
James F. McDonough
Of Counsel
732-568-8360 jmcdonough@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: James F. McDonough
Date: April 8, 2014
Of Counsel
732-568-8360 jmcdonough@sh-law.comOne of the hard-fought issues between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was whether a trust could qualify for the passive activities exception. Specifically, activities are grouped into one of two categories, either active or passive. The goal of §469 was to prevent losses from a passive activity from offsetting active income. If one can recall the heyday of the tax shelter industry when losses from passive activities offset earned income (e.g., salary) and cause less income tax to be collected. The 1986 Tax Reform Act contained the passive loss rules §469 that were designed to segregate active and passive income and loss.
The passive loss rules contain an exception under §469(c)(7) whereby a taxpayer who satisfies the material participation test will be able to classify the income or loss as active. Why is this important? The Affordable Care Act introduced a 3.8% income tax surcharge on passive income that could be avoided if the trust materially participates. The other alternative is that losses, rather than being trapped, can be used against active income.
How does a trust qualify for the §469(c)(7) exception? The Tax Court held the taxpayer meets the requirement if more than one-half of the services are in real property trades or businesses in which he materially participates. The Tax Court agreed with the taxpayer and held that the activities of the trustee can be used to measure material participation. This is the pro-taxpayer aspect of the case. IRS had maintained the legislative history referred only to natural persons and C corporations as qualifying for material participation under this provision.
Trustees and advisors should review their real estate holdings in order to determine if they can avail themselves of the holding.
Aragona has some unique facts. The Trust owns rental real property and entities that hold and develop real estate. The Trust was managed by one independent trustee and the Grantor’s five children. One limited liability company (LLC) wholly owned by the Trust employed three children and managed trust properties.
Each one of the six trustees was paid a fee by the Trust. In 2005 and 2006, the Trust treated these payments as losses from non-passive activities. The IRS wanted the losses classified as passive activity losses.
The ability of a taxpayer to avoid passive characterization is very helpful as Aragona is a better reasoned opinion than the Mattie Carter Trust out of a District Court in Texas.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
The Trump Administration’s new tariffs are having an oversized impact on small businesses, which already tend to operate on razor thin margins. Many businesses have been forced to raise prices, find new suppliers, lay off staff, and delay growth plans. For businesses facing even more dire financial circumstances, there are additional tariff response options, including […]
Author: Brian D. Spector
Business partnerships, much like marriages, function exceptionally well when partners are aligned but can become challenging when disagreements arise. Partnership disputes often stem from conflicts over business strategy, financial management, and unclear role definitions among partners. Understanding Business Partnership Conflicts Partnership conflicts place significant stress on businesses, making proactive measures essential. Partnerships should establish detailed […]
Author: Christopher D. Warren
*** The original article was featured on Bloomberg Tax, April 28, 2025 — As a tax attorney who spends much of my time helping people and companies who have large, unresolved issues with the IRS or one or more state tax departments, it often occurs to me that the best service that I can provide […]
Author: Scott H. Novak
On January 28, 2025, the Trump Administration terminated Gwynne Wilcox from her position as a Member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board). Gwynne Wilcox, a union side lawyer for Levy Ratner, was confirmed to the Board for an original term in 2021 and confirmed again for a successive five-year term expiring […]
Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh
Breach of contract disputes are the most common type of business litigation. Therefore, nearly all New York and New Jersey businesses will likely have to deal with a contract dispute at least once. Understanding when to file a breach of contract lawsuit and how long you have to sue for breach of contract is essential […]
Author: Brittany P. Tarabour
Closing your business can be a difficult and challenging task. For corporations, the process includes formal approval of the dissolution, winding up operations, resolving tax liabilities, and filing all required paperwork. Whether you need to understand how to dissolve a corporation in New York or New Jersey, it’s imperative to take all of the proper […]
Author: Christopher D. Warren
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!