Arbitrage Guidance for Tax-Exempt Bonds

AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION:

Final regulations.

SUMMARY:

This document contains final regulations on the arbitrage restrictions under section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) applicable to tax-exempt bonds and other tax-advantaged bonds issued by State and local governments. These final regulations amend existing regulations to address certain market developments, simplify certain provisions, address certain technical issues, and make existing regulations more administrable. These final regulations affect State and local governments that issue tax-exempt and other tax-advantaged bonds.

DATES:

Effective Date: These final regulations are effective on July 18, 2016.

Applicability Date: For dates of applicability, see §§ 1.141-15, 1.148-11, 1.150-1(a)(2)(iii), and 1.150-2(j).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Spence Hanemann, (202) 317-6980 (not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Paperwork Reduction Act

The collection of information contained in these final regulations has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) under control number 1545-1347. The collection of information in these final regulations is in § 1.148-4(h)(2)(viii), which contains a requirement that the issuer maintain in its records a certificate from the hedge provider. For a hedge to be a qualified hedge, existing regulations require, among other items, that the actual issuer identify the hedge on its books and records. The identification must specify the hedge provider, the terms of the contract, and the hedged bonds. These final regulations require that the identification also include a certificate from the hedge provider specifying certain information regarding the hedge.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.

Books and records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents might become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Background

This document contains amendments to the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) on the arbitrage investment restrictions under section 148 of the Code and related provisions. On June 18, 1993, the Department of the Treasury (the Treasury Department) and the IRS published comprehensive final regulations in the Federal Register (TD 8476, 58 FR 33510) on the arbitrage investment restrictions and related provisions for tax-exempt bonds under sections 103, 148, 149, and 150, and, since that time, those final regulations have been amended in certain limited respects (the regulations issued in 1993 and the amendments thereto collectively are referred to as the Existing Regulations).

A notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register (72 FR 54606; REG-106143-07) on September 26, 2007 (the 2007 Proposed Regulations). The 2007 Proposed Regulations proposed amendments to the Existing Regulations. Comments on the 2007 Proposed Regulations were received and a public hearing was held on January 30, 2008.

Another notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register (78 FR 56842; REG-148659-07) on September 16, 2013 (the 2013 Proposed Regulations). The 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed additional amendments to the Existing Regulations (the 2007 Proposed Regulations and the 2013 Proposed Regulations collectively are referred to as the Proposed Regulations). Comments on the 2013 Proposed Regulations were received and a public hearing was held on February 5, 2014. The 2013 Proposed Regulations addressed the definition of issue price, among other topics.

A partial withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register (80 FR 36301; REG-138526-14) on June 24, 2015, re-proposing amendments to the definition of issue price. After consideration of all the comments, the remaining portions of the Proposed Regulations are adopted as amended by this Treasury decision (the Final Regulations).

Summary of Comments and Explanation of Revisions

This section discusses significant aspects of the comments received from the public regarding the Proposed Regulations. It also explains the revisions made in the Final Regulations.

1. Section 1.148-1 Definitions and Elections

A. Working Capital Expenditures and Replacement Proceeds Definition

i. Introduction

The Existing Regulations impose various restrictions on the use of tax-exempt bond financing for working capital expenditures. One way the Existing Regulations limit working capital financings is through the concept of replacement proceeds, a special category of funds included within the broad definition of gross proceeds to which the arbitrage investment restrictions under section 148 apply. Under the Existing Regulations, replacement proceeds arise if an issuer reasonably expects as of the issue date that: (1) The term of an issue will be longer than reasonably necessary for the governmental purposes of the issue; and (2) there will be available amounts (as defined in the Existing Regulations) for expenditures of the type being financed during the period the issue remains outstanding longer than necessary. The Existing Regulations provide certain safe harbors that prevent the creation of replacement proceeds.

ii. Modified Safe Harbor for Short-Term Working Capital Financings

The 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed to shorten the bond maturity necessary to satisfy the safe harbor for most short-term working capital financings from two years to 13 months to conform with the permitted temporary investment period for working capital expenditures under § 1.148-2(e)(3) and the administrative standard in Rev. Proc. 2002-31, 2002-1 CB 916. One commenter suggested extending this safe harbor to all working capital expenditure financings, rather than just those for restricted working capital expenditures (as defined in the Existing Regulations). This change, which would be implemented by deleting the word “restricted” from the safe harbor, would conform the safe harbor to the proposed extension of the temporary investment period for working capital expenditure financings in the 2013 Proposed Regulations (see section 2 of this preamble). The change also would benefit issuers by expanding the eligible purposes for short-term working capital financings to include extraordinary working capital expenditures. The Final Regulations adopt this comment.

iii. New Safe Harbor for Longer-Term Working Capital Financings

The 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed to add a new safe harbor that would prevent the creation of replacement proceeds for longer-term working capital financings to enhance certainty for issuers experiencing financial distress. This new safe harbor would require an issuer to: (1) Determine the first year in which it expects to have available amounts for working capital expenditures; (2) monitor for actual available amounts in each year beginning with the year it first expects to have such amounts; and (3) apply such available amounts in each year either to redeem or to invest in (or some combination of redeeming and investing in) certain tax-exempt bonds (eligible tax-exempt bonds). The safe harbor would require any amounts invested in eligible tax-exempt bonds to be invested (or reinvested) continuously, so long as the bonds using the safe harbor remain outstanding. In a narrow exception to this requirement, the safe harbor would permit such amounts not to be invested during a period of no more than 30 days per fiscal year in which such amounts are pending reinvestment. These requirements aimed to minimize the burden on the tax-exempt bond market.

The 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed to require an issuer to test for available amounts on the first day of its fiscal year and to apply such amounts to redeem or invest in eligible tax-exempt bonds within 90 days. Commenters sought greater flexibility with respect to the timing of testing the yearly available amounts and the use of such available amounts, based on considerations associated with potential unrepresentative cash positions on particular dates and potential expected short-term cash needs to finance governmental purposes.

To promote administrability and consistency, the Final Regulations retain the first day of the fiscal year as the required annual testing date for available amounts. The Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that commenters' suggested solutions were complex in application and could produce a result that is unrepresentative of available amounts throughout the rest of the year. By requiring testing on the first day of the fiscal year, the Final Regulations provide an administrable testing date that mirrors the general rule for other replacement proceeds, under which an issuer also must determine its available amounts on the first day of every fiscal year during the period when its bonds are outstanding longer than reasonably necessary. To address commenters' concerns about the need for greater flexibility to address short-term cash flow deficits, the Final Regulations include several other revisions to this safe harbor for longer-term working capital financings. The Final Regulations reduce the total amount the issuer must apply to redeem or invest in eligible tax-exempt bonds to take into account the expenditure of available amounts during the first 90 days of the fiscal year and amounts held in bona fide debt service funds to the extent that those amounts are included in available amounts. Further, the Final Regulations allow an issuer to sell eligible tax-exempt bonds acquired pursuant to the safe harbor, provided that the proceeds of that sale are used within 30 days for a governmental purpose (working capital or otherwise) and the issuer has no other available amounts that it could use for that purpose. Alternatively, an issuer may sell such investments and use those amounts to redeem eligible tax-exempt bonds. Together, these amendments to the Proposed Regulations aim to address issuers' concerns about cash flows in a manner consistent with the existing restrictions on financing working capital expenditures with bonds outstanding longer than reasonably necessary.

Commenters also urged a small, but significant, change to the definition of “available amount” to address situations in which an issuer has proceeds of more than one bond issue that finance working capital expenditures. The definition of available amount in the Existing Regulations specifically excludes proceeds of “the” issue, but not proceeds of other issues. The use of this existing definition for the new safe harbor would have the effect of requiring an issuer to apply proceeds of other issues to redeem or invest in eligible tax-exempt bonds to meet the safe harbor rather than using such proceeds for the intended governmental purpose. The Final Regulations adopt this comment and revise the definition of available amount to exclude proceeds of “any” issue.

Commenters also recommended that the maximum amount required to be applied under the safe harbor to redeem or invest in eligible tax-exempt bonds be reduced from that proposed under the Proposed Regulations, which would set that maximum amount at an amount equal to the outstanding principal of the bonds subject to the safe harbor. The commenters' suggestion would reduce the maximum amount in the Proposed Regulations by the amount of certain other eligible tax-exempt bonds redeemed by the issuer. The Final Regulations do not adopt this recommendation. The Final Regulations retain the measure of the maximum amount required to be applied to redeem or invest in eligible tax-exempt bonds under this safe harbor at the outstanding principal amount of the relevant bonds to ensure that issuers redeem the bonds that are the subject of the safe harbor whenever possible.

The 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed to define eligible tax-exempt bonds for purposes of the new safe harbor to mean those tax-exempt bonds that are not subject to the alternative minimum tax (non-AMT tax-exempt bonds). Commenters requested clarification that eligible tax-exempt bonds for these investments also include certain State and Local Government Series securities (SLGS or, individually, a SLGS security), specifically Demand Deposit SLGS, and certain interests in regulated investment companies that invest in tax-exempt bonds and pass through to their owners income at least 95 percent of which is tax-exempt under section 103. The commenters noted that these two types of investments are included in the existing definition of tax-exempt bonds for purposes of the arbitrage investment restrictions. Commenters noted particularly that Demand Deposit SLGS are much easier to acquire than tax-exempt bonds and also have limited arbitrage potential. The purpose of the requirement to redeem or invest available amounts in certain tax-exempt bonds is to reduce the burden on the tax-exempt bond market of longer-term tax-exempt bonds issued for working capital expenditure financings. Although Demand Deposit SLGS are taxable obligations that do not reduce the burden on the tax-exempt bond market, the Treasury Department and the IRS recognize that including these as eligible tax-exempt bonds provides issuers a simple method of investing with little possibility of earning arbitrage. An interest in a regulated investment company that invests in non-AMT tax-exempt bonds is easier to buy and sell than a bond, and purchasing such an interest reduces the burden on the tax-exempt bond market. Thus, paralleling the existing definition of “tax-exempt bonds” applicable for purposes of the arbitrage investment restrictions, the Final Regulations clarify that eligible tax-exempt bonds include both Demand Deposit SLGS and an interest in a regulated investment company if at least 95% of the income to the holder is from non-AMT tax-exempt bonds.

Commenters also recommended that the Final Regulations expressly address the treatment of refunding bonds issued to refinance working capital expenditures for purposes of the new safe harbor. The Final Regulations provide that this safe harbor applies to refunding bonds in the same way that it applies to other bonds.

iv. Other Technical Changes to Working Capital Rules

The 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed to remove a restriction against financing a working capital reserve, a complex restriction that penalized those State and local governments that previously have maintained the least amount of reserves. Commenters supported this change. The Final Regulations adopt this change as proposed.

The 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed to expand the factors listed in an anti-abuse rule that may justify a bond maturity in excess of those in the safe harbors that prevent the creation of replacement proceeds to include extraordinary working capital items. The Treasury Department and the IRS received no unfavorable comments on this change. The Final Regulations adopt this change as proposed.

Commenters also raised several issues with respect to the working capital rules that the Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded are beyond the scope of this project and, therefore, did not address in the Final Regulations (see section 12 of this preamble).

2. Section 1.148-2 General Arbitrage Yield Restriction Rules—Temporary Period Spending Exception to Yield Restriction

The Existing Regulations provide various temporary periods for investment of proceeds of tax-exempt bonds without yield restriction. No express temporary period covers proceeds used for working capital expenditures that are not restricted working capital expenditures, such as extraordinary working capital items. The 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed to broaden the existing 13 month temporary period for restricted working capital expenditures to include all working capital expenditures. One commenter supported and none opposed this proposed change. The Final Regulations adopt this change as proposed.

3. Section 1.148-3 General Arbitrage Rebate Rules

A. Arbitrage Rebate Computation Credit

The Existing Regulations allow an issuer to take a credit against payment of arbitrage rebate to help offset the cost of computing rebate. The 2007 Proposed Regulations proposed to increase the credit and proposed to add an inflation adjustment to this credit, based on changes in the Consumer Price Index. The Treasury Department and the IRS received no comments on this change. The Final Regulations adopt this change as proposed.

B. Recovery of Overpayment of Rebate

Generally, under the Existing Regulations, an issuer computes the amount of arbitrage rebate that it owes under a method that future values payments and receipts on investments using the yield on the bond issue. Under this method, an arbitrage payment made on one computation date is future valued to the next computation date to determine the amount of arbitrage rebate owed on that subsequent computation date. The Existing Regulations provide that an issuer may recover an overpayment of arbitrage rebate with respect to an issue of tax-exempt bonds if the issuer establishes to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that an overpayment occurred. The Existing Regulations further define an overpayment as the excess of “the amount paid” to the United States for an issue under section 148 over the sum of the rebate amount for that issue as of the most recent computation date and all amounts that are otherwise required to be paid under section 148 as of the date the recovery is requested. Thus, even if the future value of the issuer's arbitrage rebate payment on a computation date, computed under the method for determining arbitrage rebate, is greater than the issuer's rebate amount on that date, an issuer is only entitled to a refund to the extent that the amount actually paid exceeds that rebate amount. The Existing Regulations limit the amount of the refund in this manner because the Treasury Department and the IRS were concerned about whether the IRS had statutory authority to pay interest on arbitrage rebate payments. To permit a refund in an amount calculated in whole or in part based upon a future value of the amount actually paid would effectively result in an interest payment on that payment.

An example in the Existing Regulations has caused confusion because it could be interpreted to mean that an issuer can receive a refund of a rebate payment when the future value of such rebate payment exceeds the rebate amount on the next computation date, even though the actual amount of the previous rebate payment does not exceed the rebate amount on that next computation date. The Proposed Regulations proposed to make a technical amendment to this example to conform this example to the intended scope of recovery of an overpayment of arbitrage rebate.

Commenters recommended broadening the scope of recovery of overpayments of arbitrage rebate to permit future valuing of the amount actually paid in computing the amount of the overpayment. Because the Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that they lack the statutory authority to pay interest on overpayments of arbitrage rebate, the Final Regulations adopt this change as proposed.

4. Section 1.148-4 Yield on an Issue of Bonds

A. Joint Bond Yield Authority

The 2007 Proposed Regulations proposed to eliminate a provision in the Existing Regulations that permits computation of a single joint bond yield for two or more issues of qualified mortgage bonds or qualified student loan bonds. The 2007 Proposed Regulations solicited public comments on the feasibility of establishing generally applicable, objective standards for joint bond yield computations. Two commenters representing student loan lenders sought to retain this provision and described certain facts on which they believed that the joint computation of yield on student loan bonds might be based. However, in 2010, Congress terminated the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP), effectively eliminating the program for which most student loan bonds were issued yet not affecting State supplemental student loan bond programs. Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152, section 2201, 124 Stat 1029, 1074 (2010). Given the elimination of the FFELP and the highly factual nature of the requests for joint bond yield computations, the Final Regulations adopt the proposed elimination of the joint bond yield authority provision. In addition, however, in recognition of the administrative challenges for loan yield calculations in these portfolio loan programs, the Final Regulations extend the availability of yield reduction payments to include qualified student loans and qualified mortgage loans generally (see section 5.A. of this preamble).

B. Modification of Yield Computation for Yield-to-Call Premium Bonds

The 2007 Proposed Regulations proposed to simplify the yield calculations for certain callable bonds issued with significant amounts of bond premium (sometimes called yield-to-call bonds) to focus on the redemption date that results in the lowest yield on the particular premium bond (rather than the more complex existing focus on the lowest yield on the issue). The Treasury Department and the IRS did not receive any adverse comments regarding this proposed change, received one question that raised issues beyond the scope of this project (see section 12 of this preamble), and received a favorable comment regarding this proposed change. The Final Regulations adopt this change as proposed.

C. Integration of Hedges

The Existing Regulations permit issuers to compute the yield on an issue by taking into account payments under “qualified hedges.” Generally, under the Existing Regulations, to be a qualified hedge, the hedge must be interest based, the terms of the hedge must correspond closely with the terms of the hedged bonds, the issuer must duly identify the hedge, and the hedge must contain no significant investment element. The Existing Regulations provide two ways in which a qualified hedge may be taken into account in computing yield on the issue, known commonly as “simple integration” and “super integration.” In the case of simple integration all net payments and receipts on the qualified hedge and the hedged bonds are taken into account in determining the yield on the bonds, such that generally these hedged bonds are treated as variable yield bonds for arbitrage purposes. In the case of super integration, certain hedged bonds are treated as fixed yield bonds, and the qualified hedge must meet additional eligibility requirements beyond those for simple integration. These additional eligibility requirements focus on assuring that the terms of the hedge and the hedged bonds sufficiently correspond so as to warrant treating the hedged bonds as fixed yield bonds for arbitrage purposes.

i. Cost-of-Funds Hedges

The 2007 Proposed Regulations proposed to clarify that for purposes of applying the definition of periodic payment to determine whether a hedge has a significant investment element, a “specified index” (upon which periodic payments are based) is deemed to include payments under a cost-of-funds swap, thereby eliminating any doubt that cost-of-funds swaps can be qualified hedges. One commenter supported this clarification and none opposed it. One commenter proposed an amendment that is beyond the scope of this project (see section 12 of this preamble). The Final Regulations adopt this clarification as proposed.

ii. Taxable Index Hedges

One of the eligibility requirements for a qualified hedge under the Existing Regulations is that the hedge be interest based. For simple integration, one of the factors used in determining whether a variable-to-fixed interest rate hedge is interest based focuses on whether the variable interest rate on the hedged bonds and the floating interest rate on the hedge are “substantially the same, but not identical to” one another. For super integration purposes, such rates must be “reasonably expected to be substantially the same throughout the term of the hedge.” Issuers have raised interpretative questions about how to apply these rules to hedges based on taxable interest rate indices (taxable indices) because interest rates on taxable indices generally do not correspond as closely as interest rates on tax-exempt market indices to actual market interest rates on tax-exempt, variable-rate bonds. These interpretative questions are particularly important for hedges based on taxable indices (taxable index hedges) used with advance refunding bond issues because issuers generally need to use the qualified hedge rules or some other regime to determine with certainty the yield on the tax-exempt advance refunding bonds to comply with the applicable arbitrage yield restrictions on investments in defeasance escrows.

The 2007 Proposed Regulations proposed to clarify that taxable index hedges are eligible for simple integration but also included detailed provisions that prescribed the correlation of interest rates needed for taxable index hedges to qualify for simple integration. Commenters generally criticized the proposed interest rate correlation test for simple integration of taxable index hedges as excessively complex or unworkable in various respects. One commenter urged elimination of this rate correlation test as unnecessary on the grounds that other proposed changes in the 2007 Proposed Regulations, including particularly the provision limiting the size and scope of hedges (described in section 4.C.iii of this preamble), were sufficient to control the parameters of taxable index hedges for purposes of simple integration. The Final Regulations clarify that a taxable index hedge is an interest based contract and adopt the comment to eliminate the interest rate correlation test for taxable index hedges. The Final Regulations also clarify that the difference between the interest rate used on the hedged bonds and that used to compute payments on the hedge will not prevent the hedge from being an interest based contract if the two interest rates are substantially similar.

The 2007 Proposed Regulations proposed to treat taxable index hedges as ineligible for super integration (except in the case of certain anticipatory hedges). Commenters requested an exception to this general prohibition on super integration for instances in which the variable rate on hedged bonds and the variable rate used to determine the hedge provider's payments to the issuer under the hedge are both based on a taxable index and are identical (or nearly so) to one another. The Final Regulations generally adopt the proposed rule that taxable index hedges are ineligible for super integration but, in response to the comments, add an exception for hedges in which the hedge provider's payments are based on an interest rate identical to that on the hedged bonds, because these hedges are perfect hedges that clearly result in a fixed yield. The Treasury Department and the IRS do not adopt commenters' request to permit super integration when the taxable-index-based interest rates for both the hedge and the hedged bonds are nearly identical but not perfectly so. The Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that such a rule would add unnecessary complexity to the Final Regulations and that commenters' concerns are largely resolved by the extension in the Final Regulations of yield reduction payments to address basis differences between indexes used in hedges and underlying interest rates on hedged bonds in advance refundings (discussed elsewhere in this section of the preamble). The Final Regulations remove references to the particular taxable index called “LIBOR,” without inference.

Commenters also sought other specific exceptions to the prohibition on super integration. One commenter noted that taxable index hedges cost less than hedges based on a tax-exempt index and recommended allowing super integration of taxable index hedges with mortgage revenue bonds to facilitate compliance with arbitrage restrictions on the yield of the financed mortgages. The Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that the Final Regulations adequately address the commenter's concerns by permitting simple integration of taxable index hedges and by allowing yield reduction payments for qualified mortgage loans to facilitate compliance with the arbitrage investment restrictions (see section 5.A. of this preamble).

Other commenters suggested that the proposed prohibition on super integration of taxable index hedges should be prospective. This provision in the Final Regulations applies to bonds sold on or after the date that is 90 days after publication of the Final Regulations in the Federal Register, and does not apply to bonds sold prior to that date or to hedges on those bonds, regardless of when the issuer enters into such a hedge, unless the issuer avails itself of permissive application under § 1.148-11(l)(1) of these Final Regulations.

The 2007 Proposed Regulations also proposed to modify the yield reduction payment rules to permit issuers to make yield reduction payments on certain hedged advance refunding issues. This proposed provision effectively would allow yield reduction payments to cover the basis differences between the hedge and the hedged bonds in certain circumstances in which super integration was unavailable to address those basis differences, such as when taxable index swaps hedge the interest rate on advance refunding bonds. Commenters requested clarification of which bonds in the issue must be hedged for the issuer to be eligible to make yield reduction payments under the proposed provision. The Final Regulations eliminate the term “hedged bond issue” to clarify that the yield reduction payment is narrowly targeted to the portion of the issue that funds the defeasance escrow and otherwise adopt this change as proposed.

iii. Size and Scope of a Qualified Hedge

The 2007 Proposed Regulations proposed to add an express requirement that limits the size and scope of a qualified hedge to a level that is reasonably necessary to hedge the issuer's risk with respect to interest rate changes on the hedged bonds. Generally, the purpose of this proposed limitation is to clarify that certain leveraged hedges are not qualified hedges.

The 2007 Proposed Regulations proposed an example of a hedge of the appropriate size and scope, based on the principal amount and the reasonably expected interest requirements of the hedged bonds. One commenter suggested clarifying this size and scope limitation to provide more flexibility for anticipatory hedges that are entered into before the issuance of the hedged bonds. The Final Regulations adopt the size and scope limitation as proposed and clarify that this limitation applies to anticipatory hedges based on the reasonably expected terms of the hedged bonds to be issued.

iv. Correspondence of Payments for Simple Integration

The Existing Regulations require that, for a hedge to be a qualified hedge, the payments received by the issuer from the hedge provider under the contract correspond closely in time to either the specific payments being hedged on the hedged bonds or specific payments required to be made pursuant to the bond documents, regardless of the hedge, to a sinking fund, debt service fund, or similar fund maintained for the issue of which the hedged bond is a part. The 2007 Proposed Regulations proposed to treat payments as corresponding closely in time for this purpose if the payments were made within 60 calendar days of each other.

One commenter recommended increasing the permitted period for corresponding payments from 60 days to 90 days to accommodate a range of conventions used in the swap market. The Final Regulations adopt this comment.

v. Identification of Qualified Hedges

The 2007 Proposed Regulations proposed to extend the time for an issuer to identify a qualified hedge from three days to 15 days and to clarify that these are calendar days. The 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed to add a requirement that the identification of a qualified hedge include a certificate from the hedge provider containing certain information. Under the 2013 Proposed Regulations, one element required to be certified by the hedge provider is that the rate being paid by the bonds' issuer on the hedge is comparable to the rate that would be paid by a similarly situated issuer of taxable debt.

Several commenters recommended clarifying the date on which the 15-day period for identification of a hedge commences. The Final Regulations clarify that the date on which the 15-day period begins is the date on which the parties enter into a binding agreement to enter into the hedge (as distinguished from the closing date of the hedge or start date for payments on the hedge, if different).

Several commenters suggested permitting a party other than the issuer to identify the hedge on its books and records, but such changes are beyond the scope of this project (see section 12 of this preamble).

One commenter supported the requirement of a hedge provider's certificate. Two other commenters recommended eliminating this requirement as both unnecessary and burdensome in that it exceeds the requirements for other financial contracts related to tax-exempt bond yield. These commenters recommended that, if the pricing of the hedge is a concern, the regulations should provide other methods for establishing fair pricing. These commenters, however, acknowledged that many issuers already use some form of hedge provider's certificate and that the provisions in the Proposed Regulations reflect to some degree the standard provisions of such certificates. In the alternative, these commenters recommended that the hedge provider's certificate should focus on factual aspects of establishing a qualified hedge, rather than on legal conclusions, and offered specific suggestions to that effect. For example, these commenters suggested that issuers also should be required to demonstrate their efforts to establish that the hedge pricing does not include compensation for underwriting or other services, rather than to obtain a certification to that effect. These commenters further suggested that the representation in the Proposed Regulations that the terms of the hedge were agreed to between a willing buyer and a willing seller in a bona fide, arm's length transaction was unnecessary and required a legal conclusion outside the hedge provider's knowledge. Further, the commenters noted that comparable hedges on taxable debt with counterparties similar to State and local government issuers may be rare and recommended that issuers be required to establish that the rate on the hedge is comparable to the rate that the hedge provider would charge for a similar hedge with a counterparty similar to the issuer, but without a reference to debt obligations other than tax-exempt bonds.

The Final Regulations retain the requirement for a hedge provider's certificate because the hedge provider is uniquely positioned to validate pricing information needed to determine whether a hedge meets the requirements for being a qualified hedge. The Final Regulations retain the certification regarding an arm's length transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller as one primarily based on fact and commonly obtained by issuers under current practices. In response to public comments, the Final Regulations amend the other required certifications to focus on factual aspects of the hedging transaction. In light of the evolving regulatory environment for swaps, however, the Final Regulations omit the certification that the issuer's rate on the hedge is comparable to the rate that would be paid by a similarly situated issuer of taxable debt. The Final Regulations reserve the authority for the Commissioner to add additional certifications in guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin. In developing any future guidance, the Treasury Department and the IRS may look to the market for swaps on taxable debt and consider the availability of appropriate comparable rates.

vi. Accounting for Modifications and Terminations

a. Modifications and Terminations of Qualified Hedges

The Existing Regulations provide that a termination of a qualified hedge includes any sale or other disposition of the hedge by the issuer or the acquisition by the issuer of an offsetting hedge. The Existing Regulations further provide that a deemed termination of a qualified hedge occurs when the hedged bonds are redeemed, when the hedge ceases to be a qualified hedge, or when the modification or assignment of the hedge results in a deemed exchange under section 1001. The issuer takes termination payments resulting from a deemed or actual termination of an integrated hedge into account in computing yield on the bonds.

The 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed guidance on the treatment of modifications and terminations of qualified hedges. The 2013 Proposed Regulations also proposed to eliminate the ambiguous existing standard that triggered terminations for offsetting hedges. The 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed that a modification, including an actual modification, an acquisition of another hedge, or an assignment, results in a deemed termination of a hedge if the modification is material and results in a deemed disposition under section 1001.

The 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed to simplify the treatment of deemed terminations to provide that a material modification of a qualified hedge (that otherwise would result in a deemed termination) does not result in such a termination if the modified hedge is a qualified hedge. For this purpose, the 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed to require re-testing of the modified hedge for compliance with the requirements for a qualified hedge at the time of the modification, with adjustments. In doing this re-testing, the 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed to disregard any off-market value of the existing hedge at the time of modification. In addition, the 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed to measure the time period for identification of the modified hedge from the date of the modification. Finally, the 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed to omit the requirement for a hedge provider's certificate for the modified hedge. Commenters supported these changes. The Final Regulations adopt these proposed changes with one modification: Assignment of a hedge is no longer given as an example of a modification. The Final Regulations remove this example not because an assignment is not a modification, but because under the regulations under section 1001 an assignment generally does not result in a deemed exchange.

Commenters sought confirmation that the proposed rules for modifications of qualified hedges in the 2013 Proposed Regulations would replace an existing rule regarding such modifications that is set forth in the first sentence of section 5.1 of Notice 2008-41, 2008-1 CB 742. That sentence generally provides that a modification of a qualified hedge does not result in a deemed termination if the issuer does not expect the modification to change the yield on the hedged bonds over their remaining term by more than 0.25% and the modified hedge is integrated with the bonds. The Final Regulations provide comprehensive rules for determining when a modification of a qualified hedge results in a termination and, therefore, supersede the first sentence of section 5.1 of Notice 2008-41. The Final Regulations have no effect on the remainder of Notice 2008-41. See the section in this preamble entitled “Effect on Other Documents.”

b. Continuations of Qualified Hedges in Refundings

The 2013 Proposed Regulations similarly proposed to simplify the treatment of a qualified hedge upon a refunding of the hedged bonds when no actual termination of the associated hedge occurs. If the hedge meets the requirements for a qualified hedge of the refunding bonds as of the issue date of the refunding bonds, with certain exceptions, the 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed to treat the hedge as continuing as a qualified hedge of the refunding bonds instead of being terminated. The Treasury Department and the IRS received favorable comments regarding this proposed change and one comment beyond the scope of this project (see section 12 of this preamble). The Final Regulations adopt this change as proposed.

The Existing Regulations provide special rules for terminations of super-integrated qualified hedges. A termination is disregarded and these special rules do not apply if, based on the facts and circumstances, the yield will not change. The 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed to apply these special rules to a modified super-integrated qualified hedge that is eligible for continued simple integration. Commenters sought clarification of the effect of this rule on super integration treatment. The purpose of this rule is to determine whether a modified super-integrated qualified hedge that continues to qualify for simple integration also would continue to qualify for super integration. The Final Regulations clarify that the applicable test is the test under the Existing Regulations for determining when to disregard terminations of super-integrated qualified hedges.

c. Terminations of Hedges at Fair Market Value

The Proposed Regulations proposed to modify the amounts taken into account for a deemed termination or actual termination of a qualified hedge. For an actual termination of a qualified hedge, the 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed to limit the amount of the hedge termination payment treated as made or received on the hedged bonds to an amount that is (i) no greater than the fair market value of the qualified hedge if paid by the issuer, and (ii) no less than the fair market value of the qualified hedge if received by the issuer. For a deemed termination of a qualified hedge, the 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed that the amount of the deemed termination payment is equal to the fair market value of the qualified hedge on the termination date.

Commenters recommended that, for an actual termination, the amount actually paid or received by the issuer in connection with the termination should be considered the fair market value of the qualified hedge. The commenters further recommended that, for a deemed termination, the issuer should be able to rely on bid-side quotations from the hedge provider and other providers for purposes of determining the fair market value of the qualified hedge on the termination date. The commenters indicated that, in all cases, the termination amounts, whether actual or deemed, reflect the “bid side” of the hedge market. Because of concerns about the pricing of a hedge in determining the amount to be paid as a termination payment, the Final Regulations retain the rule that the amount of a termination payment that may be taken into account for arbitrage purposes is the fair market value of the qualified hedge on the termination date. The Final Regulations simplify the Proposed Regulations by providing a uniform fair market value standard for both actual and deemed terminations. Although the Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that bona fide market quotations may be used to support fair market value determinations, the Treasury Department and the IRS have concerns about further specification of particular types of market quotations for purposes of proper reflection of fair market value in various circumstances. Accordingly, the Final Regulations provide that the fair market value of a qualified hedge upon termination is based on all of the facts and circumstances.

5. Section 1.148-5 Yield and Valuation of Investments

A. Yield Reduction Payment Rules

For certain limited situations, the Existing Regulations permit payment of yield reduction payments to the United States to satisfy yield restriction requirements on certain investments. The 2007 Proposed Regulations proposed to expand these situations to permit issuers to make yield reduction payments to cover nonpurpose investments that an issuer purchases on a date when the issuer is unable to purchase SLGS because the Treasury Department has suspended sales of SLGS.

Three commenters favored the proposed expansion of the availability of yield reduction payments when SLGS are unavailable. One commenter expressed concern that the proposed provision may not address the circumstance in which a SLGS sale suspension is in effect when an issuer commits to purchase investments, but SLGS sales resume before settlement on that purchase. The Final Regulations clarify that an issuer is permitted to make yield reduction payments if it enters into an agreement to purchase investments on a date when SLGS sales are suspended.

The commenter also recommended extending the availability of yield reduction payments to cover the circumstance in which an issuer is uncertain whether the Treasury Department may suspend SLGS sales in the future after an issuer has subscribed to purchase SLGS and before the issuance of those SLGS. Although the Treasury Department reserves full discretion to manage its borrowings, including SLGS, it has been the Treasury Department's practice to honor all outstanding SLGS subscriptions received before it suspends SLGS sales. Accordingly, the Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that yield reduction payments are not needed in this circumstance, and the Final Regulations do not adopt this comment.

In addition, in comments regarding the proposed elimination of the Commissioner's authority to compute a joint yield for two or more issues of qualified mortgage bonds or qualified student loan bonds, one commenter requested that issuers of qualified student loan bonds be permitted to make yield reduction payments for all qualified student loans, not just those under the FFELP. The Treasury Department and the IRS recognize that the ability to make yield reduction payments for qualified student loans and qualified mortgage loans would provide issuers an administrable alternative to the rarely used authority to compute a joint bond yield on issues of such bonds. The Treasury Department and the IRS also recognize that these portfolio loan programs have particular administrative challenges with loan yield compliance due to the large number of loans. Accordingly, in connection with the elimination of that joint bond yield authority under the Final Regulations, the Treasury Department and the IRS adopt this comment and expand the availability of yield reduction payments to include qualified student loans and qualified mortgage loans generally.

Commenters requested permission to make yield reduction payments in several other situations not provided in the Proposed Regulations. The Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded these amendments are beyond the scope of this project and, therefore, did not address them in the Final Regulations (see section 12 of this preamble).

B. Valuation of Investments

The Existing Regulations provide guidance on how to value investments allocated to an issue but leave some ambiguity about when the present value and the fair market value methods of valuation are permitted or required. The 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed to clarify that the fair market value method of valuation generally is required for any investment on the date the investment is first allocated to an issue or first ceases to be allocated to an issue as a consequence of a deemed acquisition or a deemed disposition.

The 2013 Proposed Regulations did not propose to distinguish between purpose investments and nonpurpose investments. One commenter urged clarification that purpose investments must be valued at present value at all times. This commenter further suggested that the rules clearly distinguish between purpose and nonpurpose investments. The Treasury Department and the IRS recognize that purpose investments are special investments that are intended to pass on the benefits of the lower borrowing costs of tax-exempt bond financings to eligible beneficiaries of the particular authorized tax-exempt bond program (for example, eligible first-time low and moderate income homebuyers who receive qualified mortgage loans financed with qualified mortgage bonds). Accordingly, the Final Regulations adopt these comments.

The Existing Regulations include an exception to the mandatory fair market value rule for reallocations of investments between tax-exempt bond issues as a result of the transferred proceeds rule under § 1.148-9(b) or the universal cap rule under § 1.148-6(b)(2). To remove a disincentive against retiring tax-exempt bonds with taxable bonds when the fair market value of the investments allocable to the tax-exempt bonds would cause investment yield to exceed the tax-exempt bond yield, the 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed to change this exception to the fair market value rule to require that only the issue from which the investment is allocated consist of tax-exempt bonds.

Commenters generally viewed this change favorably. One commenter suggested clarifying an ambiguity in the Existing Regulations regarding when a reallocation from one issue to another occurs “as a result of” the universal cap rule. The Final Regulations clarify that the exception to fair market valuation for investments reallocated as a result of the universal cap rule applies narrowly to circumstances in which investments are deallocated from an issue as a result of the universal cap rule and are reallocated to another issue without further action as a result of an existing pledge of the investment to the other issue (for example, a pledge of investments to multiple bond issues secured by common security under a master indenture). In these circumstances, the issuer has not structured the transaction to benefit from the market valuation of the nonpurpose investments.

This commenter also suggested providing a safe harbor for when an issuer may liquidate escrow investments after a taxable refunding without concern that the Commissioner would exercise his anti-abuse authority to value the investment at fair market value. This comment is beyond the scope of this project (see section 12 of this preamble).

Commenters also recommended broad interpretations or expansions of the exception to fair market valuation for investments reallocated as a result of the universal cap rule to cover various types of transactions involving investments that secure a tax-exempt bond issue and that are liquidated at a profit so long as the investment proceeds of the liquidated investments are used to retire tax-exempt bonds early. In one representative scenario, an issuer using funds other than tax-exempt bond proceeds created a yield-restricted escrow fund to defease tax-exempt bonds for which it retained the call rights. If the fair market value of investments in the escrow appreciated, the issuer would issue taxable bonds and use a portion of the proceeds of the taxable bonds to redeem the tax-exempt bonds. Applying universal cap principles, the investments would cease to be allocated to the tax-exempt bonds when the tax-exempt bonds were redeemed and the investments would be allocated to the taxable refunding bonds not as a result of a pre-existing pledge but as replacement proceeds. If the investments were valued at fair market value, the yield on the escrow would exceed the yield on the tax-exempt bonds resulting in arbitrage bonds. The bonds would not be arbitrage bonds if the regulations permitted these escrow investments to be valued at present value at the time of the refunding. Another scenario for which the commenters requested using the present value of investments rather than fair market value involves liquidating the appreciated investments in a defeasance escrow to redeem the tax-exempt issue rather than issuing taxable refunding bonds.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have concerns about potential unintended consequences and circumvention of arbitrage investment restrictions in these and other similar transactions. In the first scenario, the issuer has structured the transaction specifically to benefit from an appreciation of the escrow investments in a manner inconsistent with the arbitrage restrictions. In the second scenario, the use of present value would allow the issuer to realize the investment return in contravention of the statutory requirements to take into account any gain or loss on the disposition of a nonpurpose investment. Accordingly, except for the technical clarification of the limited application of universal cap deallocations under this rule, the Final Regulations adopt as proposed the revised exception to fair market valuation for investments reallocated as a result of the transferred proceeds rule or the universal cap rule.

C. Fair Market Value of Treasury Obligations

The Existing Regulations provide a general rule that the fair market value of an investment is the price at which a willing buyer would purchase the investment from a willing seller in a bona fide, arm's length transaction. For United States Treasury obligations that are traded on the open market, trading values at the time of trades are used to establish fair market values. The Existing Regulations further provide a special rule, aimed primarily at non-transferrable, non-tradable SLGS, that the fair market value of a United States Treasury obligation that is purchased directly from the United States Treasury is its purchase price. This special rule properly indicates that the fair market value of a United States Treasury obligation that is purchased directly from the United States is its purchase price on the original purchase date, but this provision is ambiguous regarding how to determine the fair market value of such an obligation on dates after the original purchase date.

The 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed to clarify that, on the original purchase date only, the fair market value of such an obligation, including a SLGS security, is its purchase price. The 2013 Proposed Regulations further proposed that, on any date other than the original purchase date, the fair market value of a SLGS security is its redemption price. One commenter objected to the valuation of a SLGS security at other than its purchase price upon a deemed acquisition or deemed disposition. United States Treasury obligations other than SLGS may be purchased and sold on the open market. SLGS, however, are nontransferable obligations that may be purchased or redeemed only from the United States Treasury. For this reason, the 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed that the fair market value of a SLGS security on any date other than its purchase date is the redemption price determined by the United States Treasury under applicable regulations for the SLGS program. The Final Regulations adopt this change as proposed.

D. Modified Fair Market Value Safe Harbor for Guaranteed Investment Contracts

The Existing Regulations provide a safe harbor for establishing the fair market value of a guaranteed investment contract. This safe harbor generally relies on a prescribed bidding procedure, including requirements that all bidders be given an equal opportunity to bid with no opportunity to review other bids before providing a bid (that is, the “no last look” rule) and that the bid specifications be provided to prospective bidders “in writing.” The 2007 Proposed Regulations proposed to amend this safe harbor to accommodate electronic bidding procedures by: (1) Permitting bid specifications to be sent electronically over the Internet or by fax; and (2) providing that no impermissible last look occurs if in effect all bidders have an equal opportunity for a last look. One commenter noted an ambiguity in this proposed change. In response to this comment, the Final Regulations clarify that bids must be in writing and timely disseminated and that a writing may be in electronic form and may be disseminated by fax, email, an Internet-based Web site, or other electronic medium that is similar to an Internet-based Web site and regularly used to post bid specifications. The Final Regulations otherwise adopt this change as proposed.

E. External Commingled Investment Funds

The Existing Regulations provide certain preferential rules for the treatment of administrative costs of certain widely held external commingled funds. Under the Existing Regulations, a fund is treated as widely held if the fund, on average, has more than 15 unrelated investors and each investor maintains a prescribed minimum average investment in the fund. The 2007 Proposed Regulations proposed to allow additional smaller investors to invest in an external commingled fund without disqualifying the fund so long as at least 16 unrelated investors each maintain the required minimum average investment in the fund.

One commenter suggested that the regulations should require that a specified percentage of the unrelated investors hold a specified percentage of the daily average value of the fund's assets. The Final Regulations do not adopt this comment, because it is inconsistent with the purpose of the proposed change to enable a fund to become even more widely held by accommodating an unlimited number of small investors without restriction so long as at least 16 unrelated investors each maintain the required minimum average investment in the fund. The commenter also suggested other amendments beyond the scope of this project (see section 12 of this preamble). The Final Regulations adopt this change as proposed.

6. Section 1.148-8 Small Issuer Exception to Rebate Requirement—Pooled Bonds

The 2007 Proposed Regulations proposed to amend the Existing Regulations to conform to changes made to section 148(f)(4)(D) by section 508 of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, Public Law 109-222, 120 Stat. 345, which eliminated a rule that permitted a pool bond issuer to ignore its pool bond issue in computing whether it had exceeded its $5 million limit for purposes of the small issuer rebate exception. The Treasury Department and the IRS received no comments regarding this proposed change. The Final Regulations adopt this change as proposed.

7. Section 1.148-10 Anti-Abuse Rules and Authority of Commissioner

The 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed to amend the Commissioner's authority to depart from the arbitrage regulations when an issuer enters into a transaction for a principal purpose of obtaining a material financial advantage based on the difference between tax-exempt and taxable interest rates in a manner inconsistent with the purposes of section 148, from that “necessary to clearly reflect the economic substance of the transaction” to that “necessary to prevent such financial advantage.” The 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed to remove the references to “economic substance” to prevent confusion of the Commissioner's authority under this arbitrage anti-abuse rule with the economic substance doctrine under general federal tax principles. No substantive change was intended.

Commenters suggested that this proposed change would give unduly broad discretion to the Commissioner and would reduce certainty of the applicability of published guidance. These commenters recommended limiting the Commissioner's authority to that necessary “to reflect the economics of the transaction to prevent such financial advantage.” The Final Regulations adopt this comment.

8. Section 1.148-11 Transition Provision for Certain Guarantee Funds

The Existing Regulations include a transition rule that allows certain State perpetual trust funds (for example, certain State permanent school funds) to pledge funds to guarantee tax-exempt bonds without resulting in arbitrage-restricted replacement proceeds. The 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed to include changes proposed in Notice 2010-5, 2010-2 IRB 256, to increase the amount of tax-exempt bonds that such funds could guarantee under this special rule. Further, in response to comments received on Notice 2010-5, the 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed to extend this special rule to cover certain tax-exempt bonds issued to finance public charter schools, which may be 501(c)(3) organizations. The Treasury Department and the IRS received no comments on these proposed changes. The Final Regulations adopt these changes as proposed.

9. Section 1.150-1 Definitions

A. Definition of Tax-Advantaged Bonds

The 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed a new definition of tax-advantaged bonds. The Treasury Department and the IRS received no comments regarding this new definition. The Final Regulations substitute “tax benefit” for “subsidy” in describing tax-advantaged bonds but otherwise adopt the definition as proposed.

B. Definition of Issue

The Existing Regulations provide that tax-exempt bonds and taxable bonds are not part of the same issue. The 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed to clarify that taxable tax-advantaged bonds and other taxable bonds are part of different issues and that different types of tax-advantaged bonds are parts of different issues. The Treasury Department and IRS received one comment supporting this proposed change and no opposing comments. The Final Regulations adopt this change as proposed.

C. Definition and Treatment of Grants

The 2013 Proposed Regulations proposed that the existing definition of grant for arbitrage purposes applies for purposes of other tax-exempt bond provisions. The 2013 Proposed Regulations also proposed to clarify that the character and nature of a grantee's use of proceeds generally is taken into account in determining whether arbitrage and other applicable requirements of the issue are met.

Commenters requested confirmation that the proposed rule preserves the existing rule that an issuer spends proceeds used for grants for purposes of the arbitrage investment restrictions when the issuer makes the grant to an unrelated third-party. Thus, for example, if the grantee uses the grant to reimburse its expenditures, the reimbursement allocation rules do not apply. The 2013 Proposed Regulations expressly proposed the special grant expenditure rule for arbitrage purposes as an example of a specific exception to the proposed general rule. Commenters also suggested other amendments to the rules for grants that are beyond the scope of this project (see section 12 of this preamble). The Final Regulations adopt these changes as proposed.

10. Section 1.141-15 Effective Dates

The Final Regulations include certain technical amendments to final regulations (TD 9741) that were published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 (80 FR 65637). Those final regulations provide guidance on allocation and accounting rules and certain remedial actions for purposes of the private activity bond restrictions under section 141 of the Internal Revenue Code that apply to tax-exempt bonds issued by State and local governments.

The technical amendments amend the applicability dates to include a transition rule for refunding bonds, provided that the weighted average maturity of the refunding bonds is no longer than that of the refunded bonds or, in the case of certain short-term obligations, no longer than 120 percent of the weighted average reasonably expected economic life of the facilities financed. The technical amendments also clarify permissive application of certain provisions to outstanding bonds.

11. Revenue Procedure 97-15

Revenue Procedure 97-15, 1997-1 CB 635, provides a program under which an issuer of tax-exempt bonds may request a closing agreement with respect to outstanding bonds to prevent the interest on those bonds from being includible in gross income of the bondholders or being treated as an item of tax preference for purposes of the alternative minimum tax as a result of an action subsequent to the issue date of the bonds that causes the bonds to fail to meet certain requirements relating to the use of proceeds. Notice 2008-31, 2008-1 CB 592, also provides a voluntary closing agreement program for tax-exempt bonds and tax credit bonds. The scope of the violations that can be remedied under Notice 2008-31 is broader than that under Rev. Proc. 97-15. As a result, this Treasury Decision obsoletes Rev. Proc. 97-15.

12. Comments Beyond the Scope of the Proposed and Final Regulations

Commenters submitted additional suggestions for revisions to the Existing Regulations. These suggestions include: (1) Adding a new safe harbor to prevent the creation of replacement proceeds specifically for grants and extraordinary working capital financings (and redefining “extraordinary working capital”); (2) adding new rules for using proceeds to fund working capital reserves; (3) providing how an issuer should allocate certain expenses related to yield-to-call premium bonds for computing yield on the issue; (4) revising the rules for determining if an interest rate cap contains a significant investment element; (5) permitting a conduit borrower to identify a qualified hedge on its books and records; (6) providing a safe harbor for when an issuer may liquidate escrow investments for purposes of valuation of investments; (7) revising the proceeds-spent-last expenditure rule to permit financing of certain payments on hedges; (8) permitting yield reduction payments on investments purchased to defease zero-coupon bonds; (9) providing yield reduction payments for a basis difference under circumstances other than those in the Proposed Regulations; (10) exempting external comingled funds that are operated by a government on a not-for-profit basis from the requirements for administrative costs of such funds to be included in qualified administrative costs of investments; (11) establishing an economic life for grants based on the benefit of the grant to the grantor; (12) providing rules for grant repayments; and (13) explaining how certain rules in the Proposed Regulations would apply to very specific facts. These comments identify issues that are beyond the scope of the Proposed Regulations and thus are not addressed in the Final Regulations.

Applicability Dates

The Final Regulations generally apply to bonds that are sold on or after October 17, 2016. Certain provisions related to hedges on bonds apply to hedges that are entered into or modified on or after October 17, 2016. The Final Regulations also permit issuers to apply certain of the amended provisions to bonds sold before October 17, 2016. For specific dates of applicability, see §§ 1.141-15, 1.148-11, 1.150-1, and 1.150-2.

Effect on Other Documents

As of July 18, 2016, Revenue Procedures 95-47 and 97-15 are obsoleted and Notice 2008-41 is modified.

Special Analyses

Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. It is hereby certified that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that the collection of information in these regulations is required for hedging transactions entered into primarily between larger State and local governments and large counterparties. It is also based on the fact that the estimated recordkeeping burden for all issuers and counterparties is relatively small and the reasonable costs of that burden do not constitute a significant economic impact. Accordingly, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the proposed regulations preceding these final regulations were submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business. No comments were received.

Drafting Information

The principal authors of these regulations are Johanna Som de Cerff, Spence Hanemann, and Lewis Bell of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions and Products), IRS. However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

Availability of IRS Documents

IRS revenue procedures and notices cited in these final regulations are made available by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

• Income taxes
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

PART 1—INCOME TAXES

Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 is amended by removing the entry for § 1.148-6 to read in part as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Par. 2. Section 1.141-0 is amended by:

1. Revising the entry for § 1.141-15(l)(2).

2. Adding an entry for § 1.141-15(l)(3).

3. Adding an entry for § 1.141-15(n).

The additions and revisions read as follows:

Par. 3. Section 1.141-1 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Par. 4. Section 1.141-15 is amended by:

1. Redesignating paragraph (l)(2) as (l)(3).

2. Adding new paragraph (l)(2).

3. Amending the first sentence of redesignated paragraph (l)(3) by adding “Except as otherwise provided in this section,” at the beginning of the sentence and removing the word “Issuers” and adding the word “issuers” in its place.

4. Adding paragraph (n).

The additions and revisions read as follows:

Par. 5. Section 1.148-0(c) is amended by:

1. Revising the entry for § 1.148-2(e)(3).

2. Adding an entry for § 1.148-3(d)(4).

3. Revising the entry for § 1.148-5(d)(2).

4. Revising the entry for § 1.148-8(d).

5. Removing the entries for § 1.148-8(d)(1) and (2).

6. Revising the entry for § 1.148-10(e).

7. Adding entries for § 1.148-11(k).

8. Revising the entries for § 1.148-11(l).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

Par. 6. Section 1.148-1 is amended by:

1. Revising paragraph (c)(4)(i)(B)( 1).

2. Removing the “or” at the end of paragraph (c)(4)(i)(B)( 2).

3. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (c)(4)(i)(B)( 3) and adding in its place a semicolon and the word “or”.

4. Adding paragraph (c)(4)(i)(B)( 4).

5. Revising paragraph (c)(4)(ii).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

Par. 7. Section 1.148-2 is amended by revising the heading of paragraph (e)(3) and revising paragraph (e)(3)(i) to read as follows:

Par. 8. Section 1.148-3 is amended by:

1. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(iv).

2. Adding paragraph (d)(4).

3. Revising Example 2(iii)(D) of paragraph (j).

The revisions and addition read as follows:

Par. 9. Section 1.148-4 is amended by:

1. Revising paragraph (a).

2. Revising paragraph (b)(3)(i).

3. Adding two sentences at the end of paragraph (h)(2)(ii)(A).

4. Revising the heading and introductory text of paragraph (h)(2)(v).

5. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (h)(2)(v)(B).

6. Adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (h)(2)(vi).

7. Revising paragraph (h)(2)(viii).

8. Revising paragraph (h)(3)(iv)(A).

9. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(3)(iv)(B) through (E) as paragraphs (h)(3)(iv)(E) through (H) respectively.

10. Adding new paragraphs (h)(3)(iv)(B), (C), and (D).

11. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (h)(3)(iv)(E).

12. Revising the first sentence in newly redesignated paragraph (h)(3)(iv)(F).

13. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (h)(3)(iv)(G).

14. Revising the first sentence in newly redesignated paragraph (h)(3)(iv)(H).

15. Adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (h)(4)(i)(C).

16. Adding paragraphs (h)(4)(i)(C)( 1) and (2).

17. Adding paragraph (h)(4)(iv).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

Par. 10. Section 1.148-5 is amended by:

1. Revising paragraph (c)(3).

2. Revising paragraphs (d)(2) and (3).

3. Revising the last sentence in paragraph (d)(6)(i) and adding a sentence at the end of the paragraph.

4. Revising paragraphs (d)(6)(iii)(A)( 1) and (6).

5. Revising the second sentence of paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(B).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

Par. 11. Section 1.148-6 is amended by:

1. Revising the second sentence of paragraph (d)(3)(iii)(A).

2. Removing paragraph (d)(4)(iii).

The revision reads as follows:

Par. 12. Section 1.148-7 is revised by:

1. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(v).

2. Revising paragraph (i)(6)(ii).

The revisions read as follows:

Par. 13. Section 1.148-8(d) is revised to read as follows:

Par. 14. Section 1.148-10 is amended by:

1. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (a)(4).

2. Revising the heading and first sentence of paragraph (e).

The revisions read as follows:

Par. 15. Section 1.148-11 is amended by:

1. Redesignating paragraphs (d)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), and (vi) as paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), and (F), respectively.

2. Revising the heading of paragraph (d)(1) and adding introductory text to paragraph (d)(1)(i).

3. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(B), (D), and (F).

4. Adding new paragraph (d)(1)(ii).

5. Adding paragraph (k).

6. Revising paragraph (l).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

Par. 16. Section 1.150-1 is amended by:

1. Adding paragraph (a)(2)(iii).

2. Adding a definition for “tax-advantaged bond” in alphabetical order to paragraph (b).

3. Revising paragraph (c)(2).

4. Adding paragraph (f).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

Par. 17. Section 1.150-2(d)(3) is amended by:

1. Amending paragraph (a) by adding an entry for § 1.150-2(j)(3).

2. Revising paragraphs (d)(3) and (j)(1).

3. Adding paragraph (j)(3).

The revisions and additions read as follows: