Members of Ruchelman P.L.L.C. contribute to publications throughout the world and the Firm’s monthly tax journal, Insights.
At the end of 2015, the I.R.S. issued a notice designed to limit the instances in which contributions of property to foreign partnerships benefit from nonrecognition of gain. In January, the I.R.S. came under pressure to modify its announced position in final regulations that are currently being developed. Philip R. Hirschfeld explains.
Read MorePartnerships owning real estate or other assets sometimes take aggressive tax positions that may invite I.R.S. scrutiny. Philip R. Hirschfeld and Nina Krauthamer explain the new partnership audit rules enacted by Congress in November as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. With limited exception, partnerships will become liable for tax increases arising from audit adjustments. This treatment raises the importance of tax indemnities when partnership interests are acquired.
Read MoreFor many tax advisers, it is fashionable to complain about the O.E.C.D.’s B.E.P.S. project because it imposes an unrealistic standard of behavior on multinational groups. Then, along comes a case such as Russian Recovery Fund, Ltd. v. U.S. and one understands the problem of real base erosion. The case involved a distressed asset/debt (D.A.D.) transaction. Here, hubris and greed in the financial services sector team up to make the O.E.C.D. look good.
Read MoreThe I.R.S. recently released temporary and proposed regulations to limit the use of foreign partnerships to avoid income inclusions under Code §956. The Temporary Regulations are more limited in their scope while the Proposed Regulations are quite broad. If finalized in the current form, the Proposed Regulations would cause most C.F.C. loans to partnerships with related U.S. partners to be investments in U.S. property.
Read MoreWe address the I.R.S.’s latest attempt to shut down schemes to avoid U.S. taxation by cracking down on what some may have considered a loop-hole under applicable partnership rules. In Notice 2015-54, 2015-34 IRB 210 (8/06/2015), the I.R.S. announced that it intends to issue regulations that would change the nonrecognition rules on certain property contributions to partnerships and L.L.C.’s with foreign partners. The new regulations would require that income or gain attributable to property be taken into account by the U.S. transferor, either immediately or periodically. Regulations would also be issued under §§482 and 6662 of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) that apply to controlled transactions involving partnerships to ensure appropriate valuation of such transactions.
Read MorePublished by the American Bar Association in the Real Property Trust & Estate eReport, August 2015.
Read MoreFavorable long-term capital gains tax treatment for managers of hedge funds has been under attack by the Obama Administration. While the industry defended itself from outright changes to favorable tax treatment, the I.R.S. recently proposed to disallow favorable treatment where a manager’s right to payments bears no entrepreneurial risk. Nina Krauthamer, Philip R. Hirschfeld, and Kenneth Lobo explain.
Read MorePublished by the American Bar Association in the Real Property Trust & Estate eReport, May 2015.
Read MoreOur practice involves the drafting of many different types of partnership agreements and other agreements governing the relationship among individuals involved in a common enterprise. These agreements include general and limited partnership agreements, operating agreements or limited liability company agreements, and shareholder agreements for corporations. In this article, all these types of entities are referred to as “joint ventures.”
During the initial client discussions with respect to these agreements we highlight and discuss the usual laundry list of matters that co-investors should consider at the time of formation. One matter that we believe should be addressed in every joint venture agreement is what happens upon the death of a member of the joint venture. For obvious reasons, many do not want to focus on this point. However, the procedure to be followed when surviving spouses and heirs inherit an ownership interest is best handled at the beginning of the joint venture. While it may appear that all joint venture members have similar interests, relationships can change very quickly, and the bottom line is that while one may be very interested in being in partnership with a certain individual, the same interest may not attach to that person’s spouse.
In previous issues, we discussed limited liability companies and the various benefits of using such entities, including pass-through taxation, asset protection, ease of formation and flexibility. There are partnerships that can be used to achieve the same results that may be of particular interest to individuals from jurisdictions where the limited liability company is not recognized to the same extent as it is in the United States. These are “Limited Partnerships,” “Limited Liability Partnerships” and “Limited Liability Limited Partnerships.” We thought it may be helpful to outline the differences between these three types of partnerships. Research should be conducted on a state-by-state basis depending on the jurisdiction one is interested in – the following discussion focusses on Delaware.
A Limited Partnership is a partnership where one or more of the owners are general partners and one or more of the owners are limited partners. The general partners have unlimited liability and are liable for all of the partnership’s debts and obligations. The limited partners have limited liability – limited to the amount of capital they have invested in the partnership. General partners control the partnership and are responsible for its operation. Limited partners have no say in the operation of the partnership and are subject to losing liability protection if they are found to be participating in the management of the partnership. The Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act (“DRLPA”) provides that “a limited partner is not liable for the obligations of a limited partnership unless he or she is also a general partner or, in addition to the exercise of the rights and power of a limited partner, he or she participates in the control of the business.”
A Limited Liability Partnership is a general partnership for which an election has been made to obtain limited liability for all of the general partners. Unlike a Limited Partnership, in a Limited Liability Partnership there are no limited partners and all partners can participate in the management of the partnership. As a general rule, the partners of a Delaware general partnership are liable for all of the obligations of the partnership.
Code §2701 is a provision which renders the transfer of a partnership or membership interest to a family member a gift. The tax typically applies in an “estate freeze” scenario, where one generation attempts to transfer assets which appreciate in value to another generation, thereby removing it from their estate for estate tax purposes. In its latest Chief Counsel Advice (“C.C.A.”), the I.R.S. held that a recapitalization of a limited liability company (“L.L.C.”) triggers a gift under Code §2701 in a case where a mother retained a right of distribution but transferred the gain or loss attributable to the L.L.C.’s assets to her sons. The I.R.S. held that the interest retained by the transferor (a distribution right on the existing capital account balance) was a senior interest, whereas the transferred interest held by the sons (the right to future gain of the L.L.C.’s assets) was found to be a subordinate interest. What is notable and most troubling here is that the interests transferred to the sons are so-called “profits interests,” issued for future services to be rendered to the L.L.C.
Code §2701 imposes special gift tax valuation rules when partnership or membership interests are transferred to family members. Family members covered under Code §2701 include the spouse of the transferor, any lineal descendant of the transferor or the transferor's spouse, and the spouse of any such descendant. In general, Code §2701 devalues interests of senior family members in order to increase the value of interests transferred to junior family members. Code §2701 generally applies to situations where the transferor retains a senior interest and transfers a subordinate interest to the transferee – such as when a parent keeps preferred shares and transfers common shares to family members.
A district court, affirming a bankruptcy court decision, recently held that a partner can be secondarily liable for a partnership's unpaid employment taxes and that the I.R.S. could proceed with collection without having commenced specific individual action against the partner.
Case History
In Pitts v. U.S., Wendy K. Pitts, a California resident, was a general partner of DIR Waterproofing (“DIR”), a California general partnership. On March 1, 2012, Pitts filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. As of that date, DIR had unpaid Federal Insurance Contribution Act taxes and unpaid Federal Unemployment Tax Act taxes for various quarters in 2005, 2006, and 2007. It also had unpaid penalties.
Commencing in 2007, the I.R.S. recorded a number of tax liens naming DIR and Pitts as the taxpayers for the unpaid amounts. The I.R.S. identified Pitts as a DIR partner on the liens. At the time of the district court proceeding, the liens still encumbered the property of Pitts.
On June 21, 2007 and August 7, 2007, the I.R.S. issued Notices of Federal Taxes Due naming DIR as the taxpayer and Pitts as a partner.
As of the time of the summary judgment proceeding in June 2013, DIR still owed at least $114,859 in tax debt, plus unassessed interest. However, the I.R.S. never assessed DIR's taxes against Pitts or brought a judicial action against her.
In 2014-8 I.R.B., the I.R.S. proposed amendments to regulations issued under Code §707 relating to disguised sales of property to or by a partnership and under Code §752 regarding the treatment of partnership liabilities. The proposed regulations address certain deficiencies and technical ambiguities in the existing regulations and certain issues in determining partners’ shares of liabilities under Code §752. The proposals are designed to limit taxpayers’ ability to structure a sale of a partnership interest as a contribution of property by one partner and the receipt of a distribution by a second partner in a way that is not taxable in the year of the transaction. For a foreign investor, the proposed regulation regarding the interplay of partnership liabilities and investor basis in the partnership add another unwelcome level of complexity that must be accounted for in tax planning for an investment. The reason is that a partner’s ability to deduct losses of a partnership or L.L.C. is capped at the basis maintained in the partnership interest held. Partners have basis for liabilities of the partnership. The issue is the allocation of losses among the partners or members. The proposed regulations limit ways to increase basis through planning mechanisms that have been accepted for a long period of time.
Background
A partnership is said to be created when persons join together their money, goods, labor, or skill for the purpose of carrying on a trade, profession, or business and when there is community of interest in the profits and losses.
Under New York partnership law (“Partnership Law”), a partnership can be formed orally. Additionally, a partnership may be dissolved unilaterally if “no definite term or particular undertaking is specified” in the underlying agreement.
In Gelman v. Buehler 2013 NY Slip OP 01991 (March 26, 2013, plaintiff (P) and defendant (D) were recent business school graduates who decided to form a partnership in 2007. D had proposed a plan to P aimed at acquiring $600,000 from investors for the purpose of establishing a "search fund" to research and identify and raise any additional funding needed to pay the purchase price of the targeted business. P and D were to manage the business with the goal of increasing its value until it could be sold at a profit (referred to as a "liquidity event") and the investors would share in the profits realized from the sale. P accepted D's proposal and the partnership was formed by oral agreement. P and D expected that the business plan would reach its objective in four to seven years. The partners apparently pursued prospective investors for several months. D withdrew from the venture after P refused his demand for majority ownership of the partnership.
Ruchelman P.L.L.C. provides a wide range of tax planning and legal services for foreign companies operating in the U.S., foreign financial institutions operating ...
