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
Dissolving Your Business: Essential Legal Steps to Protect Your Interests post image

Dissolving Your Business: Essential Legal Steps to Protect Your Interests

If you’re considering closing your business, it’s crucial to understand that simply shutting your doors does not end your legal obligations. Unless you formally dissolve your business, it continues to exist in the eyes of the law—leaving you exposed to ongoing liabilities such as taxes, compliance violations, and potential lawsuits. Dissolving a business can seem […]

Author: Christopher D. Warren

Link to post with title - "Dissolving Your Business: Essential Legal Steps to Protect Your Interests"
The Role of Corporate Restructuring in Mergers & Acquisitions post image

The Role of Corporate Restructuring in Mergers & Acquisitions

Contrary to what many people think, corporate restructuring isn’t all doom and gloom. Revamping a company’s organizational structure, corporate hierarchy, or operations procedures can help keep your business competitive. This is particularly true during challenging times. Corporate restructuring plays a critical role in modern business strategy. It helps companies adapt quickly to market changes. Following […]

Author: Dan Brecher

Link to post with title - "The Role of Corporate Restructuring in Mergers & Acquisitions"
Crypto Enforcement: A Former Prosecutor’s Warning to Criminals and the Public post image

Crypto Enforcement: A Former Prosecutor’s Warning to Criminals and the Public

Cryptocurrency intimidates most people. The reason is straightforward. People fear what they do not understand. When confusion sets in, the common reaction is either to ignore the subject entirely or to mistrust it. For years, that is exactly how most of the public and even many in law enforcement treated cryptocurrency. However, such apprehension changed […]

Author: Bryce S. Robins

Link to post with title - "Crypto Enforcement: A Former Prosecutor’s Warning to Criminals and the Public"
Understanding Chattel Paper: A Key Component in Secured Transactions post image

Understanding Chattel Paper: A Key Component in Secured Transactions

Using chattel paper to obtain a security interest in personal property is a powerful tool. It can ensure lenders have a legal claim on collateral ranging from inventory to intellectual property. To reduce risk and protect your legal rights, businesses and lenders should understand the legal framework. This framework governs the creation, sale, and enforcement […]

Author: Dan Brecher

Link to post with title - "Understanding Chattel Paper: A Key Component in Secured Transactions"
Crypto Compliance: A Comprehensive Guide post image

Crypto Compliance: A Comprehensive Guide

For years, digital assets operated in a legal gray area, a frontier where innovation outpaced the reach of regulators and law enforcement. In this early “Wild West” phase of finance, crypto startups thrived under minimal oversight. That era, however, is coming to an end. The importance of crypto compliance has become paramount as cryptocurrency has […]

Author: Bryce S. Robins

Link to post with title - "Crypto Compliance: A Comprehensive Guide"
Supreme Court and Title VII: Implications for Reverse Discrimination post image

Supreme Court and Title VII: Implications for Reverse Discrimination

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vitiating the so-called “background circumstances” test required by half of federal circuit courts.1 The background circumstances test required majority group plaintiffs pleading discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to meet a heightened pleading standard […]

Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh

Link to post with title - "Supreme Court and Title VII: Implications for Reverse Discrimination"

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.

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