Events
Jenny Speck to Speak on BARBRI Webinar
Partner Jenny Speck will speak on BARBRI’s live video CLE program, “Tax Credit Insurance for Energy Projects: PFE Exclusions, Recapture, …
November 19, 2026
November 19, 2026 • 1-minute read
Insight
Client Alerts
On August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”) was enacted into law. Among other changes to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), the IRA imposes a 15% corporate alternative minimum tax on certain corporations (the “CAMT”).1 In enacting the CAMT, Congress was focused on the phenomenon of very large publicly traded corporations with significant accounting earnings paying little or no tax. Hence the decision by Congress to have the CAMT calculated based on book income rather than taxable income. Congress took this approach rather than restricting tax incentives previously added to the Code by Congress that contributed to the low or no taxable income reported by these otherwise profitable companies. The following discussion is a high-level summary of the CAMT and certain potential implications thereof for corporate taxpayers. As contemplated below, the application of the CAMT in certain contexts is not entirely clear and, absent further regulatory guidance, may apply with respect to certain corporate taxpayers that Congress did not intend to capture.
The CAMT is only one of the significant changes to the Code resulting from the enactment of the IRA. We also published a summary of the renewable energy tax credit provisions, the environmental provisions (including the methane emissions charge) and the excise tax on certain repurchases of corporate stock of the IRA. Stay tuned for additional analysis and insight with respect to the IRA.
Observations: The first taxable year for which a corporation could qualify as an applicable corporation is the 2022 taxable year, and the first year in which the CAMT could be imposed on an applicable corporation is the 2023 taxable year. Financial statement losses during a year are taken into account in determining the three-year average in applying the $1 Billion Test, whereas GAAP NOLs (defined below) are taken into account in computing an applicable corporation’s CAMT. As the three-tax-year period used for determining whether a calendar year corporation satisfies the $1 Billion Test for the taxable year ending on December 31, 2023 (the “2023 taxable year”) includes the taxable year ending on December 31, 2020 (the “2020 taxable year”), calendar year corporations with material financial statement losses for the 2020 taxable year may not meet the $1 Billion Test until the taxable year ending on December 31, 2024.
If a corporation is a member of an FPMG, two separate tests must be satisfied to trigger applicable corporation status. First, the corporation must satisfy the $1 Billion Test with the Average Annual AFSI of such corporation determined by including the AFSI of all members of the FPMG in the Controlled Group. Second, such corporation must also have Average Annual AFSI of $100 million or more taking into account the AFSI of only the U.S. members of such corporation’s Controlled Group for the three-year testing period (the “$100 Million Test”). The $100 Million Test is applied so that a U.S. subsidiary of an FPMG is subject to the CAMT only if the U.S. members of the FPMG in the Controlled Group have sufficient income.
Observations: Presumably this additional $100 Million Test is intended to provide an exception for larger non-U.S.-parented multi-national organizations that have a relatively small U.S. presence. Many aspects of the determination of the members and common parent of an FPMG and the application of the $100 Million Test are uncertain under the statutory language. The uncertainty will hopefully be addressed in short order through regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) and other guidance issued by the Internal Revenue Service.
Observations: The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that “only approximately 150 taxpayers annually will be subject to” the CAMT. While several organizations and commentators have attempted to identify taxpayers expected to be subject to the CAMT using publicly available data, the application of these complex aggregation rules makes it difficult to identify such taxpayers. As we have analyzed the application of the CAMT, we have identified certain corporations likely to be subject to the CAMT that, in all likelihood, were not its intended targets.
Observations (Up-C Structures): Companies with Up-C structures will need to consider the application of these aggregation rules in determining whether the public corporation is subject to the CAMT. In general, where the public corporation owns a greater than 50% interest in the operating partnership (or the operating partnership is otherwise a member of the public corporation’s Controlled Group), all of the operating partnership’s AFSI is taken into account in applying the $1 Billion Test to the public corporation. However, even if all of the operating partnership’s AFSI is taken into account in applying the $1 Billion Test, only the public corporation’s distributive share of AFSI is taken into account in determining the amount of the CAMT for the public corporation.
Observations (MLPs with Corporate Subsidiaries): It is not uncommon for master limited partnerships (“MLPs”) to have corporate subsidiaries, whether from acquiring existing businesses conducted in corporate form or that were put in place to mitigate qualifying income issues. While these corporate subsidiaries often represent only a small portion of the aggregate revenues of the MLP, these corporate subsidiaries may be subject to the CAMT to the extent the AFSI of the MLP, such corporate subsidiaries, and the other members of the MLP’s Controlled Group in the aggregate satisfy the $1 Billion Test. While this is a clear result of the rules as enacted in the IRA, it is not clear Congress understood the extent to which these rules would apply. MLPs (and other entities treated as partnerships for U.S. federal income tax purposes) with corporate subsidiaries may be surprised by the application of the CAMT to relatively small corporate subsidiaries.
Observations: The grant of authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to determine whether a corporation should no longer be subject to the CAMT means that, until further guidance is released, the circumstances in which a corporation may lose its status as an applicable corporation remain uncertain and subject to approval of the Secretary of the Treasury.
Observations: The use of financial statement income to determine tax liability is a new concept in the application of U.S. federal income tax laws. As with many aspects of the CAMT, the determination of what constitutes an applicable financial statement for certain corporations will presumably be subject to the issuance of additional guidance from the Secretary of the Treasury. Further, the application of the CAMT with respect to certain investment structures utilizing specific accounting methodologies (e.g., fair value accounting) is not entirely clear and will likewise require clarification via additional regulatory guidance.
Observations: While AFSI is calculated taking into account these adjustments, it is notable that AFSI generally does not take into account certain key tax provisions, including section 382 limitations on net operating losses, limitations on interest expense deductions, and limitations on compensation deductions. Further, due to the use of GAAP accounting in determining AFSI, the application of the all events test and economic performance are not relevant in applying the CAMT.
Observations: The IRA does not provide any guidance with respect to how to determine a partner’s “distributive share” for purposes of the CAMT. Presumably Congress intended to reference the distributive share principles of section 704(b) of the Code and regulatory guidance will be issued by Treasury applying those section 704(b) principles (with appropriate adjustments) for purposes of determining a partner’s distributive share of a partnership’s AFSI.
Observations: The application of the CAMT to the AFSI of CFCs represents a new approach to the taxation of CFC earnings. Under the existing CFC anti-deferral regimes, the income of a CFC is subject to various rates of U.S. federal income tax based upon the character of such income as subpart F income, GILTI or other income. For domestic corporate U.S. shareholders, GILTI is currently generally taxed at 10.5% and other income is exempt from tax (after taking into account 50% and 100% dividends received deductions respectively). The approach to taxing CFC income under the CAMT potentially results in GILTI and otherwise exempt income effectively being taxed at the higher rate of 15%, making the regular tax rate generally irrelevant to those categories of income when the CAMT is imposed.
Further, the CAMT provisions do not provide for coordination between the rule on including a pro rata share of CFC items and either (i) the rule on taking into account dividends from non-consolidated group corporations in computing AFSI or (ii) the rule that contemplates applying the CAMT to effectively connected income of a foreign corporation. Presumably, the Department of the Treasury will use its express regulatory authority “to prevent the omission or duplication of any item” to issue guidance preventing double-inclusion of any such CFC income.
Observations: The adjustment to include tax depreciation in calculating AFSI was a key change in the final version of the IRA. As a result, applicable corporations can reduce their AFSI by taking into account depreciation deductions with respect to tangible property under section 167, which includes bonus depreciation with respect to tangible personal property. However, applicable corporations generally cannot reduce their AFSI for amortization deductions under section 197.
Observations: While the first year to which the CAMT could apply to a calendar year corporation is the 2023 taxable year, the CAMT allows the carryover of GAAP NOLs beginning with losses recognized in the 2020 taxable year. Accordingly, applicable corporations with large losses recognized in 2020 may have a considerable GAAP NOL carryforward to take into account in computing AFSI.
Observations: Similar to the application of alternative minimum tax credits under prior tax regimes, the CAMT credits operate to provide a taxpayer with a credit against the regular tax to the extent such taxpayer was previously subject to the CAMT. In effect, payments under the CAMT are treated as prepayments of a corporation’s regular tax liability to the extent a taxpayer is subject to the regular tax in a later taxable year.
Observations: The availability of general business tax credits as an offset to the CAMT may incentivize taxpayers that were not previously cash taxpayers but that may now owe cash taxes under the CAMT to pursue investments that are eligible for renewable energy tax credits.
Observations: The CAMT’s approach to the application of foreign tax credits is a taxpayer-favorable material departure from that applied in the context of the regular tax because it does not apply the percentage limitation on a category-by-category basis but effectively includes all income and foreign taxes in a single basket for purposes of applying the 15% limitation.
1 Unless otherwise noted, references to “§” or “section” are to the Code or the regulations promulgated thereunder.
This information is provided by Vinson & Elkins LLP for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended, nor should it be construed, as legal advice.
Discover our latest:
Events
Jenny Speck to Speak on BARBRI Webinar
Partner Jenny Speck will speak on BARBRI’s live video CLE program, “Tax Credit Insurance for Energy Projects: PFE Exclusions, Recapture, …
November 19, 2026
November 19, 2026 • 1-minute read
Events
Kathy Pakenham and Adriana Wirtz to Speak at TEI’s IRS Roundtable
Partners Kathy Pakenham and Adriana Wirtz will examine how a leaner, more data-driven IRS is selecting and conducting large business …
November 19, 2026
November 19, 2026 • 1-minute read
Client Alerts
Single v Multi Contracts in Nuclear Projects: The Size of the Burden
Introduction The construction of nuclear energy projects is complex and capital-intensive, and the contracting structure can significantly affect project delivery, …
November 13, 2026
November 13, 2026 • 6-minute read
Articles
State Attorneys General Widen the Antitrust Battlefield
State attorneys general are moving to the center of antitrust enforcement, with bipartisan coalitions attacking merger settlements, information-sharing arrangements, labor-market …
November 13, 2026
November 13, 2026 • 4-minute read
Events
Jenny Speck to Speak at Lockton U.S. Energy Risk Summit
Partner Jenny Speck will speak at Lockton’s U.S. Energy Risk Summit on November 12, 2026, in Houston, Texas. The summit …
November 12, 2026
November 12, 2026 • 1-minute read
Thoughts or questions? Send us a note, and we’ll connect you with the right person.