The March 2006 issue of Taxes–The Tax Magazine is out with the papers from the University of Chicago Law School’s 58th Annual Federal Tax Conference held November 11-12, 2005 (and blogged here):

Session I:  International Tax Treatment of Intellectual Property

Topic 1:  Current Strategies for Sharing IP Income Among the Members of a Multinational Group:

Traditionally, US tax rules have focused on IP ownership as the principal touchstone for income entitlement. More recent proposals would sever this relationship and instead focus on the entrepreneurial investment that each group member makes in developing the IP. Whether this change in direction is fair or advisable is a topic for lively debate. While in some cases the proposed approach may permit the IRS to attempt to claw more income into the US tax net, this approach may give well advised taxpayers even greater flexibility to divide the risks and rewards of IP development to minimize their global tax burdens. [blogged here]

Paper:  Gregg D. Lemein (Baker & McKenzie, Chicago), Sharing Intangible Property Within a Multinational Group, 84 Taxes 27 (Mar. 2006)

Commentary:  Paul M. Dau (McDermott Will & Emery, Palo Alto), Current Strategies for Sharing IP Income Among Members of Multination Groups: Cost Sharing Arrangements, 84 Taxes 65 (Mar. 2006)

Topic 2:  How and When the US Should Tax IP Profits:

How should the US tax system characterize the income earned on IP? Should the result hinge on whether the IP income stream is separately identified as a royalty or embedded in transactions involving tangible property? If, after application of the principles to be discussed in the first paper, IP income is determined to arise offshore, should the US permit tax deferral or exemption for this income? Answers to these questions – particularly the last one – should take into account the effect of the US tax rules on the competitiveness of US multinationals in international commerce. [blogged here]

Paper:  Barbara M. Angus (Angus & Nickerson, Washington, D.C.) & Thomas M. Zollo (KPMG, Chicago), Revisiting the U.S. Taxation of Intangible Property Income of COntrolled Foreign Corporations, 84 Taxes 75 (Mar. 2006)

Commentary:  Peter Merrill (PricewaterhouseCoopers, Washington, D.C.), Tax Reform and Intangible Property, 84 Taxes 97 (Mar. 2006)

Session 2:  Retrospectives

Topic 1: Reorganizations Among Commonly Controlled Corporations:

Once-settled issues in the tax treatment of D reorganizations are now anything but. In addition to considering the need for the substantially-all and continuity-of-interest requirements, this presentation will analyze the continuing viability of the liquidation-reincorporation cases and the advisability of harmonizing the D reorganization rules with those of section 304. [blogged here]

Paper:  Michael L. Schultz (McKee Nelson, Washington, D.C.), The Future of Acquisitive D Reorganizations, 84 Taxes 107 (Mar. 2006)

Commentary:  Mark L. Yecies (Columbia), The Future of Acquisitive D Reorganizations:  A Reply to Michael Schultz, 84 Taxes 137 (Mar. 2006)

Topic 2:  Re-Thinking Deferred Compensation:

The patchwork of rules relating to deferred compensation plans, stock options, restricted stock and carried interests in partnerships is complex and the rules themselves are inconsistent. Some rules are compromises reached long ago in the name of administrability that may not reflect current policy judgments. This presentation will analyze the shortcomings of the current system and examine the possibilities for change.  [blogged here]

Paper:  Dana L. Trier (Davis Polk & Wardwell, New York), Rethinking the Taxation of Nonqualified Deferred Compensation:  Code Sec. 409A, the Hedging Regulations and Code Sec. 1032, 84 Taxes 141 (2006)

Commentary:  Richard J. Bronstein (Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York), Rethinking Code Sec. 409A, 84 Taxes 179 (Mar. 2006)

Session 3:  Current Perspectives on Partnership Taxation

Topic 1: Partnerships and Other Arrangements Involving Tax-Exempt Entities:

This presentation will examine the special rules that apply to partnerships and other arrangements involving tax-exempt entities, including the fractions rule of section 514(c)(9), the tax-exempt use rule of section 168(h)(6), the pension-held REIT rules of section 856(h), and the new and confused rules relating to SILO transactions in section 470. It will consider whether these attempts to regulate the intersection between the taxable and tax-exempt sectors are necessary, whether they have been successful and how they might be improved. [blogged here]

Paper:  Patrick C. Gallagher (Kirkland & Ellis, New York), Investment by Tax-Exempt Organizations–Intersections and Collisions with the Taxable World, 84 Taxes 185 (Mar. 2006)

Commentary:  Stuart L. Rosow (Proskauer Rose, New York), Partnerships:   From the Tax Exempt’s Perspective, 84 Taxes 209 (Mar. 2006)

Topic 2:  What’s Really Wrong with Section 752?:

Final regulations for allocating partnership recourse liabilities were published more than a decade ago. The intervening years have seen the development of bottom-line guarantees, recourse debt with blockers, limited liability companies, disregarded entities and other tax-planning techniques that may cast doubt on the fundamental judgment of the regulations to allocate recourse liabilities in accordance with the “economic risk of loss.” This presentation will consider this question in the context of the issues under section 752 that arise in a sophisticated partnership tax practice today. [blogged here]

Paper:  Eric B. Sloan (Deloitte Tax, New York) & Jennifer H. Alexander (Deloitte Tax, New York), Economic Risk of Loss:  The Devil We Think We Know, 84 Taxes 217 (Mar. 2006)

Commentary:  Steven C. Todrys (Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, New York), Recourse Debt Is Usually Nonrecourse:  A Comment, 84 Taxes 251 (Mar. 2006)