Lenders who advance cash to corporations often do so with a clear expectation: the company will repay the principal and will pay interest, and the borrower will report interest income. Yet for U.S. taxpayers the moment of truth comes much later, sometimes years after the money has left the bank—when the IRS, or a court, asks whether that advance was really a loan or instead a capital contribution disguised as debt. This area of tax law is especially troublesome if the loan was made to a foreign (non-U.S.) corporation.
The tax consequences of being a creditor are far different from those of being a shareholder. If the IRS reclassifies an advance to a non-U.S. corporation as an equity interest, the taxpayer can face a cascade of reporting requirements and potentially ruinous tax regimes: mandatory information returns, the so-called PFIC rules that can turn distributions into ordinary income taxed at the top rate with compounded interest penalties, foreign‑account reporting obligations, and FATCA consequences. Such a reclassification can transform a modest interest receipt into a complicated and expensive dispute with the tax authorities.
The tax landscape distinguishing “debt” from “equity” has shifted in the last decade. The shift has resulted in more complicated and less certainty in tax planning. In turn, this has increased the stakes for getting it wrong.
Although the IRS issued final and temporary regulations under IRC Section 385 some years back, those rules were later withdrawn. With no binding regulatory framework in place, taxpayers must continue to rely on case law, examining a series of factors applied by the courts to determine whether an instrument is debt or equity.
Practitioners still turn to these cases for guidance when structuring cross‑border advances and documenting related‑party financings. While the case law provides a panoply of important factors, it should be noted that each factor is not equally significant. No single factor alone will be determinative of the outcome and because of the different fact patterns that can arise when presented with a debt-equity question, not all of the factors will be relevant to each and every case.
MORE FOR YOU
Debt v. Equity: Factors And How To Prepare
What should a conservative taxpayer or advisor do today? First, assume that classification will be litigated if the arrangement is aggressive or if the borrower is thinly capitalized. Robust documentation remains vital despite the fact that the IRS proposed regulations containing a federal documentation rule was removed. Contemporaneous evidence that the parties intended a loan and treated it as such is persuasive in court and practical with IRS auditors. An instrument designated by the parties as a promissory note, bond, or debenture is more likely to be considered to represent “debt.”
The documentation should show the commercial rationale for the advance, a repayment schedule, any security or subordination terms, and actions consistent with a creditor relationship (for example, formal demands for payment, enforcement steps or arms‑length interest rates). Recent practitioner guidance highlights that careful recordkeeping and factual support can be the difference between victory and a costly recharacterization.
Below is a checklist of various factors generally examined by the courts:
Factors pointing toward debt include:
A fixed maturity date.
A legally enforceable right to repayment.
Treatment of the advance on the borrower’s books as a liability.
Consistent payments of interest regardless of earnings.
The corporate debtor’s intent to repay the loan comports with its economic reality.
Factors pointing toward equity include:
Subordination of the advance to other creditors.
Repayments tied to earnings of the corporation.
Shareholders’ advances to the corporation are in proportion to their equity holdings in the company.
Rights to participate in management or share in profits.
The corporation is thinly capitalized.
Advanced funds being used for capital outlays, as opposed to everyday normal operating expenses.
Debt v. Equity: U.S. Tax And Information Reporting Upon Recharacterization
Taxpayers and their advisors must think beyond the debt‑equity question to the cascade of U.S. reporting and tax regimes that would follow a reclassification in the case of advances to a foreign corporation. Even in the simplest case, the taxation of a foreign company’s dividend payment is nuanced. It may be treated as a qualified dividend eligible for a lower tax rate but must pass certain hurdles. If the payment does not pass the tests, a foreign dividend may end up with a surprising 37% U.S. tax rate.
If an advance is recharacterized as equity, a U.S. person may become a shareholder for Form 5471 purposes, potentially exposing them to subpart F inclusions, Form 8621 PFIC reporting and significant tax on excess distributions, as well as Form 8938 reporting obligations. The failure to file any of these foreign information forms can lead to an open-ended statute of limitations, meaning the IRS can challenge the taxpayer’s tax return at any time in the future.
A shareholder’s ownership can also trigger FBAR filing for the foreign corporation’s accounts and may alter withholding and FATCA compliance obligations of foreign financial institutions. In other words, the label matters not just for income tax, but for information returns, penalties and foreign reporting responsibilities as well.
Taxpayers making loans to a foreign corporation should also prepare for PFIC traps. Even when an instrument is bona fide debt, a U.S. lender should confirm whether the foreign borrower might nevertheless be a PFIC for U.S. tax purposes—because PFIC rules can bite shareholders harshly and surprise creditors who suddenly find themselves treated as shareholders under IRS challenge. An early PFIC analysis (and timely filing of Form 8621, when required), should be part of any cross‑border lending checklist.
Helpful Case: Illinois Tool Works Inc. & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner (2018)
In Illinois Tool Works Inc. & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner (2018), the Tax Court rejected the IRS attempt to recharacterize a cross-border related-party financing transaction as equity. The taxpayer successfully showed that the loan transaction should be respected as it had the features of bona fide debt: enforceable repayment rights, an appropriate interest rate, a business purpose for the loan, and consistency with economic substance. The decision is useful for planning purposes in structuring intercompany borrowing, especially when dealing with foreign subsidiaries.
Conclusion: Debt v. Equity Preparedness for IRS Audit
For practitioners and business owners, the takeaway is cautious but practical: do not rely on labels alone. Treat cross‑border shareholder advances with the same disciplined documentation and commercial testing that would be applied to any third‑party financing. Keep contemporaneous evidence of intent and commercial substance, monitor capitalization and third‑party borrowing alternatives, and assess the ripple effects of a possible reclassification on reporting obligations like Forms 5471, 8621, 8938 and FBAR. While Treasury has backtracked from imposing strict documentation mandates, case law and IRS exam practice continue to reward the taxpayer that can show consistent, commercial behavior supporting debt treatment.
In short, debt. v. equity issues are paramount. When you lend to a corporation, especially when lending to a foreign corporation, assume someone later will ask whether you meant to be a lender or an owner. Plan and document carefully because the answer will certainly matter.
Stay on top of tax matters around the globe.
Reach me at vljeker@us-taxes.org
Corporate ‘Loans’: The Debt v. Equity IRS Challenge And Tax Nightmares
