James F. McDonough
Of Counsel
732-568-8360 jmcdonough@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Business 101: When Does a Partnership Exist?
Author: James F. McDonough
Date: April 11, 2016
Key Contacts
Back
So when does a partnership exist?
The IRS has strict rules for what constitutes a partnership. Under Section 761(a), a partnership as defined by the IRS needs to involve ”a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture, or other unincorporated organization through or by means of which any business, financial operation, or venture is carried on, and which is not, within the meaning of this title, a corporation or a trust or estate.”
According to a recent article published by Scarinci & Hollenbeck’s Tax Notes, attorneys John H. Skarbnik and Frank Brunetti stated that this definition is significant for those entities conducting business as partners because the language dictated in any agreement does not necessarily constitute a partnership, whereas its actions do. For this reason, the IRS can dispute the existence of a partnership if it believes that a service provider in a partnership received ordinary income instead of capital gains on the receipt of a distribution. The IRS does not recognize the existence of a partnership in these cases.
Recently, the IRS upheld its definition of what constitutes a partnership in United States v. Stewart, but the case that was cited in that decision involved a similar partnership relationship.
The case
In March 2003, Hydrocarbon Capital LLC purchased a portfolio of oil and gas properties from Mirant Corp. At which point, Hydrocarbon retained Mirant’s five executives who managed those properties, and these individuals formed Odyssey Capital Energy LP. This entity formed an agreement with Hydrocarbon – but the parties insisted this was not a partnership.
For its part in the agreement, Odyssey would oversee all exploration and production activity at the oil and gas properties with the intent of selling the properties under the Mirant umbrella. Upon sale of any of the properties, the five partners in Odyssey would ensure that Hydrocarbon was repaid all expenses, received a 10 percent return on its investment and recouped the full $6 million loan it gave to Odyssey. At which point, Odyssey would receive 20 percent of all remaining profits.
A year later, Hydrocarbon sold the properties after it recouped all expenses, return on investment and the loan. Odyssey then received $20,106,410, which it reported on its 2004 tax return as ordinary income. Each of the five partners also filed this income under Schedule K-1. However, in 2006, the five partners inexplicably filed an amended partnership return for $20,432,323 as capital gains. The partners then issued amended Schedule K-1 to be sent to the other partners. These partners finally filed for refund claims.
As a result of these actions, two partners received refunds of $1,333,067 and $520,222. The federal government then sued the two partners to return the refunds because it ruled they were issued in error. Since Odyssey simply managed Hydrocarbon’s properties, it did not constitute a partnership, as was originally agreed upon – despite the amended partnership returns.
In turn, the IRS argued that Odyssey was set to receive 20 percent of profits as compensation for the services provided. This income should have been taxed as ordinary income, not as capital gains as the partners’ amended tax returns suggested. Furthermore, the IRS also reiterated that Hydrocarbon did not file a partnership tax return with Odyssey.
The decision
The court ruled that a partnership existed between Hydrocarbon and Odyssey for a few reasons. For one thing, it determined that partnerships for tax purposes are not dependent on contract language. The actions of the relationships are the overarching factor.
What the court argued was that Odyssey was not earning commission for sales of each property, like a car salesperson. Their ownership interest from Mirant into the value of the operation took precedence over the contract language between Odyssey and Hydrocarbon. Therefore, because the relationship between the two entities was that Hydrocarbon provided the properties and the financial backing, and Odyssey contributed its expertise in asset management, there was a clear partnership.
Both parties contributed an equal amount of value to the properties. So the equity that Odyssey earned should be considered capital gains because it increased the capital value of the portfolio. Since the partners had a purchased share in the properties, they earned significant profits for Hydrocarbon after each property was sold.
Therefore, execution and financing form a partnership, and the profits for both parties should be considered long-term capital gains. This meant that the federal government could not sue the two partners for re-characterizing their income refunded to them as capital gains.
Otherwise, for more posts on business and tax, check out:
- NJ May Become First State to Ban Corporate Tax Inversions
- NJ Defines Corporate Business Nexus Guidelines
- The IRS Issues Notice on Cadillac tax
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
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.
Business 101: When Does a Partnership Exist?
Author: James F. McDonough
So when does a partnership exist?
The IRS has strict rules for what constitutes a partnership. Under Section 761(a), a partnership as defined by the IRS needs to involve ”a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture, or other unincorporated organization through or by means of which any business, financial operation, or venture is carried on, and which is not, within the meaning of this title, a corporation or a trust or estate.”
According to a recent article published by Scarinci & Hollenbeck’s Tax Notes, attorneys John H. Skarbnik and Frank Brunetti stated that this definition is significant for those entities conducting business as partners because the language dictated in any agreement does not necessarily constitute a partnership, whereas its actions do. For this reason, the IRS can dispute the existence of a partnership if it believes that a service provider in a partnership received ordinary income instead of capital gains on the receipt of a distribution. The IRS does not recognize the existence of a partnership in these cases.
Recently, the IRS upheld its definition of what constitutes a partnership in United States v. Stewart, but the case that was cited in that decision involved a similar partnership relationship.
The case
In March 2003, Hydrocarbon Capital LLC purchased a portfolio of oil and gas properties from Mirant Corp. At which point, Hydrocarbon retained Mirant’s five executives who managed those properties, and these individuals formed Odyssey Capital Energy LP. This entity formed an agreement with Hydrocarbon – but the parties insisted this was not a partnership.
For its part in the agreement, Odyssey would oversee all exploration and production activity at the oil and gas properties with the intent of selling the properties under the Mirant umbrella. Upon sale of any of the properties, the five partners in Odyssey would ensure that Hydrocarbon was repaid all expenses, received a 10 percent return on its investment and recouped the full $6 million loan it gave to Odyssey. At which point, Odyssey would receive 20 percent of all remaining profits.
A year later, Hydrocarbon sold the properties after it recouped all expenses, return on investment and the loan. Odyssey then received $20,106,410, which it reported on its 2004 tax return as ordinary income. Each of the five partners also filed this income under Schedule K-1. However, in 2006, the five partners inexplicably filed an amended partnership return for $20,432,323 as capital gains. The partners then issued amended Schedule K-1 to be sent to the other partners. These partners finally filed for refund claims.
As a result of these actions, two partners received refunds of $1,333,067 and $520,222. The federal government then sued the two partners to return the refunds because it ruled they were issued in error. Since Odyssey simply managed Hydrocarbon’s properties, it did not constitute a partnership, as was originally agreed upon – despite the amended partnership returns.
In turn, the IRS argued that Odyssey was set to receive 20 percent of profits as compensation for the services provided. This income should have been taxed as ordinary income, not as capital gains as the partners’ amended tax returns suggested. Furthermore, the IRS also reiterated that Hydrocarbon did not file a partnership tax return with Odyssey.
The decision
The court ruled that a partnership existed between Hydrocarbon and Odyssey for a few reasons. For one thing, it determined that partnerships for tax purposes are not dependent on contract language. The actions of the relationships are the overarching factor.
What the court argued was that Odyssey was not earning commission for sales of each property, like a car salesperson. Their ownership interest from Mirant into the value of the operation took precedence over the contract language between Odyssey and Hydrocarbon. Therefore, because the relationship between the two entities was that Hydrocarbon provided the properties and the financial backing, and Odyssey contributed its expertise in asset management, there was a clear partnership.
Both parties contributed an equal amount of value to the properties. So the equity that Odyssey earned should be considered capital gains because it increased the capital value of the portfolio. Since the partners had a purchased share in the properties, they earned significant profits for Hydrocarbon after each property was sold.
Therefore, execution and financing form a partnership, and the profits for both parties should be considered long-term capital gains. This meant that the federal government could not sue the two partners for re-characterizing their income refunded to them as capital gains.
Otherwise, for more posts on business and tax, check out:
- NJ May Become First State to Ban Corporate Tax Inversions
- NJ Defines Corporate Business Nexus Guidelines
- The IRS Issues Notice on Cadillac tax