My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 08/27/1991
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
1991
>
Agenda - Council - 08/27/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/7/2025 9:34:59 AM
Creation date
12/10/2003 11:15:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
08/27/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
137
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Holmes & Graven <br />$/17/91 <br /> <br /> SUMMARY OF <br /> REIMBURSEMENT REGULATIONS <br />PROPOSED TRES. REG. SS 1,103-17 and 1.103-15 <br /> <br />I. The Perceived Problem. The reimbursement regulations were issued in <br />response to a perceived abuse. The IRS was concerned that a city might decide to <br />issue bonds to reimburse itself for old expenditures, such as a two-year-old library <br />financed with general funds, and then invest bond proceeds without regard to <br />rebate or yield restriction requirements until spent on a new project. These bonds <br />began to be referred to as "pyramid bonds," on the theory that an issuer could rely <br />on this method to reimburse itself for expenditures as far back as construction of <br />the pyramids. The IRS has taken the position that under certain circumstances, the <br />reimbursement is not effective and the bond proceeds are in reality being issued to <br />finance the new expenditures and should be subject to applicable yield restriction <br />and rebate requirements. The new regulations are intended to identify under what <br />circumstances bond proceeds used for reimbursement will be considered "spent" for <br />yield restriction and rebate purposes. <br /> <br />II. The Consequences for Failure to Comply. If an issue does not comply with <br />the reimbursement rules, the immediate result is that bond proceeds are not <br />considered "spent". The bond proceeds, wherever they are, will be deemed to be <br />subject to whatever yield restriction and rebate requirements are applicable. <br />Assume, for example, that the issue allocates $1,000,000 of bond proceeds to an <br />expenditure made the prior year and no declaration of official intent was made. <br /> <br />A. Rebate If the issuer fell within the $5,000,000 small issuer rebate <br />exemption, rebate is not a problem. If the issuer was attempting to meet <br />the 6-month or 2-year spenddown test, however, the issuer will be treated as <br />if it hasn't spent the $1,000,000 of proceeds. This may cause it to fail the <br />spenddown requirement. If the issue is subject to rebate, it will owe rebate <br />on the investment of the $1,000,000 even if for its accounting purposes the <br />issuer considers the money spent. <br /> <br />B. Yield Restriction. Assume the same $1,000,000 reimbursement <br />allocation made without a valid official intent. Normally, the issuer has a <br />three-year temporary period for the expenditure of proceeds to be used for <br />construction or acqusition of a project based on an expectation that all <br />amounts will be spent within that 'three year period, and any amounts <br />remaining after three years may be subject to yield restriction. If amounts <br />are not deemed "spent", and they remain unexpended past the three year <br />temporar~ period, they may be subject to yield restrictions. If amounts <br />subject to yield restriction are invested at a yield in excess of the yield on <br />the bonds, the bonds become "arbitrage bonds" and lose their tax-exempt <br />status. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> ! <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> ! <br /> I <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.