in Partnership Agreements Minimizing Tax Impact of Partnership - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Recourse and Nonrecourse Liability in Partnership Agreements

Minimizing Tax Impact of Partnership Liability and Debt Allocations

Today’s faculty features:

1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific

Attendees seeking CPE credit must listen to the audio over the telephone.

Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for dial-in information. Attendees can still view the presentation slides online. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.

TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2012

Presenting a live 110-minute teleconference with interactive Q&A Andrew W. Ratts, Partner, Winston & Strawn, Chicago Jon R. Stefanik, Buckingham Doolittle & Burroughs, Akron, Ohio

Sound Quality For this program, you must listen via the telephone by dialing 1-866-873-1442 and entering your PIN when prompted. There will be no sound over the web connection. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. You may also send us a chat or e-mail sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.

For CLE credits, please let us know how many people are listening online by completing each of the following steps:

• Close the notification box
• In the chat box, type (1) your company name and (2) the number of

attendees at your location

• Click the SEND button beside the box

For CPE credits, attendees must listen to the audio over the telephone. Attendees can still view the presentation slides online. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926- 7926 ext. 10.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please complete the following steps:

• Click on the + sign next to “Conference Materials” in the middle of the left-

hand column on your screen.

• Click on the tab labeled “Handouts” that appears, and there you will see a

PDF of the slides for today's program.

• Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open.
• Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.

• I. Overview of Section 752 Liabilities and

Interplay with IRC Section 704 Allocations

Andrew W. Ratts (312) 558-5991 aratts@winston.com July 11, 2012

5

6

Allocation of Partnership Income— Introduction

• In determining its income tax, each partner must take

into account separately its "distributive share" (whether

• r not any cash or property is distributed) of partnership

items of income, gain, loss, deduction and credit. § 702.

• A partner's distributive share of “book” income is

determined by § 704(b) and the regulations thereunder.

• A partner's distributive share of taxable income generally

follows its § 704(b) share, but with modifications under § 704(c).

6

Allocation of Income—sec. 704(b)

• Treas. Reg. § 1.704-1(b) provides the rules to determine

whether an allocation provided in the partnership agreement will be respected for tax purposes as either

• (i) having substantial economic effect or
• (ii) being in accordance with the partners' interest in the

partnership.

7

Allocation of Taxable Income—sec. 704(c)

• Income, gain, loss and deduction with respect to property contributed

by a partner to a partnership shall, under regulations, be shared among the partners so as to take account of the variation between the basis of the property to the partnership and its FMV at the time of contribution. (§704(c)(1)(A))

• Treas. Reg. § 1.704-3 provides three methods for eliminating book/tax

disparities: the traditional method, the traditional method with curative allocations and the remedial method.

 The partnership is also permitted to use any reasonable method of making the allocations. The partnership is not limited to the three methods described in the regulations.  The choice of method may be made on a property-by- property basis.

8

Allocation of Taxable Income - IRC §704(c)

Traditional Method

• Tax allocations to the noncontributing partner of cost recovery

deductions with respect to the 704(c) property must equal book allocations of those deductions to the extent possible.

• The “ceiling rule” provides that total income, gain, loss, or deduction

may not exceed the partnership’s total income, gain, loss, or deduction recognized for tax purposes. 9

Allocation of Taxable Income - IRC §704(c)

Example Traditional Method

10

Allocation of Taxable Income - IRC §704(c)

Traditional Method With Curative Allocations

• If the ceiling rule applies, the partnership looks for another tax item
• f the same amount and character as the item limited by the

ceiling rule.

Remedial Allocation Method

• Two elements.

▫ The partnership steps into the shoes of the contributing partner for the portion of the book value equal to the adjusted tax basis. ▫ The remainder of the book value (book value less tax basis) is recovered as if it were a newly purchased asset placed in service at the time of the contribution. 11

Allocation of Taxable Income - IRC §704(c)

Example Traditional Method With Curative Allocations

Use the same facts given for the traditional method, but assume that the partnership also has $4,000 of ordinary income to be allocated.

12

Allocation of Taxable Income - IRC §704(c)

Example Remedial Allocation Method

13

Outline of §752

• Increase in partner’s liabilities (§752(a) and Reg. §1.752-1(b))

▫ Considered a contribution of money by the partner to the partnership ▫ Includes:

 Any increase in the partner's share of partnership liabilities.  Any increase in the partner's individual liabilities by reason of the partner's assumption of partnership liabilities.

• Decrease in partner’s liabilities (§752(b) and Reg. §1.752-1(c))

▫ Considered a distribution of money by the partner from the partnership ▫ Includes:

 Any decrease in the partner's share of partnership liabilities.  Any decrease in the partner's individual liabilities by reason of the partnership's assumption of the partner's individual liabilities.

14

Outline of §752

• Liability to which property is subject (§752(c))

▫ Considered a liability of the owner of the property to the extent of the FMV of the underlying property

• Sale or exchange of a partnership interest (§752(d) and Reg.

§1.752-1(h))

▫ Liabilities are treated in the same manner as liabilities in connection with the sale or exchange of property not associated with partnerships. ▫ The reduction in the transferor partner's share of partnership liabilities is treated as an amount realized under §1001 and the regulations thereunder. 15

Liability Defined

• An obligation is a liability only if, when, and to the extent that

incurring the obligation:

▫ Creates or increases the basis of any obligor’s assets (including cash); ▫ Gives rise to an immediate deduction of the obligor; or ▫ Gives rise to an expense that is not deductible in computing the

• bligor’s taxable income and is not properly chargeable to capital.

 An obligation is a fixed or contingent obligation to make payment without regard to whether the obligation is otherwise taken into account for purposes of the Code.

16

Recourse/Nonrecourse Liabilities

• Definition of recourse liability

▫ Partnership liability to the extent any partner or related person bears the economic risk of loss for that liability under Reg. §1.752-2.

• Definition of a “nonrecourse liability”

▫ Partnership liability to the extent that no partner or related person bears the economic risk of loss for that liability under Reg. §1.752-2.

• Nonrecourse liabilities are allocated in three tiers:

▫ The partner's share of partnership minimum gain under §704(b); ▫ The amount of any taxable gain that would be allocated to the partner under section 704(c) (or in the same manner as section 704(c) in connection with a revaluation of partnership property) if the partnership disposed of all partnership property in full satisfaction of the liabilities and for no other consideration; and ▫ The partner’s share of the partnership’s excess recourse liabilities. (Flexibility!)

17

Allocations Attributable to Nonrecourse Liabilities (Reg. §1.704-2)

• Deductions attributable to partnership nonrecourse liabilities (“nonrecourse

deductions”) cannot have economic effect.

• Nonrecourse deductions must be allocated in manner deemed to be in

accordance with the partners’ interests in the partnership as provided in Reg. §1.704-2(e). ▫ Partnership agreement must comply with capital account maintenance rules. ▫ Partnership agreement allocates nonrecourse deductions “in a manner that is reasonably consistent” with allocations that have substantial economic effect of some other significant item attributable to the property securing the nonrecourse liabilities. ▫ Partnership agreement must contain a “minimum gain chargeback” provision.

18

Allocations Attributable to Nonrecourse Liabilities (Reg. §1.704-2)

• “1st Tier”/Minimum Gain” Layer: Partnership minimum gain

generally equals the recapture of nonrecourse deductions as gain which the partnership would realize if it disposed of property subject to a nonrecourse liability for no consideration other than full satisfaction of that liability.

▫ Increases and decreases in minimum gain from separate properties are netted for a partnership taxable year. ▫ Net increase or decrease in partnership minimum gain for any partnership taxable year is determined by comparing the partnership minimum gain on the last day of the immediately preceding taxable year with the partnership minimum gain on the last day of the current taxable year. 19

Allocations Attributable to Nonrecourse Liabilities (Reg. §1.704-2)

• “2nd Tier/§704(c)” Layer: generally equals the gain the partnership

would realize if it disposed of property subject to a nonrecourse liability for no consideration other than full satisfaction of that liability.

▫ §704(c) method (traditional, curative or remedial) is relevant ▫ “reverse” §704(c) included 20

Allocations Attributable to Nonrecourse Liabilities (Reg. §1.704-2)

• “3rd Tier/Excess” Layer: (very) generally in accordance with

“partnership profits” or in accordance with facts and circumstances.

▫ Option 1: As such profits interests are specified, provided that the specified profits interests “are reasonably consistent” with the allocations of some other significant item of partnership income or gain. ▫ Option 2: In the manner in which it is reasonably expected that the deductions attributable to such nonrecourse liability will be allocated (taking into account §704(c)). ▫ Option 3: Up to the amount of the remaining §704(c) gain (including reverse §704(c) gain) not taken into account under the 2nd tier, with any remaining amount under another method.

• A different method may be applied each year.

21

Allocations Attributable to Recourse Liabilities (“partner nonrecourse deductions”)

• Deductions attributable to partnership liabilities for which a

partner or related person bears the economic risk of loss must be allocated to that partner. ▫ Ordering rules ▫ Partner nonrecourse debt minimum gain chargeback.

• Limited DRO and Limited Guarantees
• Creation of Recourse Obligation

▫ Obligation must be enforceable ▫ “Plan to avoid or circumvent obligation” ▫ DRO/Guarantee may be “eliminated or reduced”

 May not affect prior allocations  Does not result in remaining impermissible negative capital account

22

23

Recourse and Nonrecourse Liability in Partnership Agreements

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Jon R. Stefanik, JD, MT

24

Distinguishing Recourse and Nonrecourse Liabilities

Jon R. Stefanik JStefanik@bdblaw.com 330.643.0209

25

Recourse vs. Nonrecourse

Relevance of Classification

• Section 1001 / 108

– Sales and exchange vs. COD income

• Section 752

– Basis of partnership interest

• Section 704

– Allocations of nonrecourse deductions, e.g.

• Section 465

– At-risk basis

26

Classification of Liabilities

(state law purposes)

• Recourse

– Creditor has recourse to all of Debtor’s assets to satisfy the underlying debt

• Nonrecourse

– Obligation secured by specific property – Creditor is limited to such property to satisfy the obligation

27

Section 1001

• No statutory definition of recourse /

nonrecourse

• No regulatory definition
• State-law definition understood to control
• Effect of distinction – see example

28

Example 1

• A purchases a tractor from B for $1,000 cash

and a seller note of $9,000

• A becomes delinquent at a time when the

balance due on the note is $7,000, A’s basis in the tractor is $3,000 and the FMV of the tractor is $5,000

• B forecloses and accepts return of the tractor in

full payment of the note

29

Example 1 – Continued

• If the note is nonrecourse

– Full $7,000 note balance is treated as “amount realized” and A has gain of $4,000 ($7,000 amt realized less $3,000 basis)

• If the note is recourse

– A is treated as having sold the tractor for $5,000 (its FMV) resulting in $2,000 of Section 1001 gain – A also has $2,000 of COD income (excess of note balance over FMV of tractor)

30

Sections 465 / 704 / 752

• Partnership definitions of recourse and

nonrecourse apply

– 465  Partner is not “at-risk” under Section 465 for his share of nonrecourse debt

• Exception for qualified NR financing

– 752  allocation of debt among partnes – 704  deductions funded by debt attributable to partner(s) to whom debt is allocated

31

Classification of Liabilities

(partnership rules)

• Recourse

– A partner or a related person bears the economic risk of loss for the liability

• Nonrecourse

– No partner or a related person bears the economic risk of loss for the liability

• Allocated in accordance with three tiers

32

Economic Risk of Loss

• Constructive liquidation test

– A partner bears the economic risk of loss with respect to a liability to the extent the partner would have to pay the liability if the partnership liquidated and all of the partnership’s assets were worthless

• Guarantees and other arrangements

– In determining who must pay a partnership liability, consideration is given to all guarantees and other contractual arrangements among the parties and other relevant facts and circumstances – Guarantor is deemed able to pay irrespective of net worth

33

Disregarded Entities

• Special rule applies where a partner holds

his partnership interest through a DE

• Partner is treated as being at risk of loss
• nly to the extent of the net value of the

DE

– This rule does not apply where the partner is

• therwise liable for the obligation (e.g., via a

guarantee)

34

DE – Example

• A owns 100% of LLC; LLC is a DE
• LLC and B each contribute $100k to AB
• AB borrows $200k
• LLC has a DRO, but B does not
• LLC has no net value
• For tax purposes, A is treated as direct owner of LLC’s

interest in AB

• Even though A has a DRO (through LLC), no EROL

because state law limits his exposure to LLC’s debts. Thus, debt is NR

35

Interplay of Sections

• Does state-law or Section 752 definition apply?
• See Great Plains Gasification Associates v. Comm’r, TC

Memo 2006-276

• TP argues for recourse classification so that COD

income can be excluded under Section 108

• Tax Court finds that the liability is nonrecourse because

no partner bears risk of loss (i.e., Section 752 standard applied)

– Even though creditor had recourse to all of the LLCs assets (i.e., the state law standard)

• III. Recent Transactions and Cases

Interpreting Section 752 Allocations

Andrew W. Ratts July 11, 2012

Leveraged Partnership Structure

Sub LLC Seller Partner Debt Market

Cash equal to 90% of Business value Debt Instrument Assets Business Assets 90% Equity Interest in LLC (1) Cash equal to 90% of Business Value and (2) 10% equity interest in LLC Guarantee 1. Sub and Partner form LLC. 2. Sub contributes Business assets to the LLC in exchange for (1) a cash payment equal to, for example, 90% of the value

• f the contributed Business assets and

distributes the cash to Sub tax-free . 3. Partner contributes assets in exchange for a 90% equity stake in the LLC. 4. The LLC incurs debt (secured by the LLC’s assets) in an amount equal to 90% of the contributed Business assets and distributes the cash to Sub tax-free (see Step 2 above). 5. Sub guarantees debt of the LLC equal to the amount of cash Sub receives. 6. Sub distributes 70-75% of cash to the Seller.

1 2 3 6 5 4

37

G-I Holdings Mixing Bowl

In re G-I Holdings, Inc. (D.N.J. 2009)

RPSSLP Citibank Rhone-Poulenc GAF

Surfactant Business Assets ($480M) Class A LP Interest GP Interest $9.8M Class B LP Interest Cash and Assets ($480M)

38

G-I Holdings Mixing Bowl

RPSSLP

GAF

Credit Suisse Rhone-Poulenc $460M Pledge of Class A LP Interest Class A Priority Return (Equal to Interest on Loan) Guarantee of Class A Priority Return and additional financial obligations under the Partnership Agreement

39

Partnership Anti-Abuse

• Subchapter K is intended to permit taxpayers to conduct joint

business activity through a flexible economic arrangement without incurring an entity-level tax

• Implicit in this intent are three requirements:

▫ The partnership must be bona fide and used for a substantial business purpose; ▫ The transaction must be respected under a substance over form analysis; and ▫ The resulting tax consequences must clearly reflect income (or else the distortion must be clearly contemplated by the applicable provision). Treas. Reg. § 1.701-2(b)

• Does compliance with regulatory provisions of Sections 707

and 752 mean partnership anti-abuse rule does not apply?

40 40

IRS Response to Levpar Transactions

• CCA 2002-46-014 (Aug. 8, 2002)
• Facts:

▫ Taxpayer's subsidiary, Y, contributed assets to a partnership, Z ▫ Z borrowed money from a syndicate of banks, and made a special distribution to Y. Y then distributed this amount as a dividend to Taxpayer ▫ Y guaranteed Z's liability, increasing its basis in its interest in Z (which allowed Y to avoid recognizing income on the distribution from Z)

41 41

C.C.A. 2002-46-014, cont.

• IRS disregarded Y's guarantee, finding that Y's lack
• f capital and the restrictive prerequisites for Y's

performance under the guarantee suggested the existence of a plan to avoid any performance

• bligation from Y on the guarantee
• Without the guarantee, the liability of the partnership

was treated as nonrecourse, which generally caused the transaction to be treated as a disguised sale

42 42

C.C.A. 2002-46-014, cont.

• The IRS also sought to disregard the transaction on the

following grounds:

▫ Partnership Anti-Abuse Rule: transaction was entered into with a principal purpose of reducing the partners' federal tax liability ▫ Substance-Over-Form: taxpayer effectively parted with the benefits and burdens of the assets while receiving cash equal to the value of the assets, thus taxpayer should be taxed in accordance with the substance of the transaction (a sale) and not its form (contribution and distribution) ▫ Sham Partnership: facts did not show that taxpayer and

• ther nominal partner in good faith and acting with a

business purpose intended to join together in the conduct of a business

43 43

Canal Corp. vs. Commissioner, 135 T.C. No. 9 (2010)

• The court held that the formation of a joint

venture between a subsidiary of Chesapeake

• Corp. (now known as Canal Corp.), and Georgia

Pacific ("GP"), was actually a disguised sale under Section 707(a)(2)(B).

• As a result, Chesapeake had to include an

additional $524 million of income on its consolidated return.

44

Canal Corp. vs. Commissioner

• Wisconsin Tissue Mills Inc. ("WISCO"), a wholly-
• wned subsidiary of Chesapeake, owned and
• perated a commercial tissue business that

Chesapeake wanted to get rid of.

45

Canal Corporation Structure

• WISCO and GP formed Georgia Pacific Tissue LLC.
• GP contributed its tissue business assets with an agreed value of

$376.4 million in exchange for a 95% interest.

• WISCO contributed its tissue business assets with an agreed value
• f $775 million in exchange for a 5% interest.
• On the contribution date, the LLC borrowed $755.2 million from BoA

and immediately distributed the borrowed funds to WISCO as a special distribution.

• WISCO received a "should" opinion from PwC regarding the tax-free

nature of the transaction.

46 46

WISCO's Indemnity

• GP guaranteed repayment of the loan, and WISCO agreed to

indemnify GP in the event GP made payment on its guarantee, subject to certain limitations.

• Indemnity was added as a tax, rather than business,

requirement.

• Limitations on the indemnity included:

▫ WISCO, not Chesapeake, was chosen as the indemnitor so that

• nly the WISCO assets would be at risk.

▫ Indemnity only covered the loan's principal, not interest. ▫ Indemnity required GP to first proceed against the LLC's assets before demanding indemnification from WISCO. ▫ If WISCO was required to make a payment under the indemnity, WISCO would receive an increased interest in the LLC proportionate to any payment made under the indemnity. ▫ WISCO was not required to maintain a certain net worth. 47

WISCO's Assets & Liabilities

• WISCO used the distributed funds to repay certain intercompany

debt and to pay a dividend.

• WISCO also loaned $151 million to Chesapeake in exchange for a

promissory note.

• Following the transaction, WISCO's assets consisted of the $151

million intercompany note and a corporate jet worth $6 million (or

approximately 21% of the maximum exposure under the indemnity).

• In addition, WISCO was still subject to certain environmental

liabilities and was a guarantor on a Chesapeake line of credit.

48

Tax Court Analysis

• The Tax Court presumed that a disguised sale took place, unless

the facts and circumstances indicated otherwise.

▫ WISCO transferred assets to the LLC and the LLC immediately thereafter transferred $755.2 million to WISCO.

• Chesapeake argued that the debt-financed transfer exception

applied.

▫ Because of the indemnity, WISCO bore the entire economic risk of loss

• n the LLC debt.
• The IRS conceded that an indemnity is generally recognized as a

valid contractual obligation to be considered in determining who bears the ultimate risk of loss.

49

Tax Court Analysis

• The IRS argued, however, that WISCO's indemnity should be

disregarded under the anti-abuse rule applicable to partnership debt allocations, which provides that a partner's obligation may be disregarded if:

▫ the facts and circumstances indicate that a principal purpose of the arrangement is to eliminate the partner's risk of loss or to create a façade

• f the partner bearing the economic risk of loss; or

▫ the facts and circumstances evidence a plan to circumvent or avoid the

• bligation. Treas. Reg. §§ 1.752-2(j)(1), (3).
• Therefore, the Tax Court had to determine if the indemnity was used

as a device to make it appear that WISCO had an obligation for which it did not bear the actual economic risk or loss.

50

Tax Court Analysis

• The Tax Court found that WISCO did not in substance bear the

economic risk of loss for the partnership's loan.

• "We find that WISCO's agreement to indemnify GP's guaranty

lacked economic substance and afforded no real protection“.

• In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on the following

factors:

▫ GP did not require the indemnity; ▫ The indemnity covered only the loan's principal amount, not interest; ▫ GP was required to proceed against the LLC before it could pursue an indemnity claim against WISCO; and ▫ If WISCO made a payment under the indemnity, it would receive a proportionately increased interest in the LLC. 51

Tribune Newsday Transaction– Step 1

52

Tribune Co. Newsday, Inc. CSC Holdings, Inc. (“Cablevision”) NMG Holdings, Inc. Newsday Holdings, LLC Newsday, LLC

100% 100% Membership Interest Newsday Assets & Liabilities Membership Interest Specified Amount and $650 Million of 8% Notes

52

Sale of Newsday – Step 2

53

Tribune Co. Newsday, Inc. CSC Holdings, Inc. “Cablevision” NMG Holdings, Inc. Newsday Holdings, LLC Newsday, LLC

100% 100% 2.8571% Membership Interest $612 Million Cash (Distribution) $18 Million Cash (Prepaid Rent) 97.1429% Membership Interest $650 Million Notes

Unaffiliated Third Party

$650 Million

53

Tribune's Cubs Transaction

54

ESOP Tribune Co. Cubs LLC

Premium Tickets LLC

DQ LLC WGN Broadcasting Co. Dominica n LLC CSN Chicago

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 25% 100%

54

Sale of Cubs – Step 1

55

Tribune Co. Joe and Marlene Ricketts Grandchildren’s Trust Cubs Entitie s Ricketts Acquisitio n LLC Newco LLC Newco Subs

Membership Interest 100% 100% Membership Interest $100 Million Cash Direct Cubs Contributed Assets Cubs Contributed Assets

55

Sale of Cubs – Step 2

56

$698.75 Million Notes

Tribune Co.

Ricketts Acquisition LLC

Newco LLC Unaffiliated Third Parties

$740 Million Cash $698.75 Million Cash 5% Membership Interest 95% Membership Interest

56

Relied Upon Exception to Disguised Sale Rules

• If, as here, a partner transfers property to a

partnership and the partnership incurs a liability, and all or a portion of the proceeds of that liability are allocable to a transfer of money to the partner made within 90 days of incurring the liability…

• Then, the transfer of money to the partner is taken

into account (as proceeds of a disguised sale) only to the extent that the amount of money transferred exceeds the partner's allocable share of the partnership liability

▫ See Treas. Reg. § 1.707-5(b)(1). 57 57

Guarantee in Bankruptcy?

• Newsday and Tribune have only 2.8571% and 5% membership

interests in the new partnerships, but are allocated substantially greater amounts of the debt pursuant to guarantees.

• In the Newsday deal, Tribune indemnified Cablevision for any

payments made under Cablevision's guarantee of the Newsday, LLC credit facility

• However, should Tribune's obligation be disregarded pursuant

to Treas. Reg. § 1.752-2(j)?

▫ Tribune filed for bankruptcy on December 8, 2008 ▫ Generally, Tribune's obligation should be respected so long as Tribune did not know its bankruptcy was imminent at the time it entered into the indemnification agreement 58 58

Guarantee in Bankruptcy, cont.

• At the time of the Cubs sale, Tribune was in bankruptcy
• Tribune guaranteed repayment of debt of Newco, LLC

▫ Only provided a guarantee of collection, which requires exhaustion of all lender remedies against Newco, all other guarantors, and all collateral before Tribune is required to perform on its guarantee

• Should Tribune's guarantee be disregarded?

▫ See CCA 2002-46-014 (Aug. 8, 2002) (discussed above)

59 59

Recourse and Nonrecourse Liability in Partnership Agreements

Circular 230 Disclosure These materials are intended for internal discussion purposes only. To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code

• r any other state or local law, or (ii) promoting, marketing or

recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

60

61

Planning Strategies and Techniques

Jon R. Stefanik

62

“Zombie Partnership”

• IRS Partnership Audit Technique Guide,

Chapter 8 – Real Estate Issues in Partnerships

– “Partnerships which are no longer actively engaged in business but which still wander aimlessly about shedding tax benefits or postponing gain are called ‘Zombie Partnerships.’”

63

Zombie Characteristics

• Zombie partnership traits:

– Debt – Partners have negative capital accounts – Little or no assets or economic activity – Asset may have been disposed while debt remains on books (attempt to defer Tufts gain) – Or, interest accruals and depreciation exceed rental income; principal of debt plus accrued interest exceed value of underlying property

64

COD Income vs Tufts Gain

• Depending on circumstances, TP could benefit

from either NR or recourse characterization

– If TP has a capital loss CF  favor NR and Tufts gain – IF TP is insolvent  favor recourse characterization and corresponding (excludable) COD income

• Will “11th hour guarantee” work?
• IRS scrutinizes reporting of COD income vs

Tufts gain

65

Audit Technique Guide

• “Analyze all loan documents to determine whether loan was non-recourse or
• recourse. If the loan is determined to be non-recourse, analyze all sales documents

to determine whether there were two transactions or one interrelated transaction. If it is determined that there was one transaction, then the full amount of non-recourse debt should be treated as sales proceeds.”

• “If inspection of the partnership return indicates that COD income was reported,

property decreased on the balance sheet, and a loss/very small gain/ or no gain on sale of partnership property was reported, determine whether partnership properly reported transaction.”

• “If a guarantee of non-recourse debt was made at the eleventh hour, it may not

change the status of the loan from non-recourse to recourse. For example, if the guarantee provides that a partner must repay the loan only if he fights the foreclosure sale, this would be considered a contingent guarantee and would not change the loan from non-recourse to recourse. If you have an 11th hour guarantee issue, call a Partnership Technical Advisor.”

66

Abandonment of Interest

• Section 165(a)

– Allows a deduction for loss sustained during year

• Section 165(f)

– Losses from sale/exchange of capital asset not governed by general rule of Section 165(a)

• Section 741

– Partnership interest is a capital asset

• Section 752(b)

– Decrease in share of pship liabilities = distribution

67

Abandonment – Rev. Rul. 93-80

• If partnership liabilities are allocated to

abandoning partner:

– 752(b) treats reduction in liabilities as a distribution, resulting in “sale” of a capital asset – Accordingly, resulting loss is loss from the sale or exchange of a capital asset  capital loss

• This treatment applies even if liabilities allocated

to abandoning partner are de minimis

68

Abandonment – Rev. Rul. 93-80

• If no liabilities allocated to abandoning partner:

– No deemed distribution and thus no “sale” – Resulting loss is thus ordinary under 165(a)

• General partners will have difficulty establishing ordinary

loss

– But see In re Kreidle, 146 B.R. 464 (general partner remained liable for liability; thus, no 752 distribution)

• Planning with non-participating preferred partners

– No liabilities allocated – limit tier three allocations to non- preferred partners

69

Establishing Abandonment

• Partner must prove that:

– He intended to abandon his interest – He undertook an affirmative act of abandonment – Intent and affirmative act are communicated to all relevant parties

• A letter to partnership indicating intent to

abandon and refusal to contribute or otherwise associate should suffice