What Partners Need to Know to Protect Themselves Under the New IRS Partnership Audit Procedures
The procedures by which the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will audit partnership returns have been thoroughly overhauled, and these changes have important substantive consequences to partners.
February 06, 2019 at 09:12 AM
5 minute read
The procedures by which the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will audit partnership returns have been thoroughly overhauled, and these changes have important substantive consequences to partners. In order for partners to protect their interests, it is critical to understand the new procedures, consider electing out if eligible, and revise governance documents in order to provide processes that would apply in the event of an audit.
In general, the IRS will assess and collect tax at the partnership level effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2017. The new procedures apply to partnerships and other entities taxed as partnerships, such as multi-member limited liability companies. A few key aspects are discussed below.
- Partnership Representative Has Sole Authority. The “tax matters partner” has become the partnership representative (PR). The PR may be an individual or an entity, but if it is an entity, a designated individual must be appointed. The PR must be designated annually on the partnership tax return, and the IRS may designate a PR if the IRS determines that a designation of PR is not in effect.
The PR has the sole authority to act on behalf of the partnership during an audit, and all partners and the partnership will be bound by such actions taken by the PR. Partners will have no statutory right to participate in the audit without the permission of the IRS. There is no requirement that the IRS notify the other partners of audit communications.
The PR must have “substantial presence” in the United States, which is defined as making oneself available to the IRS, and having a U.S. tax identification number (TIN), U.S. address and telephone number.
- Current Partners Bear Liability … and the “Push-Out” Election. In general, any adjustment to a partnership-related item, and any tax, interest and penalty attributable thereto, is determined at the partnership level. This means that the partners at the time the final adjustment is made bear the economic burden of such adjustment in proportion to their respective interests in the partnership at that time, even if those partners were not partners in the year to which the audit relates or previously owned a lesser or greater interest in the partnership.
However, even where the new audit procedures apply, the PR may make what is referred to as a “push-out” election. If such election is made, each of the “reviewed year partners,” that is, those partners for the tax year under audit review, will separately take into account their own share of the partnership adjustments, and the partnership will not be liable for the imputed underpayment.
- Election Out. Certain smaller partnerships may elect out of the new procedures. In order to qualify for electing out, a partnership must have 100 or fewer partners during the year, as defined by the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulations, and all partners must be “eligible” partners (which are individuals, C corporations, foreign entities per se or taxable as C corporations, S corporations or estates of a deceased partner). Therefore, the election is unavailable where there is a partner that is a trust, partnership, disregarded entity or a foreign entity that is not taxed as a C corporation.
The election is available annually by timely filing (including extensions) IRS Form 1065 and providing all information required by the IRS about each partner, including each partner's name, TIN (or alternative identification permitted by the IRS) and Federal tax classification.
If the election is made, the IRS will make adjustments against all partners in separate partner-level proceedings. Partners should confirm they will have sufficient access to the partnership's books and records in the event they need to substantiate amounts allocated by the partnership in an IRS audit.
|Practice Points
As a result of these changes, it is advisable for partners to revise existing governance documents. A PR's failure to follow governance documents will not diminish its authority as to the IRS, but may provide a basis for a claim by the other partners under state law. Below are some issues to be considered:
- Designation and removal of the PR, and, as applicable, the designated individual of such entity.
- Mechanism for electing out of the new audit procedures, including how notice that the election has been made is to be given to the partners.
- Requirement that PR provide notice and regular reports of audit proceedings and obtain partner consent for accepting or rejecting a settlement or making the “push-out” election.
- Indemnification of the PR in executing partner-approved decisions.
- Those considering purchasing an interest in a partnership should perform careful due diligence and seek indemnification for any unpaid tax liabilities, known or unknown, for prior years and seek to require that the partnership elect out of the new procedures if possible, and if not possible, that the PR make the push-out election for years that may come under audit before the purchase occurred.
Alyssa Razook Wan is an associate in the tax, international and trust & estates practice groups at Fowler White Burnett. She may be reached at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllData Breaches, Increased Regulatory Risk and Florida’s New Digital Bill of Rights
7 minute readNavigating Florida's Products Liability Law: Defective Products, Warnings and the Pursuit of Justice
6 minute readNavigating Florida Property Insurance Claims in a Post-Fee-Shifting World
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250