(The news featured
below is a selection from the news covered in SEC Today, which is distributed to
subscribers of SEC
Today.)
Funds Ask for Additional Guidance on FIN 48
Fidelity Investments, Massachusetts Financial Services Co.
and OppenheimerFunds, Inc. have withdrawn a rulemaking petition submitted to the
SEC last December which sought interpretive guidance and an extension of the
effective date of FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in
Income Taxes, but repeated their request for additional interpretive guidance on
its implementation.
The SEC issued a no-action letter last December which
provided for a six-month delay in the implementation of FIN 48 for mutual funds
and provided guidance in response to some of the questions that were raised by
the Investment Company Institute in a December 11, 2006 letter. The funds said
the delay in the effective date was the most critical aspect of the relief they
requested, which is why they withdrew their petition. However, the funds
continue to believe that additional guidance is needed to prevent certain
adverse effects of FIN 48.
The funds outlined the potential adverse effects that FIN
48 may create due to the unique nature of registered investment companies and
the way they are taxed. The problems include the potential for false tax
liabilities, the daily net asset value calculation and its impact on share
pricing, and unintended consequences such as arbitrage and frequent trading. In
their rulemaking petition, the funds had argued that FIN 48 should not apply to
registered investment companies at all.
The SEC issued its response to ICI's letter seeking a delay
and additional guidance on the same day the funds submitted their rulemaking
petition. The staff letter addressed one of the problems raised by ICI relating
to the danger of a false tax liability and the incorrect reduction in net asset
value. The staff assured ICI that FIN 48 does not limit the types of evidence
that may be considered in determining that a tax position is more likely than
not to be sustained upon examination by the relevant taxing authority.
The staff letter did not address two other scenarios
identified by the ICI, but urged the industry to make good use of the additional
time that was granted to carefully assess all of the issues related to the
implementation of FIN 48. FASB met in January to consider whether to delay FIN
48 for a year and whether to issue additional guidance, but voted to do neither.
The funds noted that FASB may now be considering whether to provide additional
guidance on the treatment of third-party reimbursements, but believe that
additional guidance is needed to ensure the consistent application of FIN 48,
especially since there may be a complete lack of authority and audit experience
in some areas.
Once the extension of the effective date ends, the funds
raised concerns about facing immediate FIN 48 determinations within the one-day
time frame that is unique to funds, where operating companies have until the end
of each quarter. The funds asked for more flexibility with respect to the time
period for performing the FIN 48 analysis. During that time, the funds asked
that the FIN 48 reduction need not be recorded as long as no reduction is
required under FASB Financial Accounting Statement No. 5, Accounting for
Contingencies.
The funds also asked, to the extent that an adviser or
another party has an administrative practice to pay or reimburse the fund for
errors, that funds be permitted to consider this practice in determining whether
to reduce net asset value. If the other party subsequently determines not to
reimburse the fund, the fund would reduce the net asset value at that time.
The funds said they fully intend to use the additional time
the SEC has provided by the delay of FIN 48's effective date to address their
unique implementation issues. However, the issues raised in their letter require
additional guidance once the extension period ends, according to the funds.
Jacquelyn Lumb
|