Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: October 19, 2016
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.com
The Bipartisan Budget Act changed the procedures for auditing tax returns filed by partnerships. The TEFRA partnership audit procedures which were adopted in 1982 and the electing large partnership rules are repealed effective for returns filed for partnership tax years beginning after 2017.These rules will be replaced with a new set of rules for auditing partnerships and their partners at the partnership level.
Under the new approach, adjustments to a partnership’s items of income, gain, loss, deductions, and credits will be made at the partnership level. This means that the partnership for the first time in 75 years will be subject to a partnership level income tax. The tax rate will be the highest individual or corporate rate. Any additional tax, penalty, or additional amount related to the tax will also be determined at the partnership level [IRC Sec. 6221(a), effective after 2017]. If an adjustment to the partnership items is made, the partnership will be required to pay tax equal to the imputed underpayment, which is generally the net of all adjustments for the year under audit multiplied by the highest individual or corporate tax rate.
However, partnerships that can show that the underpayment would be lower if it were based on certain partner-level information can pay the lower amount. The information needed to show that a lower underpayment amount should apply could include amended returns of partners, the tax rates applicable to specific types of partners (e.g., individuals, corporations, or tax-exempt organizations), and the type of income subject to the adjustments ( IRC Sec. 6225, effective after 2017).
Instead of taking the adjustment into account at the partnership level, a partnership can elect, not later than 45 days after receiving a notice of final partnership adjustment, to issue adjusted Schedules K-1 to the partners who were in the partnership in the year under audit. Those partners would then take the adjustments into account in the adjustment year by filing amended returns through a simplified amended return process (IRC Sec. 6226 , effective after 2017). This is called a “push out elections” which countermand the default rule above and makes the partners individually subject to the tax liability. Under this rule the interest rate on any deficiency paid by a partner is 2% higher than it would otherwise be.
Under the revised audit rules, partners generally must treat each item of income, gain, loss deduction, or credit attributable to a partnership consistently with the partnership’s treatment of the item. Any underpayment of tax by a partner due to failure to comply with this consistency requirement will be treated as a mathematical or clerical error (subject to the summary assessment procedures of IRC Sec. 6213(b)(1), and that the abatement requirement under IRC Sec. 6213(b)(2) will not apply. The consistency rule will not apply if (a) the partnership has filed a return but the partner’s treatment of the item is (or may be) inconsistent with the treatment on the partnership’s return or (b) the partnership has not filed a return, provided the partner files a statement with the IRS identifying the inconsistency [IRC Sec. 6222, effective after 2017].
Partnerships with 100 or fewer partners can “opt out” of the new rules for any tax year, in which case the partnership and its partners will be audited under the general rules for individual taxpayers. Generally, to elect out, each of the partners has to be an individual, a C or S corporation, a foreign entity that would be treated as a C corporation were it domestic, the estate of a deceased member, or another person identified in future IRS guidance [IRC Sec. 6221(b), effective after 2017]. Notwithstanding if a partnership has a partnership or trust as a partner, they cannot elect out and they are subject to the new audit default rules.
Instead of waiting for the new rules to come into effect, partnerships generally can elect to apply them to returns filed after November 3, 2015.
The position of “Tax Matter Partner” has been replaced with “Partnership Representative. The “PR” need not be a partner. This person will have exclusive power to deal with the IRS. This means that the Partnership Representative will decide on resolving the tax issue and can allocate the additional tax in a manner that he, she or it deems reasonable.
Under the new rules, partners who are in the partnership in the year an adjustment is finalized bear the economic burden of any imputed underpayment paid at the partnership level, regardless of whether they were partners in the year the adjustment arose. This means that if a partnership’s tax year of 2018 is audited in 2020 and an adjustment is made in 2022, the partners who exist in 2022 will bear the economic burden of the adjustment for 2018 even though they might not have been partners in the audit year.
Adding an indemnification agreement to partnership agreements, under which partners who sell or liquidate their interest before an audit agree to be responsible for any adjustment attributable to years they were a partner, could address this problem.
The repeal of the TEFRA audit rules will have significant impact on every Partnership and LLC Operating Agreement and business deal.
Significant Impact on Preparation of Partnership Agreements
Significant Impact on Partnership Transactions
All existing and newly-formed partnerships should be considering provisions to be included in amended or new partnership agreements.
Because the audit rules have changed, the economic exposure of partners and members in LLCs have changed as well. Partners and LLC members will have to rethink their agreements, and come up with indemnifications, deal with indemnification by former partners, consider escrows in the event of purchase of partnership interests, and so on and so forth.
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Frank Brunetti, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Every lawsuit comes with a cost, and knowing when to settle a lawsuit is one of the most consequential decisions a business owner will face. Experienced litigators understand how to minimize cost and obtain certainty for their clients. For many business owners, the decision is viewed almost entirely through a financial lens: What will it cost […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Few situations create more uncertainty than learning that an employee has filed a whistleblower complaint. Questions arise immediately: Is the allegation legitimate? Should the employee be placed on leave? Do we need to notify our insurance carrier? Are we now prevented from disciplining the employee if there are unrelated ongoing work related issues? There is […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

When a business reaches the point where it can no longer service its debts or otherwise resolve its liabilities, management is often faced with a difficult question: is a bankruptcy filing necessary or is there another way to perform an orderly liquidation or sale of the business assets? While Chapters 7 and 11 of the […]
Author: John D. Giampolo

For many years, the New Jersey Mansion Tax has been a significant consideration in high-value real estate transactions. Recent legislative changes, however, have substantially altered how the tax operates, including who is responsible for paying it and the amount owed in certain transactions. Whether you are purchasing, selling, or investing in New Jersey real estate, […]
Author: George McGowan

As our personal and financial lives increasingly move online, estate planning must evolve to address a new category of property: digital assets. From email accounts and social media profiles to cryptocurrency and cloud-stored business records, these assets often carry both financial and sentimental value. Yet, without proper planning, they can become inaccessible—or even lost—upon incapacity […]
Author: Marc J. Comer

In today’s mergers and acquisitions market, representation and warranty (R&W) insurance has become a common feature of deal negotiations. Once used primarily in larger transactions, R&W insurance is now frequently incorporated into middle-market deals as buyers and sellers look for efficient ways to allocate risk and close deals. When structured properly, R&W insurance can help […]
Author: George McGowan
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!