the starting basis of Shareholder’s shares ($5,000,000.00), minus Shareholder’s net investment in the fund for the taxable year ($128,664.66). The gain of $1,085.34 is treated as short-term capital gain. Shareholder’s starting basis for Year 2 is $5,129,750.00. Shareholder must also include the $32,158.23 in dividends in its income for Year 1 in the same manner as if Shareholder did not use the NAV method.

(iii) If Shareholder had instead adopted the calendar month as its computation period, it would have used the NAV method for January of Year 1, even though Fund was not yet a floating-NAV MMF.

(e) Effective/applicability date. This section applies to taxable years ending on or after the date of publication in the Federal Register of a Treasury decision adopting these proposed regulations as final regulations. Taxpayers may rely on this section for taxable years ending on or after July 28, 2014, and beginning before the date of publication in the Federal Register of a Treasury decision adopting these proposed regulations as final regulations.

Par. 3. Section 1.6045–1 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(3)(vi) to read as follows:

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) * * *

(vi) Money market funds—(A) In general. No return of information is required with respect to a sale of shares in a regulated investment company that is permitted to hold itself out to investors as a money market fund under Rule 2a–7 under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

(B) Effective/applicability date. Paragraph (c)(3)(vi)(A) of this section applies to sales of shares in calendar years beginning on or after the date of publication in the Federal Register of a Treasury decision adopting these proposed regulations as final regulations. Taxpayers and brokers, however, may rely on paragraph (c)(3)(vi)(A) of this section for sales of shares in calendar years beginning before the date of publication in the Federal Register of a Treasury decision adopting these proposed regulations as final regulations.

* * * * *

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(3) [The text of proposed § 51.2(e)(3) is the same as the text of § 51.2T(e)(3) published elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin.]

Par. 3. Section 51.11 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

* * * * *

(c) [The text of proposed § 51.11(c) is the same as the text of § 51.11T(c) published elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin.]