Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLCScarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Firm Insights

New Partnership Audit Rules: the IRS’s Problem Is Now A Partnership Problem

Author: James F. McDonough

Date: October 12, 2016

Key Contacts

Back

The new partnership audit rules enacted as part of The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (the “Rules”) are designed to collect more income tax.

The new partnership audit rules enacted as part of The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (the “Rules”) are designed to collect more income tax. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) does not have the manpower to chase every taxpayer who is a partner in a partnership with an audit adjustment. The Rules are designed to collect from the partnership tax the IRS previously sought from the partners.

Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash
Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash

Before “the Rules” were put into effect

Under the audit rules of TEFRA, enacted in 1982, the IRS was authorized to perform one audit at the partnership level rather than multiple audits of the same issues at the partner level. The IRS was required, however, to collect tax at the partner level. This proved difficult because, for example, while one partner may be able to prove material participation, another may not. Regardless, each partner had to be assessed separately. Multiply the number of taxpayer-partners, individual circumstances, the various rules and limitations under the Internal Revenue Code and one can imagine the enormity of the IRS’s problem.

When do “the Rules” go into effect?

The Rules are effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2018 unless the partnership elects to have the new rules apply. (This would be a brave step without regulations in place.) A partner, from a year under audit (now called a “Reviewed Year”), who is no longer a partner in the year the audit is concluded and the final partnership adjustment (FPA) is issued, may be able to shift his tax liability to those who are partners in the year the FPA is issued. This possibility raises new issues for due diligence, indemnification provision, partnership agreements and buy-sell matters.

What about the TMP?

TEFRA designated a Tax Matters Partner (TMP) who represented a partnership before IRS in any audit. The Rules create the position of Taxpayer Representative who is now the only person who may represent the partnership before the IRS and need not be a partner. In fact, partners have no right to participate under the Rules so partnership agreements must be re-written to require notices of audit be given to partners and their consent obtained for settlement. One can easily imagine how an audit settlement may favor to one partner but not to the circumstances of another partner. No doubt there will be litigation in the future against the Taxpayer Representative alleging breach of fiduciary duty and abuse of discretion.

Opt out of new rules

Partnerships with 100 or fewer partners may elect out of the new rules. The ability to elect out is only available if each partner is an individual, a C corporation, S corporation, an estate of a deceased partner or a foreign entity that would be treated as a U.S. corporation. Thus, partnerships having a partner that is a trust or a tiered partnerships may not elect out.

Foreign partners

Foreign partners that are equivalent to C corporations pose an interesting problem. Assuming an election out is made, the distributing-partnership must somehow adjust for withholding burden imposed on effectively connected income or income from the sale of real estate. Cash used to pay tax may be treated as a loan or a distribution, but it must be accounted for in some manner.

Payment of tax alternatives

The Rules have three alternatives for the payment of tax. First, the partnership will pay the tax in the year the FPA is issued, which is also referred to as the year of adjustment. Tax will be imposed at the highest rate on the underpayment; however, the partnership may demonstrate that a lower rate applies. The second alternative is to “push-out” the adjustment to those partners who were partners at the time the return was filed. These partners pay the tax in the current year rather than amending old returns. The price for this option is that interest at 5% over the short term AFR is charged with penalty from the year when the original return was due. The third method is where any partner from the Reviewed Year pays his or her share of the tax and files an amended return. The partnership bill is reduced accordingly.

There are a number of issues facing partnerships, nearly all of which will require revisions to existing partnership and operating agreements.

No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Related Posts

See all
Rule 26 Expert Discovery: When an Expert Witness Uses AI, Is It Discoverable? post image

Rule 26 Expert Discovery: When an Expert Witness Uses AI, Is It Discoverable?

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]

Author: Chris Seelinger

Link to post with title - "Rule 26 Expert Discovery: When an Expert Witness Uses AI, Is It Discoverable?"
How Expert Witness AI Use Ends Up in Discovery post image

How Expert Witness AI Use Ends Up in Discovery

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]

Author: Chris Seelinger

Link to post with title - "How Expert Witness AI Use Ends Up in Discovery"
The Screenshot Problem: Why Nothing Is Really Private Anymore post image

The Screenshot Problem: Why Nothing Is Really Private Anymore

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]

Author: Sean M. Pena

Link to post with title - "The Screenshot Problem: Why Nothing Is Really Private Anymore"
BESS Project Agreements: Allocating Risk Among Developers, EPC Contractors, and Equipment Suppliers post image

BESS Project Agreements: Allocating Risk Among Developers, EPC Contractors, and Equipment Suppliers

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]

Author: Nicholas Wall

Link to post with title - "BESS Project Agreements: Allocating Risk Among Developers, EPC Contractors, and Equipment Suppliers"
IP Infringement: What Steps Can You Take If You're Affected? post image

IP Infringement: What Steps Can You Take If You're Affected?

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]

Author: Michael Mietlicki

Link to post with title - "IP Infringement: What Steps Can You Take If You're Affected?"
Public Allegations, Unfinished Investigation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Do Next post image

Public Allegations, Unfinished Investigation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Do Next

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]

Author: Sean M. Pena

Link to post with title - "Public Allegations, Unfinished Investigation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Do Next"

No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!

Explore What Matters Most to You.

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!

* The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form. By providing a telephone number and submitting this form you are consenting to be contacted by SMS text message. Message & data rates may apply. Message frequency may vary. You can reply STOP to opt-out of further messaging.
“If you would like to submit a file, please email it directly to info@sh-law.com.

Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!