The anti hybrid rules broadly apply to payments between related entities. For most mismatches, whether entities are related is worked out by reference to their participation interest in section 350 of the 1936 Act but excluding any rights to vote or participate in decision-making (section 832-205). However, such rights are not excluded for the purpose of determining participation interest (and therefore whether the parties are related) for the financial instrument mismatch (section 832-200(4)). What is the rationale for the different approach? This imposes a greater compliance burden for one particular type of mismatch.