New york state taxes
It would appear that after enactment of the amendment, these considerations may be disregarded for federal bankruptcy purposes, and when securitization transactions are structured, provision of recourse to the transferor and repurchase options taking advantage of appreciation will now be possible. new york state taxes Turbo tax online. As discussed below, however, these factors may well be relevant to accountants under FAS 125 (for example, a repurchase option on the transferred assets, other than a clean-up call, currently is not permissible under FAS 125). In addition, a two-tier structure may not be necessary in instances where the degree of recourse back to the transferor is permissible for "non-consolidation" purposes and would not prevent sales treatment under FAS 125. Accounting ConsiderationsThe impact that the amendment will have on accounting treatment of rated securitizations is unclear. new york state taxes 1099 tax form. For sale treatment of financial assets under FAS 125, there must be evidence that "transferred financial assets have been . . . new york state taxes Irs tax return. put presumptively beyond the reach of the transferor [and its affiliates] and its creditors. "5 An opinion that transferred assets would not be part of the transferor''s bankruptcy estate would seem to satisfy at least the isolation requirements of FAS 125. However, paragraph 23 of the implementation guidance to FAS 125 instructs auditors to take into consideration all the "facts and circumstances" in determining whether sales treatment should be accorded to a transaction. Thus, it remains to be seen whether FASB and/or the AICPA''s Auditing Standards Board will continue to require the type of true sale opinion currently rendered in securitizations as contrasted to a simple opinion that the transaction meets the requirements of amended Section 541(b)(5). ConclusionWhile it is obvious that the amendment to Section 541(b) of the Bankruptcy Code has potentially significant beneficial effects for all parties involved in investment grade securitizations, it is not yet clear the extent to which the amendment will simplify transaction structures and legal opinion requirements. Much work will need to be done with the rating agencies, third party credit enhancers and accountants to clarify structuring and legal opinion requirements. Footnotes1. In addition to HR 833 and S 625, other governmental entities have either passed or proposed rules that are intended to clarify the status of transfers in a securitization in the context of an insolvency or bankruptcy. On September 1, 1997, the Texas Uniform Commercial Code was amended to provide that in any transaction involving "accounts" or "chattel paper" under the Texas UCC, the parties'' characterization of a transaction as a sale - not the extent of recourse against the seller or any other factors - will be conclusive as to whether such transaction will, under Texas law, be treated as a sale or grant of security interest. (See Texas UCC ' 9. 102(d)). Also, in September 1999, the FDIC (which has jurisdiction over the insolvency of federally insured depository institutions as opposed to the federal judiciary which has jurisdiction over "debtors" (which do not include such institutions) under the Bankruptcy Code) issued a proposed rule that would apply to insured depository institutions that states that "the FDIC shall not. . . reclaim, recover or recharacterize as property of the [institution]. . .
New york state taxes
Federal || New-york-state-sales-tax || Tax estimator || Tax estimator