Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Hi Olti,
this MM´s manipulation is irritating and boring, but not that much indeed (after a 5+ years training period here) , sincerely, waiting patiently for another 11 months won´t be that difficult... we can and we will achieve that goal
Beleive me,
Our WALL€T$ will loud and clear say " Thank You "
COMPELLING SEC INFO
As AZ has said a few times the SEC info (not MHO) about this is REALLY compelling
http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.xA1Jy.2d.htm#1stPage (bottom of page...)
I believe the amount of stock abandoned was (8,37 /0,35)B = 23,9 B (approx)
...... important aspect (8,37B is a NET asset value) to consider...
I believe that by 12/31/2014 we will know the amount, rate and cost at which these assets (NOLS & OLS) are monetized
Personally, (after 5+ years) I believe I will wait another 11 (approx) months..
In 11 months we will cook this enigma into pure SEC Data
So
Waiting patiently ...
EXIT STRATEGY
A reasonable exit strategy could be exiting as (at the same speed, proportion, rate,...) those "in the know" (BoD + HFs + KKR + ...)
U know we will know this (their exit strategy) with not more than (I believe) 4 days delay...
Acceptable risk ...
Take Care
Magnificent insight LG
Thank You for sharing this.
Hi,
(from post 28767)
"c. Ownership of Tax Refunds. If the tax appeal results in a refund, there is a
dispute between the estate and the FDIC as receiver for United Western
Bank regarding the ownership of the refund which must be resolved. "
This is going to take a long time...
months?, maybe years?
Does anybody know how long this issues could take?
TIA
Thank You VC !! (I guess it was cheap but not Free...)
Please let me know if you change your mind
Lets Cross fingers and lets wait patiently
Hi Bbanbob
Sorry to know you sold recently
I believe equity escrows will do REALLY GOOD in the LT (remember cap was eliminated in class 19...)
Take Care
Hi VC
Great Job!!
My name is not in the list but I would like to help with the costs of this action ( I have not PM in ihub) as I believe it helps all class 8 holders
Please let me know how to contribute ( Bank account number, PayPal....)
TIA
Considering the way our BoD is being paid I beleive that something will be pursued
Hi PickStocks
I beleive that we that we had 5 years to "use" those 8,6 Billion, a little bit more than 3 years now
We need a partner with huge capital gains to "use" those 8,6 Billion.... ¿ does anybody know the amount of Blackstone's capital gains in the recent years?
TIA
UWBKQ (UNITED WESTERN BA) Short Selling Data Report
http://otcshortreport.com/index.php?index=UWBKQ#close
Thanks so much for your answer LG
Totally agree about death ,
I agree maxoliver
From BuckleySandler LLP website (http://www.buckleysandler.com/) after searching for "United Western" in their search engine
"Your search for united western returned the following results:
PRACTICES
2
Bank Director & Officer Defense
Troubled Banks
OUR EXPERIENCE
2
United Western Bank v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, et al.
In re United Western Bancorp, Inc."
PRACTICES
2
Bank Director & Officer Defense
http://www.buckleysandler.com/practice-detail/bank-director-officer-defense
"Bank Director & Officer Defense
Print This Page
Bank Directors and Officers are increasingly facing the prospect of personal liability for actions that they took during a more benign economic and regulatory environment. Bank regulatory and other government agencies, including the Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission and state Attorneys General, have become more proactive in investigating possible wrongdoing by bank insiders.
When a bank fails or becomes troubled, bank directors and senior officers face heightened scrutiny and risk. As receiver of a failed bank, the FDIC may sue individual directors and officers civilly for having failed to meet their fiduciary duties. The FDIC also aggressively pursues directors and officers of both failed and open banks for reckless lending and other actions considered unsafe or unsound. Such actions are normally preceded by formal investigations characterized by sworn statements and document subpoenas. Bank directors and officers can face significant civil money penalties, prohibition orders and restitution orders.
BuckleySandler counsels bank directors, bank boards, and bank officers on how to establish a decision-making process that will minimize personal liability, and defends them against enforcement and civil actions filed by banking agencies and other governmental authorities. The defense begins at the time that the director or officer is put on notice by the government agency that it has initiated an investigation or has provided a letter to the insider providing an opportunity to respond to certain allegations. The Firm also advises bank boards and management on how to protect themselves against personal liability through D&O insurance policies, charter and bylaw indemnification provisions, and individual indemnification agreements with individual directors.
Once a bank is at risk of being closed, BuckleySandler will conduct a thorough review of facts and circumstances that might place directors and officers at risk and counsel them as to how to minimize that risk and prepare for potential litigation or enforcement action.
Once a bank is closed, BuckleySandler will assist directors and senior officers in responding to demand letters from the FDIC, prepare for sworn depositions, advance arguments to the FDIC why civil or enforcement action is not warranted, sue to challenge the seizure and if a suit or enforcement action is initiated, defend the client or negotiate a settlement.
BuckleySandler has represented a number of bank directors and officers in a variety of enforcement and civil action matters. Representative experience includes:
Defense of directors of failed banks against threatened civil suits and enforcement actions by the FDIC
Preparation of defense of various directors of troubled banks prior to bank failure
Amicus brief for the American Association of Bank Directors defending the right of directors of failed banks to have access and copies of bank records to defend themselves see. FDIC v. BryanCave
Suit on behalf of former directors of United Western Bank challenging the closing of United Western Bank by the OTS and FDIC
Members of the D&O Defense practice group include former bank regulators and experienced civil and criminal litigators and the Executive Director of the American Association of Bank Directors, a nonprofit trade association representing the interests of bank and savings institution directors."
Troubled Banks
http://www.buckleysandler.com/practice-detail/troubled-banks
"Troubled Banks
Print This Page
BuckleySandler’s troubled bank practice advises clients on the myriad issues that banks as well as their holding companies, directors, and officers face when a bank experiences threats to its continued operation. This includes banks that have received a composite CAMELS rating of 3 or worse. We have extensive experience counseling such clients on the full range of complex regulatory, transactional, litigation, and personal liability issues that they may confront. BuckleySandler also works closely with investor clients to identify, negotiate, and close on investment opportunities with troubled financial institutions and their regulators.
Directors and Officers
BuckleySandler counsels bank directors, bank boards, and bank officers on how to establish a decision-making process that will minimize personal liability, and defends them against enforcement and civil actions threatened or filed by banking agencies and other governmental authorities. The Firm also advises bank boards and management on how to protect themselves against personal liability through D&O insurance policies, charter and bylaw indemnification provisions, and individual indemnification agreements with individual directors.
If a bank is facing risk of closure, BuckleySandler conducts a thorough review of facts and circumstances that might place directors and officers at risk and counsels them as to how to minimize that risk and prepare for potential litigation or enforcement action.
When a bank is closed, BuckleySandler helps directors and senior officers respond to demand letters from the FDIC, prepares individuals for depositions, advances arguments to the FDIC as to why civil or enforcement action is not warranted, sues to challenge the seizure, and if a suit or enforcement action is initiated by the FDIC, defends the client or negotiates a settlement.
BuckleySandler has represented a number of bank directors and officers in a variety of enforcement and civil action matters. Representative experience includes:
Defense of directors of failed banks against threatened civil suits and enforcement actions by the FDIC
Preparation of defense of directors of various troubled banks prior to bank failure
Amicus brief for the American Association of Bank Directors supporting the right of directors of failed banks to have access and copies of bank records to defend themselves
Suit on behalf of United Western Bank and its holding company, officers, and directors, challenging the closing of United Western Bank by the OTS and FDIC
Members of the Firm’s Troubled Bank practice group include former bank regulators, experienced civil and criminal litigators, and the Executive Director of the American Association of Bank Directors, a nonprofit trade association representing the interests of bank and savings institution directors.
Litigation, Enforcement, and Compliance with Administrative Actions
BuckleySandler represents banks and other financial institutions and their directors and officers in litigation and enforcement matters related to troubled banks. Our attorneys have defended and advocated for clients on matters involving the FDIC, the OCC, the Federal Reserve, the SEC, the U.S. Department of Justice, and other regulatory and enforcement authorities.
Our experience in the troubled bank context includes the following:
Disputes over the findings in reports of examination
Litigation of enforcement actions initiated by federal banking agency in administrative courts
Negotiation of the form and content of an administrative action against a bank or its institution-affiliated parties
Assistance in a bank's efforts to comply with administrative actions
Analysis of D&O and E&O insurance policy issues and making claims
Disputes with the FDIC and other agencies over the ownership of certain assets, including, among others, tax refunds
Lawsuits concerning corporate fiduciary duties and corporate waste
Lawsuits concerning accounting fraud
Defense of institutions and their officers and directors in grand jury investigations
Defense of institutions and their officers and directors in SEC enforcement proceedings
Defense of institutions and their officers and directors in class actions, individual and derivative lawsuits brought by shareholders and other private parties
Lawsuits to remove the FDIC as receiver of the bank
Special Investigations
The need for a bank or its holding company to conduct a special, internal investigation arises in both troubled and healthy bank contexts. However, troubled banks can be more susceptible to the need for a special investigation given the increased risk of bank regulatory actions, shareholder derivative suits, and SEC and Department of Justice investigations.
BuckleySandler's experience in special, internal investigations includes:
Conducting investigations into improprieties of senior and other bank officers
Conducting investigations into matters required by a banking agency in the context of an enforcement action for review by the board of directors and/or its audit committee
Conducting investigations into compliance with consumer laws and regulations
Conducting investigations into compliance with securities laws and regulations
Conducting investigations to ensure compliance with AML/Bank Secrecy Act standards
Bankruptcy Trustee
BuckleySandler represents Chapter 7 trustees of insolvent bank and thrift holding companies in fulfilling their responsibilities to creditors seeking to recover their interests through the Chapter 7 process. We provide trustees with legal advice as special counsel, including:
Conducting or assisting investigations concerning the financial affairs of the debtor holding company and the failure of its underlying bank or thrift
Assessing and litigating claims against insiders and third party advisors of the debtor holding company
Assisting or conducting investigations and litigation of avoidable transfers
Defending or assisting the defense of government enforcement and civil actions naming or otherwise involving the debtor holding company
BuckleySandler, as special counsel, also handles similar matters for Debtors in Chapter 11 proceedings.
Corporate and Transactions
BuckleySandler advises troubled financial institutions and their holding companies on a wide variety of transactions and strategies which, if successful, can help the institution increase capital levels, maintain compliance with capital maintenance requirements, avoid or delay the imposition of regulatory enforcement actions and receivership for the institution, including:
Recapitalization
Through public or private offerings
Issuance of debt or equity securities
Mergers and whole institution sales
Asset and branch sales
Conversion or reduction of outstanding debt instruments or trust preferred securities
Section 363 sale transactions
BuckleySandler also represents prospective investors in troubled institutions, including:
Management groups unable to obtain de novo charters
Bank bidder on the deposits and assets of failed banks
Private equity acquisitions of troubled banks
BuckleySandler’s corporate and transactional practice is characterized by not only proficiency on the transactional analysis and documentation, but also a deep understanding of the regulatory requirements and hurdles applicable to the transaction."
OUR EXPERIENCE
2
United Western Bank v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, et al.
http://www.buckleysandler.com/experience-detail/united-western-bank-et-al-v-office-of-thrift-supervision-et-al
"United Western Bank v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, et al.
Practice Area(s): Bank Director & Officer Defense, Bank Regulatory, Complex Civil Litigation, Government Enforcement, Litigation
Attorney(s): Sandler, Andrew L.; Buffone, Samuel J; Saul, Benjamin P.; Prieto, Liana R.
Case Date(s): 2011
Court: D.D.C.
Judge: Jackson, Amy Berman
State: Dist. of Columbia
Docket No. 1:11-CV-00408-ABJ
On behalf of United Western Bank, filed suit against the OTS and FDIC claiming a wrongful seizure and appointment of a receiver. The lawsuit asserts the bank was, in fact, "economically viable" and the seizure was "arbitrary and capricious." It demands that the court order the OCC, the OTS' successor, to remove the FDIC as receiver of United Western Bank. The Court denied a motion to dismiss by the OCC and granted United Western Bank leave to take discovery from the OCC to ascertain whether documents had been improperly excluded from the administrative record. The Court dismissed the FDIC from the case, but the FDIC has since intervened in the case in an attempt to block the release of FDIC documents identified as responsive in the course of discovery. "
In re United Western Bancorp, Inc.
http://www.buckleysandler.com/experience-detail/in-re-united-western-bancorp-inc
"In re United Western Bancorp, Inc.
Practice Area(s): Banking, Bankruptcy Trustee, Litigation
Attorney(s): Sandler, Andrew L.; Buffone, Samuel J; Saul, Benjamin P
Court: D. Col.
State: Colorado
Represented debtor-in-possession as special counsel for several litigation and regulatory matters."
My question here is
Why do they state "has represented"(instead of is representing), is the case and their representation over?
TIA
Hi Large
You quoted
"Only time will tell and that has to be between now and October 21st according to the Colorado Bankruptcy rules. "
Respectfully (wanting your statement to be true and hoping Class 8 gets a few USD a share),
Are you 100% sure about this?
TIA
Hi Rico
First higher classes must be paid in full (otherwise your shares won´t see any recovery)
If/when this happens your old commons will receive approx 0.1785 USD for every extra Billion the WMILT recovers/"wins"
Have a look at these links as well
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/8817600/8817600130306000000000001.pdf?nh=1
http://www.wmitrust.com/wmitrust/document/8817600130802000000000001
http://www.wmitrust.com/WMITrust
Thanks Rainbow
Thanks so much BBANBOB
Hi wowalters
I am sorry to admit that I would like to know ( but don't know) what operation of law exactly means
I wonder if someone could help us with this
TIA
Hi W3
5. Can an LTI be transferred?
LTIs are not transferable or assignable except by will, intestate succession or operation of
law pursuant to Section 2.4(a) of the Liquidating Trust Agreement.
(see http://www.kccllc.net/documents/8817600/8817600130306000000000001.pdf?nh=1)
Section 2.4(a) of the Liquidating Trust Agreement says
" 2.4 Transfers of Liquidating Trust Interests.
(a) General. Liquidating Trust Interests shall not be transferable or assignable except by will, intestate succession or operation of law."
(see http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/933136/000090951812000099/mm03-1212_8ke101.htm )
I believe this post and the chain are of public interest
Simple and true Hallelujah
I agree
Brilliant and compelling arguments VC
Until/unless someone brings some different evidence (recorded phone call, answered email or so) to this board I will "stop my car" here
LG
I also beleive Trade and his words,
A recorded call would really be helpfull to put some light in this " mess"
PS: I would do it myself but I am posting from Basque Country and my oral english is not good enough, besides I don't have a phone handy now ... Sorry
Sorry for your loss Cruz
My condolences to you and your family
TC
I (and I believe that many of us) really appreciate your posts and contribution, we will miss you if you don´t show up from time to time
Take Care Bro
Hopefully we will
Great !!
Thanks so much for this VC
This would be great and fair
This should happen
Good to know you are better Trade
I hope you are completely healed soon
Take Care
Trade
I hope you are back on the " battlefield" soon
My best wishes for you to be ok
Take care bro
Hi BBANBOB
I won´t attend the meeting either but we can vote
..." Voting items
The Board of Directors recommends you vote
FOR the following:
1. Election of Directors
Nominee
01 Michael Willingham 02 Eugene I. Davis 03 Steven D. Scheiwe 04 Mark E. Holliday 05 Diane B. Glossman
06 Michael J. Renoff 07 Timothy R. Graham
The Board of Directors recommends you vote FOR proposals 2 and 3.
2 To ratify the appointment of Burr Pilger Mayer, Inc., as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2013.
3 To approve, as an advisory vote, compensation of WMI Holdings Corp.’s named executive officers.
The Board of Directors recommends you vote 1 YEAR on the following proposal:
4 To approve, as an advisory vote, the frequency of future advisory votes on named executive officer compensation.
NOTE: Such other business as may properly come before the meeting or any adjournment or postponement thereof "...
See
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/933136/000119312513167549/d526118ddefa14a.htm
Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended
..........."you are cordially invited to attend our 2013 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, which will be held on Wednesday, June 5, 2013, beginning at 11:00 a.m., Eastern Time, at The Roosevelt Hotel, 45 East 45th Street (at Madison Avenue), New York, New York 10017........"
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/933136/000119312513167519/d492462ddef14a.htm
Thanks for the info VC
GL
Verycareful
Do you have the link to the file?
Is it a signed order?
TIA
Hi Trade
Someone started the "leak task", hopefully the same will happen with the Wamu seizure
"Legal insider trading in three easy steps, brought to you by JP Morgan and the SEC
KEVIN WILSON, MARIA CHRISTINA PADRO, JULIAN ASSANGE & staff
March 16, 2009
A confidential memo obtained by Wikileaks shows that not only has the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission created an insider trading loophole big enough to drive a truck through, but that Wall Street is taking full advantage of it, establishing 'how-to' programs and even client service divisions to help well-heeled clients circumvent insider trading regulations.
Most of us think of insider trading as illegal. It allows those with inside knowledge to tilt the playing field, with the small investors invariably losing to the privileged few. Unfortunately for the small investor, the big boys get to play by different rules, and it has all been made legal, thanks to the SEC.
In 2000 the SEC promulgated Rule 10b5-1. The new Rule was designed to address the confusion caused by a series of court decisions that had left investors uncertain about what constitutes insider trading. Rule 10b5-1 was designed to "clarify" what constitutes illegal insider trading.
But top Wall Street houses were not to be deterred from advantaging their big clients at the expense of their small ones. Wall Street firms like JP Morgan found loopholes in Rule 10b5-1 that allowed them to continue trading on inside information "legally." Indeed, JP Morgan has gone so far as to set up an entire 'selling program' within its Securities division to help their clients profit from the loophole.
Documents obtained earlier this month by Wikileaks from JP Morgan Private Bank, which subtitles itself as "World class solutions for wealthy individuals and families", show the firm has a dedicated '10b5-1 Selling program,' along with a 'dedicated 10b5-1 team' to help its clients take advantage of the loophole.
Here's how it works:
1. An insider client transfers all or a portion of their company stock into a JP Morgan Securities Inc. brokerage account.
2. The insider then develops, in conjunction with the 10b5-1 team, a 'phased, pre-planned sales program to be executed at either market or specified prices'.
3. Depending on the information available to the insider (but not the public), the insider can decide whether to execute the sale or not.
By gaming the system this way, JP Morgan teaches insiders how to use their knowledge to create a rigged market, one in which it is the "house" that always wins, and the small investor that always loses.
Alan D. Jagolinzer, an assistant professor at Stanford University Graduate School of Business, completed a study of roughly 117,000 trades in 10b5-1 plans by 3,426 executives at 1,241 companies. He found that trades inside the plans beat the market by 6% over six months. By contrast, executives at the same firms who traded without the benefit of plans beat the market by only 1.9%.http://businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_51/b4014045.htm
One can only guess at how many wealthy executives profited under JP Morgan's "insider trading program," leaving small investors holding the bag.
See
See the full confidential JP Morgan Private Bank insider trading memo:
JP Morgan Private Bank insider trading how-to
JP Morgan Private Bank was successfully contacted by Wikileaks, but declined to comment on the report.
Additional contacts
JP Morgan Private Bank
http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/jpmorgan/private_banking
Prof. Alan D. Jagolinzer
http://www.stanford.edu/~alanj1/
Tax Justice Network
http://taxjustice.net "
See
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Whistleblower_exposes_insider_trading_program_at_JP_Morgan
And
http://wlstorage.net/file/barry-diller.pdf
Also
"Sealed complaint against JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Nelnet for defrauding the United States government, 19 May 2008
Donate to WikiLeaks]
Unless otherwise specified, the document described here:
Was first publicly revealed by WikiLeaks working with our source.
Was classified, confidential, censored or otherwise withheld from the public before release.
Is of political, diplomatic, ethical or historical significance.
Any questions about this document's veracity are noted.
The summary is approved by the editorial board.
See here for a detailed explanation of the information on this page.
If you have similar or updated material, see our submission instructions.
Contact us
Press inquiries
Follow updates
Release date
October 15, 2009
Summary
This document, filed under seal, presents a complaint from a federal lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase & Co., Citigroup and Nelnet for presenting false claims to the United States government, in respect to the student loan industry.
Download
File | Torrent | Magnet
Further information
Context
United States
Primary language
English
File size in bytes
6643316
File type information
PDF document, version 1.3
Cryptographic identity
SHA256 "
See
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Sealed_complaint_against_JP_Morgan_Chase,_Citigroup_and_Nelnet_for_defrauding_the_United_States_government,_19_May_2008
And
http://wlstorage.net/file/us-jp-morgan-citigroup-nelnet-2009.pdf
I don´t know if you mean this
http://es.scribd.com/doc/79609507/WAHUQ-Class-16-Beneficial-Ballot-939322-84-8
Hi Tradeinman
Do you think it is 8,37 Billion?
"On March 19, 2012, WMIHC emerged from bankruptcy. Prior to emergence, WMI abandoned the stock of WMB, thereby generating a worthless stock deduction of approximately $8.37 billion which gives rise to an NOL for the current year. Under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code, and based on our analysis, we believe that the Company experienced an “ownership change” (generally defined as a greater than 50 percent change (by value) in our equity ownership over a three-year period) on March 19, 2012, and our ability to use our pre-change of control NOLs and other pre-change tax attributes against our post-change income was limited. The Section 382 limitation is applied annually so as to limit the use of our pre-change NOLs to an amount that generally equals the value of our stock immediately before the ownership change multiplied by a designated federal long-term tax-exempt rate. Due to applicable limitations under IRC Section 382 and a reduction of tax attributes due to cancellation of indebtedness, a portion of these NOLs were limited and will expire unused. We believe the total available and utilizable NOL carry forward at March 19, 2012 is expected to be approximately $5.96 billion. These NOLs will begin to expire in 2030. The Company’s ability to utilize the NOLs or realize any benefits related to the NOLs is subject to a number of risks."
See ( http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/933136/000119312512344418/d392232dex995.htm )
And,then, do you think the 8,37 Billion are a net tax advantage ?(sorry for asking this again, but I beleive it is important enough)
TIA
Royal , you are a genius
Magnificent Olti, really appreciated
Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury
Washington, DC 20224
Number: 201305009
Release Date: 2/1/2013
Index Number: 9100.09-00
------------------------
----------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
----------------------------
[Third Party Communication:
Date of Communication: Month DD, YYYY]
Person To Contact:
--------------, ID No. -----------------
Telephone Number/Fax Number:
--------------------- ---------------------
Refer Reply To:
CC:ITA:4
PLR-145003-12
Date: October 31, 2012
Legend:
TIN = ----------------
Year = -------
Dear ---- ---------:
This letter ruling is in reference to Taxpayer’s request that its Form 1128, Application to
Adopt, Change, or Retain a Tax Year, be considered timely filed under the authority in
§ 301.9100-3 of the Regulations on Procedure and Administration. Taxpayer filed a late
Form 1128 to change its accounting period, for federal income tax purposes, from a
taxable year ending December 31, to a taxable year ending March 31, effective March
31, Year.
Revenue Procedure 2006-45, 2006-45 C.B. 851, provides procedures for certain
corporations to obtain automatic approval to change their annual accounting period
under § 442 of the Internal Revenue Code. A corporation complying with all the
applicable provisions of this revenue procedure has obtained the consent of the
Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service to change its annual accounting period.
Section 7.02(2) of Rev. Proc. 2006-45 provides that a Form 1128 filed pursuant to the
revenue procedure will be considered timely filed for purposes of § 1.442-1(b)(1) of the
Income Tax Regulations only if it is filed on or before the time (including extensions) for
filing the return for the short period required to effectuate the change.
The information furnished indicates that Taxpayer did not file its Form 1128 by the due
date of the return for the short period required to effectuate the change. However,
Taxpayer requested an extension of time to file its Form 1128 under § 301.9100-3
shortly after the required time.
Section 301.9100-3(a) provides that requests for extensions of time for regulatory
elections that do not meet the requirements of § 301.9100-2 (automatic extensions),
such as this case, must be made under the rules of § 301.9100-3. Requests for relief
subject to § 301.9100-3 will be granted when the taxpayer establishes that the taxpayer PLR-145003-12 2
acted reasonably and in good faith, and that the granting of relief will not prejudice the
interests of the government.
Based on the facts and information submitted and the representations made, we
conclude that Taxpayer has acted reasonably and in good faith, and that the granting of
relief will not prejudice the interests of the government. Accordingly, Taxpayer has
satisfied the requirements of the regulations for the granting of relief, and Taxpayer's
late filed Form 1128 requesting to change to March 31, effective March 31, Year, is
considered timely filed.
1
Because a change in accounting period under Rev. Proc. 2006-45 is under the
jurisdiction of the Director, Internal Revenue Service Center, where the taxpayer’s
returns are filed, we are returning your application so that you may forward it along with
a copy of this letter to the Director, --------- Service Center, within 45 days of the date of
this letter. Any further communication regarding this matter should be directed to the
Service Center.
This ruling is based upon facts and representations submitted by the taxpayer and
accompanied by a penalty of perjury statement executed by an appropriate party. This
office has not verified any of the material submitted in support of the request for a ruling.
However, as part of an examination process, the Service may verify the factual
information, representations, and other data submitted.
This ruling addresses only the granting of § 301.9100-3 relief. We express no opinion
regarding the tax treatment of the instant transaction under the provisions of any other
sections of the Code or regulations that may be applicable, or regarding the tax
treatment of any conditions existing at the time of, or effects resulting from, the instant
transaction. Specifically, we express no opinion as to whether the taxpayer is permitted
under the Code and applicable regulations to change to the tax year requested in the
Form 1128, or whether the change may be effectuate under Rev. Proc. 2006-45.
A copy of this letter must be attached to any income tax return to which it is relevant.
Alternatively, taxpayers filing their returns electronically may satisfy this requirement by
attaching a statement to their return that provides the date and control number of the
letter ruling.
1
The taxpayer’s application for a change in accounting period will be processed under
Rev. Proc. 2006-45. PLR-145003-12 3
This ruling is directed only to the taxpayer requesting it. Section 6110(k)(3) of the Code
provides that it may not be used or cited as precedent. Enclosed is a copy of the letter
ruling showing the deletions proposed to be made when it is disclosed under § 6110.
Sincerely,
Donna Welsh
Senior Technician Reviewer
(Income Tax & Accounting)
Office of Chief Counsel
Enclosures
JMac9
Yeah, I beleive that the necessary changes can be (and will be) made at the right time.
I also believe that this document (see http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/1305009.pdf ) is about WMIH
I also beleive that the document has to do with the monetization of OL's (and not with the NOL's) because the monetization must be done before the fiscal year end (12/31/2012 now, and 03/31/2013 according to this doc (if/when IRS finally accepts the change)); NOL´s can wait, OL´s cannot.
Regarding the total amount OL's and NOL's, I beleive that the 5.96B (as NOL's) are as correct today as the 12/31/2012 (as fiscal year end), both (the amount of NOL´s and the date of fiscal year end) can (and will) change after their respective PLR by IRS, generating no liability (to all professionals, LT, WMIH, etc.);
I mean the amount of admitted NOL´s/OL´s by IRS "was" 5,96B till the IRS "said/PLRed" otherwise; also, the fiscal year end "was" 31/12/2012 till the IRS "said/PLRed" otherwise (very probably 03/31/2013 in our case).
GLTA soon