assignment of unsecured debt

Assignment Of Debt

Jump to section, what is an assignment of debt.

Assignment of debt is an agreement that transfer debt, rights, and obligations from a creditor to a third party. Assignment of debt agreements are commonly found when a creditor issues past due debt to a debt collection agency. The original lender will be relieved of all obligations and the agency will become the new owner of the debt. Debt assignment allows creditors to improve liquidity by reducing their financial risk. If a creditor has taken on a large amount of unsecured debt, an assignment of debt agreement is a quick way to transfer some of the unsecured loans to another party.

Common Sections in Assignments Of Debt

Below is a list of common sections included in Assignments Of Debt. These sections are linked to the below sample agreement for you to explore.

Assignment Of Debt Sample

Reference : Security Exchange Commission - Edgar Database, EX-10 19 ex107.htm ASSIGNMENT OF DEBT AND SECURITY , Viewed October 25, 2021, View Source on SEC .

Who Helps With Assignments Of Debt?

Lawyers with backgrounds working on assignments of debt work with clients to help. Do you need help with an assignment of debt?

Post a project  in ContractsCounsel's marketplace to get free bids from lawyers to draft, review, or negotiate assignments of debt. All lawyers are vetted by our team and peer reviewed by our customers for you to explore before hiring.

Meet some of our Assignment Of Debt Lawyers

I am a seasoned corporate transactional attorney with over 20 years of combined outside and inside General Counsel experience. My experience includes helping companies of all sizes, including start-ups with general corporate matters and commercial transactions.

Keidi S. Carrington brings a wealth of legal knowledge and business experience in the financial services area with a particular focus on investment management. She is a former securities examiner at the United States Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) and Associate Counsel at State Street Bank & Trust and has consulted for various investment houses and private investment entities. Her work has included developing a mutual fund that invested in equity securities of listed real estate investment trusts (REITs) and other listed real estate companies; establishing private equity and hedge funds that help clients raise capital by preparing offering materials, negotiating with prospective investors, preparing partnership and LLC operating agreements and advising on and documenting management arrangements; advising on the establishment of Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs/Token Offerings) and counseling SEC registered and state investment advisers regarding organizational structure and compliance. Ms. Carrington is a graduate of Johns Hopkins University with a B.A. in International Relations. She earned her Juris Doctorate from New England Law | Boston and her LL.M. in Banking and Financial Law from Boston University School of Law. She is admitted to practice in Massachusetts and New York. Currently, her practice focuses on assisting investors, start-ups, small and mid-size businesses with their legal needs in the areas of corporate and securities law.

Retired Dentist transitioned to Law, with a special interest in Commercial Real Estate, Startup businesses, Asset Purchase Agreements, and Employment Contracts. I love to help dentists and physicians with legal issues pertaining to licensing, credentialing, employment, and general business-legal questions.

T. Phillip B.

Attorney creating plans and strategies to help individuals create, build, protect and pass on wealth.

Corporate counsel with years of in-house experience working with and reporting to board / executive-level and upper management, along with extensive regional / national law firm background in commercial transactions and contracts, complex commercial litigation, and employment matters. Skilled at executing corporate priorities, driving profitability by implementing goal-oriented processes to achieve revenue and productivity targets, and managing company litigation and outside counsel. Recognized for creating policies and practices to address ethical dilemmas and resolving misconduct.

Jim Slattery most recently served as General Counsel at Regional News Network, a large owner of broadcast television stations. Jim is an experienced attorney with broad-based expertise. He is a seasoned negotiator who has been involved in negotiations as complex as the Olympic Games. Jim spent 18 years as Vice President for Business and Legal Affairs at NBCUniversal. Previously, Jim worked in the media industry in various roles at All American Television. Jim’s success can be attributed to his ability to properly analyze data, manage projects, lead teams, develop creative solutions for complex problems, focus on strategically optimizing assets, manage/allocate risk and collaborate with divergent constituent groups to achieve objectives. Jim received a J.D. and a B.B.A. from the University of Notre Dame.

Jonathan H.

I’m an attorney focusing my practice on concierge corporate and intellectual property law for startups and high-growth companies. I also serve as outside General Counsel to several businesses in various sectors. Since founding my practice I've worked with hundreds of clients across a variety of industries. My experience as a former General Counsel of a premier edtech company gives me unique insight into the challenges my clients face and how to resolve them efficiently and cost-effectively.

Find the best lawyer for your project

How it works.

Post Your Project

Get Free Bids to Compare

Hire Your Lawyer

Financial lawyers by top cities

• Austin Financial Lawyers
• Boston Financial Lawyers
• Chicago Financial Lawyers
• Dallas Financial Lawyers
• Denver Financial Lawyers
• Houston Financial Lawyers
• Los Angeles Financial Lawyers
• New York Financial Lawyers
• Phoenix Financial Lawyers
• San Diego Financial Lawyers
• Tampa Financial Lawyers

Assignment Of Debt lawyers by city

• Austin Assignment Of Debt Lawyers
• Boston Assignment Of Debt Lawyers
• Chicago Assignment Of Debt Lawyers
• Dallas Assignment Of Debt Lawyers
• Denver Assignment Of Debt Lawyers
• Houston Assignment Of Debt Lawyers
• Los Angeles Assignment Of Debt Lawyers
• New York Assignment Of Debt Lawyers
• Phoenix Assignment Of Debt Lawyers
• San Diego Assignment Of Debt Lawyers
• Tampa Assignment Of Debt Lawyers

related contracts

• Accredited Investor Questionnaire
• Adverse Action Notice
• Bridge Loan
• Bridge Loan Contract
• Collateral Assignment
• Commercial Loan
• Convertible Bonds
• Convertible Note
• Convertible Preferred Stock
• Cumulative Preferred Stock

other helpful articles

• How much does it cost to draft a contract?
• Do Contract Lawyers Use Templates?
• How do Contract Lawyers charge?
• Business Contract Lawyers: How Can They Help?
• What to look for when hiring a lawyer

Quick, user friendly and one of the better ways I've come across to get ahold of lawyers willing to take new clients.

Contracts Counsel was incredibly helpful and easy to use. I submitted a project for a lawyer's help within a day I had received over 6 proposals from qualified lawyers. I submitted a bid that works best for my business and we went forward with the project.

I never knew how difficult it was to obtain representation or a lawyer, and ContractsCounsel was EXACTLY the type of service I was hoping for when I was in a pinch. Working with their service was efficient, effective and made me feel in control. Thank you so much and should I ever need attorney services down the road, I'll certainly be a repeat customer.

I got 5 bids within 24h of posting my project. I choose the person who provided the most detailed and relevant intro letter, highlighting their experience relevant to my project. I am very satisfied with the outcome and quality of the two agreements that were produced, they actually far exceed my expectations.

Want to speak to someone?

Get in touch below and we will schedule a time to connect!

Find lawyers and attorneys by city

• Insights & events

Assigning debts and other contractual claims - not as easy as first thought

Harking back to law school, we had a thirst for new black letter law. Section 136 of the Law of the Property Act 1925 kindly obliged. This lays down the conditions which need to be satisfied for an effective legal assignment of a chose in action (such as a debt). We won’t bore you with the detail, but suffice to say that what’s important is that a legal assignment must be in writing and signed by the assignor, must be absolute (i.e. no conditions attached) and crucially that written notice of the assignment must be given to the debtor.

When assigning debts, it’s worth remembering that you can’t legally assign part of a debt – any attempt to do so will take effect as an equitable assignment. The main practical difference between a legal and an equitable assignment is that the assignor will need to be joined in any legal proceedings in relation to the assigned debt (e.g. an attempt to recover that part of the debt).

Recent cases which tell another story

Why bother telling you the above?  Aside from our delight in remembering the joys of debating the merits of legal and equitable assignments (ehem), it’s worth revisiting our textbooks in the context of three recent cases. Although at first blush the statutory conditions for a legal assignment seem quite straightforward, attempts to assign contractual claims such as debts continue to throw up legal disputes:

• In  Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp Europe Ltd v Euler Hermes Europe SA (NV) [2019] EWHC 2250 (Comm),  the High Court held that a performance bond issued under a construction contract was not effectively assigned despite the surety acknowledging a notice of assignment of the bond. Sadly, the notice of assignment failed to meet the requirements under the bond instrument that the assignee confirm its acceptance of a provision in the bond that required the employer to repay the surety in the event of an overpayment. This case highlights the importance of ensuring any purported assignment meets any conditions stipulated in the underlying documents.
• In  Promontoria (Henrico) Ltd v Melton [2019] EWHC 2243 (Ch) (26 June 2019) , the High Court held that an assignment of a facility agreement and legal charges was valid, even though the debt assigned had to be identified by considering external evidence. The deed of assignment in question listed the assets subject to assignment, but was illegible to the extent that the debtor’s name could not be deciphered. The court got comfortable that there had been an effective assignment, given the following factors: (i) the lender had notified the borrower of its intention to assign the loan to the assignee; (ii) following the assignment, the lender had made no demand for repayment; (iii) a manager of the assignee had given a statement that the loan had been assigned and the borrower had accepted in evidence that he was aware of the assignment. Fortunately for the assignee, a second notice of assignment - which was invalid because it contained an incorrect date of assignment - did not invalidate the earlier assignment, which was found to be effective. The court took a practical and commercial view of the circumstances, although we recommend ensuring that your assignment documents clearly reflect what the parties intend!
• Finally, in Nicoll v Promontoria (Ram 2) Ltd [2019] EWHC 2410 (Ch),  the High Court held that a notice of assignment of a debt given to a debtor was valid, even though the effective date of assignment stated in the notice could not be verified by the debtor. The case concerned a debt assigned by the Co-op Bank to Promontoria and a joint notice given by assignor and assignee to the debtor that the debt had been assigned “on and with effect from 29 July 2016”. A subsequent statutory demand served by Promontoria on the debtor for the outstanding sums was disputed on the basis that the notice of assignment was invalid because it contained an incorrect date of assignment. Whilst accepting that the documentation was incapable of verifying with certainty the date of assignment, the Court held that the joint notice clearly showed that both parties had agreed that an assignment had taken place and was valid. This decision suggests that mistakes as to the date of assignment in a notice of assignment may not necessarily be fatal, if it is otherwise clear that the debt has been assigned.

The conclusion from the above? Maybe it’s not quite as easy as first thought to get an assignment right. Make sure you follow all of the conditions for a legal assignment according to the underlying contract and ensure your assignment documentation is clear.

Contact our experts for further advice

Search our site

What is unsecured debt?

Advertiser disclosure.

We are an independent, advertising-supported comparison service. Our goal is to help you make smarter financial decisions by providing you with interactive tools and financial calculators, publishing original and objective content, by enabling you to conduct research and compare information for free - so that you can make financial decisions with confidence.

Bankrate has partnerships with issuers including, but not limited to, American Express, Bank of America, Capital One, Chase, Citi and Discover.

How We Make Money

The offers that appear on this site are from companies that compensate us. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site, including, for example, the order in which they may appear within the listing categories, except where prohibited by law for our mortgage, home equity and other home lending products. But this compensation does not influence the information we publish, or the reviews that you see on this site. We do not include the universe of companies or financial offers that may be available to you.

• Share this article on Facebook Facebook
• Share this article on Twitter Twitter
• Share this article on LinkedIn Linkedin
• Share this article via email Email

• • Personal loans
• • Debt consolidation

• • Student loans

The Bankrate promise

At Bankrate we strive to help you make smarter financial decisions. While we adhere to strict editorial integrity , this post may contain references to products from our partners. Here's an explanation for how we make money .

Founded in 1976, Bankrate has a long track record of helping people make smart financial choices. We’ve maintained this reputation for over four decades by demystifying the financial decision-making process and giving people confidence in which actions to take next.

Bankrate follows a strict editorial policy , so you can trust that we’re putting your interests first. All of our content is authored by highly qualified professionals and edited by subject matter experts , who ensure everything we publish is objective, accurate and trustworthy.

Our banking reporters and editors focus on the points consumers care about most — the best banks, latest rates, different types of accounts, money-saving tips and more — so you can feel confident as you’re managing your money.

Editorial integrity

Bankrate follows a strict editorial policy , so you can trust that we’re putting your interests first. Our award-winning editors and reporters create honest and accurate content to help you make the right financial decisions.

Key Principles

We value your trust. Our mission is to provide readers with accurate and unbiased information, and we have editorial standards in place to ensure that happens. Our editors and reporters thoroughly fact-check editorial content to ensure the information you’re reading is accurate. We maintain a firewall between our advertisers and our editorial team. Our editorial team does not receive direct compensation from our advertisers.

Editorial Independence

Bankrate’s editorial team writes on behalf of YOU — the reader. Our goal is to give you the best advice to help you make smart personal finance decisions. We follow strict guidelines to ensure that our editorial content is not influenced by advertisers. Our editorial team receives no direct compensation from advertisers, and our content is thoroughly fact-checked to ensure accuracy. So, whether you’re reading an article or a review, you can trust that you’re getting credible and dependable information.

How we make money

You have money questions. Bankrate has answers. Our experts have been helping you master your money for over four decades. We continually strive to provide consumers with the expert advice and tools needed to succeed throughout life’s financial journey.

Bankrate follows a strict editorial policy , so you can trust that our content is honest and accurate. Our award-winning editors and reporters create honest and accurate content to help you make the right financial decisions. The content created by our editorial staff is objective, factual, and not influenced by our advertisers.

We’re transparent about how we are able to bring quality content, competitive rates, and useful tools to you by explaining how we make money.

Bankrate.com is an independent, advertising-supported publisher and comparison service. We are compensated in exchange for placement of sponsored products and services, or by you clicking on certain links posted on our site. Therefore, this compensation may impact how, where and in what order products appear within listing categories, except where prohibited by law for our mortgage, home equity and other home lending products. Other factors, such as our own proprietary website rules and whether a product is offered in your area or at your self-selected credit score range, can also impact how and where products appear on this site. While we strive to provide a wide range of offers, Bankrate does not include information about every financial or credit product or service.

Key takeaways

• Unsecured debt doesn't require collateral, such as a vehicle or a home, to get approved for it.
• Because unsecured debt doesn't have assets attached to it, lenders take on more risk. That means interest rates are typically higher and approval is based on credit.
• Personal loans, credit cards and student loans are some common types of unsecured debt.
• To get rid of unsecured debt, you'll have to pay it off or seek a legal recourse to get it discharged.

Unsecured debt is any debt that isn’t backed by collateral. Since there isn’t an asset that can be seized if you default, it’s riskier for the lender. To compensate for this risk, lenders usually charge higher interest rates than those of secured debt.

Taking on this form of debt is common. As long as you know how to manage your debt properly, you can use unsecured debt to work toward your financial goals.

Unsecured debt vs. secured debt

Unlike unsecured debt, which doesn’t require you to put up any assets as collateral, secured debt requires an asset be attached to it.

Since secured loans have assets attached to them, lenders typically charge lower interest rates, as they represent a lower risk. For example, while they’re similar products in terms of loan amounts and repayment terms, home equity loans — a type of second mortgage —  have an average rate of around 9 percent. Personal loans, on the other hand, which are usually unsecured, have an average rate of just above 11.5 percent.

However, both secured and unsecured debt affect your credit. If you miss a payment , this may be reported to the three major credit bureaus: TransUnion, Experian and Equifax. This, in turn, can cause your credit score to drop by several points. Negative marks from missed payments can also stay on your credit report for up to seven years.

Unsecured debt examples

Credit cards and most personal loans are among the most common types of unsecured debt. Although lenders typically charge higher interest rates on these types of debt, there are ways to get around this.

For instance, you may be able to qualify for an introductory rate of 0 percent on a credit card. You might also bypass the higher interest rates if you pay your credit card bill in full each month, though it depends on what type of credit card you have.

When it comes to personal loans, you usually can secure rates of under 7 percent if you have excellent credit and high, steady income. However, with these loans, there aren’t any workarounds to avoid paying interest.

Are student loans secured or unsecured?

Although federal student loans are backed by the government, you aren’t required collateral to get approved for these loans. Same goes for private student loans . Because of this, both of these fall into the unsecured debt category.

Secured debt examples

Common types of secured debts include auto loans , mortgages , home equity loans and home equity lines of credit (HELOCs) .

In the case of auto loans, your loan is backed by your vehicle, so defaulting on it means the lender can seize this asset. When it comes to mortgages, home equity loans and home equity lines of credit, defaulting puts you at risk of foreclosure.

While lenders tend to offer lower interest rates for these kinds of loans, there’s no way to avoid paying interest.

What happens if you don’t pay an unsecured debt?

Although a lender can’t initially take your assets for not paying an unsecured debt, you’ll face other consequences. For one, you’ll be charged late fees for paying late. And if you go too long without making a payment, your unsecured debt will be sent to a collection agency .

Once your debt is sent to the collection agency, your credit score will decrease since payment history accounts for 35 percent of your score. This will make it harder for you to obtain loans successfully in the future.

Depending on what type of unsecured loan you have, your wages might be subject to garnishment if you fail to repay your debt. A creditor might also sue you in court and place a lien against your property. If a court awards a judgment to the lender, this could put your assets at risk. Laws vary by state regarding which personal assets are exempt from seizure.

How to get rid of unsecured debt

In dealing with unsecured debt, there are two primary options: pay off the debt or file for bankruptcy.

Pay off the debt

To pay off the debt, there are several potential paths you can take.

• Rework your budget. If it is possible for you to reduce your expenses elsewhere, you can shift your finances to pay down the debt faster by dedicating more of your expendable or unassigned income toward eliminating the debt.
• Consolidate. You can also seek a debt consolidation loan to replace old debt with new debt, typically at a lower interest rate. However, these loans are not always beneficial to you and may have an adverse effect on your credit because they will close multiple accounts while creating new debt.
• Hire a debt relief company. Another way to tackle unsecured debt is by working with a debt relief company . These companies work with your creditors to settle your balances from less than what you owe in exchange for a fee. However, they typically require you to be behind on payments to be eligible for their services, plus have upwards of $7,000 worth of unsecured debt.

File for bankruptcy

If paying back the debt is not an option for you due to financial troubles, you may need to consider filing for bankruptcy . There are multiple options for bankruptcy, including Chapter 7 and Chapter 13, which you will have to choose based on your financial situation.

If you file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, your unsecured debt will largely be wiped out in several months. If you file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, you will agree to pay a portion of your outstanding debt over a three- to five-year period, at which point the remaining debt will be discharged. It’s also worth noting that if you do file for bankruptcy, there’s always a chance that federal student loans won’t be discharged.

That said, bankruptcy should only be pursued as a last resort when debt is truly unmanageable. Bankruptcy stays on your credit report for up to 10 years, and your credit score will take a significant hit. This combination can affect your future access to affordable rates or even credit approval.

Bottom line

With unsecured loans, your assets are not at risk of being seized unless the court awards a judgment to the lender. However, it is still important to understand the consequences of not paying your unsecured debt. To avoid late fees and serious harm to your credit score, create a plan to pay off your unsecured debt before applying.

Related Articles

What is an unsecured loan?

What a personal loan is, how rates work and common uses

Secured vs. unsecured debt: What’s the difference?

Secured vs. unsecured personal loans: What you need to know

This site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some are essential to make our site work; others help us improve the user experience. By using the site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Read our  privacy policy  to learn more.

• GAINS & LOSSES

Taxing the Transfer of Debts Between Debtors and Creditors

• C Corporation Income Taxation
• NOL & Other Tax Attributes
• Individual Income Taxation

T he frequent transfer of cash between closely held businesses and their owners is very common. If the owner works in the business, the transfer is likely to be either a salary to a shareholder/employee or a Sec. 707(c) guaranteed payment to a partner. Alternatively, the transfer may be a loan. As long as the true substance of the transaction is a loan, it will be respected for tax purposes. 1

The cash flow is not exclusively from the businesses to the owner. Many owners prefer to capitalize their closely held business with a combination of equity and debt. Once again, these loans will be respected and not reclassified as equity if they are bona fide loans.

In the normal course of business, these loans are repaid. The receipt of the repayment will be tax free except to the extent it is interest. However, in difficult economic conditions, many of these loans are not repaid. To the extent that the creditor cancels the obligation, the debtor has cancellation of debt (COD) income under Sec. 61(a)(12). This income is taxable unless the taxpayer qualifies for an exclusion under Sec. 108. In other cases, the debt is transferred between the parties either as an independent transaction or part of a larger one. This article reviews these transactions.

Two basic types of transfers have created significant tax issues. In the first, the debtor transfers the debt to the creditor. If the debtor is the owner of a business and the business is a creditor, the transfer appears to be a contribution. If the business is the debtor and the owner is the creditor, the transfer can be a distribution, liquidation, or reorganization. The other type of transfer is from the creditor to the debtor. Again, the transaction can take the form of a contribution if the creditor is the owner, or it can take the form of a distribution, liquidation, or reorganization if the creditor is the business.

Debtor-to-Creditor Transfers

Corporations.

The two seminal cases that established the framework for analyzing the transfer of a debt obligation from a debtor to a creditor are Kniffen 2 and Edwards Motor Transit Co. 3 Arthur Kniffen ran a sole proprietorship and owned a corporation. The sole proprietorship borrowed money from the corporation. For valid business reasons, Kniffen transferred the assets and liabili ties of the proprietorship to the corporation in exchange for stock of the corporation, thereby transferring a debt from the debtor to the creditor. The transaction met the requirements of Sec. 351.

The government argued that the transfer of the debt to the creditor was in fact a discharge or cancellation of the debt (a single step), which should have been treated as the receipt of boot under Sec. 351(b) and taxed currently. The taxpayer argued that the transfer was an assumption of the debt and, based on Sec. 357(a), should not be treated as boot.

The Tax Court acknowledged that the debt was canceled by operation of law. However, it did not accept the government’s argument as to the structure of the transaction. Instead, it determined that two separate steps occurred. First, the corporation assumed the debt. This assumption was covered by Sec. 357(a). After the assumption, the interests of the debtor and creditor merged and the debt was extinguished. Since the transfer was not for tax avoidance purposes, Sec. 357(b) did not apply. The result was a tax-free Sec. 351 transaction, except to the extent that the assumed debt exceeded the bases of the assets transferred, resulting in gain under Sec. 357(c). This decision established the separation of the debt transfer from its extinguishment.

Edwards Motor Transit Co. cites, and is considered to have adopted, the approach in Kniffen . For valid business reasons, the owners of Edwards created The Susquehanna Co., a holding company, and transferred Edwards’ stock to it under Sec. 351. Susquehanna borrowed money from Edwards to meet certain financial obligations. To eliminate problems that arose from having a holding company owning the stock of an operating company, the owners merged Susquehanna into Edwards under Sec. 368(a)(1)(A). The government acknowledged that the basic transaction was a nontaxable merger. However, the government wanted the company to recognize income as a result of the cancellation or forgiveness of the debt. The Tax Court ruled for the taxpayer, on the grounds that the debt transfer (from debtor to creditor) was not a cancellation of the debt. The ruling cited Kniffen as authority for this conclusion.

On its surface, Edwards Motor Transit affirmed the decision and reasoning in Kniffen . The Tax Court stated, “The transfer by the parent corporation of its assets to Edwards [its subsidiary] . . . constituted payment of the outstanding liabilities . . . just as surely as if Susquehanna had made payment in cash.” This statement relied on both Kniffen and Estate of Gilmore. 4 In Gilmore , a liquidating corporation transferred a receivable to its shareholder who happened to be the debtor. In that case, the court ruled the transaction was an asset transfer and not a forgiveness of debt. The court based its conclusion in large part on the fact that no actual cancellation of the debt occurred.

The statement in Edwards Motor Transit quoted above, however, is inapposite to the conclusion in Kniffen . A payment is not a transfer and assumption of a liability. Since Susquehanna was deemed to have used assets to repay the debt, the Tax Court should have required Susquehanna to recognize gain to the extent that the value of the assets used to repay the debt exceeded their bases. The conclusions in Kniffen and Edwards are consistent only in their holdings that these debt transfers were not cancellations of debts that would result in COD income. In Kniffen, the court ruled that the debt was assumed and then extinguished. In Edwards, the court ruled that the extinguishment of the debt constituted repayment.

It is possible that the Tax Court reached the correct outcome in Edwards Motor Transit but for the wrong reason. In Rev. Rul 72-464, 5 a debtor corporation merged into the creditor corporation in a tax-free A reorganization under Sec. 368(a)(1)(A). The ruling concluded that the debtor corporation did not recognize any gain or loss on the extinguishment of the debt within the acquiring corporation. General Counsel Memorandum (GCM) 34902 6 provided the detailed analysis behind the conclusion.

The GCM cited both Kniffen and Edwards 7 and adopted their underlying rationale. Specifically, it concluded that the basic transaction (the reorganization) results in a transfer of the debt to the acquiring corporation. It is after the transfer that the debt is extinguished by the statutory merger of interests. The transfer is an assumption of debt, which is nontaxable under Sec. 357(a). Therefore, the transferor (debtor corporation) recognizes no gain or loss.

This is exactly what happened in Ed wards . The debt was assumed, not repaid. Therefore, the Tax Court should have reached the conclusion that the transaction was nontaxable under Sec. 357(a) and not have relied on the questionable authority of Estate of Gilmore 8 or concluded that the debt was repaid.

Liquidations

The transactions discussed up to this point have been either tax-free corporate formations (Sec. 351) or tax-free reorganizations (Sec. 361). In a different transaction that is likely to occur, the creditor/shareholder liquidates the debtor corporation.

If the transaction is not between a parent and its subsidiary, taxability is determined by Secs. 331 and 336. Prior to 1986, the outcome might have been determined by Kniffen and Edwards . With the repeal that year of the General Utilities 9 doctrine (tax-free corporate property distributions) and the enactment of current Sec. 336, the outcome is straightforward. Under Sec. 336, the debtor corporation that is liquidated recognizes its gains and losses. Whether the liquidated corporation is treated as using assets to satisfy a debt requiring the recognition of gain or is treated as distributing assets in a taxable transaction under Sec. 336, all the gains and losses are recognized.

The taxation of the shareholder is a little more complex. First, the shareholder must determine how much it received in exchange for the stock. The most reasonable answer is that the shareholder received the value of the assets minus any debt assumed and minus the face amount of the debt owed to it by the liquidated corporation. This amount is used to determine the gain or loss that results from the hypothetical sale of stock under Sec. 331. Second, the shareholder must determine what was received for the debt, whether assets or the debt itself. The amount received in payment of the liquidated corporation’s debt is a nontaxable return of capital. If the shareholder is deemed to have received the debt itself, then the debt is merged out of existence. The basis of all the assets received should be their fair market value (FMV) under either Sec. 334(a) or general basis rules.

If the liquidated corporation is a subsidiary of the creditor/shareholder, the results change. Under Sec. 337, a subsidiary recognizes neither gain nor loss on the transfer of its assets in liquidation to an 80% distributee (parent). Sec. 337(b) expands this rule to include distributions in payment of debts owed to the parent corporation. Therefore, the subsidiary/debtor does not recognize any gain or loss.

The parent corporation (creditor) recognizes no gain or loss on the liquidation of its subsidiary under Sec. 332. The basis of the transferred property in the hands of the parent is carryover basis. 10 This carry­over basis rule also applies to property received as payment of debt if the subsidiary does not recognize gain or loss on the repayment. 11 In other words, the gain or loss is postponed until the assets are disposed of by the parent corporation.

One important exception to the nonrecognition rule is applied to the parent corporation. Under Regs. Sec. 1.332-7, if the parent’s basis in the debt is different from the face amount of the debt, the parent recognizes the realized gain or loss (face amount minus basis) that results from the repayment. Since this regulation does not mention any exception to the rules of Sec. 334(b)(1), the parent corporation is required to use carryover basis for all the assets received without adjustment for any gain or loss recognized on the debt.

This discussion of liquidations assumes that the liquidated corporation is solvent. If it is insolvent, the answer changes. The transaction cannot qualify under Secs. 332 and 337. The shareholder is not treated as receiving any property in exchange for stock; therefore, a loss is allowed under Sec. 165(g). The taxation of the debt depends on the amount, if any, received by the shareholder as a result of the debt.

Partnerships

The taxation of debt transfers involving partnerships is determined, in large part, by Secs. 731, 752, and 707(a)(2)(B). Specifically, the taxation of transfers by debtor partners to the creditor/partnership is determined by the disguised sale rules of Sec. 707(a)(2)(B), whereas transfers by debtor partnerships to a creditor/partner fall under Secs. 731 and 752.

Sec. 707(a)(2)(B) provides that a transfer of property by a partner to a partnership and a related transfer of cash or property to the partner is treated as a sale of property. The regulations specify the extent to which the partnership’s assumption of liabilities from the partner is treated as the distribution of the sale price.

Regs. Sec. 1.707-5 divides assumed liabilities into either qualified liabilities or unqualified liabilities. A qualified liability 12 is one that:

• Was incurred more than two years before the assumption;
• Was incurred within two years of the assumption, but was not incurred in anticipation of the assumption;
• Was allocated to a capital expenditure related to the property transferred to the partnership under Temp. Regs. Sec. 1.163-8T; or
• Was incurred in the ordinary course of business in which it was used, but only if all the material assets of that trade or business are transferred to the partnership.

The amount of qualified recourse liabilities is limited to the FMV of the transferred property reduced by senior liabilities. Any additional recourse liabilities are treated as nonqualified debt.

If a transfer of property is not otherwise treated as part of a sale, the partnership’s assumption of a qualified liability in connection with a transfer of property is not treated as part of a sale. The assumption of nonqualified liabilities is treated as sale proceeds to the extent that the assumed liability exceeds the transferring partner’s share of that liability (as determined under Sec. 752) immediately after the partnership assumes the liability. If no money or other consideration is transferred to the partner by the partnership in the transaction, the assumption of qualified liabilities in a transaction treated as a sale is also treated as sales proceeds to the extent of the transferring partner’s share of that liability immediately after the partnership assumes the liability. 13 Following the assumption of the liability, the interests of the debtor and creditor merge, thereby extinguishing the debt. The result is that generally the full amount of these assumed liabilities are part of the sale proceeds. 14

The assumed liabilities that are not treated as sale proceeds still fall under Sec. 752. Since the transaction results in a reduction of the transferor’s personal liabilities, the taxpayer is deemed to have received a cash distribution equal to the amount of the debt assumed under Sec. 752(b). Given that the debt is immediately extinguished, no amount is allocated to any partner. The end result is that the transferor must recognize gain if the liability transferred exceeds the transferor’s outside basis before the transaction, increased by the basis of any asset transferred to the partnership as part of the transaction.

A partnership may have borrowed money from a partner and then engaged in a transaction that transfers the debt to the creditor/partner. The first question is whether the initial transaction is a loan or capital contribution. Sec. 707(a) permits loans by partners to partnerships. The evaluation of the transaction is similar to one to determine whether a shareholder has loaned money to a corporation or made a capital contribution. The factors laid out in Sec. 385 and Notice 94-47 15 should be considered in this analysis.

Assuming the debt is real and it alone is transferred to the creditor/partner, the outcome is straightforward. The partner is treated as having made a cash contribution to the partnership under Sec. 752(a) to the extent that the amount of debt exceeds the amount allocated to the partner under the Sec. 752 regulations. If part of the debt is allocated to other partners, these other partners are treated as receiving a deemed cash distribution.

If the transfer is part of a larger transaction, then the analysis is a little more complex. The transfer of the other assets is governed by Secs. 737, 731, and 751. Sec. 737 requires a partner to recognize gain if, during the prior seven years, the partner had contributed property with built-in gain to the partnership and the current FMV of the distributed property exceeds the partner’s outside basis. The partner is treated as recognizing gain in an amount equal to the lesser of (1) the excess (if any) of the FMV of property (other than money) received in the distribution over the adjusted basis of such partner’s interest in the partnership immediately before the distribution reduced (but not below zero) by the amount of money received in the distribution, or (2) the net precontribution gain of the partner. The outside basis is increased by the amount of the deemed contribution because the partner assumed a partnership liability. After any gain under Sec. 737 is determined, the general distribution rules of Secs. 731 and 751(b) apply to the transaction. In effect, the transfer to a creditor/partner of a partnership debt owed to the partner is treated the same as any liability assumed by the partner. The extinguishment of the debt should not result in additional tax consequences.

Creditor-to-Debtor Transfers

In addition to debtor-to-creditor transfers, there are creditor-to-debtor transfers. The outcome of these transactions is determined by the two-step analysis in Kniffen . The creditor is treated as having transferred an asset to the debtor/owner. After the transfer, the interests of the debtor and creditor merge, resulting in the extinguishment of the debt. This extinguishment is generally nontaxable since the basis of the debt and the face amount are equal. 16 The result changes if the basis in the hands of the creditor and the adjusted issue price of the debtor are not equal. 17

One of the initial pieces of guidance that addressed this question was Rev. Rul. 72-464. 18 In this ruling, the debt was transferred in a nontaxable transaction. Consequently, the recipient (the debtor) had a carryover basis in the debt. Since this basis was less than the face amount, gain equal to the difference was recognized. This ruling did not explain the reasoning behind the gain recognition or the potential impact if the value of the debt was different from its basis. 19 These items were addressed in Rev. Rul. 93-7. 20

Rev. Rul. 93-7 analyzed a transaction between a partnership and a partner, here designated P and A , respectively. A was a 50% partner. This percentage allowed A to not be a related party to P under Sec. 707(b). P also had no Sec. 751 assets, and A had no share of P ’s liabilities under Sec. 752. These were excluded because they did not affect the reasoning behind the taxation of debt transfers. A issued a debt with a face amount of $100 for $100. P acquired the debt for $100. When the debt was worth $90, it was distributed to A in complete redemption of its interest, which had an FMV of $90 and outside basis of $25. In other words, a creditor/partnership distributed debt to the debtor/partner.

The debt was an asset, a receivable, in the hands of P . When it was distributed to A , P determined its taxation under Sec. 731(b), which provides that no gain or loss is recognized by a partnership on the distribution of property. The application of Sec. 731(b) in this transaction followed directly from Kniffen , which treated the transfer of a debt as a separate transaction from any extinguishment that follows the transfer. Under Sec. 732, A ’s basis in the transferred debt was $25. 21

The basis rules of Sec. 732 assume that a built-in gain or loss on distributed property is realized and recognized when the recipient disposes of the property. In this situation, the distributed debt was extinguished, and therefore no future event would generate taxable gain or loss. Consequently, this extinguishment became a taxable event. In this specific case, A recognized gain of $65 ($90 FMV – $25 basis) and COD income of $10 ($100 face − $90 FMV.) The ruling did not spell out the reasoning for the recognition of both gain and COD income. It is the correct outcome based on Regs. Sec. 1.1001-2. Under that regulation, when property is used to satisfy a recourse obligation, the debtor has gain equal to the difference between the value of the property and its basis, and COD income equal to the difference between the amount of debt and the value of the property used as settlement. The distributed debt is property at the time of the distribution, and the rules of Regs. Sec. 1.1001-2 should apply.

In Rev. Rul. 93-7, the value of the debt was less than the face amount. A debt’s value could exceed its face amount. In that case, the revenue ruling indicated, a deduction for the excess value may be available to the partner as a result of the deemed merger. In Letter Ruling 201105016, 22 the IRS ruled that a taxpayer was entitled to a deduction when it reacquired its debt at a premium as part of a restructuring plan. Rev. Rul. 93-7 cited Regs. Sec. 1.163-4(c)(1), and Letter Ruling 201105016 cited Regs. Sec. 1.163-7(c). Both regulations state that the reacquisition of debt at a premium results in deductible interest expense equal to the repurchase amount minus the adjusted issue price. Regs. Sec. 1.163-4(c)(1) applies to corporate taxpayers, while Regs. Sec. 1.163-7(c) expanded this treatment to all taxpayers. Based on these regulations and the treatment of the distribution as an acquisition of a debt, an interest expense deduction should be permitted when the value exceeds the amount of debt, whereas COD income is recognized when the value is less than the amount of the debt.

In Rev. Rul. 93-7, the partnership was the creditor, and the debt was transferred to a debtor/partner. The reverse transaction can occur, in which a creditor/partner transfers debt to the debtor/partnership in exchange for a capital or profits interest. Sec. 721 applies to the creditor/partner. Therefore, no gain or loss is recognized. However, Sec. 108(e)(8)(B) applies to the debtor/partnership. Sec. 108(e)(8)(B) provides that the partnership recognizes COD income equal to the excess of the debt canceled over the value of the interest received by the creditor. This income is allocated to the partners that owned interests immediately before the transfer. The partnership does not recognize gain or loss (other than the COD income) as a result of this transaction. 23 The value of the interest generally is determined by the liquidation value of the interest received. 24 If the creditor receives a profits interest, the liquidation value is zero, and therefore the partnership recognizes COD income equal to the amount of debt transferred.

Corporate Transactions

Debt transfers between corporations and shareholders are just as likely as transfers between partners and partnerships. If the transferor is a shareholder or becomes a shareholder as a result of the transaction, Secs. 1032, 118, and 351 provide basic nontaxability. However, Sec. 108 overrules these sections in certain cases.

If the shareholder transfers the debt to the corporation as a contribution to capital, Sec. 108(e)(6) may result in the recognition of COD income by the corporation. Under Sec. 108(e)(6), the corporation is treated as having satisfied the indebtedness with an amount of money equal to the shareholder’s adjusted basis in the indebtedness. Therefore, the corporation has COD income amount equal to the excess of the face amount of the debt over the transferor’s basis in the debt immediately prior to the transfer. In most cases, the face and basis are equal, and no COD income is recognized. If the transfer is in exchange for stock, Sec. 108(e)(8)(A) provides that the corporation is treated as having satisfied the indebtedness with an amount of money equal to the FMV of the stock. Therefore, the corporation recognizes COD income equal to the excess of the face value of the debt over the value of the stock received. In many cases, the value of the stock is less than the debt canceled, and therefore COD income is recognized. Sec. 351 provides that 80% creditor/shareholders recognize neither gain nor loss if the debt is evidenced by a security. If Sec. 351 does not apply, the creditor/shareholder may be able to claim a loss or bad-debt deduction.

Rev. Rul. 2004-79 25 provides a detailed analysis of the transfer of debt from a creditor corporation to a debtor shareholder. The analysis is similar to the one for partnership distributions covered by Rev. Rul. 93-7, discussed previously.

Modifying the facts of Rev. Rul. 2004-79, assume that a shareholder borrows money from his corporation. The face amount of the debt is $1,000, and the issue price is $920. The original issue discount (OID) of $80 is amortized by both the corporation and the shareholder. At a time when the adjusted issue price and basis are $950 but the FMV is only $925, the corporation distributes the debt to the shareholder as a dividend.

From the corporation’s point of view, this is a property dividend. Rev. Rul. 2004- 79 cites Rev. Rul. 93-7, but it could just as easily have cited Kniffen . As a property dividend, the transaction’s taxa tion to the corporation is governed by Sec. 311. Since the value in the revenue ruling was less than the basis, the corporation recognized no gain or loss. If the value had appreciated, the corporation would have recognized gain equal to the appreciation.

The shareholder receives a taxable dividend equal to the value of the debt; consequently, the debt has a basis equal to its FMV of $925. Since the debt is automatically extinguished, the shareholder is treated as having satisfied an obligation in the amount of $950 with a payment of $925. Therefore, the shareholder must recognize $25 of COD income.

A second fact pattern in the revenue ruling is the same, except the value of the distributed debt is $1,005. Under these facts, the shareholder would be entitled to an interest expense deduction under Regs. Sec. 1.163-4 or 1.163-7 in the amount of $55 ($1,005 − $950). In other words, the shareholder is deemed to have reacquired its own debt for a payment equal to the basis that the distributed debt obtains in the transaction.

The conclusions of Rev. Rul. 2004-79 are consistent with those in Rev. Rul. 93-7. They follow the reasoning of Kniffen .

Another transaction that could occur involving shareholder debt is a liquidation of the corporation, resulting in a distribution of the debt to the debtor/shareholder. The results should be similar to those in Rev. Rul. 2004-79. The corporation that distributes the debt is taxed under Sec. 336. Therefore, the corporation recognizes gain or loss depending on the basis of the debt and its FMV. This is the same result as in the dividend case, except that the loss is recognized under Sec. 336 instead of being denied under Sec. 311. The shareholder’s basis in the debt is its FMV under Sec. 334(a). The shareholder recognizes COD income or interest expense, depending on whether the basis is less than or greater than the adjusted issue price of the debt. These results flow from the regulations under Secs. 61 and 163 and are consistent with the conclusions in the above revenue rulings.

The results change slightly if the liquidation qualifies under Secs. 332 and 337. The IRS discussed these results in Chief Counsel Advice 200040009. 26 Sec. 332 shields the parent from recognition of income on the receipt of the debt. Sec. 337 shields the liquidating corporation from recognizing gain or loss on the transfer of the debt to its parent corporation. The basis is carryover basis under Sec. 334(b). Then, because the debt is extinguished, the parent recognizes either COD income or interest expense on the extinguishment of the debt. As in the prior revenue rulings and Kniffen , the extinguishment has to be a taxable event because the elimination of the carryover basis prevents the parent corporation from having a taxable transaction in the future involving this debt. These results are consistent with prior decisions.

The results discussed for a parent/subsidiary liquidation should also apply if the debtor/corporation acquires a corporation that owns its debt in a nontaxable asset reorganization. In this case, Sec. 361 replaces Secs. 332 and 337. The extinguishment of the debt is a separate transaction that should result in recognition of income or expense.

Acquired Debt

So far, this article has discussed transactions between the debtor and creditor. Now it turns to how the holder of the debt acquired it. In many cases, the holder acquired the debt directly from the debtor, and the acquisition is nontaxable. In other situations, the debt is outstanding and in the hands of an unrelated party. The holder acquires the debt from this unrelated party. In these cases, Sec. 108(e)(4) may create COD income.

Under Sec. 61, if a debtor reacquires its debt for less than its adjusted issue price, the debtor has COD income. Sec. 108(e)(4) expands on this rule: If a party related to the debtor acquires the debt, the debtor is treated as acquiring the debt, with the resulting COD income recognized. Related parties are defined in Secs. 267(b) and 707(b)(1).

The regulations provide that the acquisition can be either direct or indirect. A direct acquisition is one by a person related to the debtor at the time the debt is acquired. 27 An indirect acquisition occurs when the debtor acquires the holder of the debt instrument, where the holder of the debt acquired it in anticipation of becoming related to the debtor. 28 The determination of whether the holder acquired the debt in anticipation of becoming related is based on all the facts and circumstances. 29 However, if the holder acquires the debt within six months before the holder becomes related to the debtor, the acquisition by the holder is deemed to be in anticipation of becoming related to the debtor. 30

In the case of a direct acquisition, the amount of COD income is equal to the adjusted issue price minus the basis of the debt in the hands of the related party. In the case of indirect acquisitions, the calculation depends on whether the debt is acquired within six months of being acquired. 31 If the holder acquired the debt within six months of being acquired, the COD income is calculated as if it were a direct acquisition. If the holder acquired the debt more than six months before being acquired, the COD income is equal to the adjusted issue price minus the FMV of the debt instrument on the date that the holder is acquired.

When a debtor reacquires its own debt, in addition to reporting COD income, the debtor has the debt extinguished as a result of the merger of interests. When a related party acquires the debt, the debtor has COD income, but the debt remains outstanding. In these cases, the debtor is treated as issuing a new debt instrument immediately following the recognition of the COD income for an amount equal to the amount used to calculate the COD income (adjusted basis or FMV 32 ). If this issue price is less than the stated redemption price at maturity of the debt (as defined in Sec. 1273(a)(2), the difference is OID that is subject to the amortization rules of Sec. 1272.

Rev. Rul. 2004-79 provides a simple example of this transaction. In the ruling, a parent corporation, P , issued $10 million of debt for $10 million. After issuance, S , a subsidiary of P , purchased the debt for $9.5 million. Under Regs. Sec. 1.108-2(f), P had to recognize $500,000 of COD income ($10 million face − $9.5 million basis to S ). After this recognition, P was treated as having issued the debt to S for $9.5 million. Therefore, $500,000 of OID was amortizable by P and S . If S later transfers the debt to P , the previously discussed rules determine the taxation of the transfer using S ’s basis ($9.5 million + amortized OID).

Secs. 61 and 108(e)(4) apply only if the debt is acquired for less than the adjusted issue price. If the acquisition price is greater than the adjusted issue price, the acquiring party treats this excess as premium and amortizes it, thereby reducing the amount of interest income recognized by the holder.

Installment Obligations

An installment obligation differs from other obligations in that the holder recognizes income when cash is collected in payment of the obligation. The rules describing the taxation of installment obligations were rewritten as part of the Installment Sales Revision Act of 1980, P.L. 96-471. Under old Sec. 453(d) (new Sec. 453B(a)), if the holder of an installment obligation distributes, transmits, or disposes of the obligation, the taxpayer is required to recognize gain or loss equal to the difference between the basis in the obligation and the FMV of the obligation. There is an exception to this rule for distributions in liquidation of a subsidiary that are exempt from taxation under Sec. 337.

Prior to the Code revision, the regulations permitted the transfer of installment obligations without gain recognition if the transaction was covered by either Sec. 721 or 351. 33 Although the regulations have not been revised for the Code change, the IRS continues to treat Secs. 721 and 351 as overriding the gain recognition provision. 34

If the transaction results in transfer of the obligation either from the creditor to the debtor or from the debtor to the creditor, the tax result changes. The seminal case is Jack Ammann Photogrammetric Engineers, Inc. 35 In it, the taxpayer created a corporation to which he contributed $100,000 in return for 78% of the corporation’s stock. He then sold his photogrammetry business to the corporation for $817,031. He received $100,000 cash and a note for $717,031. He reported the sale under the installment method. When he was still owed $540,223 on the note, he transferred it to the corporation for stock of the corporation worth $540,223. He reported this as a disposition under Sec. 453(d) and recognized the deferred gain. Later, he filed a claim for refund, arguing that Sec. 351 prevented recognition of the deferred gain. After allowing the refund, the IRS assessed a deficiency against the corporation, arguing that the corporation came under Sec. 453(d). The corporation argued that, under Sec. 1032, it was not taxable. The Tax Court ruled for the IRS.

The Fifth Circuit reversed the decision. The underlying reasoning was that the disposition by the shareholder and the extinguishment of the debt in the hands of the corporation were separate transactions. The extinguishment did not fall under Sec. 453(d). The court indicated that the IRS should have assessed the tax against the shareholder.

Following this case, the IRS issued Rev. Rul. 73-423. 36 In this ruling, a shareholder transferred an installment obligation from Corporation X back to the corporation in a transaction described in Sec. 351. The ruling concluded that the transfer was a satisfaction of the installment agreement at other than face value under Sec. 453(d)(1)(A) and that the shareholder was required to recognize gain without regard to Sec. 351. The corporation had no gain or loss under Sec. 1032 and Ammann .

Sec. 453(d) is now Sec. 453B(a), and the rule has not changed. Therefore, if a creditor transfers an installment obligation to the debtor in an otherwise tax-free transaction, the obligation is treated as satisfied at other than its face value, and the creditor is required to recognize gain or loss as discussed in Rev. Rul. 73-423. 37

New Sec. 453B(f) covers transactions in which installment obligations become unenforceable. This section covers the extinguishment of an installment debt through a merger of the rights of a debtor and creditor. The Code treats these transactions as dispositions of the obligation with gain or loss recognized. When the debtor and creditor are related, the disposition is at FMV but no less than the face amount.

If the debtor of an installment obligation engages in a transaction in which the creditor assumes the debt, the results are consistent with those of transactions involving obligations other than installment notes. The debtor is deemed to have received cash equal to the amount of the debt. This is fully taxable unless exempted by Sec. 357, 721, or a similar provision. The creditor falls under Sec. 453B(f), with the extinguishment treated as a taxable disposition of the obligation for its FMV (which for related parties is no less than the face amount).

Business entities often incur debts to their owners, and, conversely, the owners incur liabilities to their business entities. In numerous transactions these obligations are canceled for consideration other than simple repayment of the debt. Based on Kniffen , these transactions are treated as a transfer of consideration followed by an extinguishment of the debt. If a shareholder’s debt to his or her controlled corporation is transferred to that corporation along with assets, the transaction may be tax free under Secs. 351 and 357(a). If a shareholder/creditor receives the related corporate debt in a distribution or liquidation, Sec. 311 or 336 determines the corporation’s taxation.

The cancellation of a partner’s debt to the partnership is generally governed by the distribution rules, including the constructive sale or compensation rules of Sec. 707(a)(2). When a partner cancels the partnership’s debt, the partner has made a contribution to capital. This can have consequences to all partners since the total liabilities are decreased and the partners’ bases are decreased under Sec. 752.

In most cases the merger of debtor and creditor interests is nontaxable. However, if the basis of the debt or receivable does not equal the face amount of the debt, income or loss is recognized. The exact amount and character of the income or loss depends on factors discussed in this article. It is important for the tax adviser to identify those cases in which the debt transfer is not tax free.

1 Invalid loans to shareholders have been reclassified as dividends.

2 Kniffen , 39 T.C. 553 (1962).

3 Edwards Motor Transit Co. , T.C. Memo. 1964-317.

4 Estate of Gilmore , 40 B.T.A. 945 (1939).

5 Rev. Rul. 72-464, 1972-2 C.B. 214.

6 GCM 34902 (6/8/72). The GCM also refers to Sec. 332, which will be dis cussed later.

7 As the GCM points out, by using Sec. 357(a), taxpayers could achieve the same outcome in C reorganizations.

8 See Chief Counsel Advice 200040009 (10/6/00), which suggests Estate of Gilmore ’s requirement of a formal cancellation of debt before COD income is recognized may no longer be valid.

9 General Utilities & Operating Co. v. Helvering , 296 U.S. 200 (1935).

10 Sec. 334(b)(1).

12 Regs. Sec. 1.707-5(a)(6).

13 If the partnership transfers money or other consideration in the transaction, the amount treated as sales proceeds may be limited under Regs. Sec. 1.707-5(a)(5)(i)(B).

14 Under Regs. Sec. 1.707-5(a)(3)(ii), a partner’s share of liabilities is reduced by liabilities assumed that are anticipated to be reduced. Based on Kniffen and Edwards , the reduction will be anticipated.

15 Notice 94-47, 1994-1 C.B. 357.

16 See, e.g., IRS Letter Ruling 8825048 (3/23/88).

17 The transaction that gives rise to the difference and the taxation that results are discussed later.

18 Rev. Rul. 72-464, 1972-2 C.B. 214. Although this is a debtor-to-creditor transfer, the result is the same.

19 See GCM 34902 (6/8/72).

20 Rev. Rul. 93-7, 1993-1 C.B. 125.

21 If the partnership makes a Sec. 754 election, the partnership has a Sec. 734 adjustment of $75 ($100 inside basis – $25 basis after distribution).

22 IRS Letter Ruling 201105016 (2/4/11).

23 Regs. Sec. 1.108-8, effective Nov. 17, 2011.

24 See the Regs. Sec. 1.108-8(b)(2) safe-harbor rule.

25 Rev. Rul. 2004-79, 2004-2 C.B. 106.

26 CCA 200040009 (10/6/00).

27 Regs. Sec. 1.108-2(b).

28 Regs. Sec. 1.108-2(c)(1).

29 Regs. Sec. 1.108-2(c)(2).

30 Regs. Sec. 1.108-2(c)(3).

31 Regs. Secs. 1.108-2(f)(1) and (2).

32 Regs. Sec. 1.108-2(g).

33 Regs. Sec. 1.453-9(c)(2).

34 See IRS Letter Rulings 8824044 (3/22/88) and 8425042 (3/19/84).

35 Jack Ammann Photogrammetric Engineers, Inc. , 341 F.2d 466 (5th Cir. 1965), rev’g 39 T.C. 500 (1962).

36 Rev. Rul. 73-423, 1973-2 C.B. 161.

37 Although this revenue ruling involved a corporation, the IRS believes the same rule applies to partnerships. Treasury is currently working on a revision of the regulations to clarify the results. See the preamble to Regs. Sec. 1.108-8, T.D. 9557 (11/17/11).

Recent developments in Sec. 355 spinoffs

The research credit: documenting qualified services, income tax treatment of loyalty point programs, tax court rules cancellation of debt is part of gain realization, listing of reportable transactions under the apa.

This article discusses the history of the deduction of business meal expenses and the new rules under the TCJA and the regulations and provides a framework for documenting and substantiating the deduction.

PRACTICE MANAGEMENT

CPAs assess how their return preparation products performed.

• Search Search Please fill out this field.
• Personal Finance

Unsecured Debt

What Is Unsecured Debt?

Unsecured debt refers to loans that are not backed by collateral . If the borrower defaults on the loan, the lender may not be able to recover their investment because the borrower is not required to pledge any specific assets as security for the loan.

Because unsecured loans are considered riskier for the lender, they generally carry higher interest rates than collateralized loans.

Key Takeaways

• Unsecured debts are loans that are not collateralized.
• They generally require higher interest rates, because they offer the lender limited protection against default.
• Lenders can mitigate this risk by reporting defaults to credit rating agencies, contracting with credit collection agencies, and selling their loans on the secondary market.

Understanding Unsecured Debt

A loan is unsecured if it is not backed by any underlying assets. Examples of unsecured debt include credit cards , medical bills , utility bills, and other instances in which credit was given without any collateral requirement.

Unsecured loans are particularly risky for lenders because the borrower might choose to default on the loan through bankruptcy . In this situation, the lender can seek to sue the borrower for repayment of the loan. However, if no specific assets were pledged as collateral, the lender may be unable to recover their initial investment.

Because unsecured loans are considered more risky for the lender, they generally carry higher interest rates than collateralized loans.

Although bankruptcy can allow borrowers to avoid repaying their debts, it is not without its consequences. Borrowers who have declared bankruptcy in the past may find it difficult or impossible to secure new loans in the future, since the bankruptcy will have a severe negative impact on their credit score, likely for many years to come.

Lenders, meanwhile, may seek alternative methods for recovering their investment. In addition to suing the borrower, lenders can also report any instances of default or delinquency to a credit rating agency. Alternatively, the lender can also hire a credit collection agency that will then seek to collect the unpaid debt.

Real-World Example of Unsecured Debt

Max is a private lender specializing in unsecured loans. He is approached by a new borrower, Elysse, who wishes to borrow $20,000.

Because the loan is unsecured, Elysse is not required to pledge any specific assets as collateral in case she defaults on the loan. As compensation for this risk, Max charges her an interest rate that is higher than rates associated with collateralized loans.

Six months later, the loan becomes delinquent due to a series of late and missed payments by Elysse. Max has several options to consider:

Although Max could seek to sue Elysse for repayment of the loan, he suspects this would not be worthwhile because there are no specific assets pledged as collateral. As an alternative, he chooses to hire a collection agency to pursue repayment of the loan on his behalf. As compensation for this service, Max agrees to pay the collection agency a percentage of any amount that the collection agency succeeds in recovering. Collection agencies charge on a contingency fee basis. Collection rates vary by collection type, size, and age. They average between 7.5% and 50% for each account, with consumer rates typically around 35%.

Another option: Max could have sold the debt to another investor using the secondary market . In that scenario, he would have likely sold the debt at a considerable discount to its face value. In exchange for the discounted purchase price, the new investor would assume the risk of not being repaid.

• Debt Management Guide 1 of 21
• What Are the Main Types of Debt? 2 of 21
• Consumer Debt: Understanding the Pros and Cons 3 of 21
• Credit Card Debt: What it is, How it Works 4 of 21
• Unsecured Debt 5 of 21
• Secured Debt vs. Unsecured Debt: What’s the Difference? 6 of 21
• What Is a Debt Collection Agency and What Do Debt Collectors Do? 7 of 21
• Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA): Definition and Rules 8 of 21
• What Is a Credit Score? Definition, Factors, and Ways to Raise It 9 of 21
• How Long Does an Item Appear on My Credit Report? 10 of 21
• What Affects Your Credit Score? 11 of 21
• What Lenders Look at on Your Credit Report 12 of 21
• Is Credit Karma Accurate? 13 of 21
• Debt Relief: What it Is, How it Works, FAQs 14 of 21
• Paying Off Debt With a Balance Transfer 15 of 21
• Debt Settlement: A Guide for Negotiation 16 of 21
• What’s the Difference Between Debt Consolidation and Debt Settlement? 17 of 21
• What Is Debt Consolidation and When Is It a Good Idea? 18 of 21
• Debt Settlement: Cheapest Way to Get Out of Debt? 19 of 21
• 8 Alternatives to a Credit Card Cash Advance 20 of 21
• Best Credit Repair Companies for April 2024 21 of 21

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

• [email protected]

Stamp Duty on Debt Assignment

Home | Knowledge Center | Thought Papers Stamp Duty on Debt Assignment

13th Feb, 2018

bbbbb Lorem ipsum dolor sit

Introduction

Assignment of debt is one of the most common forms of transactions in financial markets. It essentially entails transfer of a debt from a creditor (assignor) to a third-party (assignee). One of the biggest challenges faced in debt assignment transactions in India is the significant stamp duty implication on the deed of assignment. Considering the volume of assignment transactions undertaken generally by banks and financial institutions or by asset reconstruction companies (“ ARCs ”), the stamp duty levied becomes a significant cost in such transactions. The Constitution of India (“ Constitution ”) confers upon the Parliament and each State Legislature the power to levy taxes and other duties. The subjects on which the Parliament or a State Legislature or both can legislate are specified in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The Seventh Schedule is divided into 3 (three) lists:

• Union List;
• State List; and
• Concurrent List.

The Parliament has the exclusive power to legislate on the subjects enumerated in the Union List. The State List enumerates the subjects on which each State Legislature can legislate and such laws operate within the territory of each State. The Parliament, as well as the State Legislatures, have the power to legislate over the subjects listed in the Concurrent List.

The entry pertaining to levy of stamp duty in the Union List is as follows: -

“91. Rates of stamp duty in respect of bills of exchange, cheques, promissory notes, bills of lading, letters of credit, policies of insurance, transfer of shares, debentures, proxies and receipts.”

The entry pertaining to levy of stamp duty in the State List is as follows: -

“63. Rates of stamp duty in respect of documents other than those specified in the provisions of List I with regard to rates of stamp duty.”

The entry pertaining to levy of stamp duty in the Concurrent List is as follows: -

“44. Stamp duties other than duties or fees collected by means of judicial stamps, but not including rates of stamp duty.” [emphasis supplied]

From the aforementioned entries, it is clear that the power to legislate on the rate of stamp duty chargeable on instruments of debt assignment (since it is not covered under Entry 91 of the Union List) is with the State Legislature. However, the power to determine whether stamp duty can be charged or not on a specific instrument is in the Concurrent List. In this regard, it may be noted that pursuant to the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debt Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 (“ Amendment Act ”), the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“ SARFAESI ”) and the Indian Stamp Act were amended to provide for an exemption from stamp duty on a deed of assignment in favour of an ARC.

As mentioned above, the power to legislate on whether stamp duty is payable or not on an instrument is in the Concurrent List. Therefore, the Parliament has the power to legislate on the aforesaid subject.

Pursuant to the Amendment Act, section 5(1A) was inserted in SARFAESI which provides that any agreement or document for transfer or assignment of rights or interest in financial assets under section 5(1) of SARFAESI in favour of an ARC is not liable to payment of stamp duty.

In several States, notifications have been issued for remission and/ or reduction of stamp duties on debt assignment transactions. For instance, in Rajasthan, the stamp duty chargeable on any agreement or other document executed for transfer or assignment of rights or interests in financial assets of banks or financial institutions under section 5 of SARFAESI in favour of ARCs 1 has been remitted. Further, in Maharashtra, the stamp duty on instrument of securitization of loans or assignment of debt with underlying security has been reduced to 0.1% (zero point one percent) of the loan securitized or the debt assigned subject to a maximum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) 2 .

Certain State Governments, such as those of Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu have reduced the stamp duty based on the nature of the financial asset being assigned. In Rajasthan, the stamp duty has been reduced for assignment of standard assets whilst in Tamil Nadu, the stamp duty has been reduced for assignment of non-performing assets and assignment in favour of ARCs.

This paper discusses a recent decision by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. State of UP & Ors. 3 (“ Kotak case ”), where it was held that an instrument of assignment is chargeable with stamp duty under Article 62(c) (Transfer) of Schedule 1B of the Indian Stamp Act, as applicable in Uttar Pradesh (“ UP Stamp Act ”), as opposed to Article 23 (Conveyance) of Schedule 1B of the UP Stamp Act.

The stamp duty payable in various States under Article 23 or the relevant provision for conveyance is on an ad valorem basis whereas the stamp payable under Article 62(c) or relevant provision for transfer of interest secured, inter alia, by bond or mortgage deed, is a nominal amount. For instance, in Uttar Pradesh, the stamp duty payable under Article 62(c) is Rs. 100 (Rupees one hundred).

Decision in the Kotak case

In the Kotak case, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (“ Kotak ”) had purchased and acquired certain loans from State Bank of India (“ Assignor ”) along with the underlying securities.

The question for consideration before the full bench of the Allahabad High Court was whether the deed executed by the applicant with the underlying securities would be chargeable with duty under Article 62(c) or Article 23 of Schedule 1B of the UP Stamp Act.

The court observed that in order to determine whether an instrument is sufficiently stamped, one must look at the instrument in its entirety to find out the true character and the dominant purpose of the instrument. In this case it was observed that the dominant purpose of the deed of assignment entered into between Kotak and the Assignor (“ Instrument ”), was to transfer/ assign the debts along with the underlying securities, thereby, entitling Kotak to demand, receive and recover the debts in its own name and right.

Article 11 of Schedule 1B of the UP Stamp Act provides that an instrument of assignment can be charged to stamp duty either as a conveyance, a transfer or a transfer of lease. The court observed that since the Instrument was not a transfer of lease, it would either be a conveyance or a transfer.

The court referred to the definition of conveyance in the UP Stamp Act, which reads as follows:

““ Conveyance ”. — “Conveyance” includes a conveyance on sale and every instrument by which property, whether movable or immovable, is transferred inter vivos and which is not otherwise specifically provided for [by Schedule I, Schedule IA or Schedule IB] [as the case may be];” [emphasis supplied]

The court held that the term conveyance denotes an instrument in writing by which some title or interest is transferred from one person to other and that the use of the words “on sale” and “is transferred” denote that the document itself should create or vest a complete title in the subject matter of the transfer, in the vendee. In this case since under the Instrument, the rights of the Assignor to recover the debts secured by the underlying securities had been transferred to Kotak, it was held that the requirement of conveyance or sale cannot be said to be satisfied.

The court further observed that debt is purely an intangible property which has to be claimed or enforced by action and not by taking physical possession thereof, in contrast to immovable and movable property. Where a transaction does not affect the transfer of any immovable or movable property, Article 23 of Schedule 1B cannot have any applicability.

The court’s view was that since debt along with underlying securities is an interest secured by bonds and/ or mortgages, transfer of such debt would be chargeable under Article 62(c).

The court further clarified that under the Instrument, merely the right under the contract to recover the debts had been transferred. Since the borrower(s) had never transferred the title in the immovable property given in security to the Assignor, the Assignor could merely transfer its rights i.e. mortgagee's rights in the property to recover the debts. It was further observed that the Assignor never had any title to the underlying securities and that it merely had the right to enforce the security interest upon default of the borrower(s) in repayment. The right transferred to Kotak was primarily the right to recover the debts, in accordance with law, by proceeding against the underlying security furnished by the bonds/ mortgage deed(s).

Therefore, the court held that the Instrument was chargeable with stamp duty under Article 62(c) of Schedule 1B of the UP Stamp Act.

Whilst coming to the conclusion that assignment of debt would not constitute a conveyance, the court referred to the definition of conveyance to state that debt is an intangible property which has to be claimed or enforced by action and not by taking physical possession thereof, in contrast to immovable and movable property.

In this regard, it may be noted that there are various judicial precedents 4 , where it has been held that an interest (including mortgage interest) in immovable property is itself immovable property.

However, even assuming assignment of debt with underlying securities over immovable property amounts to a conveyance, it

may be pertinent to refer to the definition of conveyance in the UP Stamp Act which specifically excludes a conveyance which is otherwise provided for by the Schedule to the UP Stamp Act.

Article 62(c) of the UP Stamp Act reads as follows:

“62. Transfer (whether with or without consideration) – … (c) of any interest secured by a bond, mortgagedeed or policy of insurance--”

In view of the above, transfer of any interest secured by a mortgage deed, which is covered under Article 62(c), would be excluded from the meaning of conveyance and would be chargeable to stamp duty under Article 62.

In this regard it may be pertinent to refer to the definitions of ‘bond’ and ‘mortgage deed’ under the UP Stamp Act, which is as follows:

“" Bond " includes

(a) any instrument whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another, on condition that the obligation shall be void if a specified act is performed, or is not performed, as the case may be;

(b) any instrument attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer, whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another; and

(c) any instrument so attested, whereby a person obliges himself to deliver grain or other agricultural produce to another

“" Mortgage-deed ". — "mortgage-deed" includes every instrument whereby, for the purpose of securing money advanced, or to be advanced, by way of loan, or an existing or future debt, or the performance of an engagement, one person transfers, or creates, to, or in favour of another, a right over or in respect of specified property;”

In view of the above, where a debt secured by a bond or a mortgage deed is assigned under a deed of assignment, the stamp duty payable on such deed of assignment will be under Article 62(c) of the UP Stamp Act or corresponding provisions of the Stamp Act of other States.

However, in cases of unsecured loans or loans secured by an equitable mortgage (where there is no mortgage deed), the deed of assignment would attract ad valorem stamp duty chargeable on conveyance, since the same will not get covered under Article 62(c) or similar provisions in other states.

The market practice until now has been to stamp the deed of assignment of debt under the relevant article for Conveyance in the applicable Stamp Act. In fact, in States such as Maharashtra, the State Government has issued notifications for reduction of stamp duty on a deed of assignment under the article for Conveyance.

The judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court in the Kotak case may prove to be a welcome step in reducing the incidence of stamp duty on debt assignment transactions. However, it would need to be seen whether in other States a similar view is taken by stamp duty authorities.

This update has been prepared by Aastha (Partner), Debopam Dutta (Managing Associate) and Abhay Jain (Associate).

1 Notification No. F4(3)FD/Tax/2017-110 dated March 8, 2017 issued by Finance Department (Tax Division) Government Of Rajasthan.

2 Notification No.Mudrank-2002/875/C.R.173-M-1 dated May 6, 2002 issued by Revenue & Forests Department, Government of Maharashtra.

3 Reference Against MISC. Acts. No. 1 of 2016, order dated February 9, 2018.

4 Bank of Upper India Ltd. (in liquidation) v. Fanny Skinner and Ors., AIR 1929 All 161. See also Prahlad Dalsukhrai and Ors. v. Maganlal Muljibhai Tewar, AIR 1952 Bom 454 and Harihar Pandey v. Vindhayachal Rai and Ors., AIR 1949 Pat 170.

Our Offices

11, 1st Floor, Free Press House 215, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021

+91 22 67362222

7A, 7th Floor, Tower C, Max House, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 3, New Delhi – 110020

+91 11 23701284/5/7

+91 11 45083589

68 Nandidurga Road Jayamahal Extension Bengaluru – 560046

+91 80 46462300

Binoy Bhavan 3rd Floor, 27B Camac Street Kolkata – 700016

+91 33 40650155/56

The rules of the Bar Council of India do not permit advocates to solicit work or advertise in any manner. This website has been created only for informational purposes and is not intended to constitute solicitation, invitation, advertisement or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work in any manner. By clicking on 'Agree' below, you acknowledge and confirm the following:

a) there has been no solicitation, invitation, advertisement or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work through this website;

b) you are desirous of obtaining further information about us on your own accord and for your use;

c) no information or material provided on this website is to be construed as a legal opinion and use of this website will not create any lawyer-client relationship;

d) while reasonable care has been taken in ensuring the accuracy of the contents of the website, Argus Partners shall not be responsible for the results of any actions taken on the basis of information provided in this website or for any error or omission in the website; and

e) in cases where the user has any legal issues, the user must seek independent legal advice.

GST on assignment of receivables: Wrong path to the right destination

Team Vinod Kothari Consultants P. Ltd

There has been a lot of uncertainty on the issue of exigibility of direct assignments and securitisation transactions to goods and services tax (GST). While on one hand, there have been opinions that assignments of secured debts may be taxable being covered by the circuitous definition of “actionable claims”, there are other views holding such assignments of debts (secured or unsecured) to be non-taxable since an obligation to pay money is nothing but money, and hence, not  “goods” under the GST law [1] . The uncertainty was costing the market heavily [2] .

In order to put diverging views to rest, the GST Council came out with a set of Frequently Asked Questions on Financial Services Sector [3] , trying to clarify the position of some arguable issues pertaining to transactions undertaken in the financial sector. These FAQs include three separate (and interestingly, mutually unclear) questions on – (a) assignment or sale of secured or secured debts [Q.40], (b) whether assignment of secured debts constitutes a transaction in money [Q.41], and (c) securitisation transactions undertaken by banks [Q.65].

The end-result arising out of these questions is that there will be no GST on securitisation transactions. However, the GST Council has relied on some very intriguing arguments to come to this conclusion – seemingly lost between the meaning of “derivatives”, “securities”, and “actionable claims”. If one does not care about why we reached here, the conclusion is most welcome. However, the FAQs also reflect the serious lack of understanding of financial instruments with the Council, which may potentially create issues in the long run.

In this note [4] we intend to discuss the outcome of the FAQs, but before that let us first understand what the situation of the issue was before this clarification.

Situation before the clarification

• GST is chargeable on supply of goods or services or both. Goods have been defined in section 2(52) of the CGST Act in the following manner:

“(52) “goods” means every kind of movable property other than money and securities but includes actionable claim, growing crops, grass and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before supply or under a contract of supply;”

Services have been defined in section 2(102) of the CGST Act oin in the following manner:

““services” means anything other than goods, money and securities but includes activities relating to the use of money or its conversion by cash or by any other mode, from one form, currency or denomination, to another form, currency or denomination for which a separate consideration is charged;”

Money, is therefore, excludible from the scope of “goods” as well as “services”.

Section 7 details the scope of the expression “supply”. According to the section, “supply” includes “all forms of supply of goods or services or both such as sale, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business.” However, activities as specified in Schedule III of the said Act shall not be considered as “supply”.

It may be noted here that “Actionable claims, other than lottery, betting and gambling” are enlisted in entry 6 of Schedule III of the said Act; therefore are not exigible to GST.

• There is no doubt that a “receivable” is a movable property. “Receivable” denotes something which one is entitled to receive . Receivable is therefore, a mirror image for “debt”. If a sum of money is receivable for A, the same sum of money must be a debt for B. A debt is an obligation to pay, a receivable is the corresponding right to receive.

Coming to the definition of “money”, it has been defined under section 2(75) as follows –

““money” means the Indian legal tender or any foreign currency, cheque, promissory note, bill of exchange, letter of credit, draft, pay order, traveller cheque, money order, postal or electronic remittance or any other instrument recognised by the Reserve Bank of India when used as a consideration to settle an obligation or exchange with Indian legal tender of another denomination but shall not include any currency that is held for its numismatic value.”

The definition above enlists all such instruments which have a “value-in-exchange”, so as to represent money. A debt also represents a sum of money and the form in which it can be paid can be any of these forms as enlisted above.

So, in effect, a receivable is also a sum of “money”. As such, receivables shall not be considered as “goods” or “services” for the purpose of GST law.

• As mentioned earlier, “actionable claims” have been included in the definition of “goods” under the CGST Act, however, any transfer (i.e. supply) of actionable claim is explicitly excluded from being treated as a supply of either goods or services for the purpose of levy of GST.

Section 2(1) of the CGST Act defines “actionable claim” so as to assign it the same meaning as in section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which in turn, defines “actionable claim” as –

“actionable claim” means a claim to any debt, other than a debt secured by mortgage of immovable property or by hypothecation or pledge of movable property, or to any beneficial interest in movable property not in the possession, either actual or constructive, of the claimant, which the civil courts recognise as affording grounds for relief, whether such debt or beneficial interest be existent, accruing, conditional or contingent;”

It may be noted that the inclusion of “actionable claim” is still subject to the exclusion of “money” from the definition of “goods”. The definition of actionable claim travels beyond “claim to a debt” and covers “claim to any beneficial interest in movable property”. Therefore, an actionable claim is definitely more than a “receivable”. Hence, if the actionable claim represents property that is money, it can be held that such form of the actionable claim shall be excluded from the ambit of “goods”.

There were views in the industry which, on the basis of the definition above, distinguish between — (a) a debt secured by mortgage of immovable property, and a debt secured by hypothecation/pledge of movable property on one hand (which are excluded from the definition of actionable claim); and (b) an unsecured debt on the other hand. However, others opined that a debt, whether secured or unsecured, is after all a “debt”, i.e. a property in money; and thus can never be classified as “goods”. Therefore, the entire exercise of making a distinction between secured and unsecured debt may not be relevant at all.

In case it is argued that a receivable which is secured (i.e. a secured debt) shall come within the definition of “goods”, it must be noted that a security granted against a debt is merely a back-up, a collateral against default in repayment of debt.

• In one of the background materials on GST published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India [5] , it has been emphasised that a transaction where a person merely slips into the shoes of another person, the same cannot be termed as supply. As such, unrestricted expansion of the expression “supply” should not be encouraged:

“. . . supply is not a boundless word of uncertain meaning. The inclusive part of the opening words in this clause may be understood to include everything that supply is generally understood to be PLUS the ones that are enlisted. It must be admitted that the general understanding of the world supply is but an amalgam of these 8 forms of supply. Any attempt at expanding this list of 8 forms of supply must be attempted with great caution. Attempting to find other forms of supply has not yielded results however, transactions that do not want to supply have been discovered. Transactions of assignment where one person steps into the shoes of another appears to slip away from the scope of supply as well as transactions where goods are destroyed without a transfer of any kind taking place.”

Also, as already stated, where the object is neither goods nor services, there is no question of being a supply thereof.

• Therefore, there was one school of thought which treated as assignment of secured receivables as a supply under the GST regime and another school of thought promoted a view which was contrary to the other one. To clarify the position, representations were made by some of the leading bankers and the Indian Securitisation Foundation.

Situation after the clarification

• The GST Council has discussed the issue of assignment and securitisation of receivables through different question, extracts have been reproduced below:
• Whether assignment or sale of secured or unsecured debts is liable to GST?

Section 2(52) of the CGST Act, 2017 defines ‘goods’ to mean every kind of movable property other than money and securities but includes actionable claim. Schedule III of the CGST Act, 2017 lists activities or transactions which shall be treated neither as a supply of goods nor a supply of services and actionable claims other than lottery, betting and gambling are included in the said Schedule. Thus, only actionable claims in respect of lottery, betting and gambling would be taxable under GST. Further, where sale, transfer or assignment of debts falls within the purview of actionable claims, the same would not be subject to GST.

Further, any charges collected in the course of transfer or assignment of a debt would be chargeable to GST, being in the nature of consideration for supply of services.

• Would sale, purchase, acquisition or assignment of a secured debt constitute a transaction in money?

Sale, purchase, acquisition or assignment of a secured debt does not constitute a transaction in money; it is in the nature of a derivative and hence a security.

• What is the leviability of GST on securitization transactions undertaken by banks?

Securitized assets are in the nature of securities and hence not liable to GST. However, if some service charges or service fees or documentation fees or broking charges or such like fees or charges are charged, the same would be a consideration for provision of services related to securitization and chargeable to GST.

• The fallacy starts with two sequential and separate questions: one dealing with securitisation and the other on assignment transactions. There was absolutely no need for incorporating separate questions for the two, since all securitisation transactions involve an assignment of debt.
• Next, the department in Question 40 has clarified that the assignment of actionable claims, other than lottery, betting and gambling forms a part of the list of exclusion under Schedule III of the CGST Act, therefore, are not subject to GST. This was apparent from the reading of law, therefore, there is nothing new in this.

However, the second part of the answer needs further discussion. The second part of the answer states that – any charges collected in the course of transfer or assignment of a debt would be chargeable to GST, being in the nature of consideration for supply of services.

There are multiple charges or fees associated in an assignment or securitisation transaction – such as  servicing fees or excess spread. While it is very clear that the GST will be chargeable on servicing fees charged by the servicer, there is still a confusion on whether GST will be charged on the excess spread or not. Typically, transactions are devised to give residuary sweep to the originator after servicing the PTCs. Therefore, there could be a challenge that sweep right is also a component of servicing fees or consideration for acting as a servicing agent. The meaning of consideration [6] under the CGST Act is consideration in any form and the nomenclature supports the intent of the transaction.

Since, the originator gets the excess spread, question may arise, if excess spread is in the nature of interest.  This indicates the need for proper structuring of transactions, to ensure that either the sweep right is structured as a security, or the same is structured as a right to interest. One commonly followed international structure is credit-enhancing IO strip. The IO strip has not been tried in Indian transactions, and recommendably this structure may alleviate concerns about GST being applied on the excess spread.

• Till now, whatever has been discussed was more or less settled before the clarification, question 41 settles the dispute on the contentious question of whether GST will be charged on assigned of secured debt. The answer to question 41 has compared sale, purchase, acquisition or assignment of secured debt with a derivative. The answer has rejected the view, held by the authors, that any right to a payment in money is money itself. The GST Council holds the view that the receivables are in the nature of derivatives, the transaction qualifies to be a security and therefore, exempt from the purview of supply of goods or supply of services.

While the intent of the GST Council is coming out very clear, but this view is lacking supporting logic. Neither the question discusses why assignments of secured receivables are not transactions in money, nor does it state why it is being treated as derivative.

Our humble submission in this regard is that assignment of secured receivables may not be treated as derivatives. The meaning of the term “derivatives” have been drawn from section 2(ac) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, which includes the following –

(A) a security derived from a debt instrument, share, loan, whether secured or unsecured, risk instrument or contract for differences or any other form of security;

(B) a contract which derives its value from the prices, or index of prices, of underlying securities.

In the present case, assignment of receivables do not represent any security nor does it derive its value from anything else. The receivables themselves have an inherent value, which get assigned, the fact that it is backed a collateral security does not make any difference as the value of the receivables also factor the value of the underlying.

Even though the logic is not coming out clear, the intent of the Council is coming out clearly and the efforts made by the Council to clear out the ambiguities is really commendable.

[1] Refer: GST on Securitisation Transactions , by Nidhi Bothra, and Sikha Bansal, at  http://vinodkothari.com/blog/gst-on-securitisation-transactions-2/ ; pg. last visited on 06.06.2018

[2] At the recently concluded Seventh Securitisation Summit on 25 th May, 2018, one leading originator confirmed that his company had kept transactions on hold in view of the GST uncertainty. It was widely believed that the dip in volumes in FY 2017-18 was primarily due to GST uncertainty.

[3] http://www.cbic.gov.in/resources//htdocs-cbec/gst/FAQs_on_Financial_Services_Sector.pdf

[4] Portions of this note have been adopted from the article – GST on Securitisation Transactions, by Nidhi Bothra and Sikha Bansal.

[5] http://idtc-icai.s3.amazonaws.com/download/pdf18/Volume-I(BGM-idtc).pdf ; pg. last visited on 19.05.2018

[6] (31) “consideration” in relation to the supply of goods or services or both includes––

(a) any payment made or to be made, whether in money or otherwise, in respect of, in response to, or for the inducement of, the supply of goods or services or both, whether by the recipient or by any other person but shall not include any subsidy given by the Central Government or a State Government;

(b) the monetary value of any act or forbearance, in respect of, in response to, or for the inducement of, the supply of goods or services or both, whether by the recipient or by any other person but shall not include any subsidy given by the Central Government or a State Government:

Provided that a deposit given in respect of the supply of goods or services or both shall not be considered as payment made for such supply unless the supplier applies such deposit as consideration for the said supply;

Leave a Reply

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Subscribe to receive regular updates!

MERS & Mortgage Securitization

Mers & The Debt MERS does record the assignment in the actual real property records system. The actual note itself, is the creation of the legal obligation to have the loan/note repaid for the debt. Thus the note is the actual legal document which backs the debt. The debt itself has not been transferred or negotiated by MERS

• MERS does record the assignment in the actual real property records system. The actual note itself, is the creation of the legal obligation to have the loan/note repaid for the debt. Thus the note is the actual legal document which backs the debt. The debt itself has not been transferred or negotiated by MERS

• MERS is not legally entitled to receive monthly payments from the borrower. MERS cannot legally be entitled to benefit from a foreclosure in any sale of the home in a foreclosure sale.

• MERS does not own the mortgage note, thus it cannot attempt to foreclose.

• MERS cannot have any legal claim or interest in the loan interest, the debt, security instrument which MERS serves as a nominee.

MERS and Securitization of Residential Mortgage Loans

Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) has been named the beneficiary for this loan. MERS was created to reduce in need of executing and recording of assignment of mortgages, with the idea that MERS would be the mortgagee of record. This would allow “MERS” to foreclose on the property, and at the same time, it would assist the lenders in avoiding the recording of the Assignments of Beneficiary on loans sold. This helped to save money for the lenders in manpower and helped to reduce the costs of recording these notes. It was also designed to “shield” investors from liability as a result of lender misconduct regarding the process of mortgage lending. MERS is imposed to overcome certain laws and other legal requirements dealing with mortgage loans holding an “artificial” entity. Because of designating certain member employees to be MERS corporate officers, the foreclosing agency and MERS “designated officer” has a conflict of interest. MERS and the servicer both have not a beneficial interest in the note even they don’t receive the income from the payments. And actually the service employee can’t sign the Assignment in the name of MERS because the Assignment execution of MERS employee is illegal. The new party has not executed the Assignment from the actual owner of the note. An assignment will result in a nullity because of a mortgage in the absences of the assignment and physical delivery of the note. It must also bear in mind that the lender or other holder of the note registers the loan on MERS. Thereafter, all sales or assignments of the mortgage loan are accomplished electronically under the MERS system. MERS never acquires actual physical possession of the mortgage note, nor do they acquire any beneficial interest in the Note. From the beginning MERS has indicated numerous violations of Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices because of conflicting nature and identity of the servicer and the beneficiary. As these practices were intentionally designed, it misleads the borrower and benefits the lenders. So the main point becomes, is MERS the Servicer or the foreclosing party? As the Servicer is the party who initiate the foreclosure and they take the documents to their own employee who are designated as a “Corporate Officer of MERS”, and who conveniently signs the document for MERS, aren’t they the “foreclosing party”?

Is MERS the Beneficial Owner of the Note? 1. MERS is named after the beneficiary on the Deed of Trust and holding only legal title to the interest granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument…has the right: to exercise any or all of those interest, including, but not limited to, releasing and canceling this security instrument. 2. MERS can claim to hold the Note but it has not any actual possession of the Note 3. MERS don’t get any payments or income from the monthly payments. Ultimate Investor gets this money. The Investor has the beneficial interest in the Note because the Investor receiving the payments. 4. MERS agreement indicates that MERS will comply with the instructions of the holder of mortgage loan promissory notes at all time. It also indicates that “When the beneficial owner will not give contrary instructions , MER may depends on instructions from the servicer shown on the MERS system in accordance with these rules and the procedures with respect to transfers of beneficial ownership. 5. MERS is not the beneficial owner of the note that has been testified in Florida Courts. Assignment of Beneficiary MERS does not keep the record of the assignment of beneficiary though it is required by law, until the foreclosure process starts and the Notice of Default has been filed, and apparently, only when it appears that the borrower will not be able to reinstate the loan and then foreclosure is inevitable. It maintains itself as the beneficiary throughout the entire process up to foreclosure. MERS has represented in Florida Courts that its sole purpose is as a system to track mortgages. It has stated that the lenders and servicers do entry for themselves and it does not do the entries itself, but. When an Assignment of Beneficiary is executed, it is the member servicer or lender that goes to the website, downloads the necessary forms, completes the forms and then takes it to the designated “MERS officer” to sign. MERS agreements state that MERS and the Member agree that: (i) the MERS System is not a vehicle for creating or transferring beneficial interest in mortgage loans, (ii) transfer of servicing interests reflecting on MERS System are subject to the consent of the beneficial owner. Since MERS and the servicer both haven’t a beneficial interest in the note, they don’t receive the income from the payments, and since it is actually an employee of the servicer signing the Assignment in the name of MERS, this begs the question: Is the assignment executed by the MERS employee even legal, since the actual owner of the note has not executed the assignment to the new party? A good indicator might be in Sobel v Mutual Development, Inc, 313 So 2d 77 (1st DCA Fla 1975). An assignment of a mortgage in the absence of the assignment and physical delivery of the note in question is a nullity.

Possession of the Note & Holder in Due Course Coming to the forefront, possession of the Note is a key argument. The foreclosing entity has to prove possession and ownership of the original Note in order to foreclose. A survey reported that upwards of 40% of the Notes are missing and cannot be found that’s why this comes to the forefront. And MERS is once again involved in this. MERS foreclosure lawsuits often include a Lost, Missing, or Destroyed Affidavit In Judicial Foreclosure states. The Note cannot be found, and that the Note prior to being lost was in the possession of MERS which was “testified” by this affidavit. This has become very problematic for MERS,As they have admitted in Courts that they do not own the Note or even hold the Note. If this is so, then MERS is likely filing fraudulent Affidavits. When challenged, one defense that MERS uses to support its “legal standing” is that the servicer has possession of the Note and Deed. MERS, by the act of having its own “Officers” as employees of the servicer, entitles it to foreclose on behalf of the servicer and the beneficiary. When confronted with this defense, the response should be for the servicer to produce the note. It should also be noted that the lender or other holder of the note registers the loan on MERS. Then, under the MERS system all sales or assignments of the mortgage loan are accomplished electronically. MERS never acquires actual physical possession of the mortgage note, and they don’t acquire any beneficial interest in the Note. Securitization Process Securitization is the name for the process by which the final investor for the loan ended up with the loan. It entailed the following: 1. Mortgage broker had client who needed a loan and delivered the loan package to the lender. 2. The lender approved the loan and funded it. This was usually through “warehouse” lines of credit. The lender most of the times used warehouse line instead using their own money and that had been advanced to the lender by major Wall Street firms like J.P. Morgan. 3. The lender “sold” the loan to the Wall Street lender, earning from 2.5 – 8 points per loan. This entity is known also as the mortgage aggregator. 4. The loan, and thousands like it, are sold together to an investment banker. 5. Securities banker buys loans from Investment banker 6. Securities banker sells the loans to the final investors, as a Securitized Instrument, where a Trustee is named for the investors, and the Trustee will administer all bookkeeping and disbursement of funds. 7. The issue with the securitization process is that when the Securitized Instrument was sold, it was split apart and sold in tranches, (in slices like a pie). There were few or no records kept of which notes went into which trancheand there are no records of how many investors bought into each particular tranche. Additionally, there were no

Assignments designed or signed in anticipation of establishing legal standing to foreclose. 8. Rating Agencies rated the tranches at the request of the Investment Bankers who paid the Rating Agencies. 9. When the tranches were created, each “slice” was given a rating, “AAA, AA, A, BBB, BB, etc. which tranche got “paid” first out of the monthly proceeds determined the ratings. If significant numbers of loans missed payments, or went into default, then the AAA tranche would receive all money due, and this went on down the line. The bottom tranches with the most risk would receive the leftover money. These were the first tranches to fail. Even if the defaulting loans were in the AAA tranche, the AAA tranche would still be paid and the lowest tranche would not. Wall Street, after the 2000 Dot.com crash, had large amounts of money sitting on the sidelines, looking for new investment opportunities. Returns on Investments were dismal, and investors were looking for new opportunities. Wall Street recognized that creating Special Investment Vehicles offered a new investment tool that could generate large commissions. Other Pertinent Facts of Securitization 1. In Wall Street pooling agreements they defined in the agreements that the loans that they would accept for each investment vehicle. The lenders were executed agreements by them, with the lenders and then immediately issued warehouse lines of credit to the lenders. 2. Lenders then informed brokers to know the loan parameters to meet the pooling agreement guidelines and the brokers went out and found the borrowers. 3. Wall Street took all the loans, packaged them up and sold them as bonds and other security instruments to other investors, i.e. Joe’s Pension, and paid off original investors or reissued new line of credit, and earned commissions on both ends. 4. The process was repeated time and again. 5. What we do know now is that in most cases, the reality is that the reported lender on the Deed of Trust was NOT the actual lender. The actual lender who lent the money was the Wall Street Investment Bank. They simply rented the license of the lender, so that they would not run afoul of banking regulations and/or avoid liability and tax issues. For all purposes, Wall Street was the true lender and there are arguments that suggest that Disclosures should have been required naming Wall Street as the lender. Now it can be easier to understand how possession of the Note and ownership of the Note play a vital role. In most cases, which tranche will contain any particular note, it is unknown. And will not it be known how many investors, and who bought the individual tranches without significant and time-consuming investigation. Hence, any foreclosure that was securitized may be completely unlawful. Without the “True Owners” of the note stepping forward to demand foreclosure,

Assignee Liability Assignee liability is another issue being contested. Under TILA and RESPA, If on the face of the loan documents gives evident that there are violations of the statutes, then assignees have a significant liability when they assume the loan. Moreover, the question arises as to if assignee liability can be claimed only if there are no violations on the face of the documents. It is believed that MERS became the “beneficiary” for so many notes to address the Assignee Liability problem. Since MERS works as the beneficiary, and it doesn’t keep the record of assignments, it becomes more difficult to determine assignee liability and holder in due course issues. This could offer “cover” for all the parties who are participating in the Securitization process, since no there were recorded of Assignments and “proof of ownership” of the note could not be easily determined. Tracking the monthly payments made to the investors, determining which party received the monthly payment will be the only way to determined ownership of the Notes. This would be time consuming and likely only Discovery would prove the process necessary to get this information. In Cazares v Pacific Shore Funding, CD. Cal. Jan 3, 2006, assignee that actively participated in original lender’s act and dictated loan terms may be liable under UDAP. The question then arises as to assignments further down the “chain of title”. Under these circumstances, to attack the lenders, the UDAP codes can be utilized. The contracts can be “voided or rescinded for showing fraud and other causes of action, ” common law and UDAP codes, especially CA B&P § 17200, and CA Civil Code §1689, which allows for contract rescission.

• “Thank you…Thank you…Thank you… Your company has created an affordable solution that is spot on as good if not better than audit reports that cost 3-4 times as much.”
• “I certainly appreciate your courtesy and thank you in advance for the service. Please know too, that I am recommending Mortgage Audits Online to all of my law associates.”
• “I have been using Mortgage Audits Online for a few months and I am very pleased with the work. The audits are very detailed and prepared so a 4th grader can read them. I recommend these guys to all my friends in the business.”
• News Segments
• Charity Work
• Loan Balance Accounting Report
• Sue for Mortgage Fraud
• Glaski vs. Bank of America
• Foreclosure Defense Help
• Foreclosure Defense Assistance
• County Judges Audited Against MERS Inc
• Wrongful Foreclosure Litigation
• Stop Foreclosure Sale
• Securitization audit
• Quiet Title Example Foreclosure
• New York creates a bill of rights for residents facing foreclosure
• Mortgage Fraud and Foreclosures
• Jesinoski V Countrywide home loans inc
• How to Stop Foreclosure sale
• How to defend against a foreclosure
• Forensic loan audit for court use
• View all Services

Best Time to Call You

Your Message

What Is Unsecured Debt?

A t some point in your life, you will likely need to borrow money. Perhaps you plan to take out school loans or apply for a mortgage. Whenever you borrow money, chances are good that it will be in one of two forms: secured debt or unsecured debt.

Unsecured debt is a common form of borrowing that includes traditional credit card cards, student loans and medical bills. This type of borrowing is often quicker and easier than applying for secured debt .

"Unsecured debt can be great in a pinch, especially when not using it will result in financial harm," says Karen Carlson, vice president of education and digital marketing at InCharge Debt Solutions, a nonprofit credit counseling organization.

But if you are not careful, unsecured debt can come with significant drawbacks. "If you are struggling to pay your bills and have a high debt-to-income ratio , you should consider other options," Carlson says.

Here is more about unsecured debt and when it might be the right choice for you.

Unsecured vs. Secured Debt 

The main difference between unsecured and secured debt is that secured debt requires collateral : a valuable asset such as a car, home or savings account the lender can seize if the borrower defaults.

Unsecured debt is issued based on credit and not backed by assets of any kind, which places the lender at greater risk of not being repaid. Lenders typically offset this risk by charging higher interest rates on unsecured debt.

Examples of unsecured debt: 

• Credit cards.  
• Medical bills.
• Student loans.
• Personal loans.  

Examples of secured debt:

• Home equity loans.  
• Car loans .

How Lenders Evaluate Borrowers for Unsecured Debt

Your credit score is a top factor that lenders use to determine your eligibility for an unsecured loan and your interest rate. Because unsecured debt poses bigger risks to lenders, borrowers usually need higher credit scores to qualify compared with secured loans. Strong credit suggests that the borrower has a history of paying back loans.

"The higher the credit score, the better the terms and the lower the interest rates will be," says Amy Maliga, financial educator at Take Charge America, a nonprofit credit counseling agency.

By contrast, people who do not have an extensive borrowing history or who have poor or no credit scores are less likely to qualify for unsecured debt. If a lender offers an unsecured loan to a borrower with a limited or troubled credit history, the loan will typically come with a low credit limit and high interest rate, Maliga says.

A history of responsible financial behavior is the best way to improve your odds of approval, Carlson says.

"Pay your bills on time, don't carry balances on your credit cards, and pay down credit card balances you currently carry," she says.

Is Unsecured or Secured Debt Better? 

Which loan type is better can depend on your credit, your financial need and your willingness to put assets at risk.

If you don't have assets to provide as collateral, an unsecured loan may be your only option. But if you don't have good credit, a secured loan could offer easier approval. Consider the distinct advantages and disadvantages of unsecured and secured debt to choose the right loan.

An unsecured loan may be best when:

• You have good or excellent credit .
• You don't have or don't want to pledge collateral.
• You don't require a large loan amount.

A secured loan may be best when:

• You have fair or bad credit .
• You want the lowest possible interest rate.
• You need a large loan amount or long repayment term.
• You are willing to pledge an asset as collateral.

What Happens if You Fail to Pay Unsecured or Secured Debt?

Whether you stop paying an unsecured or secured debt, you will wreck your credit. But the consequences of defaulting on an unsecured loan are a bit different from a secured loan.

For both types of loans, most lenders provide a grace period before reporting late payments to the credit bureaus . You can expect late fees and a drop in your credit score.

If you have an unsecured loan, your account likely will be sent to collections after a period of time. In a worst-case scenario, the lender might even sue you to try to collect the debt.

If you fail to pay a secured debt, the lender may take steps to repossess the property you pledged as collateral. The result of defaulting on a mortgage is foreclosure, which can mean losing your home.

Defaulting on a debt, regardless of type, remains on your credit report for up to seven years and hurts your ability to borrow in the future.

Raw HTML : Personal Loans Rate Enhancement

Should You Pay Off Unsecured or Secured Debt First?

Plan to make at least the minimum payment, regardless of whether a debt is secured or unsecured.

You might struggle to pay both secured and unsecured debts and wonder how to prioritize paying them off. If you find yourself in this position, pay off unsecured debts first, Carlson says.

"Unsecured debt is often the highest-interest debt a person faces and should be prioritized to pay off first and fast," she says.

Secured debts, such as a mortgage, typically have lower interest rates, "and you can make payments over a longer time horizon," Carlson adds.

Also, unsecured debts can be easier to pay off, Maliga says, because the balances are often relatively low. "Once the unsecured debt is paid off, they can make extra payments on their secured debt to whittle down the principal balance more quickly," she says.

But if you truly cannot pay both forms of debt, you may be better off covering your secured debt first because you have more at stake if you don't.

"If consumers are struggling with which debts to pay, they should always pay these loans first since the collateral could be seized for nonpayment of the loan," Maliga says.

Popular Lenders : Popular Lenders: Personal Loan Lenders

Copyright 2024 U.S. News & World Report

Directory of Legal & Accounting Professionals

Professionals are invited to create their profile and write articles on legal topics, whether assignment or sale of secured or unsecured debts is liable to gst.

Question: Whether assignment or sale of secured or unsecured debts is liable to GST?

Rating Action Commentary

Fitch Upgrades TUI Cruises to 'B+'/ Positive; Rates Proposed Notes 'B-(EXP)'

Mon 08 Apr, 2024 - 8:09 AM ET

Fitch Ratings - Madrid - 08 Apr 2024: Fitch Ratings has upgraded TUI Cruises GmbH's (TUI) Long-Term Issuer Default Rating (IDR) to 'B+' from 'B'. The Outlook is Positive. It has also assigned its proposed five-year senior unsecured notes an expected rating of 'B-(EXP)'. Fitch has also upgraded TUI's outstanding senior unsecured notes to 'B-' from 'CCC+'. The Recovery Ratings on both notes are 'RR6'.

The IDR upgrade to 'B+' reflects Fitch's expectations of continued EBITDA growth, driven by a recovery in occupancy to pre-pandemic levels and the ramp-up of new vessels, as well as price increases offsetting cost inflation. The rating also incorporates the company's solid business fundamentals, with a strong market position as the second-largest cruise line in Europe, a diversified offering, one of the industry's youngest and most efficient fleets, and a significant share of advance bookings supporting high operating margins.

The Positive Outlook reflects our expectation that EBITDA leverage will return to below 5x in 2025, after temporarily increasing in 2024 to 6x due to debt raised to finance two new vessel deliveries. We also forecast TUI's pre-dividend free cash flow (FCF) generation to improve once capex normalises.

The 'B-(EXP) senior unsecured rating is two notches below the IDR, reflecting material prior-ranking debt, which is mostly related to secured financing of vessels. The assignment of final rating is contingent on the receipt of final documentation conforming to information already reviewed.

Key Rating Drivers

Refinancing to Extend Maturities: Proceeds from the proposed notes will be used to partially repay TUI's KfW loan, ECA vessel financing deferrals and a secured term loan, extending TUI's debt maturity profile. The next large maturity is in May 2026, when EUR523.5 million notes are due. We assume refinancing will be supported by expected deleveraging and business growth.

Solid Revenue Recovery: In 2023, TUI demonstrated a strong recovery post-pandemic, with a ramp-up of occupancies, translating into revenue of EUR1.9 billion and Fitch-adjusted EBITDA of EUR599 million, ahead of Fitch's forecast. We expect TUI to maintain this performance, as advance bookings already provide a good level of visibility for revenue in 2024.

Improved Deleveraging Prospects: TUI has made significant progress on deleveraging as its EBITDA leverage declined to 4.9x in 2023 (2022: 10.1x), below our positive rating sensitivity of 5x. We expect the spike in TUI's EBITDA leverage to around 6x in 2024 to be temporary as it will be driven by new debt to finance its two vessel deliveries. As new vessels start contributing to EBITDA, we expect EBITDA leverage to fall back to below 5.0x in 2025, which, in combination with TUI's steady operating profile, supports the Positive Outlook.

Conversely, a delayed ramp-up of added capacity, occupancies trending below Fitch's assumptions or weaker-than-expected margins could disrupt the deleveraging path and weaken the prospect of the rating upgrade.

New Vessels to Support Growth: The Positive Outlook hinges on TUI's capacity expansion with the addition of three new ships for 2024-2026. Supportive demand and constrained global cruise ship supply due to delivery times should underpin TUI's ramp-up of operations in these new additions. We expect these to be as profitable as the current fleet in light of proven synergies, lower fuel consumption and economies of scale. Delayed vessel deliveries or postponed itineraries would, however, derail the deleveraging path and may negatively affect the rating.

Strengthened Cash Generation : TUI generated positive FCF of EUR436 million in 2023 and we expect strong cash generation to resume in 2025 after being negative in 2024 due to significant capex related to fleet expansion. We do not rule out that positive FCF could be allocated to shareholder remuneration as dividends have been suspended since the beginning of the pandemic. However, the rating assumes these would be reasonable and aligned with TUI's net debt/EBITDA target of 3.5x-4x.

Strong Business Profile: TUI has a strong market position as the second-largest German cruise line with a market share of around 30%. Its concentrated customer base enables it to better adapt its product offering to customer preferences, resulting in a high level of repeat bookings at around 60% of total customers in 2023. This allows TUI to maintain its current market position, while growing via additions of new ships from 2024.

Moderated Margin Amid Luxury Integration : TUI's premium product offering enabled it to generate an industry-leading EBITDA margin of close to 40% in 2019. However, due to the integration of the luxury segment (Hapag-Lloyd Cruises acquired in 2020) and ongoing inflation, we assume EBITDA margins will trend lower to 30%-33%, albeit remaining strong for the industry.

Standalone Rating: TUI is rated on a standalone basis despite its 50% ownership each by TUI AG and Royal Caribbean. Both the shareholders reflect TUI as a joint venture in their financial accounts with no relevant contingent liabilities or cross guarantees between the owners and TUI. TUI manages its funding and liquidity independently. Operational related-party transactions with the owners, primarily in marketing and technical operations, are conducted on an arms-length basis.

Derivation Summary

Fitch does not have a specific Ratings Navigator framework for cruise operators. We rate TUI based on our Hotels Navigator due to the similarity in key performance indicators and demand drivers.

TUI has a weaker market position than major cruise operators, such as Royal Caribbean, Carnival and NCL Corporation (Norwegian Cruises), whose fleet capacity and EBITDAR are significantly higher. However, TUI benefits from recognised brand awareness and diversification into the luxury segment, where competition is less intense.

TUI showed a faster recovery than peers, as it returned to pre-pandemic occupancy levels in 2023 despite exposure to its core German market. TUI has also deleveraged faster than its competitors: it was one of the first cruise operators to resume operations during the pandemic, which led to lower liquidity needs and better sourcing of staff, which benefited margins.

Key Assumptions

Fitch's Key Assumptions Within Our Rating Case for the Issuer:

- Low single-digit ticket price growth for 2024-2027

- Occupancies of 98.5% for Mein Schiff and 77% for Hapag-Lloyd Cruises in 2024, and improving marginally for 2024-2026

- EBITDA margin at 31.7% in 2024 and improving gradually to 32.8% in 2027

- Restricted cash of EUR40 million

- Major one-off capex cash outlay for fleet expansion of EUR1.4 billion in 2024

Recovery Analysis

The recovery analysis assumes that TUI would be reorganised as a going-concern (GC) in bankruptcy rather than liquidated. Ships can be sold for scrap but this typically does not occur until near the end of its useful life (30-40 years) and at a much greater discount than mid-life ships. This is due to the inherent cash flow generating ability of the ships, even older ones, which can be moved into cheaper/ less favourable locations as they age.

We have assumed a 10% administrative claim.

We assess TUI's GC EBITDA at EUR632 million, which is higher than its EUR599 million Fitch-adjusted EBITDA in 2023, as we incorporate the contribution of new vessels.

The GC EBITDA estimate reflects Fitch's view of a stressed but sustainable, post-reorganisation EBITDA level on which we base the enterprise valuation (EV).

An EV multiple of 6.5x EBITDA is applied to the GC EBITDA to calculate a post-reorganisation EV. This reflects market M&A multiples for cruise operators of 9x-20x over the last 20 years, though these assets typically do not change hands frequently.

TUI's KfW loan, vessel-backed loans (including loans scheduled to be drawn for new vessels over 2024 and 2025) and revolving credit facilities (RCFs including a term loan that will be converted into a new RCF) are secured and rank ahead of the existing EUR523.5 million senior unsecured notes in our waterfall-generated recovery computation. The RCFs are assumed to be fully drawn in a default.

Our waterfall analysis generates a ranked recovery for the EUR523.5 million senior unsecured notes in the 'RR6' band, indicating a 'B-' rating, two notches below the IDR. The waterfall analysis output percentage on current metrics and assumptions is 0%.

The proposed senior unsecured notes will rank equally with the existing senior unsecured notes. TUI plans to apply the notes proceeds to repay prior-ranking debt but we view this change in debt structure as neutral for recovery prospects of senior unsecured bondholders. Pro-forma for the transaction, our waterfall analysis generates a ranked recovery for senior unsecured notes in the 'RR6' band. As a result we rate proposed notes at 'B-(EXP)', two notches below TUI's 'B+' IDR. The waterfall analysis output percentage on current metrics and assumptions is 0%.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade:

− Timely and profitable capacity growth with occupancy and cost control leading to growing EBITDA and EBITDA margin trending towards 33%

− EBITDA leverage sustained below 5.0x, supported by a consistent financial policy

− Positive pre-dividend FCF generation trough the capex cycle

Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to a Revision of the Outlook to Stab le :

- Lack of visibility of EBITDA leverage declining towards 5.0x post-2024

Factors That Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Downgrade:

- Pricing power and occupancy weakness leading to EBITDA margin falling below 28%

− EBITDA leverage sustained above 6.0x

- EBITDA interest coverage below 3.5x

Liquidity and Debt Structure

Adequate Liquidity: We assess TUI's liquidity at end-2023 as adequate, despite insufficient Fitch-adjusted cash and cash equivalents of EUR80 million and EUR342 million undrawn credit lines to cover EUR502 million of short-term debt and expected negative FCF. This is because negative FCF is driven by high capex related to new vessels, for which funding has been pre-arranged. TUI plans to draw down EUR1,272 million from the vessel funding in 2024.

We also expect liquidity to improve following the bond placement as proceeds will be used to repay part of its near-term debt. The company also intends to convert the remaining part of the term loan into a RCF, thereby increasing the total amount of RCFs to EUR592 million (of which EUR261 million will be drawn post-transaction) until December 2025 (with a one-year extension option).

Issuer Profile

TUI Cruises is a medium-sized cruise ship business with two brands, Mein Schiff and Hapag-Lloyd Cruises, operating in the premium and luxury/expedition segments of the market, respectively. Its customer base is primarily in Germany.

REFERENCES FOR SUBSTANTIALLY MATERIAL SOURCE CITED AS KEY DRIVER OF RATING

The principal sources of information used in the analysis are described in the Applicable Criteria.

ESG Considerations

The highest level of ESG credit relevance is a score of '3', unless otherwise disclosed in this section. A score of '3' means ESG issues are credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity, either due to their nature or the way in which they are being managed by the entity. Fitch's ESG Relevance Scores are not inputs in the rating process; they are an observation on the relevance and materiality of ESG factors in the rating decision. For more information on Fitch's ESG Relevance Scores, visit https://www.fitchratings.com/topics/esg/products#esg-relevance-scores .

• senior unsecured

VIEW ADDITIONAL RATING DETAILS

Additional information is available on www.fitchratings.com

PARTICIPATION STATUS

The rated entity (and/or its agents) or, in the case of structured finance, one or more of the transaction parties participated in the rating process except that the following issuer(s), if any, did not participate in the rating process, or provide additional information, beyond the issuer’s available public disclosure.

APPLICABLE CRITERIA

• Corporates Recovery Ratings and Instrument Ratings Criteria (pub. 13 Oct 2023) (including rating assumption sensitivity)
• Corporate Rating Criteria (pub. 03 Nov 2023) (including rating assumption sensitivity)
• Sector Navigators – Addendum to the Corporate Rating Criteria (pub. 03 Nov 2023)

APPLICABLE MODELS

Numbers in parentheses accompanying applicable model(s) contain hyperlinks to criteria providing description of model(s).

• Corporate Monitoring & Forecasting Model (COMFORT Model), v8.1.0 ( 1 )

ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES

• Dodd-Frank Rating Information Disclosure Form
• Solicitation Status
• Endorsement Policy

ENDORSEMENT STATUS