Example 1: X reported that it has $200 of 2010 R & D credits. On its original tax return for the 2010 taxable year, X elects to assign $100 of the 2010 R & D credits to Y and $100 of the 2010 R & D credits to Z. Subsequently, X discovers that it only had $120 of 2010 R & D credits. The assignments to Y and Z will be aggregated for purposes of determining whether both are defective assignments because both assignments involved the same type of identical credit and were made in the same taxable year. Both assignments will be treated as being defective assignments because X did not have the $200 of 2010 R & D credits which were assigned to Y and Z in the taxable year of the assignment.
Example 2: Assume the same facts as in Example 1, except that the assignment to Z was made on X's 2011 original tax return. While the assignments to X and Y deal with the same type of identical credit, the assignments were made in different taxable years and so are not aggregated for purposes of applying subsection (b). (See also Regulation 23663-5(d)(1).)
Example 3: Assume the same facts as in Example 1, except that instead of assigning $100 of 2010 R & D credits to Z in 2010, X assigned $100 of 2009 R & D credits to Z on its 2010 tax return. The assignments to Y and Z are not aggregated under this section because the 2009 R & D credits and 2010 R & D credits are not identical credits.
Example 4: Assume the same facts as in Example 3, except that instead of assigning $100 of 2009 R & D credits to Z, X assigned $100 of 2010 low income housing credits to Z. The assignments to Y and Z are not aggregated under this section because the 2010 R & D credits and 2010 low income housing credits are not identical credits.
Example 5: X reported that it has $350 of 2010 R & D credits. On its original tax return for the 2010 taxable year, X elects to assign $200 of the 2010 R & D credits to Y and $100 of the 2010 R & D credits to Z. Therefore, X retained $50 of the 2010 R & D credits. Subsequently, X discovers that it only had $150 of R & D credits in 2010. Pursuant to subsection (c)(1), as of the adjustment date, X's actual $150 of 2010 R & D credits will be allocated to the aggregated eligible assignees (Y and Z) as follows: for Y - $200 ($200 is the total 2010 R & D credits assigned to Y) / $300 ($300 is the total 2010 R & D credits assigned to eligible assignees) x $150 ($150 is X's actual amount of 2010 R & D credits) = $100 and for Z - $100 / $300 x $150 = $50. Therefore, under this regulation, X is treated as having retained no 2010 R & D credits, Y is treated as having received $100 of 2010 R & D credits, and Z is treated as having received $50 of 2010 R & D credits.
Example 6: Assume the same facts as in Example 5, except that X has claimed $30 of 2010 R & D credits in a closed year as of the adjustment date. Pursuant to subsection (c)(2)(A), the first $30 of 2010 R & D credits are allocated to X. Pursuant to subsection (c)(1), the remaining $120 of 2010 R & D credits ($150 less $30) will be allocated to the aggregated eligible assignees as follows: for Y - $200 ($200 is the total 2010 R & D credits assigned to Y) / $300 ($300 is the total 2010 R & D credits assigned to eligible assignees) x $120 ($120 is X's remaining amount of 2010 R & D credits) = $80 and for Z - $100 / $300 x $120 = $40. Therefore, under this regulation, X is treated as having retained $30 of 2010 R & D credits (the $30 claimed in a closed year), Y is treated as having received $80 of 2010 R & D credits, and Z is treated as having received $40 of 2010 R & D credits.
Example 7: Assume the same facts as in Example 6, except that Y has also claimed $40 of 2010 R & D credits in a closed year as of the adjustment date. Pursuant to subsection (c)(2)(A), $30 of 2010 R & D credits are first allocated to X and $40 of 2010 R & D credits to Y. Next, pursuant to subsection (c)(2)(B), of the remaining $80 of 2010 R & D credits ($150 less $70), $20 of 2010 R & D credits will be allocated to Z so that Y and Z end up with a pro rata allocation of credits using the original defective assignment amounts. $40 ($40 is the 2010 R & D credits already allocated to Y) / $200 ($200 is the total 2010 R & D credits assigned to Y) = 20% x $100 ($100 is the total 2010 R & D credits assigned to Z) = $20. Finally, pursuant to subsection (c)(1), the remaining $60 of 2010 R & D credits ($150 less $70 less $20) will be allocated as follows: for Y - $200 ($200 is the total 2010 R & D credits assigned to Y) / $300 ($300 is the total 2010 R & D credits assigned to aggregated eligible assignees) x $60 ($60 is X's remaining amount of 2010 R & D credits) = $40 and for Z - $100 / $300 x $60 = $20. Therefore, under this regulation, X is treated as having retained $30 of 2010 R & D credits, Y is treated as having received $80 of 2010 R & D credits and Z is treated as having received $40 of R & D credits.
Example 8: Assume the same facts as in Example 5, except that instead of assigning credits to Y and Z in the amounts listed, X assigns $150 of the 2010 R & D credits to Y, $100 of the 2010 R & D credits to Z, and $50 of the 2010 R & D credits to T. As of the adjustment date, Y has claimed $90 of 2010 R & D credits in a closed year and Z has also claimed $10 of 2010 R & D credits in a closed year. Pursuant to subsection (c)(2)(A), as of the adjustment date, X's actual $150 of 2010 R & D credits will be allocated to the aggregated eligible assignees (Y, Z and T) as follows: $90 of 2010 R & D credits are first allocated to Y and $10 of 2010 R & D credits to Z. Therefore, after this first step, Y, Z and T have received the following percentage of the credits assigned to them in the original defective assignments: Y - 60% ($90 / $150), Z - 10% ($10 / $100) and T - 0% ($0 / $50).
Next, pursuant to subsection (c)(2)(B), $5 of 2010 R & D credits (10% x 50 credits assigned to T) will be allocated to T so that T has the same 10% allocation as Z. Z and T now both have a 10% allocation of the 2010 R & D credits assigned to them in the original defective assignments. The remaining $45 of 2010 R & D credits ($150 less $100 less $5) will be allocated to Z and T until they both have received a 60% allocation of 2010 R & D credits. The credits to be allocated to Z and T are calculated as follows:
However, because X only has $45 of 2010 R & D credits remaining to be allocated to the aggregate eligible assignees after the earlier adjustments (instead of $75), the $45 of 2010 R & D credits are allocated pro rata between Z and T as follows:
Example 9: X reported that it has $350 of 2010 R & D credits. On its original tax return for the 2010 taxable year, X elects to assign $200 of the 2010 R & D credits to Y and $100 of the 2010 R & D credits to Z. Therefore, X retained $50 of the 2010 R & D credits. Subsequently, X discovers that it only generated $150 of R & D credits in 2010. X makes a request, joined by Y and Z, for an alternative allocation under this subsection to allocate X's $150 of 2010 R & D credits from X's aggregated defective assignments as follows: $50 of 2010 R & D credits to X and $100 of 2010 R & D credits to Y. Assuming all other conditions of this subsection are satisfied, the FTB would approve X's request; therefore, under this regulation, X is treated as having retained $50 of 2010 R & D credits, Y is treated as having received $100 of 2010 R & D credits, and Z is treated as having received $0 of R & D credits.
Example 10: Assume the same facts as in Example 9, except that X, joined by Y and Z, requests an alternative allocation under this subsection to allocate all of X's $150 of 2010 R & D credits from its aggregated defective assignments to X. Under these facts, the FTB would reject X's request because under paragraph (1) it would result in X being treated as retaining more 2010 R & D credits than X would have retained had the defective assignments been valid.
Example 11: Assume the same facts as in Example 9, except that X, joined by Y and Z, requests to allocate X's $150 of 2010 R & D credits from its aggregated defective assignments to K. Under these facts, the FTB would reject X's request because under paragraph (3), K is not an aggregated eligible assignee.
Example 12: X reported that it has $200 of 2009 R & D credits and $200 of 2010 R & D credits. On its original tax return for the 2010 taxable year, X elects to assign $100 of the 2009 R & D credits to Y and $100 of the 2010 R & D credits to Z. Therefore, X retained $100 of the 2009 R & D credits and $100 of the 2010 R & D credits. Subsequently, X discovers that it only generated $50 of 2009 R & D credits and $40 of 2010 R & D credits. X makes a request, joined by Y and Z, to allocate $50 of 2009 R & D credits and $40 of 2010 R & D credits to Y. Under these facts, the FTB would reject X's request because under paragraph (3) of this subsection, X and Y are not aggregated eligible assignees; therefore, the identical credits in X's defective assignment to Y cannot be combined with the identical credits in X's defective assignment to Z.
Example 13: Assume the same facts as in Example 9, except that X, only joined by Z, requests to allocate $100 of X's actual $150 of 2010 R & D credits from its aggregated defective assignments to Z. Under these facts, the FTB would reject X's request because under paragraph (5) of this subsection, X has only $50 of 2010 R & D credits available for an alternative allocation (X's actual $150 of 2010 R & D credits reduced by the $100 of 2010 R & D credits assigned to Y who did not join the request for an alternative allocation). See also Regulation 23663-5(e)(3).
Example 14: X reported that it has $350 of R & D credits generated in 2010. On its original tax return for the 2010 taxable year, X elects to assign $200 of the 2010 R & D credits to Y and $100 of the 2010 R & D credits to Z. Therefore, X retained $50 of the 2010 R & D credits. Subsequently, X discovers that it only generated $150 of R & D credits in 2010. The FTB mails correspondence to Y regarding taxable year 2010. Subsequently, X mails a request for an alternative allocation to the FTB. Under these facts, the FTB would reject X's request because it was sent after first contact.
Example 15: Assume the same facts as in Example 9, except that in 2017, six taxable years after the alternative allocation adjustment, X requests an alternative allocation for a defective assignment made on X's original 2008 tax return. Under these facts, the FTB would reject X's request for the 2008 alternative allocation because pursuant to paragraph (8) of this subsection, the second alternative allocation request is for an alternative allocation for a taxable year (2008) that is within the four taxable year period of the alternative allocation request made for the 2010 taxable year.
Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 18, §§ 23663-2
Note: Authority cited: Sections 19503 and 23663, Revenue and Taxation Code. Reference: Section 23663, Revenue and Taxation Code.