Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

FAR Council Issues Interim Rule Regarding the Prohibition on Certain Corporate Inversions

By Marcia Madsen & Luke Levasseur on December 16, 2014
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

iStock_000016952672LargeYesterday, the FAR Council issued an interim regulation addressing inverted corporations involved in government contracting. This interim regulation goes into effect immediately, and companies with inverted corporate structures—or those considering a restructuring—need to understand this development.

Federal procurement law has prohibited some companies with inverted corporate structures from contracting with the Department of Homeland Security since 2002, and subsequent appropriations legislation temporarily made the ban government wide during FY 2007 (and several later fiscal years). Current law prohibits contracting with certain inverted domestic corporations and contracting officers must include the clause implanting this requirement in each solicitation and contract (FAR 52.209-10).

Much of the legislative and regulatory focus concerns the definition of an inverted domestic corporation to which the statutory prohibition applies. The new FAR provision adopts (by cross-reference) the pre-existing definition set forth in Homeland Security statute, 6 U.S.C. § 395(b), under which a foreign incorporated entity is treated as an inverted domestic corporation under specified conditions. Specifically, foreign corporations are deemed inverted domestic companies if:

  • the entity completes before, on, or after November 25, 2002, the direct or indirect acquisition of substantially all of the properties held directly or indirectly by a domestic corporation or substantially all of the properties constituting a trade or business of a domestic partnership;
  • after the acquisition at least 80% of the stock (by vote or value) of the entity is held:
    • in the case of an acquisition with respect to a domestic corporation, by former shareholders of the domestic corporation by reason of holding stock in the domestic corporation; or
    • in the case of an acquisition with respect to a domestic partnership, by former partners of the domestic partnership by reason of holding a capital or profits interest in the domestic partnership.
  • the expanded affiliated group which after the acquisition includes the entity does not have substantial business activities in the foreign country in which or under the law of which the entity is created or organized when compared to the total business activities of such expanded affiliated group.

Government contractors incorporated abroad, or that are a subsidiary of a foreign corporation, will be considered “inverted domestic corporations”—and the contracting prohibition will apply—if those conditions are satisfied. FAR 52.209-2 makes clear that by submitting an offer, a contractor is representing that it is neither an inverted domestic corporation nor a subsidiary of such an entity. Contracting officers are the officials who make determinations concerning such representations, but the extent to which agencies are performing due diligence concerning a offeror’s status (as opposed to accepting representations that a company is not inverted) is not clear. It is also unclear whether procurement officials have been (or are being) given the necessary training in corporate and tax law to perform an “inversion” analysis.

pushing social network structureSome members of the House and Senate have proposed bills in the current Congress that would tighten the definition of inverted domestic corporations—and thereby expand the prohibition on contracting with companies incorporated abroad. For instance, the “No Federal Contracts for Corporate Deserters Act of 2014” (H.R.5278, S.2704) would reduce the U.S. ownership threshold to 50% (rather than 80%) and would dramatically alter the “substantial business activities” test—applying the prohibition to more contractors. These bills appear to be dead for now, but similar efforts will (and should be) closely monitored by the government contracts community.

Photo of Marcia Madsen Marcia Madsen

Marcia focuses on Government Contracts and Litigation, advising clients on contract formation, teaming and strategic alliances, contract and subcontract negotiations, performance disputes, audits, terminations, cost accounting and allowability, technical data rights and trade secrets, and fraud/false claims investigations • litigates bid protests and…

Marcia focuses on Government Contracts and Litigation, advising clients on contract formation, teaming and strategic alliances, contract and subcontract negotiations, performance disputes, audits, terminations, cost accounting and allowability, technical data rights and trade secrets, and fraud/false claims investigations • litigates bid protests and claims and disputes before the GAO, the Boards of Contract Appeals, the Court of Federal Claims, and various other federal and state courts • has handled numerous ADR and mediation proceedings • areas of concentration include aerospace and defense contracts, systems integration, information systems and telecommunications contracts, health care and bio-technology, homeland security contracts, environmental remediation, and research and development contracts.

Read Marcia’s full bio.

Read more about Marcia MadsenEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Luke Levasseur Luke Levasseur

Luke Levasseur’s litigation practice focuses on government contract matters. He advises and represents clients regarding federal procurement practices and activities. For the past several years, Luke’s practice has focused on litigating large contract disputes and bid protests before the US Court of Federal…

Luke Levasseur’s litigation practice focuses on government contract matters. He advises and represents clients regarding federal procurement practices and activities. For the past several years, Luke’s practice has focused on litigating large contract disputes and bid protests before the US Court of Federal Claims and the Government Accountability Office. He has also represented clients and performed substantial work with respect to False Claims Act litigation. Luke also has experience handling a variety of other federal court litigation for clients, involving such matters as antitrust claims, a trademark dispute and alleged fraud.

Read Luke’s full bio.

Read more about Luke LevasseurEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Government Contracts
  • Blog:
    Meaningful Discussions
  • Organization:
    Mayer Brown
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo