Special Rules. For purposes of Regulations 23663-2 through 23663-5, inclusive, the following special rules shall apply:
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 $200 of the 2010 R & D credits. However, X's assignment lists the name of Y but the FEIN of Z. X discovers that the 2010 assignment was a defective assignment, and in the 2013 taxable year X elects to assign the $200 of the 2010 R & D credits to T. In the 2014 taxable year, X, Y and Z request and are allowed application of the rules under Regulation 23663-3 so that the $200 of 2010 R & D credits assigned in the 2010 defective assignment are allocated to X as of the date of the defective assignment. However, pursuant to paragraph (2) the 2013 assignment of $200 of 2010 R & D credits to T is an invalid assignment because the assignment was made before the adjustment date in the 2014 taxable year. Therefore, under this regulation, X is treated as having retained $200 of 2010 R & D credits, and Y, Z and T are treated as having received no 2010 R & D credits.
Example 2: X reported that it has $500 of 2010 R & D credits. On its original tax return for the 2010 taxable year, X elects to assign $250 of the 2010 R & D credits to Y and $250 of the 2010 R & D credits to Z. In 2015, a notice of proposed assessment for the 2010 taxable year makes an adjustment unrelated to the amount of R&D credits allowable, and increases X's tax liability by $300. X cannot claim the 2010 R&D credits to offset the increased 2010 tax liability because the assignments to Y and Z are valid assignments, and under this subsection, X's available 2010 R & D credits ($500) are first reduced by the amount of credits assigned to Y and Z ($250 + $250 = $500) before being available to X to offset the increased tax liability of $300. Therefore, X has no remaining 2010 R & D credits to offset the increased tax liability.
Example 3: Assume the same facts as Example 2, except that X had $700 of 2010 R&D credits in 2010 and carried the $200 excess forward to 2011. X can claim $200 of the 2010 R&D credits to offset the increased 2010 tax liability because X retained $200 of 2010 R & D credits after the valid assignments to Y and Z. Under this subsection, X's available 2010 R & D credits ($700) are first reduced by the amount of credits assigned to Y and Z ($250 + $250 = $500) before being available to X to offset the increased tax liability of $300. Therefore, X has $200 of remaining 2010 R & D credits to offset the increased tax liability of $300.
Example 4: Assume the same facts as in Example 3, except that on the 2010 assignment form X listed the name of Y but FEIN of W. X also claimed $50 of 2010 R & D credits against its own tax liability in 2010. As of the adjustment date, Y and W have each claimed $225 of 2010 R & D credits in a closed year. X's available 2010 R & D credits ($700) are first reduced by the amount of credits assigned to Z ($250). Next, pursuant to this subsection and Regulation 23663-3, X's remaining $450 of 2010 R & D credits are further reduced by the amount of credits claimed by Y and W in a closed year ($225 + $225 = $450). Therefore, X does not have the $50 of 2010 R & D credits that X claimed against its tax in 2010 nor does X have any 2010 R & D credits to offset the additional tax assessed by the notice of proposed assessment.
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 2010 R & D credits. Subsequently, X discovers that it only generated $150 of 2010 R & D credits. X also discovers that Y is not an eligible assignee. X requests and is allowed adjustments pursuant to Regulations 23663-2 and 23663-3, including a determination under Regulation 23663-3(d) that Y is not an eligible assignee. Pursuant to paragraph (2), the adjustment under Regulation 23663-3 is applied first, thereby allocating credits from the X - Y assignment to X, so that X has $150 of 2010 R & D credits available for assignment before the application of Regulation 23663-2 for the X - Z assignment. As a result, Regulation 23663-2 does not apply, because X's assignment to Z is not a defective assignment as X has the $100 of 2010 R & D credits assigned to Z. Therefore, X is treated as having retained $50 of 2010 R & D credits, Y is treated as having received no 2010 R & D credits, and Z received $100 of R & D credits.
Example 6: Assume the same facts as in Example 5, except that X discovers Y is not an eligible assignee after the adjustment date in Example 5. Therefore, X requests and is allowed an adjustment pursuant to pursuant to Regulation 23663-2. Accordingly, pursuant to Regulation 23663-2, X's actual $150 of 2010 R & D credits are allocated $100 to Y and $50 to Z, with X treated as having retained no 2010 R & D credits. Later, the FTB issues a notice of proposed assessment. As of this subsequent adjustment date, adjustments are made pursuant to Regulation 23663-3, so that, assuming the limitations of Regulation 23663-3(d) no longer apply, the $100 of 2010 R & D credits previously allocated to Y would then be allocated to X. Therefore, following these two adjustments, X would be treated as retaining $100 of 2010 R & D credits, Y is treated as having received no 2010 R & D credits, and Z is treated as having received $50 of R & D credits.
Example 7: 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 $150 of the 2010 R & D credits to Y and $150 of the 2010 R & D credits to Z. Y has also generated $100 of 2010 R & D credits. Subsequently, X discovers that it only generated $100 of 2010 R & D credits. As of the adjustment date, Y has claimed $100 of 2010 R & D credits in a closed year. Pursuant to paragraph (3)(A), in applying Regulation 23663-2, Y is treated as having claimed no 2010 R & D credits assigned from X in a closed year because the 2010 R & D credits that Y earned are treated as having been claimed before credits received in the assignment from X. Therefore, under Regulation 23663-2, X is treated as retaining no 2010 R & D credits, and Y and Z are both allocated $50 of 2010 R & D credits.
Example 8: 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 Regulation 23663-2 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. The FTB allows X's request. Subsequently, the FTB issues a notice of proposed assessment which reduces X's actual 2010 R & D credits from $150 to $75. Pursuant to subsection (d), for purposes of applying 23663-2(c), the alternative allocation is treated as if it were the original assignment on the timely-filed original tax return. As a result of the prior alternative allocation, Z would now receive no 2010 R & D credits under Regulation 23663-2, so that X's $75 of 2010 R & D credits are allocated to Y. Accordingly, X is treated as having retained $0 of 2010 R & D credits, Y is treated as having received $75 of 2010 R & D credits, and Z is treated as having received $0 of R & D credits.
Example 9: 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. On its original tax return for the 2011 taxable year, X elects to assign $100 of the 2010 R & D credits to Z. Subsequently, X discovers that it only generated $120 of 2010 R & D credits. While the assignments to X and Y deal with the same type of identical credit, they are not aggregated pursuant to Regulation 23663-2(b). Under paragraph (1)(B), because the 2010 assignment to Y was made in an earlier year than the 2011 assignment to Z, the assignment to Y is treated as having occurred before the assignment to Z. Therefore, the assignment of $100 of 2010 R & D credits to Y is a valid assignment because X has the $100 of 2010 R & D credits being assigned. But, the 2011 assignment to Z is a defective assignment because X only has $20 of 2010 R & D credits ($120 available in 2010 less the $100 assigned to Y = $20) available for assignment in 2011.
Example 10: 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. In 2016, X discovers that it only had $140 of 2010 R & D credits, and requests and is allowed to apply the default rules of Regulation 23663-2. Y has claimed $100 of the 2010 R & D credits in 2010, which is a closed year for Y as of the adjustment date. Under Regulation 23663-2, X's actual $140 of 2010 R & D credits are allocated $100 to Y and $40 to Z. Subsequently, in 2017 under Revenue and Taxation Code section 19058, the FTB issues a notice of proposed assessment for the 2010 taxable year which reduces X's 2010 R & D credits to $80. As of this subsequent adjustment date, the 2010 taxable year is no longer a closed year for Y. However, pursuant to paragraph (2), the 2016 adjustment is not later changed if a closed year subsequently opens. In addition, under subsection (d), the adjustment in 2016 is treated as if made on an original tax return. Therefore, as of the second adjustment date, all $80 of 2010 R & D credits are allocated to Y and no 2010 R & D credits are allocated to Z because under paragraph (2) the allocation of $100 of 2010 R & D credits to Y based on credits claimed in a closed year is not modified as of a subsequent adjustment.
Example 11: 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. X, joined by Y, requests application of the default rules under Regulation 23663-2. Pursuant to paragraph (3), $20 of 2010 R & D credits are available for allocation under Regulation 23663-2. Therefore, X is treated as retaining no 2010 R & D credits, Y is treated as receiving $10 of 2010 R & D credits, and Z is treated as receiving $10 of 2010 R & D credits. The other $100 of 2010 R & D credits are not allocated to Z, but instead, as of an adjustment date, such $100 of 2010 R & D credits would be allocated among X, Y and Z pursuant to Regulation 23663-2.
Example 12: On its original tax return for the 2010 taxable year, X elects to assign 2010 R & D credits to Y and Z. Subsequently, X discovers that it had less credits than it assigned. X requests and is allowed application of the default rules under Regulation 23663-2. After the adjustment date, X, joined by Y and Z, requests an alternative allocation under Regulation 23663-2. Under these facts, the FTB would reject the alternative allocation request because, pursuant to paragraph (4), X may only request the application of Regulations 23663-2 or 23663-3 once per defective assignment.
Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 18, §§ 23663-5
Note: Authority cited: Sections 19503 and 23663, Revenue and Taxation Code. Reference: Section 23663, Revenue and Taxation Code.